Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Fanaelialae]

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 disolves, 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 no creative use outcomes ever with a ritual were the time reduced to 1 round vs. 10 minutes, are you?

joe b.

So instead the fighter uses a shield to divert the acid while the wizard uses mage hand to remove the object from under the stream of acid.

Instead of casting Sending, the party uses Sending Stones (PH 255) to coordinate the attack instead.

I'm not seeing a terrible loss of options.

I'm certainly not saying that there are never creative uses for rituals, or even that it sometimes wouldn't be handy to be able to cast rituals as a standard action (there's an epic destiny that does this btw). I'm just saying that I don't see any significant loss from it, and I think there is even a benefit due to the fact that you can't just Wish all your problems away (by this I mean rendering challenges virtually meaningless by magicking all your troubles away as a standard action).

I never questioned the usefulness of such spells, I merely doubt whether they add any significant amount of creativity to the game. A ritual like Water Breathing is still plenty useful if you need to explore the sunken city of Atlantis, it's just no longer the go-to option if Tordek happens to fall off the boat. A slight loss of options perhaps, but options don't necessarily equal creativity in my book.

 

[jgbrowning]

So instead the fighter uses a shield to divert the acid while the wizard uses mage hand to remove the object from under the stream of acid.

There's no fighter with a shield. The object weighs more than 20 lbs.

Instead of casting Sending, the party uses Sending Stones (PH 255) to coordinate the attack instead.

The party is level 6 and do not have level 11 items.

I'm not seeing a terrible loss of options.

Seeing them now?

Anyway, this back-and-forth "it's just as creative" argument is a silly one because that assumes the argument was that the creativity lost by having a 10 minute casting time is not regained through other means. That's not the argument. The argument is just that there is a loss of creative potential.

You've already agreed with the argument of the loss of creative potential - you're saying that the losses aren't that bad because there are other ways around the losses. My above example shows that, perhaps, there actually may not be ways around the losses because the creativity involved is circumstantial, not static and balanced. That, perhaps, there may not be "other ways" to make up for a loss and to just assume that there are isn't necessarily the best assumption.

I never questioned the usefulness of such spells, I merely doubt whether they add any significant amount of creativity to the game. A ritual like Water Breathing is still plenty useful if you need to explore the sunken city of Atlantis, it's just no longer the go-to option if Tordek happens to fall off the boat. A slight loss of options perhaps, but options don't necessarily equal creativity in my book.

I think that rituals add a lot of creativity to the game - that they're often the most creative parts of the game because so much of it is about damage-healing/condition-condition removal/movement-hindering movement. Rituals are all the cool things that don't have much to do with the tripartite power construction focus.

And what's been lost is the time-sensitive creativity of 1 round vs. 10 rounds. Creativity may have been gained in other ways, but the loss, IMO, is obvious. Anything that could happen with a 1 round ritual that cannot happen with a 10 round ritual is what has been lost. The amount of creativity that you think is lost depends on how much creativity you think was there to begin with, I suppose.

I tend to think there's a lot more creativity in the interactions of all those rituals with their environments as well as the secondary interactions of the rituals with other object that can then be creatively used than you're giving credit to by saying "a slight loss." For example: since Tordek can breathwater quickly, he has just enough time to jam his shield into the descending underwater portcullis, keeping it open so that the rest of the group can go through later when they all can water breath.

In the end, the importance of the loss is a personal assessment and people will have different opinions. But at least we're no longer arguing that there wasn't even was a loss and that having fewer options for the players helps them better their creative output.

joe b.

 

[Mort]

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.

Yes it will be primarily the wizard doing the rituals and yes this might have the potential to do the same stuff as the rogue but no longer clearly better than the rogue. Take Knock for example: the 3e version is cast within 6 seconds, automatically opens most doors, and can open doors the rogue has 0% chance of opening. The 4e version of Knock takes 10 minutes and requires an arcana roll, meaning the mage is only going to cast it if the rogue has failed (or if the rogue for some reason cannot pick the lock). The wizard is doing what the rogue can do, but not at well and at some cost - not outshining the rogue.

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.

I was just saying that alternatives to the wizard stepping on toes are good, though it came out a bit muddled. Still, the whole group (as opposed to just one character) participating in such a way to solve a problem, even if it's usually the pervue of only one of the classes, is usually a good outcome. - D&D is a group game after all.

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).

But the wizard won't be able to outshine the rogue. He'll be able to fill in for the rogue at some expense, cost in time and generally not as well so only when necessary.

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.

Perhaps so, but seeing as in prior edditions non-caster classes could, without multiclassing, (for the most part) never get access to spells it's still a step up.

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... .

Yes a DM could certainly restrict access to spells, but that's recognizing that there might be a problem and dealing with it so I don't see how that conflicts with what I'm saying. The over abundance of magic items is a widely known issue and most DMs know to deal with it. Easy access to spells and the problems it may cause is a lesser known issue and may take unknowing DMs quite off guard.

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.

Well yes, thinking creatively for the group is great and is certainly my experience as well, but that's separate from the discussion of a particular characters' (not necessarily player's) contribution in that regard.

 

[jgbrowning]

Heya all, I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation. I've got stuff I should have been doing that just can't wait anymore. (Working on setting up a First Edition tourny at this year's GenCon) and I've been a goober by goofing off so much here.

Thanks for listening to me ramble and for providing some interesting opposite viewpoints!

joe b.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've never said that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I'd prefer to discuss what I said.

Okay, I didn't realize you were intentionally restricting yourself to a small subset of the possibilities. If you're only looking at 3E spells that were translated into 4E rituals, I can't argue with you. My response would only be "so what?"

Such an argument ignores, for example, that other classes now having more possibilities for being creative by dint of their having a variety of power themselves. It also ignores the 3E spells that were translated into 4E powers.

So again, you're looking at a very small subset of potential actions. You're not even necessarily arguing that creativity is reduced in 4E on the whole. Or that wizards can't be as creative when considering their entire toolbox. Just that wizards can't be as creative with the 4E rituals that used to be spells in 3E. I agree. I also submit that's it's a very minor complaint.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There's no fighter with a shield. The object weighs more than 20 lbs.



The party is level 6 and do not have level 11 items.



Seeing them now?

Anyway, this back-and-forth "it's just as creative" argument is a silly one because that assumes the argument was that the creativity lost by having a 10 minute casting time is not regained through other means. That's not the argument. The argument is just that there is a loss of creative potential.

You've already agreed with the argument of the loss of creative potential - you're saying that the losses aren't that bad because there are other ways around the losses. My above example shows that, perhaps, there actually may not be ways around the losses because the creativity involved is circumstantial, not static and balanced. That, perhaps, there may not be "other ways" to make up for a loss and to just assume that there are isn't necessarily the best assumption.



I think that rituals add a lot of creativity to the game - that they're often the most creative parts of the game because so much of it is about damage-healing/condition-condition removal/movement-hindering movement. Rituals are all the cool things that don't have much to do with the tripartite power construction focus.

And what's been lost is the time-sensitive creativity of 1 round vs. 10 rounds. Creativity may have been gained in other ways, but the loss, IMO, is obvious. Anything that could happen with a 1 round ritual that cannot happen with a 10 round ritual is what has been lost. The amount of creativity that you think is lost depends on how much creativity you think was there to begin with, I suppose.

I tend to think there's a lot more creativity in the interactions of all those rituals with their environments as well as the secondary interactions of the rituals with other object that can then be creatively used than you're giving credit to by saying "a slight loss." For example: since Tordek can breathwater quickly, he has just enough time to jam his shield into the descending underwater portcullis, keeping it open so that the rest of the group can go through later when they all can water breath.

In the end, the importance of the loss is a personal assessment and people will have different opinions. But at least we're no longer arguing that there wasn't even was a loss and that having fewer options for the players helps them better their creative output.

joe b.

The rogue rigs a stone slab to divert the acid while someone else lassos the object.

The party is level 1 and can't cast Sending either, so instead they devise an ingenious method using a time released smoke-signal. (Honestly, I think that's a pretty silly argument, as there will be periods in a level-based game where your options are limited simply due to level limits.)

Still not seeing it. If you're really going to tell me that the above scenarios can only be solved with your solution, then the problem isn't that the game is restricting your creativity but rather that your railroading DM is.


There have always been limitations built into the game. You may as well argue that creativity was stunted by any and all prior spells which didn't have an instant cast time and weren't Wish.

If Tordek falls off a cliff and you have to save him with Feather Fall rather than conjuring a celestial giant eagle to swoop in and catch him because Summon Monster has a full round casting time, is 3.x really quashing your creativity? (IMO, no, it isn't.)

Most (if not all) games limit player creativity by putting limits on what the players can do. In order to avoid limiting creativity you'd need to give the players unlimited Wishes with unlimited power. At that point the players can literally do anything they can think of, and therefore their creativity is no longer constrained. However, I'd argue that at that point you really aren't playing D&D anymore (because in all editions of D&D creativity has been limited to the "tools" the PCs have at hand).

It's like suggesting that 4e encourages more creativity because the Rogue has a utility power like Cloud Jump, which the rogue/thief would not have possessed in any of the earlier editions. I assume, however, it's clear that the suggestion is nonsense?

If game 1 has options A, B, C, D, and E, while game 2 has options C, D, E, F, and G, neither game is limiting creativity any more than the other. Both limit it, just differently. Both have an equal potential for creativity.

If you don't have a hammer when you need one, you find a way to improvise. Therein lies the very essence of creativity, IMO.

 

[Mark]

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.

Why restrict him in that manner? Just allow for the fact that you get what you pay for and if he has the skill to actually make a better bookshelf himself, set up consequences that reflect him getting a lesser bookshelf if he picks up the phone to order one. If after weighing the consequences and resources (including time) Joe determines that building one is best, then he'll build one.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why restrict him in that manner? Just allow for the fact that you get what you pay for and if he has the skill to actually make a better bookshelf himself, set up consequences that reflect him getting a lesser bookshelf if he picks up the phone to order one. If after weighing the consequences and resources (including time) Joe determines that building one is best, then he'll build one.

The problem with that is Joe can probably get a superior bookshelf for almost no effort by calling the furniture store.

This was one of my biggest gripes with the old Vancian magic system. Why chance things using the Hide skill (which could fail on a low roll), when Invisibility gives you a close to perfect success rate (barring the intervention of not so common countermeasures, many of which render the Hide skill useless as well).

I do agree with your idea, however, that if Joe takes the easy way out then he ought to get a lesser bookcase as the result.

 

[Garthanos]

Why restrict him in that manner? Just allow for the fact that you get what you pay for and if he has the skill to actually make a better bookshelf himself, set up consequences that reflect him getting a lesser bookshelf if he picks up the phone to order one. If after weighing the consequences and resources (including time) Joe determines that building one is best, then he'll build one.

Ah but see only joe has the phone... nobody else can have one "because joe is the phone user class" ... now joe gets high level and can add so many numbers to his book ...one of the numbers will get him anything and by using special yellow pages ( only in version 3 of the game - not available earlier without the special dm monty getting involved) he can store all those very nice numbers.

In 4e they set up special consequences for the phone call so that no matter how many numbers in your book... what you order takes longer to arrive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

All this song and dance is lovely to see and hear, but it still ignores the point.

Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies. Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies. Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.

You cannot have it both ways.

(Where the balance/creativity fulcrum should lie is another question; one which relies very much on subjective taste. Denying that there is a tradeoff between the two, though, is irrational.)


RC