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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5629701" data-attributes="member: 82106">Hehe, it almost goes without saying apparently that I have a virtually opposite perspective on a lot of this <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. I think the ritual system itself was pretty well crafted for instance. To counterpoint you:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The problem isn't the cost of rituals, they are just consumables like any others, and generally give good value objectively. The issue is with the parcel system, which by guaranteeing that you always get a fixed amount of treasure creates a 'budget mentality' in the minds of the players. In any case most ritual casting has utterly trivial cost.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are 2 parts to this. The first is that in fact rituals allow the participation of multiple characters. Secondly is this a big deal? The caster makes a single check, which takes all of 30 seconds at the table, tops. It isn't as if the rest of the players are sidelined for an extended time. Nor is there anything unique to rituals about this, a lock picking attempt is functionally (and probably narratively) equivalent to a ritual, as is any other point in the game where a character makes a contribution.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Failure of imagination? I've seen many fairly cunning and significant uses of rituals. Much like the spells of older editions a lot of the power derives from thoughtful/clever application. Like with other elements of the game there are better and worse rituals, but many of them are VERY effective.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Long casting times exist to act as a guard against rituals becoming easy plot power and easy replacements for other character's capabilities. This was something earlier editions might constructively have tried. As far as 'odd times', an hour is a perfectly good narrative measure of time. Nor does it cause any issues mechanically, you just tick off an hour. I doubt you're intending to suggest that the whole rest of the game consists of nothing but encounters and rests. Most things PCs do happen in narrative time. Rituals ARE primarily a narrative/plot level system. It makes perfectly good sense that they operate in this space.</li> </ol>There IS a "diplomacy ritual", 2 of them in fact IIRC. In any case supposing the mechanics were more elaborate they would be analogous to a skill challenge. At that point what does the ritual itself mechanically DO? We can run an SC and have a ritual be part of it (IE basically pay 50gp to get yourself some +2s or whatever). We don't need new rules for this and as you notice the ritual fits right in. As for the surge type cost, this won't work for most rituals, because again they are plot/narrative level devices. A healing surge is no cost at all in many situations. In most others I personally doubt players are going to be more willing to burn an HS to cast a ritual than to pay a few coins. Again, any situation where they DO is probably one where they can anticipate that this cost is effectively no cost at all.Looking at SCs...<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I don't even see what this point is. You know that SCs are not just all about checks, right? Also the players have to come up with a narrative, the checks are just there to reflect character skill. There's no reason at all that an SC should involve multiple heal checks or that if it does they all serve the same identical narrative purpose or have the same narrative consequences.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This is a failure to comprehend the SC system. If you're designing challenges that consist of a static situation that requires rolling again and again to do the same thing over and over it is like complaining that the combat system is terrible because you fight all your fights in 2x2 square rooms. Don't do that, lol. There absolutely are potential costs for winning. For instance a power could be expended to get a success or a ritual could be cast, etc. These things are all suggested in the DMGs as possibilities. As for the consequences of success/failure on an SC, you as the DM determine this, not the mechanics. Go crazy, have a "you will die if you fail this SC".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Again, if your SCs are nothing but static 'punching bags' that isn't the fault of the mechanics, it is a fault of encounter design.</li> </ol>""standing in place and rolling d20's until you win or loose" is a weak system", indeed. The problem is you're not discussing the 4e SC system, except in the same degenerate level of case that a 20x20 room full of orcs would represent in terms of combat encounters. You don't have to add complexity to SC mechanics to make them work better. You need to write SCs that are interesting situations. Sometimes modifying the mechanics is OK. Honestly, the mechanics are so simple and open-ended that IMO you certainly don't have to go to the level of making it an ungainly complex system to make it do what you want. I'd venture that if you find such a situation you probably have an SC that should be reframed. I'm not really sure what to think of your conclusion. Has some other version of D&D actually provided BETTER mechanics for resolving anything outside of combat? Honestly the systems in every edition are pretty much the same outside of SCs (which actually exist in 3.5 in rudimentary form). Every previous system was "make some kind of check whenever you do something significant where failure could happen." 4e has the same thing, it is just the core mechanic of the game! So I guess I just don't really comprehend. Toss out SCs and 4e and 3.5 are exactly how much different? Or really AD&D either for that matter. I suspect all of this really devolves down to "combat takes too much mindshare", which I don't think I really disagree with. I just don't think it is a matter of any specific weakness of other parts of 4e. So maybe in the final analysis we actually agree, but I'm not sure...</blockquote>

Verification