Ampersand: Martial Rituals in Martial Power 2

[MrMyth]

I only require it if I can't figure out how or why something would work.

Yeah, I may have come across as more opposing of the concept than I am, and it is definitely a very tricky line - partly because PCs do end up with these absurd capabilities that far outclass anything we can imagine someone doing in real life.

Social situations are the classic dilemma - if the player of a bard walks up to a bandit leader, calls him a punk, and then claims he's using Diplomacy to make the guy worship him because he rolled a 50, that's rather obnoxious. But it is also isn't cool to have the soft-spoken player with a character heavily invested in being diplomatic always have to take backseat to the Cha 8 dwarven fighter... whose player is a smooth talker.

There is no easy answer... but at the same time, I definitely recommend thinking things through before putting the burden so squarely on the player. If something genuinely doesn't make sense to you, that's fine, and the line will fall differently for everyone... but yeah, I've seen DMs who have abused this viewpoint in the past, and they were the worst DMs I've ever had.

The other side of the 'don't make people explain things, just let them use their abilities" position is that its absolutely worthless when your players want to accomplish something that isn't actually an ability or in the rules. Like, say, disguising yourself or forging a document, yesterday before this preview article was published.

Now that is absolutely not true, and I will completely disagree here. Not requiring players to supply their assumed character's capabilities in no way means you cannot reward players when they do offer creative solutions or ideas that may take advantage of their skills in a clever way.

And, again, the presence of listed rules that let players make exceptional use of their skills with the proper training does not mean that those skills cannot still be used in their normal fashion, or still be used creatively in the right circumstances.

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't really apply. The PHB doesn't mention anything about disguising yourself that I can remember. Certainly nothing in the Bluff entry. It would seem that the only official way to disguise yourself is with this training, or with magic. Likewise I can't seem to find any "regular" way to forge a document.

Those facts notwithstanding, I've been allowing this kind of thing with skill checks. I don't really feel that disallowing it and requiring a feat to accomplish the same thing is increasing value.

I'm not sure how you read these rules as saying Bluff can't be used for disguises or forgery separate from this. This give specific rules on doing such things in an exceptional fashion - I think you are making several jumps in logic to conclude it removes all ability to use your skills outside of it.

I'll try to look up page references when I get a spare moment, but don't have the time now - that said, if you genuinely feel the listed abilities here remove existing capabilities, I think we simply have a disagreement of viewpoint on how the rules are presented that isn't likely to be easily resolved.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'm not certain why these couldn't be either extensions of what the skills can do, or Skill Powers as presented in PHB3. Also, I'm not certain I would ever pay a healing surge for something like this.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not sure how you read these rules as saying Bluff can't be used for disguises or forgery separate from this. This give specific rules on doing such things in an exceptional fashion - I think you are making several jumps in logic to conclude it removes all ability to use your skills outside of it.

I think what he is saying is this:

Before these rules came out:
Player: "I want to disguise myself as a Dragonborn even though I'm a human. I want to look like that Dragonborn over there."
DM: "Hmm, there's no real rules for looking exactly like someone else of a different race. Make me a Bluff check to craft a convincing looking disguise. It'll cost you 20 gp in materials. It's going to be very hard, so if you can make DC 30, you'll look perfect."

After these rules come out:
Player: "I want to disguise myself as a Dragonborn even though I'm a human. I want to look like that Dragonborn over there."
DM: "Well, the rules say that in order to disguise yourself like that you need to have this feat here and be a martial class. I would not normally have a problem with you just making a skill check to do it, but Player 2 over there has already taken the feat and it really wouldn't be fair to him to give you the ability to do it for free. Sorry, it can't be done."

 

[gribble]

I'm not sure how you read these rules as saying Bluff can't be used for disguises or forgery separate from this. This give specific rules on doing such things in an exceptional fashion - I think you are making several jumps in logic to conclude it removes all ability to use your skills outside of it.

Here's the thing though - it really doesn't (allow you to do things in an exceptional fashion). I see how the disguise one could be considered slightly better (due to the +5 bonus), but lets look at the cost to a character of doing it: A feat to even have the *ability* to get that +5 bonus, plus (assuming the disguise practice is the freebie he picks up and he doesn't have to pay more to buy it) 50gp and a healing surge every time he wants to disguise someone.
Or, the alternative is to just pick up the skill focus feat instead and get an ally to assist (because whenever you disguise anyone other than yourself you have someone sitting around who could assist on a regular skill check, but not with the practice). You still get a +5 bonus, and it costs you a lot less...

The forgery one is worse because it doesn't even give you a bonus.

And the communication one? Why would a DM include an encounter with a race the party can't communicate with unless: a) he was already planning a skill challenge or something to allow the PCs to get the essential communication across; or b) communication isn't needed? Though I'll admit that as it's an auto success this last one isn't as bad as the first two.

The sad thing is, I can see WotC saying "people are complaining 4e is all about the combat, so lets make some rules for doing out of combat stuff". But this actually doesn't solve the problem - it makes it worse. Now, the official way to do any of these things is via a Martial Practice, which leaves the DM with few options:

1. Rule that the only way to achieve these things is via a Martial Practice.
2. Not use Martial Practices in his game.
3. Allow PCs to achieve the same results with skill checks/challenges, and leave the PC who invested heavily in Martial Practices a sad panda (because the other PCs can do all the same things without the up front and ongoing costs he will have to do them). I.e.: this option is a thinly veiled version of option 2).
4. As per 3) above, but put strict penalties on anyone not using Martial Practices. Net effect: the only feasible way to achieve any of these feats is through using Martial Practices. I.e.: this option is a thinly veiled version of option 1).

So, basically you have 2 options - rule Martial Prctices are the only way to achieve these feats, or not use Martial Practices. And if your DM does rule that Martial Practices are the only way to achieve those feats, WotC have actually reduced the options available to PCs outside of combat - all those neat ideas just can't be done without the use of a Martial Practice.

And that is why Martial Practices make me sad.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really don't like them either, but for another reason: They are treading on the toes of roleplaying & skill checks/challenges.

I like them for that reason.

I also like their exclusivity (without being TOO exclusive, like, to class).

It helps differentiate what a martial character can contribute to a team that is unique to that character.

It does sort of go against 4e's usual "everyone can do everything" philosophy, and I'm not sure these are things that can't just be done with a skill check (and why can't a psion with Bluff make a perfect disguise without also being a fighter?), but I'm a fan of the direction, and I'm eager to see what they have in store here.

 

[Deverash]

I think that one of the more interesting parts of this new sub-system is that it costs half as much to learn if a fellow PC teaches you.

Well, with the ritual casting system, mastering the ritual itself has no cost at all, as long as you have access to the ritual when you perform it. So, everyone in a party with the ritual caster feat can master and use everyone elses rituals.

Martial whatevers(I can't seem to remember the name of 'em) cost something to learn, no matter what. But you don't need anything other than the components to actually do them.

 

[Badwe]

After these rules come out:
Player: "I want to disguise myself as a Dragonborn even though I'm a human. I want to look like that Dragonborn over there."
DM: "Well, the rules say that in order to disguise yourself like that you need to have this feat here and be a martial class. I would not normally have a problem with you just making a skill check to do it, but Player 2 over there has already taken the feat and it really wouldn't be fair to him to give you the ability to do it for free. Sorry, it can't be done."

emphasis mine.

again, this is NOT how the ability works. it provides a BONUS and the ability to bluff ON BEHALF of someone else.

Now, i generally agree that, especially in 3e, the DM had to be defensive about allowing a PC to do something for fear of essentially making some obscure and specialized prestige class moot. However, that is a point not related to this specific ability and shouldn't be trotted out against it.

With regards to roleplaying. this is a difference of opinion. There seems to be a group who needs a completely fleshed out subsystem (example: crafting rules) to make them feel like they're roleplaying. Other people are content to improv and, for example, make up what their skill rolls or their spent healing surges represent. There is little question that 4e favors one over the other, but it is hardly a shortcoming of the system, and one's personal preference and strict interpretation of mechanics doesn't make it a universal feeling.

 

[gribble]

again, this is NOT how the ability works. it provides a BONUS and the ability to bluff ON BEHALF of someone else.

Exept that, in practice, that is exactly how this MP works. I think I elaborated the reasons why pretty well in my post above, so I won't repeat myself.

 

[Nightson]

Exept that, in practice...

Does not exist because this is preview material that hasn't been in use.

 

[gribble]

Does not exist because this is preview material that hasn't been in use.

Does not compute, as the full rules have been published online so there is nothing stopping anyone with DDI access from using it in their games right now.

Edit to add some context (not that the snarky reply really deserves it): by "in practice" I meant "when you consider everything that would interact with it in a real game session, as opposed to just considering it in isolation".