D&D 4E Weekly Wrecana: Improving Rituals

[darkbard]

Well... The ritual serves a vital NARRATIVE function. Remember, the rules of SCs require that a player provide narrative justification for any skill use.

I guess what I'm proposing, based on my reading of your earlier post, is why have rituals at all beyond their narrative component? Why have a separate game mechanic, especially one that competes for combat resources (usually gold for magic items but also surges) but sees its use in noncombat situations? Why not, in the Investigate the Scene SC, simply have the Wizard or Cleric or whomever narrate their use of Religion or Arcana as an implementation of ritual magic in the scene? One need not have a separate game mechanic called Ritual Caster (and certain, limited predetermined rituals) for this to function in this way.

I dunno. Like Wrecan, I always thought Rituals in 4E were often an afterthought. A narratively compelling if imperfectly realized afterthought. I would love to play in a game that made much more use of them, but in our games, as I've written elsewhere, we found it unreasonable to use vital party resources (i.e. expected wealth advancement translated to the magic item aspect of character building) for situational noncombat elements of the game.

 

[Garthanos]

I guess what I'm proposing, based on my reading of your earlier post, is why have rituals at all beyond their narrative component? Why have a separate game mechanic, especially one that competes for combat resources (usually gold for magic items but also surges) but sees its use in noncombat situations? Why not, in the Investigate the Scene SC, simply have the Wizard or Cleric or whomever narrate their use of Religion or Arcana as an implementation of ritual magic in the scene?

Well the reason for explicit abilities for a wizard or miracle working priest or druid is to limit them confine or focus them to some subset of "everything" .... knowing the ritualist has speak to the dead as an explicitly defined thing should enable the above skill use because well Arcana can do isnt based on a real thing.

The skill swapping cantrip underestimates the value gained in my opinion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This thinking reminds me of the use of my invocations.... It could be interpreted as knowing the invocations of pyrexia and mecha allows one to apply arcana skill towards activities like jamming mechanisms...

Right. You could have a ritual like 'Arcane Mechanization' that imbues any mechanism with a sort of temporary animation, allowing you to apply Arcana to manipulating locks, traps, etc (these could be separate rituals, one per substitution, but going with the examples of existing feats and whatnot it might not be out of line to make it a couple of skills you can sub for). Going with what Wrecan was saying, this would cost something, an HS or somesuch, but not gold.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well the reason for explicit abilities for a wizard or miracle working priest or druid is to limit them confine or focus them to some subset of "everything" .... knowing the ritualist has speak to the dead as an explicitly defined thing should enable the above skill use because well Arcana can do isnt based on a real thing.

The skill swapping cantrip underestimates the value gained in my opinion.

Right, the point is to bound the 'wizard'. Otherwise being a 'wizard' is just a recipe to change every single check in the game to Arcana and then optimize the piss out of it. Now, what does the fighter do? He can't very well justify turning everything into an Athletics check...

So, frankly, in my HoML system, you'd be getting a major boon, one of the 20 you get from level 1 to 20, that grants you a specific narrative justification for being able to sub in Arcana for certain other skills, say Perception, or Thievery, or Stealth, etc. This is cool because you could grab 2-3 boons and make yourself really versatile with Arcana, having several rituals (and probably some utility powers to boot that you can pick) that would allow various skills to be subbed for.

Now, as for how you exactly do this in classic 4e... I think you CAN have rituals that do it, maybe feats are a better resource, because they're more limited, but if the ritual costs an HS every time you use it, then I don't think that works out too badly.

 

[ChaosOS]

As a DM I really like Rituals, I think they provide a good way to incorporate the "noncombat utilities" from other editions. My personal take was I set up a separate fund for rituals and other payments like buying ships, that was distinct from the magic item progression. This led to me making Create Magic Item use its own progression (Residuum) and be the main way "fungible" magic items worked, while gold was kept for doing rituals and strongholds. Personally I think this is a better way of handling the intentional divide between combat and non-combat scenarios 4e creates.

 

[darkbard]

Well the reason for explicit abilities for a wizard or miracle working priest or druid is to limit them confine or focus them to some subset of "everything" .... knowing the ritualist has speak to the dead as an explicitly defined thing should enable the above skill use because well Arcana can do isnt based on a real thing.

Right, the point is to bound the 'wizard'. Otherwise being a 'wizard' is just a recipe to change every single check in the game to Arcana and then optimize the piss out of it.

Weren't you guys just arguing the opposite of this viewpoint with regard to Martial Practices? I could swear (without going back to check, I admit) that AbdulAlhazred said something along the lines of "as soon as you have an MP for Create Fortified Campsite, now you no longer can create a defensible location via ordinary means without the MP."

Please don't get me wrong: I very much see and agree with your overall point regarding turning everything into an (optimized) Arcana check. I'm just trying to conceive of ways to make ritual use more of a possibility in my own game, one that doesn't compete with combat resources (as I've discussed them above).

 

[Garthanos]

Weren't you guys just arguing the opposite of this viewpoint with regard to Martial Practices? I could swear (without going back to check, I admit) that AbdulAlhazred said something along the lines of "as soon as you have an MP for Create Fortified Campsite, now you no longer can create a defensible location via ordinary means without the MP."

Please don't get me wrong: I very much see and agree with your overall point regarding turning everything into an (optimized) Arcana check. I'm just trying to conceive of ways to make ritual use more of a possibility in my own game, one that doesn't compete with combat resources (as I've discussed them above).

LOL oh definitely not... The other half of my assertion about explicit needed to limit the magical is always along the lines of "the warrior needs explicit definitions which grant permission to do awesome" (this latter part is not automatic like the Create Fortified Campsite and takes designer attention)

Abdul was pointing out a generalized game issue that explicitly defined things is seen to limit "anything" (not just what you want to limit if you arent careful) which is why I want to make sure MP are awesome and blow the top off of the ordinary instead of cap-stoning AND Tony was trying to address some of those issues when mp are directly quasi-mundane skill use by making the MP roll free while noting the effects can be achieved by roll which allows skill specializations and addresses Abdul's problem that explicit definitions can limit but does not address my issue of their mundanity very well. If a martial practice succeeds in blowing the top off so to speak its fine that it become a high end limit.

Maybe Abdul will explain more clearly I am rambly

 

[darkbard]

LOL oh definitely not... The other half of my assertion about explicit needed to limit the magical is always along the lines of "the warrior needs explicit definitions which grant permission to do awesome"

Okay, yes, thanks; that makes much more sense now in this context. Shows what relying on (faulty, middle aged) memory will do....

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a DM I really like Rituals, I think they provide a good way to incorporate the "noncombat utilities" from other editions. My personal take was I set up a separate fund for rituals and other payments like buying ships, that was distinct from the magic item progression. This led to me making Create Magic Item use its own progression (Residuum) and be the main way "fungible" magic items worked, while gold was kept for doing rituals and strongholds. Personally I think this is a better way of handling the intentional divide between combat and non-combat scenarios 4e creates.

Right, you could break the link by just making residuum cost 2 or 4 or 10x more than its nominal GP value equivalent, and then giving away some in treasures. You could probably also increase the yield from the Disenchant Item ritual somewhat at that point. I'd also rule that residuum doesn't work as a universal ingredient for all rituals, leave it as purely a substance used/required for items. You can basically have a 'law of conservation of residuum', the stuff simply cannot be created, though perhaps it can be destroyed... Mostly it gets lost! There could be processes for collecting environmentally dispersed residuum though, perhaps this is what dwarves do, mine it from deep underground in minute quantities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Weren't you guys just arguing the opposite of this viewpoint with regard to Martial Practices? I could swear (without going back to check, I admit) that AbdulAlhazred said something along the lines of "as soon as you have an MP for Create Fortified Campsite, now you no longer can create a defensible location via ordinary means without the MP."

Please don't get me wrong: I very much see and agree with your overall point regarding turning everything into an (optimized) Arcana check. I'm just trying to conceive of ways to make ritual use more of a possibility in my own game, one that doesn't compete with combat resources (as I've discussed them above).

Well, that is an issue. However I distinguish between some sort of general knowledge and some highly specialized knowledge. I mean, nobody thinks that every character in the world knows how to create a magic ward, or summon a demon, or build a highly complex trap. Most anyone can attempt to make a passable deadfall though, given time, resources, and motivation (I mean most people in the real world could at least attempt this).

The point is, a 'skill' Trap Builder, that covers all possible forms of traps including simple deadfalls, creates enforced incompetency. It means characters are constrained from trying ordinary things, or else if they buy the 'skill' they're being shortchanged because people without it can still do the same thing. Now, you could carefully price the 'skill' to account for this, or you could carefully word it to only be applicable to say 'Highly complex mechanical traps'. Or you could simply make it so that it gives you a vastly higher chance of success, even with simple traps (like maybe no check at all). In fact making it simply a narrative device, as I've suggested with a lot of these 'skills' (using the term loosely here) accomplishes that. Having 'skills' allow substitution of one type of check for another can also work, so 'Arcane Wonderworker' that provides substitution of Arcana for say Thievery to set up a trap would seem to be worthwhile.

So, for this example, I might consider there to be a 'practice' Trapsmith that lets you set up ordinary traps with no check needed at all, you can just make a deadfall, its a good deadfall. You can also make other more intricate traps, though you probably need special materials, tools, time, and probably a check to see how it came out (as part of an SC). Yes, there's a tiny niche 'enforced incompetence' involved, every Dick, Tom, and Harry can no longer make intricate mechanical traps by default! There's still a ritual, Arcane Trap, that lets you make purely magical traps, which is an alternative, and there's a feat (or something) Arcane Wonderworker that allows substitution of an Arcana check for 'making things' that would normally rely on Thievery, Dungeoneering, etc. (its a bit ambiguous in 4e how exactly traps are made TBH, so I'm not sure of the exact wording here, plus it might apply to other similar mechanisms like clocks or something).

Honestly, I think the whole area of game design is a tricky one. There's not one single perfect way to handle the intersection of skills with other character resources, etc. You probably have to look at things on a case-by-case basis to some extent.