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: 5053737" data-attributes="member: 5724">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.I disagree. The importance of the 10 minute time frame in a game heavily focused upon combat, to me, implies that time is of utmost importance. Hence, the removal of that time frame means that the options removed are not minuscule when compared to the options that existed prior to that removal.I'm not focusing on the creativity available through other options. I'm focusing on the creativity lost from 3e to 4e in the translation of things that became rituals. My other comments about 4e subsystems are tangential and referential to my thoughts about rituals.Are not rituals. I'm talking about rituals.My stance was, in general, rituals are not as capable of being as creatively used as the spells they replaced. My focus is specifically on combat, which is the obvious one since rituals cannot be cast spur-of-the-moment so one cannot use them, more the less use them creatively.That's a big assumption. Powers only affect creatures unless otherwise stated. Creative uses of 4e or 3e tools are only possible because they are not counter to RAW. A 4e GM breaking RAW to allow creative use is not equal to a 3e GM following RAW to allow for a creative use.Even powers (in general again) are often not as able to be creatively used as the spells they replaced because the designers made powers fit into the damage/condition/move paradigm of the game and discarded other aspects in the fitting.I've never said that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I'd prefer to discuss what I said.joe b.</blockquote>

Verification