Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[AllisterH]

I had as an example of something lost between editions, but not as an example of creativity using a spell. My example of creative use was continual light used not as a source of light for vision, but as a lure to get a big fish up from a deep river. Hey, I'm not that creative. *shrug* Continual light was not designed as "fish lure" but it can be used in such a manner.


.

Wouldn't such a thing be covered under the CANTRIP system for the wizard?

Ghost Sound, Light, Prestidigation and Mage Hand are all at-will powers for a wizard.

 

[jgbrowning]

Wouldn't such a thing be covered under the CANTRIP system for the wizard?

Ghost Sound, Light, Prestidigation and Mage Hand are all at-will powers for a wizard.

Possibly, as long as the 5 minute limitation wasn't a factor. The cantrips in 4e have a lot of utility and potential creativity in them. My creative use example, as I said, wasn't really that creative, but just an example of using something unexpectedly to achieve a purposed not thought of when the object (spell, item, whatever) was designed.

joe b.

 

[tyrlaan]

This post is a prime example of what I've been saying all along.

Imagine if the player didn't have Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost (maybe?), Thunderwave, Icy Terrain, Feather Fall, or Bigby's Icy Grasp and only had Web to use as a tool to rescue their drowning friend.

People here have been arguing that that guy, the one with only web, is in a game system that has just as much (if not more) creativity in problem solving ability to get their friend out of the water.

People here would argue that the system would be even more creative if you didn't have access to web, because then you'd have to think of something else. And that's more creative!

*sigh*

Options allow for more creativity than limitations. The interesting discussion is when do options become limitations and vice versa.

And, no, I'm not selling 4e short because I'm only talking about the creativity lost concerning the spells that became rituals. I'm not doing a system-wide creativity critique. Never have been. If people would be more willing to discus the obvious negatives in the ritual system (and the obvious positives as well) as opposed to taking any critique of a 4e sub-system as being a critique upon the entire system requiring the marshaling of defenses resulting in ridiculous arguments such as "limitations improve creativity" that are utterly antithetical to one of the the core design principles of 4e "options, not restrictions" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Really, my simple comment pointing out the lost creativity potential in the new ritual system resulted in people trying to argue that one of the core design principles in 4e was wrong in order to defend against my saying there was some lost creative potential in their favored game.

That's what I'll have to coin as "4irony."

I'm a designer. I critique everything because I want to understand it. Some systems are better than others. Yes, that includes 4e. It's just another system, that's better in some way and worse in others. Not being able to talk about it rationally doesn't make the game one likes better.

joe b.

Wait, so we're beating on rituals based on the strawman that player x doesn't have any tool at his/her disposal except the water breathing ritual?

How is that a different argument from saying that player y in a 3.x game doesn't have any tool at his/her disposal except water breathing, but that person didn't memorize it that day? Should I argue that the 3.x vancian magic system stifles creativity because that person doesn't have the ability to use water breathing when needed?

It's easy to stack the deck to make a specific mechanic look bad.

Honestly, I don't think you can hold a valid argument about rituals by ignoring powers. I get it. You're saying that if 4e player knows water breathing, it can never be used to save a life, but if the 3.x player knows it, there's a chance it can be used to save a life. But like LostSoul pointed out, there are different options now. Just because spell x in 3.x maps to a ritual of the same name in 4e doesn't mean that's the be all and end all of how to do things. If you look at the rules, hehe, creatively, you can find solutions to problems.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The whole "water breathing" thing is a strawman, and has nothing to do with joe's point, AFAICT.

"Creative" use of anything requires that the useage expands upon the intended useage of the thing utilized. Preprogrammed balance requires that the useage of any given thing be known and quantifiable, and therefore must limit "creative" useage.

Every edition includes some tradeoff between these factors. It must do so in order to be playable as a game.


RC

 

[jgbrowning]

Wait, so we're beating on rituals based on the strawman that player x doesn't have any tool at his/her disposal except the water breathing ritual?

No. I'm not "beating on rituals."

No. I'm saying that because of the ritual structure, the things that were obvious in prior editions (waterbreathing to save a drowning party member) as well as thing that are not obvious (using waterbreathing to do something creative- don't ask me what as what isn't the point) are no longer creative options for the players.

Creative options may have moved (to powers), creative options may have changed focus (now more people can use the less-useful-than-before) waterbreathing.

Should I argue that the 3.x vancian magic system stifles creativity because that person doesn't have the ability to use water breathing when needed?

If you want to, feel free. I suspect that's the exact argument used that resulted in the creation of the ritual's-that-anyone-can-cast of 4e.

Honestly, I don't think you can hold a valid argument about rituals by ignoring powers.

Why not? What's wrong with comparing waterbreathing to waterbreathing across the editions? Is there a power that provides waterbreathing that I'm overlooking, one that allows the same type of creative potential that the old waterbreathing possesed?

I get it. You're saying that if 4e player knows water breathing, it can never be used to save a life, but if the 3.x player knows it, there's a chance it can be used to save a life. But like LostSoul pointed out, there are different options now. Just because spell x in 3.x maps to a ritual of the same name in 4e doesn't mean that's the be all and end all of how to do things. If you look at the rules, hehe, creatively, you can find solutions to problems.

That would be an entire critique of a system and I'm surely not going to take the time to do that. I was just talking about rituals and it would have probably been only a post or two about the subject had people not decided that, since I was saying that a particular sub-system of 4e resulted in less creative potential than in prior systems, there was a requirement to descend into arguments antithetical to the very design principles of 4e to prove my comment wrong.

joe b.

 

[Reigan]

If you don't believe you can be creative in 4e it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. As in many things in life, you can be your own worst enemy.

 

[LostSoul]

And, no, I'm not selling 4e short because I'm only talking about the creativity lost concerning the spells that became rituals.

Ah. I misunderstood.

Yeah, like I said, I agree with you. *sigh* It's hard to be as frequently creative using rituals since you can't use them in as many situations. This should be a no-brainer.

There is something to be said for creative constraints, though, but that's beside the point.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I wasn't aware that there was something about the existence of arcane lock as a tool that prevents the above from happening

(...)

Really, that's the argument? I'm glad we have one less tool because now we can have fun?

Yep. Pretty much.

Ever watch Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit? It's a comedy sketch, British I believe, that shows a Gandalf-like figure and a BMX (bike) trick rider. BMX bandit forms these intricate plans about bike tricks and defeating bad guys, and the Angel Summoner says "Yes...or, I could just summon the angels?"

Basically, the group is working on the sealing the door and the wizard walks up and says, "Yes...or, I could just cast Arcane Lock." To extend the meaning, "That will be much better than anything you guys could ever do, and it's much quicker." Like you said, you don't think casters ever over-shadowed non-casters (except at "high levels"?), so this argument will mean nothing to you. Clearly, not everyone was playing the same 3E.

 

[Mort]

This post is a prime example of what I've been saying all along.

Imagine if the player didn't have Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost (maybe?), Thunderwave, Icy Terrain, Feather Fall, or Bigby's Icy Grasp and only had Web to use as a tool to rescue their drowning friend.

People here have been arguing that that guy, the one with only web, is in a game system that has just as much (if not more) creativity in problem solving ability to get their friend out of the water.

I think that's a bit of a misconstruction, at least of the argument I made upthread. I was simply saying that 3e offered so many options for the mage (extreme versatility) that creativity was rarely required (why be creative if you have the proper tool e.g water breathing for a drowing person). In addition to having the proper tools allowing for creative spell use makes the mage even more versatile, so much so that the other classes get less opportunity to be creative - because they don't have to be (why should the rogue waste his time ferreting out a lead when the mage can scry, or use prying eyes, or legend lore, or a multitude of other options - for just one example).

People here would argue that the system would be even more creative if you didn't have access to web, because then you'd have to think of something else. And that's more creative! *sigh*

Well it might require more creativity, but whether that's a good thing is a different question.

Options allow for more creativity than limitations. The interesting discussion is when do options become limitations and vice versa..

That's it exactly. When 1 or a few characters has so many options that it limits the creativity of the group (because the 1 or 2 characters always have the proper answer/spell/response etc. and the rest of the group has no need to be creative) IMO this crosses a bad line. Where that line is, is a very interesting question.

And, no, I'm not selling 4e short because I'm only talking about the creativity lost concerning the spells that became rituals. I'm not doing a system-wide creativity critique. Never have been. If people would be more willing to discus the obvious negatives in the ritual system (and the obvious positives as well) as opposed to taking any critique of a 4e sub-system as being a critique upon the entire system requiring the marshaling of defenses resulting in ridiculous arguments such as "limitations improve creativity" that are utterly antithetical to one of the the core design principles of 4e "options, not restrictions" we wouldn't be having this conversation.
joe b.

I suppose I'm simply saying that the longer casting time of rituals (and the mechanic in general) is an overall positive. The potential loss of creativity is well worth the (IMO of course) necessary reduction in the mages versatility.

 

[Mark]

If you don't believe you can be creative in 4e it (. . .)

No one is actually saying that, so no problem there. What is being discussed are the limits put on creativity by restrictive game rules. Some believe the limits force greater creativity and others believe it closes some avenues to greater creativity. Your sig suggests you do not like edition wars so be careful to keep things in perspective. This is a games mechanics discussion that is avoiding painting people as simply either pro-4E or anti-4E and it has been very fruitful. Even one 3PP in this discussion that produces 4E GSL material is more closely examining the pluses and minuses of such restrictions with an objectively critical eye, so as a fellow EN Worlder, I implore you not to quash the discussion with edition war language, please.