Arcane Power Excerpt: Rituals

[RodneyThompson]

Two things:
1. 100 gold in my DnD game isn't the same as 100 gold in your DnD game.
I may be running a scrappy, every gold is rare type of game where the heroes are always hard up for cash. You may be running a game where the heroes are far wealthier then the suggest DMG wealth for that level. Are either games wrong, no. But in my game, ritual casters are punished where as in your game ritual casters have it easy.

Sorry, I don't buy that. If you are already willfully choosing to change the game's basic assumptions about wealth per level, you can just as easily change the game's basic assumptions about ritual component cost. If you rarely give out gold, you should be scaling the cost of rituals to compensate for that. I think it's fine to run a game where getting gold is like getting platinum (or more rare!) but you can just as easily divide all ritual costs by 10. Otherwise, you are making a decision that says, "Rituals WILL be more rare in my campaign world because that's the way I want it, and I'm OK with that being different than the default assumption."

 

[CardinalXimenes]

How would you address the point he raised about fast, cheap rituals turning into no-brain solutions for the problems they're meant to address? That's the problem that ritual cost and cast time are meant to solve. They're intended to be a choice with tradeoffs and costs, rather than the trivially optimal solution for the situation.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

How would you address the point he raised about fast, cheap rituals turning into no-brain solutions for the problems they're meant to address? That's the problem that ritual cost and cast time are meant to solve. They're intended to be a choice with tradeoffs and costs, rather than the trivially optimal solution for the situation.

This one is an easy solution for me
Pick 1 - Fast or Cheap

If the caster wants the ritual now, he pays more gold for it
If the caster wants the ritual on the cheap, he pays more time for it

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Sorry, I don't buy that. If you are already willfully choosing to change the game's basic assumptions about wealth per level, you can just as easily change the game's basic assumptions about ritual component cost. If you rarely give out gold, you should be scaling the cost of rituals to compensate for that. I think it's fine to run a game where getting gold is like getting platinum (or more rare!) but you can just as easily divide all ritual costs by 10. Otherwise, you are making a decision that says, "Rituals WILL be more rare in my campaign world because that's the way I want it, and I'm OK with that being different than the default assumption."

I think a valid question is "should the game system assume the wealth of the characters at level X?"

If your answer is yes, then gold cost for class features seems reasonable.
If your answer is no, then gold cost for class features seems unreasonable.

The game system trying to micromanage the wealth of the party at any given level is really rough in a game where the DM designs and runs the adventures. 4E tries to manage everything about a character's stats; hit points, attribute (with point buy), attack bonus, healing surge, +X magic items, armor class, defenses, etc. All of those are rolled into the class / level mechanic of the game. The game system then makes assumptions based upon those universal numbers. Unless you pass out X gold per level, I don't think the game system should be making assumptions on player wealth per level. Especially if the game system is going to tie a class feature into it.

 

[Rel]

Unless you pass out X gold per level, I don't think the game system should be making assumptions on player wealth per level. Especially if the game system is going to tie a class feature into it.

Except that rituals aren't cast with gold. They are cast with ritual components. You can give the PC's gold and perhaps they can buy the components with that gold. But you can just as easily give them the components directly.

In fact I think that doing so adds flavor and verisimiltude to the game. Rather than enemy spellcasters having piles of gold laying around their lairs, they have piles of ritual components.

 

[RodneyThompson]

I think a valid question is "should the game system assume the wealth of the characters at level X?"

That's a fair question, but I think if you eliminate wealth/level as an expectation then you have to also eliminate the concept of +X weapons, armor, neck slots, etc. That, or put some more ham-fisted restrictions in there (only 10th level characters can use +2 swords, etc.). Otherwise, there will be vast disparities in potential attacks/defenses, making it much harder to design balanced monsters, powers, and even other magic items.

If your answer is yes, then gold cost for class features seems reasonable.

This is the answer that both 3E and 4E have given, yes.

As an aside, thinking of rituals like a class feature seems to be a problematic train of thought. You get them as a bonus, sure, but that's like saying that since wizards in 3E get Scribe Scroll then it's a poor design choice since it makes a class feature dependent on gold. I tend to think of it like a nice perk, since you're not only getting the free feat but also free rituals every so often. That's free gold for the wizard, essentially.

 

[Stalker0]

That's a fair question, but I think if you eliminate wealth/level as an expectation then you have to also eliminate the concept of +X weapons, armor, neck slots, etc. That, or put some more ham-fisted restrictions in there (only 10th level characters can use +2 swords, etc.). Otherwise, there will be vast disparities in potential attacks/defenses, making it much harder to design balanced monsters, powers, and even other magic items.

I will agree with this. When you design a game that is balanced around a certain "math" you have to enforce that math as the default standard. You can't make a game model that explores 3 completely different amounts of standard wealth and have it work equally well without creation 3 different models.

Moridin, I'll also say while I disagree with you on ritual points, its fun getting to debate with a developer

 

[RodneyThompson]

Moridin, I'll also say while I disagree with you on ritual points, its fun getting to debate with a developer

Thanks, I enjoy the discussion too. This is the kind of stuff we do all day--in fact, when new materials come out, we watch everyone on the boards have all of the same discussions we had months and months before. It does sometimes get challenging because people have been very touchy about perceived insults to their preferred edition, even when it's just having a frank discussion about mechanics.

 

[Spatula]

Two things:
1. 100 gold in my DnD game isn't the same as 100 gold in your DnD game.
I may be running a scrappy, every gold is rare type of game where the heroes are always hard up for cash.

Then you're modifying the game's wealth assumptions and should be modifying ritual costs, too.

I think a valid question is "should the game system assume the wealth of the characters at level X?"

If you want encounter building tools, then yes, there needs to be a baseline party power level against which to measure the monsters. Which means that there needs to be a baseline party wealth level, as wealth can be converted into power.

 

[Spatula]

Also, I don't really see what the practical difference between a 10 minute ritual and a 1 minute ritual is. They're both long casting times, pushing it into out-of-combat activity (in most circumstances). They're also both pretty negligible amounts of time in the span of a day. Either way the ritualist says, "I'm casting this spell," and the game fast-forwards to the end of the casting time.