Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 5052886" data-attributes="member: 5724">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification