So why can ANYONE use rituals?

[Mallus]

You've clearly never lived in San Francisco.

Touché.

Seems to me it does, esp. when 3x went for diversity via resource management

For some.

One could also argue that this is because the key tropes of D&D were popular...

Again, placing the majority of problem-solving tools in the hands of a small number of classes isn't a 'key trope', it's a design flaw that's only become more problematic over time with the increase of spells-per-day for the caster classes (not only is magic the best solution to most obstacles, now you get more of it!).

strong class distinctions among them.

This doesn't erase strong class distinctions any more than access to magical effects via item does. Rituals can be seen as a (slightly) less commoditized version of items, though I think they're more than that, largely because I think that players respond differently to 'my guy can do this!' vs. 'my guys stuff can do this!'.

Remove them, and is the D&D brand name enough?

<looks at the significant changes in built-in assumptions and play mechanics between AD&D --> 2e --> 3e> "Yes!".

 

[hong]

Ah, but was it the same people complaining both times?

If those who value uniformity over diversity are the majority, 4e will be a smash. If they aren't, it will be a case study. We'll know in a year or so.

(Of course, it's very possible that third party supplements and optional rules will restore a lot of what has been lost, depending on how stringent the GSL is on rewriting key rule assumptions. At the very least, the expected flood of new powers, builds, options, and so on will do a lot to remove the apparent blandness.) (I mean, really, four at-wills total per class, and you get two? Way to limit diversity in the same class...)

Yes, Lizard.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Vlad Taltos......

I was about to make a comment about Vlad being an exceptional witch, and then I realized witchcraft in his world is just rituals.

Which led to another idea - that rituals are another "Power source" so to speak. A complete different kind of magic than Wizardry, a kind anyone can learn, and have that supported by fluff in the world.

I think I'll use that in my game.

 

[Xyl]

Are you suggesting that the kindly mayor of the village the players are staying in, who never recieved arcane training in his life, shouldn't be able to summon a demon using a blasphemous ritual contained in the bloodstained tome he found in the possessions of the robed traveller who died under mysterious circumstances in the inn?

Because if he couldn't, that wouldn't be much fun.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

There's quite a lot of in-game reasons or world reasons you can use, but the real reason is -- apparently, WOTCs marketers determined most D&D players are narcissists with ADD, and can't stand anyone else being able to do something they can't, or getting 'spotlight' time at the table.

I think you're being intentionally facetious with this statement. Either that, or you've just chosen to believe what you want. It's a helluva leap given the evidence and information we do have about design goals. The above opinion (and it is an opinion) is based on nothing that I have read or heard. If you can point me to statements that state that DnD players are narcissistic twitches, I'd really like to see them.

While I will grant you that "too equal" is bad (true equality equals one class with all the same features across the board), I do not believe 4e has gone that far. With regards to rituals, it's not even close. Others have presented numerous examples and requirements that prove the option is not available to everyone. As best I can tell, you have ignored these points. Nor have you provided any compelling evidence for your point, only unsupported conjectures and non-factual information.

It's cool if you don't like the game, or where it's going. Really, it is. But you seem to be trying to dig yourself out of a hole. Keep going and you'll hit China!

 

[-Avalon-]

I do not see it the same way as most of you obviously...

I don't see the uniformity you speak of... inferring that everyone will be uniform and "equal" is like assuming that every human in RL will become good at everything...

Construction workers will be programming computers as well as anyone else.

Graduates from Le Cordon Bleu will not have any advantage in cooking over the rest of the world.

It is not uniformity. It is a rules system that allows players to build the type of character they wish to play. everyone has the same options, and if your entire group all ends up playing the same character... hmmm....

 

[JohnSnow]

You've clearly never lived in San Francisco.

Is that supposed to be a slam? Because, ya know, I do live in San Francisco, and that kinda seems like the passive-aggressive form of an insult.

Besides, I thought the normal accusation was that we were all "elitist liberals." Please enlighten me as to how "elitist" and "ruthlessly egalitarian" go hand-in-hand? Or, alternatively, you could just, ya know, refrain from making political comments, like the CoC asks.

Now, this explains why 4E magic so close to Dresden Files magic.

Cheers, LT.

For the record, I'm in favor of anything that makes D&D magic more closely resemble the best conceived magic system in a novel ever.

It's not that "anyone" can do magic, it's that any PC who chooses to study magic is considered one of the "fortunate few" who have "the gift." With the general populace, it may be that only 1 person in 10,000 (or less) can actually cast magic (rituals or spells). But PCs are special, and if the player wants his rogue to be able to be skilled with magic, the rogue just has "the gift."

It would be rude to make the fighter's player "roll dice" or some such to see if his character had the gift for magic. We don't make the wizard player "roll dice" to make sure his character isn't totally incompetent in a fistfight. It's all about "proper training." Which means, in D&D, having the relevant skills and feats.

For the record, the magic system in Midnight worked similarly to this, and it worked like a charm.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Are you suggesting that the kindly mayor of the village the players are staying in, who never recieved arcane training in his life, shouldn't be able to summon a demon using a blasphemous ritual contained in the bloodstained tome he found in the possessions of the robed traveller who died under mysterious circumstances in the inn?

Because if he couldn't, that wouldn't be much fun.

That's awesome. I'll assume the ritual in question acts as a scroll and the page crumbles into dust -- it's kind of the "Quickstart Guide" in the front of the DMG (Demon Mastery Guide).

Alternately, a shard of a religious fragment, carved in stone, could be found in the ruined tomb of a long-dead wealthy merchant. It's a Raise Dead ritual. This fellow hoarded the thing all his life, hoping to cheat death... then died of old age after all. (Voila, a "do over" for the party in case they screw up and die at low levels, works even if they don't have a cleric, and it's a lot easier to tie into the campaign story than "Um, I'm gonna reroll that so Bob can keep playing." )

I dig the Cugel the Clever reference as well -- for some reason I'm imagining a charisma-based half-elf warlord with Skill Training:Arcana and Dilettante to give him just one in-combat spell that's not a bluff or trickery. He could "lead from the rear" with threats of mighty magic. Sort of a bard type, I suppose.

*throws flash powder*
"Back, you bandits, lest you face my Excellent Prismatic Spray!"
*uses Magic Missle*
"And that's just a TASTE of my true power!"
"...if they don't buy it, run."

That seems to combine pretty well with purloined rituals and "borrowed" expensive material components. Man, now I want to play that guy.

 

[trystero]

Lizard:

...nor did D&D incorporate RQ concepts in... D&D 3.

Interestingly, 3e designer Jonathan Tweet doesn't seem to agree with you on that last claim: see his web site for his list of design elements in 3e that were directly inspired by RuneQuest.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Seems to me it does, esp. when 3x went for diversity via resource management (Wizard vs. Sorcerer vs. Psion, for example.) Likewise, the difference between sustained and burst damage output has been nullified, on a class vs. class level -- everyone has roughly equal DPS.

Errrm... no. Diversity is still maintained in 4E - one of the design goals was to reinforce the archetypes even more (rather than have, for example, the Cleric out-fighter the Fighter.) The "ruthless elegaltarian" approach is in terms of making all classes as fun to play, to have lots of options. Doesn't mean their all the same, even if some of the underlying mechanics of resources have been consolidated.

And Damage per Round? Strikers will be doing the most to a single target, Controllers have AoE affects to damage multiple targets (if they choose those sorts of powers; conceivably they could do little DPR, but hinder opponents significantly in other ways.) Defenders have decent DPR, but also tend to lower or draw the DPR of opponents. Leaders can have decent DPR, but also reduce opponent DPR through healing.

What was your point again?