Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4214917" data-attributes="member: 1054">Fundementally, by excluding them, it is a means of saying "This aspect of your character is unimportant; it does not need any system of resolution." It puts them in the same category as rules for, say, how long you can go without urinating.3e was the first iteration of D&D to actually include non-combat or partial-combat skills (or, really, any coherent skill system). It made it possible to not only give PCs appropriate background or side skills, but to actually stat out NPCs in a way which made them mechanically distinct. You could actually build a barkeep or a blacksmith or a town guard and have their statistics and game abilities reflect, to a reasonable extent, their personalities."enhancing roleplaying" is perhaps the wrong term; one can just say "I roll diplomacy" and move on, after all. A better term would be "acknowledges the importance of non-combat activity". My D&D games are about 50% combat, at most; it would be a dull or pointless experience if the other 50% were entirely DM fiat and amateur theatre, with no mechanics to back things up or make a character reflect the player's desires as opposed to the player's abilities.This is true. My concern is this:Does the "Wall of Iron" ritual create an actual, iron, wall, one which "Exists" in the game world and can be melted down, used as a bridge, dropped on an orc, and so on, or does it create one (or one of a set) of specific game effects, with no utility outside of them? The former encourages roleplaying and interaction with the world in unexpected and interesting ways; the last is fluff text for a "prevent movement across X squares" combat power. I think the former is more interesting, even if there are possible balance (and computerization...) issues; others consider the simplicity and lack of need for DM judgment to make the latter a superior implementation. In terms of rituals, I can see that they could be very cool, or they could just a smattering of the once-vast array of spells available to casters, slapped with a fairly inelegant mechanic so that player creativity cannot in any way interfere with DM railroading. (The "one use ritual scroll" -- the players will only have access to those rituals the DM wants them to have, and only when he wants them to have it.)On the subject of combat/non-combat spells in 3x, well, I'm playing a primary caster for the first time in ages, and I find one of the most interesting parts of my "job" is the tactical challenge of picking spells to a)learn and b)prepare. There are far more spells I *want* than I can know, and I can cast far fewer spells than I know, and this kind of hard decision making is what makes the class fun and interesting. (That and the phrase "Sudden Maximized Firebrand") From what I've seen of 4e, the game is designed so as to make most decisions meaninglessly simple -- powers have very explicit synergies, you pick one "build" of two when you make you character, and grab the powers which fit that build. The choices I've seen are either self-evident ("Hmmm...this power gives me +3 if I have this other power, and that one doesn't...hmmm...."), or basically fluff ("Do I want to do 1d6 fire or 1d6 ice or 1d6 acid or...."). If it's not possible (without being stupid) to make a "wrong" choice, there's no real choice at all, and that's sad. If rituals were limited in some way -- you could only know Int bonus, for example -- then I'd be a lot more excited by them, since they'd add in that missing element of choice. Without hard decisions -- decisions which will impact your character for most of his "life" -- the game loses a lot of fun.As to your other points -- certainly, other games often have better rules for non-combat activity than D&D. 4e could have cranked up that portion of the game, based on all the things learned from 3e; instead, they decided that what happens outside the combat round basically doesn't matter.There are a lot of good ideas in 4e; they're just floating in a framework I have trouble wrapping my mind around. I think it will be interesting to see how popular it is once the "shiny" has worn off. I plan to get Shadowfell and try to run it for my group, since I believe in giving things a fair shake; I've noticed that few people who have PLAYED 4e have negative opinions of it. It might play far better than it reads. OTOH, those eager enough to jump on the bandwagon now might have gaming styles quite different from mine.</blockquote>

Verification