Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Raven Crowking]

I'm going to defend BOTH 3e and 4e.

I would argue it has fallen out of fashion since 2e.

I've always assumed that it was 2e that cemented the idea of "playing the character" and not either 3e or 4e. It certainly was reflected in DRAGON articles and the tone of the accessories.

I agree.


RC

 

[jgbrowning]

I'm going to defend BOTH 3e and 4e.

I would argue it has fallen out of fashion since 2e.

I've always assumed that it was 2e that cemented the idea of "playing the character" and not either 3e or 4e. It certainly was reflected in DRAGON articles and the tone of the accessories.

In some way, I'd agree. I think 2e became more about "playing the character" but that doesn't have to mean it was about "challenging" the character as opposed to the player. I think "playing the character" can be entirely separate activity from challenging the character.

IMO, the issue of player challenging vs. character challenging becomes more and more character challenging with the increase in detailed (quantified) information concerning the abilities of the character (the more powers, feats, skills, spells, magic items, etc..).

IMO, the fewer quantified aspects of a character, the more all challenges become player challenges. The more quantified a character becomes the more the challenges become challenges about the character and "player challenges" become more about tweaking rules-systems for maximization.

A good example is the chess-board puzzle in Ghost Tower of Inverness. That's purely a player challenge - do you know the rules of chess and do you know that that's what's going on? The same thing in 3e and 4e would include some such language as "If the players don't realize they're on a chess board, allow for a Skill X check at DC X for them to figure the problem out."

It moves from player challenge to character challenge with such language.

joe b.

 

[Raven Crowking]

IMHO, the issue of "Challenging the Character" began in 2e with the advice to change the result if the character would otherwise die. In fact, I quit D&D for a number of years (until 3e) because of dissatisfaction with 2e, combined with not really knowing why I was dissatisfied until much later.

Like every edition, 2e had a lot of things going for it. Had I been a wiser man then, I wouldn't have let 2e change how I gamed.


RC

 

[jgbrowning]

IMHO, the issue of "Challenging the Character" began in 2e with the advice to change the result if the character would otherwise die.

Wow, I musta missed that one. That's some bad advice, there Lou.

joe b.

 

[Mort]

For the same reason a 4e rogue wastes time ferreting out a lead when anyone now in 4e can consult mystic sages, consult oracle, detect secret doors, comprehend languages, view location, or wizard's sight... etc...

Not quite anyone though, you need the ritual caster feet, you need the ritual and you need the time and money. 4e makes the rogue ferreting out the info the "old fashioned way" or even better having the party do a skill challenge to ferret out the info a viable, usable option as opposed to a secondary backup for when the wizard can't.

The group as a whole is more effective outside combat due the ritual system than previously. Saying that increasing the effectiveness of the group (now they call all be like wizards) increases the effectiveness of a single member (the rogue in your example) of the group doesn't necessarily follow.

I'd be curious to see how many non-wizards (classes that don't get the ritual caster feat for free) actually bother with it. My educated guess would be not that many, especially if there's a wizard in the group who has it. In other words I don't think the ability of non-wizards to take and use rituals only marginally increased the effectiveness of the group, so I bet it's a non-issue.

If the rogue doesn't have those rituals, he's actually more likely to be made ineffectual because the other members of the group are more likely to have the ability to do so. Unlike in 3e where there would be a greater chance of the spellcasters simply not having those spells.

In my experience, it was a rare wizard who didn't have enough spells (on scroll or otherwise) to not be prepared for most situations. Certainly the times the rogue was barely effective (graveyards, against prepared wizards, underwater, etc.) seemed to significantly outnumber the times the wizard was barely effective.

The issue, IMO, is one that wizards APPEARED to be able to do everything that everyone else could do, but in reality they weren't everything to everyone all the time and were commonly resources that could be more frail than overpowering. IMO, 4e's taking the tact that everyone should be able to do much of what only particular classes could do before.

'

Again IME the wizard could and did step on other roles toes, particullarly the rogue. And did so while being able to perform their own role just fine.

And now that more people can do the same things, is the creativity of the group just as limited or more limited?

The characters can only do the same things if the players choose to focus them to do so, and give up resources elsewhere (at minimum a feat, plus the cost of buying and using all those rituals). This has interesting implications: If the players all focus on rituals, is the rogue going to do less well at his job because he didn't take a feat that helps with theivery?

I think you may be mixing up the feeling of individual effectiveness in the game with the capability of the group as a whole. They're interconnected, IMO, but are distinctive design issues.
joe b.

I'm just saying that one character's effectiveness (positive or negative really) can impact the need of the rest of the group to be creative; it just doesn't seem that controversial a statement to me.

 

[billd91]

This is the heart and soul of WOTC edition game design. Challenges are all about the character and what the character is capable of per the RAW. Challenges designed to actually challenge the player have fallen out of fashion in D&D as designed these days.

I disagree and I think the increasingly complex tactical choices and strategic building choices presented to the PC throughout the editions indicates that this is a misinterpretation of what is going on with D&D design.

What is changing is not whether or not the game challenges the player, but in how it challenges the player. The game has developed so that the challenges the player faces are increasingly focused through the character and in how that character is developed as well as played. That's still plenty of player challenge if you ask me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure. Now imagine Joe is told he can't use screws, nails, or a drill. You are looking to explain how creativity can flourish in adversity but ignoring that the adversity being imposed is a set of restrictions that are unneeded and being added as roadblocks to more expansive avenues of creativity.

Honestly, I don't think so. IMO, it's more akin to telling Joe that he can't just pick up the phone and order a ready-made bookcase from the furniture store.

Which rituals can you point to that would increase creativity if they could be cast as a standard action? Magic in D&D generally just works. It isn't creative to make someone breathe water by snapping your fingers and casting water breathing, nor curing someone's disease by casting Cure Disease, nor to teleport someplace using True Portal. It's what those spells do, and it's no more inventive than when I use my car key to unlock my car door.

The only rituals that I can think of that would rank as creative are illusions, and there are non-ritual utility versions that can be cast as a standard action. So no loss there. Even fighters can potentially create illusions with a 10 minute casting and wizards can do so as a standard action.

Being able to push the auto-win button is undeniably useful, but I disagree that it involves any degree of creativity, or that it's loss should be viewed as a loss of creativity.

 

[Barastrondo]

IMHO, the issue of "Challenging the Character" began in 2e with the advice to change the result if the character would otherwise die. In fact, I quit D&D for a number of years (until 3e) because of dissatisfaction with 2e, combined with not really knowing why I was dissatisfied until much later.

There's another factor that I don't think can be attributed to anything published, too. I most often see it expressed as "If Bob is allowed to play a fighter, and his success at combat is based on his character's physical attributes and training rather than his own, why can't I play a silver-tongued rogue and have his success at diplomacy and fast-talking be based on his charisma and training rather than my own?"

It's the old problem that a silver-tongued player can play a character with a Charisma of 7 and be much more persuasive than a tongue-tied player with a character with a Charisma of 17. If you base things on player skill rather than character skill, that's a perfectly logical outcome. Many people find it kind of jarring and unrealistic, though. And it can't really be changed without moving to challenging the character rather than the player: unless you limit your players to playing characters that are no more intelligent, wise or charismatic than they are. And that way lies fights.

 

[jgbrowning]

Not quite anyone though, you need the ritual caster feet, you need the ritual and you need the time and money. 4e makes the rogue ferreting out the info the "old fashioned way" or even better having the party do a skill challenge to ferret out the info a viable, usable option as opposed to a secondary backup for when the wizard can't.

So the wizard is in the same scenario you described as being the one who can outshine the rogue using rituals?

I'm a bit confused. You say it was bad that a 3e wizard could outshine a rogue by using spells, I then said that anyone in 4e could do the same, and now you are saying that not anyone in 4e will do it because there are some buy in costs so it's probably going to be the wizard doing it anyway. You then add that a skill challenge (instead of just a spell) can now be used to outshine the rogue as something that's supposed to support the argument that outshining the rogue is, in general, a problem with 3e wizards.

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused. It sounds like you disagree with just one party member being about to poach in on the "realm" of another party member, but you're all for all party members being able to poach into the "realm" of another party member.

And that still kinda sidesteps that the 4e wizard will probably still be able to outshine the rogue in the ways you didn't like in 3e (although it may take 10 minutes now).

I'd be curious to see how many non-wizards (classes that don't get the ritual caster feat for free) actually bother with it. My educated guess would be not that many, especially if there's a wizard in the group who has it. In other words I don't think the ability of non-wizards to take and use rituals only marginally increased the effectiveness of the group, so I bet it's a non-issue.

So the main increase in utility and creativity of rituals in 4e (the ability of anyone to get them) will probably never actualize because most parties will simply rely upon those classes that get the ritual caster feat for free? That looks like another strike against ritual creativity.

In my experience, it was a rare wizard who didn't have enough spells (on scroll or otherwise) to not be prepared for most situations. Certainly the times the rogue was barely effective (graveyards, against prepared wizards, underwater, etc.) seemed to significantly outnumber the times the wizard was barely effective.

It came down to how many spells the wizard had access to. Since there were so many spells, the chance of a wizard having the right spells to be prepared for most situations in a "disruptive" mannor came down to the frugality or liberalness of the GM in providing access to those spells. This is exactly the same as providing access to magic items. Those with more magic items are more prepared (in general) than those with fewer. If a GM was not treating spell access equal to magic item acquisition - well, there's your problem...

The characters can only do the same things if the players choose to focus them to do so, and give up resources elsewhere (at minimum a feat, plus the cost of buying and using all those rituals). This has interesting consequences, If the players all focus on rituals, is the rogue going to do less well at his job because he didn't take a feat that helps with theivery?

Possibly, but would he need to do as well considering that the others in the group would simply outshine him anyway?

I'm just saying that one character's effectiveness (positive or negative really) can impact the need of the rest of the group to be creative; it just doesn't seem that controversial a statement to me.

In my experience, my players are always being as creative as each other, regardless if they're playing fighter, cleric, rogue or thief. They're looking at the entire groups capabilities when thinking creatively, as opposed to only their PC's abilities.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Which rituals can you point to that would increase creativity if they could be cast as a standard action? Magic in D&D generally just works. It isn't creative to make someone breathe water by snapping your fingers and casting water breathing, nor curing someone's disease by casting Cure Disease, nor to teleport someplace using True Portal. It's what those spells do, and it's no more inventive than when I use my car key to unlock my car door.

A creative use of a ritual would be the equivalent of you using a coathanger to unlock your car door, or using your car key to open a package from UPS.

You could of course, argue, that using a coathanger to open a car door isn't a "creative" use, but creative in this discussion has been "a use other than the one for which something was explicitly intended" such as hanging coats (clothes) for the coat hanger.

In addition, you're discounting the ability of using a ritual exactly as it's supposed to be used, to be creative in a different manner that would not be possible without the use of the ritual (say using a tenser's floating disk to divert a stream of falling acid off an object so you can grab it before it dissolves, or a sending to time a creative battle tactic impossible without such communication). In other words, you're discarding the ability to use a tool exactly as it's supposed to be used in order to use another tool creatively.

I don't believe you're actually postulating that there are no creative use outcomes ever with a ritual were the time reduced to 1 round vs. 10 minutes, are you?

joe b.