So why can ANYONE use rituals?

[Cheesepie]

The game design is ruthlessly egalitarian

Could you elaborate?

 

[Mallus]

The game design is ruthlessly egalitarian

"Ruthlessly"... come on. That's like 'brutally fair' or 'mercilessly generous' . It's a good phrase only if you mean it is as self-parody.

...and presumes that uniformity in play style is desired by the player base.

Try to equalize the relative number of player options doesn't mean a uniform play style. Unless you're forming your rhetoric in Newspeak.

...the weight of history (that D&D has always supported diverse classes even when other games embraced uniformity)

I think that draws the wrong conclusion from the 'weight of history'. History shows us that whichever --fundamentally different-- game gets sold as "D&D" will do well (for a while).

 

[hong]

Apropos of nothing, Ruthless Egalitarian sounds like a nifty epic destiny.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Like Hong says, multiclassing is nothing new and has been in the game in some form since 1974. If anything 4e is stricter on the class divide than 1e-2e and much stricter than 3e, a good thing imo. I can see why Mouse says it feels like BD&D.

 

[AllisterH]

It's not my opinion, it's what the design intent is based around. I'm not just discussing ritual casting -- I've got no problem with people burning 2-3 feats to do what a wizard can do out of the box -- but the entire 'new paradigm'. The game design is ruthlessly egalitarian, and presumes that uniformity in play style is desired by the player base. I disagree, and the weight of history (that D&D has always supported diverse classes even when other games embraced uniformity) is on my side, Hong's attempts to remember his High School latin notwithstanding.
.

Actually, I don't think this was EVER true even back during OD&D/1E. Look at Gary's own gaming group when they played at mid to high levels. Everyone was a spellcaster and the fighters were all henchmen.

I honestly don't think D&D even in its infancy was designed for fighters to actually be run by people past level 11.

 

[hong]

"Ruthlessly"... come on. That's like 'brutally fair' or 'mercilessly generous' . It's a good phrase only if you mean it is as self-parody.

Well, _The Fountainhead_ is kinda parodic.

 

[Agamon]

Apropos of nothing, Ruthless Egalitarian sounds like a nifty epic destiny.

Yoink!

I knew something would come of the Great hong v Lizard battle!

 

[Doug McCrae]

I honestly don't think D&D even in its infancy was designed for fighters to actually be run by people past level 11.

1974 OD&D didn't have spells beyond 6th level, which are available at level 11. You're right that the wizard/fighter balance kind of sort of works if you stop at name level. It breaks if you go beyond that because now the wizard is having fun for too long. Prior to 4e of course D&D worked on the principle of 'limited fun' AKA everyone is bored for most of the time, which ties into Lizard's comment about narcissists with ADD. In Lizard speak I think this means people who don't like being bored.

The OD&D splats broke D&D by introducing spells above 6th level, encouraging play to go on into the teens. 1e cemented this and the game's been broken ever since. 3e obviously wasn't playtested much at high level. It has a great tactical combat system, most of which was retained by 4e, but a sucky magic system which they pretty much just copy and pasted from 1e.

 

[Kobold Wisdom]

What's wrong with this? Not only does this fighter miss out on feats that help him in combat, but I personally think you could make a pretty cool character concept out of a fighter who dabbles in magic.

Vlad Taltos......

Grey Mouser.......

Yes, all HORRIBLE concepts.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I didn't hear that, and I agree -- it is disappointing, and kills a lot of otherwise interesting concepts. Houserule, anyone can take it if they're trained in Arcana or Religion.

Wait, does it count as houseruling if you are ruling back to RAW?