So why can ANYONE use rituals?

[The Little Raven]

You didn't bother actually reading my posts, did you?

I guess not. Even I could tell you really like rituals, and I'm usually one of the first to butt heads with you.

 

[PeterWeller]

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.

So, everyone can do everything, the fighter and the wizard have the same BAB and defenses, and the trees are all kept equal.

Aside from this being a little over the top and nasty even for you, I did appreciate the Rush reference.

 

[Lizard]

Aside from this being a little over the top and nasty even for you, I did appreciate the Rush reference.

Fundamentally, my biggest worry left about 4e now that I've played it is lack of diversity. Maybe WOTC's market research proves my play experience is on the far end of the bell curve, but in the groups I've been in, differences between classes has not been a point of friction. It's the job of the DM to make sure everyone has a chance to shine in their speciality, and if a player exploits their powers/shtick to jump in on another player's niche, the GM should smack him down or explain to him that "That's not how we do things here".

I was with most of my gaming group today, trying to explain why 4e wizards are so nerfed in terms of flexibility, because "they were taking over for the rest of the party". Thing is, while this is reported all the time online, I've never seen it in play. To test it, I even have tried to make a "swiss army knife wizard" for my current PC, but, in actual play, he can't afford to prepare all his "utility" spells since he needs every one of his big-ass nukes to keep his feathered ass alive. Memorizing "Knock" instead of a buff/damage spell is stupid/pointless for him, and besides, it would be rude to try to show up the rogue, and I know it, and the DM knows it, and the other players know it.

Based on the preview material, there's basically two builds for each class and they carry through all the way to epic level. The problem with making it impossible to be mediocre is that it is also impossible to be great.

 

[Victoly]

You know what else I totally hate? How come classes without any skill with magic whatsoever get to use magic items? I mean, gawd, my wizard didn't spend those years at the magic academy just so that some brutish thug of a fighter could use a magic weapon!

/sarcasm

Ahem.

Now that we've got the RP/flavour issue out of the way, I think the main goal of the ritual system was to give the party access to certain essential tools regardless of which classes are being played. With the ritual system a party of a fighter, warlord, ranger, and rogue could choose to invest a few feats and have the ability to create magic items or raise the dead. While these abilities have traditionally been associated with wizards and clerics respectively, from a mechanics point of view it has always amounted to "managerial stuff that the party does between encounters that isn't roleplaying" (at least in my games). My players would collaborate on deciding which magic items to craft - it didn't really matter who had the feat when you looked at the bigger picture of the party as a whole. Also, there's no reason to deny some of the abilities granted by rituals to just about anyone. Why should clerics be the only ones able to heal ability damage, for example?

I can see where Lizard is coming from here, but I think that the ritual system should free up players a bit more into playing the class they want to play.

Besides, in my games it isn't really the mechanical differences that distinguish the members of the party - it's the personality and attitude of the character that does that. So the fighter can craft magic items. So what? What counts about the experience is the motivation and attitudes of the characters. That's what really makes them stand out.

 

[Victoly]

To test it, I even have tried to make a "swiss army knife wizard" for my current PC, but, in actual play, he can't afford to prepare all his "utility" spells since he needs every one of his big-ass nukes to keep his feathered ass alive. Memorizing "Knock" instead of a buff/damage spell is stupid/pointless for him, and besides, it would be rude to try to show up the rogue, and I know it, and the DM knows it, and the other players know it.

No offense, but I don't think you were Batman-ing it hard enough. You don't need damage spells when you can just coup-de-grace everything with your quarterstaff.

 

[PeterWeller]

Based on the preview material, there's basically two builds for each class and they carry through all the way to epic level. The problem with making it impossible to be mediocre is that it is also impossible to be great.

Eh, the way I look at it is that's twice as many viable builds as some of these classes have had before. Also, mechanics have never really been the way my players differentiate themselves from one another. The current wizard, Peristicles is a totally different character than our old FR wizard, Xistol, even though they have remarkably similar spell books.

I mean, we (my group, we) never had a problem with BECMI or early AD&D's lack of diversity; we just wished the rules made a little more sense, and weapony types were as interesting as spelly types. 3E fixed the former, and now 4E has come and fixed the latter.

 

[Lizard]

No offense, but I don't think you were Batman-ing it hard enough. You don't need damage spells when you can just coup-de-grace everything with your quarterstaff.

I'm a humanoid raven with a Strength of 6. I need someone to carry my material components for me. I ain't coup-de-gracing nobody, nohow.

 

[hong]

You didn't bother actually reading my posts, did you?

Ooh! Ooh! I did! I did!

 

[hong]

Fundamentally, my biggest worry left about 4e now that I've played it is lack of diversity. Maybe WOTC's market research proves my play experience is on the far end of the bell curve, but in the groups I've been in, differences between classes has not been a point of friction.

That's rather egalitarian of them.

Based on the preview material, there's basically two builds for each class and they carry through all the way to epic level. The problem with making it impossible to be mediocre is that it is also impossible to be great.

Impossibility of mediocrity (standard, daily)
+16 vs Will; hit: target takes -10 to all attacks and defenses until end of ruthless egalitarian's next turn; miss: target takes -5 instead.

 

[Blackeagle]

To test it, I even have tried to make a "swiss army knife wizard" for my current PC, but, in actual play, he can't afford to prepare all his "utility" spells since he needs every one of his big-ass nukes to keep his feathered ass alive.

Scribe Scroll.

The problem with making it impossible to be mediocre is that it is also impossible to be great.

Great compared to what? The designers have tried to reduce the differences between the best classes and the worst ones, but characters aren't competing against other characters (unless the player gets joy from out-minmaxing everyone else at the table) they're competing agains the monsters and NPCs. How does removing suckage make it impossible to be great?