Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Garmorn]

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. In order to use waterbreathing, a 4e wizard most definitely must think ahead, not on his feet. Nothing's been moved from prep to play. The only difference between 3e and 4e waterbreathing prep-wise is the memorization of the spell for the day (which can be completely removed if a scroll is available) and that's come at the loss of never being able to use waterbreathing in under 10 minute's time (5 I think with a scroll).

joe b.

Yes, but from my point of view in 4e it could easily be the fighter that has the ritual not the Wizard. 4e has moved the tool box from being the spell casters monopoly to belonging to any PC that wants it.

Now instead of the Wizard having a huge box of power tools. The entire party has an option to having a tool box of hand tools. There is no reduction in the ability to accomplish a task, just the removal of the Wizards 100 in 1 tool that is better then rest of the party bone knifes and bear skins.

In 1e and 2e it was a well know fact that wizards could and did become over powerful. That there where many spells that destroyed the game. Just think back on all of the how to nerf this spell threads there use to be.

 

[fuzzlewump]

House Rule: Rituals take a single standard action to cast.

I wouldn't use it, but man, that's an easy change.

 

[jgbrowning]

This I agree with. But is it more or less likely to manifest itself? If it's less likely to show up because the 1-round waterbreathing is the sensible default answer, then overall you have fewer groups coming up with different uses of the resources available to them, even though they all have a wider range of resources available. The potential is there, but the question of whether it's actualized is a decent one.

Yes, it's a decent question, but to say that an unactualized potential means a lack of potential is greatly inaccurate. One is not more creative without something than one is with something - regardless if that creativity actualizes in an individual case - if for no other reason than that one gains increased creative potential by having that something which the person without that something can never have.

And I think that's what drove the design decisions of 4e — the thought that you can reduce the number of potential specific solutions to see a wider variety of innovated solutions.

I'd really disagree with this, so much so that I think, in fact, the opposite. I think 4e design shows a deliberate increase in potential specific solutions (the spread of "spells" to all classes - coupled with reduced variables in those "spells") in order to see a reduction in the variety of innovated solutions because innovated solutions are hard to "balance" and have the appearance of favoring some classes over other classes.

I think the design decision that drove the creation of rituals is the need to have classes be combat equal (although with the skinning of difference) and composed of quantum skill packets, equalized in combat, reduced to damage/condition/movement and their respective opposites healing/condition removal/movement reduction.

Removing almost everything that did not map to the above 3 areas is what caused the creation of rituals, IMO. Rituals are merely the remnants of prior editions, allowing the appearance of brand continuation in the face of obvious and significant gaming differences. Rituals were than "opened" up to anyone (although not really as you must have the right feat) to compensate for a loss of immediate utility by the appearance of overall utility. ie. you can't use it quickly, but you can use it more often.

joe b.

 

[pawsplay]

A lot depends on point of view, I never liked D&D (prior to 4e) utility magic, the blam and the effect goes off never seemed to be really magical since it did not evoke the ritual stuff you read in myth or other fantasy stories.
I like the 4e ritual system and that it actually takes time because you have to create your ritual space and do the stuff. At the table from a player prespective it is pretty much similar in term of time to narrate and the only real differene is that you cannot use the ritual as an insta-fix for something unlike the spells in older systems.

That's a different reason to prefer ritual magic than creativity.

 

[fuzzlewump]

The only difference between 3e and 4e waterbreathing prep-wise is the memorization of the spell for the day (which can be completely removed if a scroll is available) and that's come at the loss of never being able to use waterbreathing in under 10 minute's time (5 I think with a scroll).

And much more importantly, rituals don't need to be memorized. It's not a question on whether or not they memorized it, it's can they find a way to use it. Thus, switching from prep to play.

 

[jgbrowning]

Yes, but from my point of view in 4e it could easily be the fighter that has the ritual not the Wizard. 4e has moved the tool box from being the spell casters monopoly to belonging to any PC that wants it.

Now instead of the Wizard having a huge box of power tools. The entire party has an option to having a tool box of hand tools. There is no reduction in the ability to accomplish a task, just the removal of the Wizards 100 in 1 tool that is better then rest of the party bone knifes and bear skins.

Which is one of the cool things about 4e rituals. If you've got the right feat, you can use rituals. But it does require at least a feat for most classes, so it's not completely opened up. And there is a potential reduction in the ability to accomplish a task if that task is time specific while there is a potential gain in the ability to accomplish a task if the task is not time specific.

In 1e and 2e it was a well know fact that wizards could and did become over powerful. That there where many spells that destroyed the game. Just think back on all of the how to nerf this spell threads there use to be.

Well, I always viewed those threads as bad playing, not bad rules. That may seem harsh, but oh well. I never had jerk players, or at least I never had them for very long.

joe b.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. In order to use waterbreathing, a 4e wizard most definitely must think ahead, not on his feet. Nothing's been moved from prep to play. The only difference between 3e and 4e waterbreathing prep-wise is the memorization of the spell for the day (which can be completely removed if a scroll is available) and that's come at the loss of never being able to use waterbreathing in under 10 minute's time (5 I think with a scroll).

joe b.

No, unless I am misunderstanding you. Memorisation is pretty much the point, no?
The vancian wizard requires that they figure out in advance what they might need and have it memorised or create scrolls of the same.
For example, I run a wizard character in an occasional campaign that has being going on for years and using a couple of different systems but is now converted to 4e. So I have the ritual Shadow Bridge that I picked because it was similar to a spell I had in the system that the campaign was originally using.
Now in the last session, we were tasked to protect a artist and ensure that he completed this painting in the town. Now this guy had a history of doing paintings that brought fantastical luck or disaster to towns where they were created.
It turns out that the painting was in itself a ritual and when he completed it two demons appear and we are tasked to retrieve the crown of the Witch Queen that ruled the town about 2000 years previously and we had half an hour to do it.
So when we go into the town we found the tallest building nearest the keep and I cast Shadow Bridge on the roof, directly to the roof of the Keep so bypassing the castle defenses.

So I think that that was creativity in using resources at hand, rather than creating resources in advance that casters in older versions of D&D engaged in.

 

[jgbrowning]

And much more importantly, rituals don't need to be memorized. It's not a question on whether or not they memorized it, it's can they find a way to use it. Thus, switching from prep to play.

You still have to have a ritual and you still have to have the ritual components, and (if you're the wrong class) you have to have a feat - getting those things requires prep. In addition, if you want to use any rituals in combat, you absolutely must prep them beforehand, because you can't cast them in combat. It's not play, it's still prep.

Although I find the distinction between prep and play a blurry one. IMO, prep is play. But I think you can "play D&D" when you don't have a group around, you just can't play all the aspects of the game. I'm kooky like that. I don't view spell-selection as separate from play - it's just a different type than combat or social interactive play.

joe b.

 

[Gimby]

I think there's a difference in what people are seeing as creativity here. Personally, I'm with Barastrondo here. When I think creativity, I'm thinking the scene in Apollo 13 where mission control has to figure out how to attach two incompatible components together with only the very limited gear found on the damaged module - the "mailbox" described about halfway down here : Apollo 13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If they had a universal connector on board, using that isn't (to me) creative, it's just using the tools for what they are meant for. To shift this away from D&D a moment, and to explain where I'm seeing the differences in perception, consider Exalted. In that, we can compare two types - the Solars and the Sidereals.

The Solars have abilities that are widely applicable and very powerful. If they want to solve a problem, they do it in the most straight-forward fashion. The creativity here is not in the details of how they solve the problem, but at a strategic level - taking down a corrupt noble can be done in a variety of fashions, so its all about picking the one you like.

The Sidereals on the other hand, have abilities that are as (or occasionally more) powerful than the Solar ones, but limited in strange ways. For example, a Solar has what's effectively a Charm spell which gives them wide ranging power over your reactions. The Sidereal equivilent allows you to convice anyone you talk to you are lying. So a Sid has to use more creativity at the implementation stage to get you to do things his way.

So perhaps we are looking at this in different ways - someone in a relaxed office enviroment may be free to be more blue sky creative than someone in the situation described by Mark, but the ones in Mark's office are going to have to be more creative to get any work done at all. Maybe look at it this way - if your box is small, then its more likely that you are going to have to think outside it to solve your problem. If it is large, then there are more solutions within the box, so you are less likely to need to think outside it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

You still have to have a ritual and you still have to have the ritual components, and (if you're the wrong class) you have to have a feat - getting those things requires prep. In addition, if you want to use any rituals in combat, you absolutely must prep them beforehand, because you can't cast them in combat. It's not play, it's still prep.

Although I find the distinction between prep and play a blurry one. IMO, prep is play. But I think you can "play D&D" when you don't have a group around, you just can't play all the aspects of the game. I'm kooky like that. I don't view spell-selection as separate from play - it's just a different type than combat or social interactive play.

joe b.

I think that I am getting a handle on you now.