So why can ANYONE use rituals?

[hong]

Is that Latin for "I do not actually have any facts to refute your argument, so, I'm going to try to be witty and hope no one notices"?

Adipiscing elit.

 

[AllisterH]

Gee, they started playing WoW in 1974?

One of the earliest innovations in gaming was the removal of classes, with Runequest being one of the first biggies. You could pretty much make any character you wanted there. And, for what it's worth, everyone had access to basic combat/utility spells at no "cost" in other skills, and everyone would eventually join a rune cult and get access to powerful/specialized magic. (Sort of like a paragon path...) Yet, while RQ certainly had its fans, it never came close to D&D with its bland fighters, glass mages, and mobile medkit clerics, nor did D&D incorporate RQ concepts in AD&D, AD&D 2, BECMI, or D&D 3.

Yet now, suddenly, it's become a good idea, despite no market demand for it -- and no obvious shift to other RPGs which already offer that playstyle?

Why is that?

Valid question and I'll try not to do a Hong

I think the main reason why it seems like now there are so many "I want to do cool stuff" _IS_ because of 3E.

In 1e/2e, most games didn't get past level 9. Seriously, I would hope that we could agree that easily the majority of players stopped at/around name level. As well, in 1e/2e, the difference between a level 9 wizard and a level 10 fighter was beginning to be noticeable (most of the SoD spells would fail on the fighter and the mages HP wasn't as high but the effect of other spells now gave more options for the mages) but nowehere was the gulf like what a standard core-only wizard is compared to a core-only fighter in 3.5

Not only did 3E actually power up the wizard but by quite rightly stating, "we have 20 levels, we should use them all", it caused a shift in perception. It's one thing to play the fighter at levels 1-9 in 2e alongside an equivalent xp mage and AN entirely different game than levels 10-20 in 3E.

Another change that probably increased the "demand" was the fact that at mid to high levels in 3.x D&D, EVERYTHING was about the magic. Items, defeating monsters, defeating non-combat encounters. It all came down to "The spell" which only half the starting PHB classes had access to.

So, I think the "blame" if any can be laid at the feet of 3.x and NOT WoW or Anime

 

[Rechan]

Lorem ipsum dolor.

Dude, your posts got deleted the last time you did this. Plz don't start that again.

 

[Cheesepie]

Personally I'm disappointed that the ritual casting rules apparently require non-spellcasters to be "Paragon tier" before you can pick up the Ritual Casting feat. That's a shame - it strikes me that there's a certain type of Fighter/Magic-User concept that can be built from taking a fighter base class, training in Arcana, and taking the Ritual Casting feat.

We already discussed that this was an error, and Ritual Casting is actually heroic tier.

 

[Mallus]

Yet now, suddenly, it's become a good idea, despite no market demand for it -- and no obvious shift to other RPGs which already offer that playstyle?

I think you'll find plenty of demand for it now that it's a part of the game w/the D&D brand.

And note that I think rituals are a good idea because I personally prefer rules that encourage greater/broader player participation, which, incidentally, in no way necessitate a breakdown in niche protection -- unless, of course, the niche you're protecting is factotum. Disclaimer: I formed this opinion independent of market research.

Why is that?

Because it's now part of the D&D brand. Why else?

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

The ritual casting feat isn't the only way for non-mages to cast rituals.

Ritual scrolls don't require any feats because they are "primed" with some of the needed magic. They still require components in addition to the cost of the scroll, plus the relevant skill check. The scroll is consumed when the ritual goes off.

So yes, a fighter with enough gold can cast some useful rituals without training, but he'll never outclass a wizard or cleric. For me, it fits the idea of what a magic scroll/ritual is. I like the Buffy/Angel reference from earlier.

 

[Lizard]

This is one of the most disgustingly insulting things I've seen you say on these boards, Lizard. I like your posts normally, and I think you have a lot of insight in many areas, but this is just rude and insulting to a lot of players.

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.

Personally I'm disappointed that the ritual casting rules apparently require non-spellcasters to be "Paragon tier" before you can pick up the Ritual Casting feat. That's a shame - it strikes me that there's a certain type of Fighter/Magic-User concept that can be built from taking a fighter base class, training in Arcana, and taking the Ritual Casting feat.

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.

 

[keterys]

... I was excited that I could treat some rituals in a more Buffy-esque style, via handing out a plot scroll and having whoever try to do it, or have a game that didn't include a cleric/wizard because people wanted to.

Guess I have ADD

 

[hong]

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.

Yes, Lizard.

 

[Cadfan]

It's not my opinion, it's what the design intent is based around.

Its your opinion of what the design intent is based upon, filled with insulting terms. Its also an implication that the game was designed for people who possess certain listed negative characteristics, paired with the implication that someone who likes the game must therefore have those negative characteristics.