Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RodneyThompson" data-source="post: 4670891" data-attributes="member: 3594">I don't think I understand why that's a problem. If I can give a player a tool that is useful both in and out of combat, why is that worse than one that just works in one, or the other? To me, that sounds like the mentality that believes that to be good at combat, you have to sacrifice non-combat ability, and vice versa. 4E doesn't make you do that, nor do I think it should. I think it's a conceptual fallacy that was introduced by point-based roleplaying games that treated game balance like a see-saw, rather than like a series of silos.I actually don't like calling them "I win" buttons, because that implies that a kind of smug, "I used the rules to outsmart the DM" attitude in my mind. As I said, they are spells that provide the result directly, rather than providing assistance in finding the result.Practically speaking, how many 4E parties have multiple ritual casters with the same rituals? I suspect that parties who have PCs that get Ritual Caster as a bonus feat rarely see their fighters, rogues, warlords, etc. spending a feat on Ritual Caster. You really only need one or two, depending on what skills the ritual caster is trained in. And, as a further point, I think that the ritual system keeps the magic option open to parties that DON'T have a wizard, or a cleric. I think it's a benefit of Ritual Caster's flexibility that I can have an all-martial party and someone can spend a feat on Ritual Caster to give the party access to those bits of magic.As for skills, I don't think the number of skills really matters much here. The only skills that really got left behind were Craft, Profession, and Perform...and none of those do much more than tinker with the economy. I can see the argument that skill overlap does make individuals "less special," but even in my game with 7 PCs everyone has at least one or two skills that are specifically in their own domain. What skills are you adding/unfolding?I suspect parties with multiple ritual casters do this anyways, though I think the division line is more along Arcane/Divine. I'd think that if you told your players up-front that the balance between combat and non-combat was going to tip toward non-combat that your players would actually pick these feats on their own, without needing a numerical incentive. Given the fact that XP and treasure are rewarded for skill challenges and quests alike, it seems like the players will want to maximize their ability to complete those challenges and achieve those quest rewards.Fair enough, but worth pointing out that you're talking about an optional rule in the first place. Incidentally, I have done some stuff with contacts in Saga Edition that I think would work pretty well in 4E; if you are a Star Wars player, you might check out the noble talents in The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide.  Certainly you're entitled to your opinion. I think it ignores or undervalues a lot of things in 4E (skill challenges, powers that work outside of combat, the robust improvisation guidelines) and overvalues having a lot of skills and the supposedly non-combat only nature of many 3E spells. One last observation and then I'll fade back into the ether. It seems like part of your bone of contention is that it's harder in 4E to have "exclusive" abilities that a character can use in non-combat situations. Since "anyone" can take Ritual Caster, obviously this means individuals are less specialized. How many of those non-combat spells in 3E are specific to an individual class? It seems to me that many of them are on multiple class' spell lists, which is comparable to having multiple ritual casters in the party. Likewise, given the powers I listed in my earlier post, I think that provides a decent number of powers in the exclusive domain of that class, since those powers don't appear in any other class' powers list.</blockquote>

Verification