New Thought on Powers

[Guest 85555]

This kind of division can work but it is incredibly risky. The challenge is to make sure the two effects are completely consistent with what action the power represents. Otherwise you risk having gamey combat mode/non combat mode, which will just drive away the people who already felt 4E suffered from too much of that. Personally i would like to see the powers removed or changed so they aren't limited by encounter, day, etc.

 

[GM Dave]

LOL. I think it's funny when people assume that 5E will even have the 4E powers. Don't get me wrong, I think it's more probably than not, I just don't assume it.

I have my idea I want to see that's a solution for this. It's kinda long. Want me to post it?

Oh, I believe that you're right that we don't have near enough information to judge what the 'final' form the abilities will work out.

I do though feel from comments that the 'new' game came from workings of a game that someone was already using in their home game that we are likely looking at something that is based on the 4e model with 'tricks' to bring it in line with past editions.

They were likely 2e group that adapted the things they liked of 3e and 4e to make their own fusion of rules. My guess is that they have 4e powers but more similar to Essentials with less powers and more ways to use or modify those powers.

This kind of division can work but it is incredibly risky. The challenge is to make sure the two effects are completely consistent with what action the power represents. Otherwise you risk having gamey combat mode/non combat mode, which will just drive away the people who already felt 4E suffered from too much of that. Personally i would like to see the powers removed or changed so they aren't limited by encounter, day, etc.

I doubt they'll remove the 'day' mechanic as that is both Vancian and a typical way that several powers have been expressed in past editions. Encounter might change but it will likely change to more this power x X (where X is the number of uses per encounter which is more of Essentials way to handle things). Essentials was also the source of more 'at-will' powers, stances, and choices that work to modify the 'at-will' basic attacks.

I agree there needs to be decent design of both the in-combat and out of combat side of the powers. This would need to be said of any game design. It is both a meter for the designer to consider the player's reaction and then a playtest check to see how those ideas are interpreted and used.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It may be an approach to deal with the issue, but I think it may make things to complicated. Not every ritual even needs a "combat application" (attack or utility power doesn't matter really). Some may benefit from it.

What I might do:

1) Everyone can cast rituals. You normally need material components, focuses, a ritual scroll and possibly a skill check, so it's not necessarily easy or effective if just anyone can do it.

2) You can become a "Ritual Caster" (may be a feat, class ability, or some other character build option). This will give you the ability to prepare rituals in advance (possibly at reduced cost) and cast them more quickly. You can never really prepare many rituals. So a spellcaster has to carefully decide which rituals he really needs quickly, and can prepare them in advance. If you think Knock and Arcane Lock can be useful spells to cast on a moment's notice, you can do that.

Following exception-based design - some rituals may have limitations on how good they work as prepared spell. Maybe a spell that you could use to create a wall requires several rounds to cast (since a Wall spell is pretty strong.) While Knock is something you cast in a single round.

 

[mkill]

These are all nice ideas but I don't think they will work well at the table. The advantage of having powers for combat and rituals / skills for non-combat is that players know where to look for what. Don't forget that there are many casual players out there who like if stuff is clearly labeled. During combat, they look at their power cards. During exploration / investigation, they look at skills and rituals. There shouldn't be too much overlap.

I would also prerer if the game is designed in a way that you have clearly separated combat / non-combat resources. That is, if I get XYZ at 1st level, X and Y should be for combat, and Z should be for other game situations like exploration, social interaction or information gathering.

If one class gets access to non-combat rituals, another class should get bonus skills or something else (contacts / allies / reputation / wealth / mount ...).

 

[grimslade]

Rituals were one of the things I liked best out of 4E. I like having a Grey Mouser feel of finding some intricate incantation and dying to try it out. If we start having a way for fast cast rituals, you are entering the realm of magic item creation and scrolls. I think that is a good way to handle it. Fast cast rituals are scrolls.

 

[harlokin]

I think that denying access to rituals for non-casters would be a good thing.

I am sure there is a segment of people might feel that if you spend all day swinging a sword and winning in battle through Conan style brawn that it is okay at the end of battle to whip out a pouch of components and summon a phantom steed or open a portal to the next adventure site.

There are games like WoW that simulate this style of life with Fighter types that brew potions or enchant mystic cloth.

Personally, I think that people should live their after combat life like their combat style. If you depend on swords and armour then buy a horse or a pegasus.

If you are a storm lord hurling magical bolts of lightning at enemies then you should predict and control weather. You should travel by lightning or storm cloud.

This is a bit of a theme issue with me but I also think that it makes a better feel of story.

I also don't think that some one who chooses to pick up a bow or a sword to fight with is going to feel that their being punished for not being able to use some high level magic when they don't show any usage in their regular life.

I understand their will be some that might point to something like Aragon in LotR as an example of a Ritual using fighter but I don't think Aragon is really a Ritual user but instead someone with some field knowledge of herbs and healing. Mundane skill instead of trained supernatural ability that usually breaks the 'regular' laws of nature.

This to me reads like the crap-ol-days when Non-Caster = mundane, and they got to play their own game of low fantasy while the Casters solved everything with magic.

Separating Rituals from being a Caster enables DMs to make the decision as to whether to allow Non-Casters access to them.

As for Ritual using Fighters, you say WoW, I say Elric of Melnibone.