Why all the ritual hate?

[tyrlaan]

You imbedded the info in a ritual, but you can probably see at least a few different ways they could've gotten the information without the ritual, if you wanted them to, or if they really wanted to, or even just under a different DM.

So the argument is that rituals are bunk because of magician's force? Just like you can probably see different ways to get info that don't include rituals, you can probably see different ways to get info that does include rituals.

Your campaign is different, which is great, and a prime example of D&D's flexibility, but that goes back to my actual point, the very first one that I made in the thread, that rituals are only useful of the DM makes them useful. They can be useful in your game because you make them useful, and not in games that I've played in, because those DM's did not. This is in contrast to a more desirable system, where rituals are, by default, an essential component, where rather than adding effort to include them, you need to add effort to exclude them.

But you can make this exact same argument about skills. It's really up to the DM how much mileage you get out of Diplomacy, Streetwise, etc.

The Wizard shines through magic (and so does the Cleric, but no one seems to be arguing that Raise Dead is unfair in the way fly is). Thus, for the challenges in adventures that wizards are meant to overcome (which should not be "all of them," as could be the case in earlier editions, but should also not be "none of them," as can be the case in the current edition), they should be able to overcome them.

I mean, no one seems to be debating that Remove Disease or Raise Dead obviates the need for anyone to take the Heal skill.

Because I can't raise the dead with my heal skill.

Though, for what it's worth I think the rituals that fell under the purview of wizards in prior editions are getting the attention because they make for more solid examples of niche crushing.

That's part of the problem, though. The choices shouldn't be between "everyone uses whatever skills to do this" and "only some guy with a scroll can do this." With a roles kind of system, the dude with the scroll gets to do his thing, and the dude with the skills gets to do his thing, and they both contribute to solving the problem at hand in their own unique ways.

Sure, but 4e doesn't have non-combat roles. I understand you've fleshed out some ideas in this area, but that's not part of RAW. 4e RAW handles non-combat more or less by providing everyone access to everything. Sure each class and race have some notable advantages here and there, there's really nothing one player can do that another one can't (should you be willing to spend some feats or whatnot).

I mean, an adventuring party doesn't stare long at a party of goblins before figuring out what to do. They head in and sweep the problem away, as a team, each contributing their own strengths. The wizard sweeps away minions. The rogue sweeps away elites. The Leader makes it easier to sweep away enemies. The Defender makes sure you are not swept away.

Why not let the wizard do his thing to fly the party over the chasm, after the Rogue has done recon, the Fighter has secured the area, and the Cleric has prepared to catch everyone if the Wizard fails? Why not let everyone contribute something unique to solving the problem?

Well, for the first part, there's not much of a puzzle to solve if a bunch of goblins are charging at you and the DM says "roll initiative." I don't think you have a valid analogy here, unless we get into interesting territory, such as a DM who is throwing some intrigue at the party and the goblins might not be a threat, but instead have some information (or some other idea that makes the combat something other than a combat).

For the second part, if and when 4e has clearly defined non-combat roles, then perhaps what you've outlined would work nicely.

The first place most people turn to to kill enemies is the Striker.

Does that mean the Striker is doing everything in combat?

Clearly, no.

If, out of combat, the first place most people turn to cross a massive chasm is magic, does that mean that everyone else is doing nothing?

Clearly, no.

Striker in combat => Agree, but you're posing the question to favor your argument. The striker is a clearly delineated role amongst 4 that is designed to function as part of a team. There should be no expectation that it can function in a vacuum and I'd be pretty surprised if any players anywhere handled combat scenarios by sitting back and letting the striker do it all by his or her self.

Magic out of combat => Disagree. If I can cast a ritual to float everyone across a chasm, guess what the rest of the party is doing? Nothing. It didn't take anyone any work other than the ritual caster. Okay, maybe some aid another checks.

With the correct ritual at hand, everyone else is very much doing nothing. Short of complicating the rules for rituals so they force group involvement, this isn't about to change. 4e acknowledges this, and the solution it provides is time and cost for using rituals. The less it costs and the less time it takes to use a ritual, the more likely it is that scenarios will exist where one person is doing everything and the rest of the party is sitting on their hands.


Incidentally, perhaps this analogy would serve as a better method of debating all this instead of specific in-game scenarios or specific rituals.

Person A goes from City X to City Y. Person A takes a plane, which costs 50 smackeroos and takes 5 days.
Person B goes from City X to City Y. Person B takes a train, which costs 150 smackeroos and takes 7 days. However, its a much safer trip.

The faster and cheaper the train becomes, the less and less arguments can be made to take a plane. On the flip side, if the train is just expensive enough but provides just enough benefit, it can always be a viable option without making the plane obsolete.

 

[wedgeski]

You imbedded the info in a ritual, but you can probably see at least a few different ways they could've gotten the information without the ritual, if you wanted them to, or if they really wanted to, or even just under a different DM.

My approach to rituals is as a means to an end, one more spanner in the toolbox. The fact that similar information could have been recovered using different methods neither devalues the ritual, nor its user. When the wizard pulled out her ritual book and a vial of components, the others didn't growl with disapproval; they'd had their moments in the past, when their skill expertise came to the fore, and now in this circumstance, faced with an indecipherable inscription, the most logical solution was the ritual. They're happy, cos they get the information they want; the wizard's happy, because the effort she's been exerting to collect rituals and reagents has paid off; I'm happy, because they're happy. Job's a good'un.

They can be useful in your game because you make them useful, and not in games that I've played in, because those DM's did not. This is in contrast to a more desirable system, where rituals are, by default, an essential component, where rather than adding effort to include them, you need to add effort to exclude them.

You could play in a game where rituals were essential by RAW, and still have a DM who doesn't give you the latitude you need to use them. The rules were not at fault there, the DM was. If I was playing a class that had Ritual Caster in one of those games, I'd have made sure he knew it too.

The ritual system isn't perfect, but the fact that the DM has to spend a little time and effort to position them in his game is hardly a damming indictment.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Trying to condense...

But you can make this exact same argument about skills. It's really up to the DM how much mileage you get out of Diplomacy, Streetwise, etc.

This is a problem for me, too. That's part of why I would meld the rituals and skills into one system for noncombat mechanics.

Because I can't raise the dead with my heal skill.

Why is that, I wonder, hmm...

Sure, but 4e doesn't have non-combat roles. I understand you've fleshed out some ideas in this area, but that's not part of RAW. 4e RAW handles non-combat more or less by providing everyone access to everything. Sure each class and race have some notable advantages here and there, there's really nothing one player can do that another one can't (should you be willing to spend some feats or whatnot).

Roles are meant to protect a niche. If the wizard has their own niche out of combat, where magic wins, then it doesn't invalidate others' niches out of combat, anymore than the striker being able to deal damage invalidates the defender's ability to mark.

That's the idea: noncombat roles.

And it fixes one of the central problems of both skill challenges and rituals in that no one can contribute uniquely. Providing everyone access to everything causes many of the problem that many players have with both rituals and skill challenges. Not everyone in combat can deal damage like a striker, and this makes a striker feel special. Not everyone should be able to do everything out of combat, so that, when not in combat, you can still feel like you're making a unique contribution.

If I can cast a ritual to float everyone across a chasm, guess what the rest of the party is doing? Nothing.

And this is also part of the problem.

Above, I outlined what might happen if the party comes up to a cliff, in a way that everyone can contribute. Wizard uses the ritual to float, Fighter keeps monsters at bay, Rogue scouts ahead to find out what's on the other side, Cleric can help mitigate anyone's failure (give the Rogue darkvision, keep the Fighter alert, enhance the Wizard's ritual check, and heal everyone if anything falls apart).

You can't cross the chasm with a skill challenge, just like you can't raise the dead with a skill challenge. Magic has a clear role to play in solving the problem. Everyone else contributes in their own way.

This lines up with combat roles pretty nicely. Fighters keep monsters at bay. Clerics heal everyone. Rogues kill things. Wizards cause havoc. Kind of flip the wizard and the rogue, and you have basically what I outlined for crossing the chasm.

The ritual system isn't perfect, but the fact that the DM has to spend a little time and effort to position them in his game is hardly a damming indictment.

A rule that requires you to be a good DM to use it is probably a rule that needs improving.

 

[Garthanos]

I think KM if you are adjusting skills in a serious way you have gone beyond something people can comment on easily.

This lines up with combat roles pretty nicely. Fighters keep monsters at bay. Clerics heal everyone. Rogues kill things. Wizards cause havoc. Kind of flip the wizard and the rogue, and you have basically what I outlined for crossing the chasm.

You have to have clear .... I cant do that with magic as well as he can do that some other
way... or your roles are wishy washy.
Insufficient care about rituals available, there power and there versatility... and ritual selection becomes whose role will I steal today... at the low low price of a couple of gold... I use the wall stone conjuration ritual ... and my fighters above are jobless... etc.

Or should I say outclassed just like always the wizard trumps "because its magic" whoever he wants and feels like.

Say your wizard has the magic barrier ritual so the bad guys get locked out will the fighters use athletics to get everyone over the barrier... but if you made that magical barrier so that it is "better" than the fighters at blocking bad guys... you broke your model.

I don't think I clearly understand your out of combat roles idea well enough.

Thinking of integrating rituals and skills... For me high level skill use becomes magical

Protracted skill use to improve your effective level.... then really high level applications allow special stunts to be performed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Say your wizard has the magic barrier ritual so the bad guys get locked out will the fighters use athletics to get everyone over the barrier... but if you made that magical barrier so that it is "better" than the fighters at blocking bad guys.

Well, that's the thing, the Wizard wouldn't have access to a "magical barrier" that would be better than the Fighter's inherent abilities. Maybe the Wizard still has Alarm, so he'll know when someone's coming, but the Fighter stands in the way, and attracts attention, and Intimidates critters into leaving them alone, and knows how to make it look like they were never there, and whatever else.

That's part of the roles. Wizzies don't step on Fighters' toes.

Any "wall stone" or "magic barrier" rituals might be performed not with Arcana, but with, I dunno, Athletics. Meaning the Fighter literally drags furniture into place at the doors, or turns up the dungeon's flagstones to prevent others from entering, or digs a berm in the cavern, or whatever. If the Wizard does anything to prevent people from entering, she does it more poorly than the Fighter would.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, that's the thing, the Wizard wouldn't have access to a "magical barrier" that would be better than the Fighter's inherent abilities. Maybe the Wizard still has Alarm, so he'll know when someone's coming, but the Fighter stands in the way, and attracts attention, and Intimidates critters into leaving them alone, and knows how to make it look like they were never there, and whatever else.

That's part of the roles. Wizzies don't step on Fighters' toes.

Any "wall stone" or "magic barrier" rituals might be performed not with Arcana, but with, I dunno, Athletics. Meaning the Fighter literally drags furniture into place at the doors, or turns up the dungeon's flagstones to prevent others from entering, or digs a berm in the cavern, or whatever. If the Wizard does anything to prevent people from entering, she does it more poorly than the Fighter would.

There might indeed be a "wizard" who is indeed the right archetype to make nice barriers... or one who is an illusionist that make it look like there is a dozen fighters blocking the way instead of one He just has to not be the same one able to do the other role things... It isn't magic/rituals that makes it do one of these roles.

Just as a warlock role is the same as a rogues in combat. (or very close most of the time, he also has nice stealth - he is more like a ranged rogue)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To my mind, a ritual that can be performed in melee isn't a ritual.*

Not that you shouldn't be able to do effects that affect combat with a ritual...just not DURING combat.**

* As stated elsewhere, 4Ed isn't my game. If there are no such rituals (even though that's what it sounds like people are describing), please ignore this comment with grace & understanding. Or address it with snarky insults- I can take it!!!

** Unless you're talking about a truly extended one, like a major battlefield skirmish, part of a siege, etc., of course.

 

[Garthanos]

To my mind, a ritual that can be performed in melee isn't a ritual.* .

Agreed and so does the 4e game design...

 

[AllisterH]

There _ARE_ rituals that can help in battle that you have to cast beforehand.

Status and Telepathic Bond for example regularly get used in the beginning of the morning by the players in my group...

 

[tyrlaan]

This is a problem for me, too. That's part of why I would meld the rituals and skills into one system for noncombat mechanics.

So then to be clear, and to make sure I understand where you're coming from, your issue is not with rituals per se, but the entire out-of-combat scene. Is that correct?

Roles are meant to protect a niche. If the wizard has their own niche out of combat, where magic wins, then it doesn't invalidate others' niches out of combat, anymore than the striker being able to deal damage invalidates the defender's ability to mark.

That's the idea: noncombat roles.

And it fixes one of the central problems of both skill challenges and rituals in that no one can contribute uniquely. Providing everyone access to everything causes many of the problem that many players have with both rituals and skill challenges. Not everyone in combat can deal damage like a striker, and this makes a striker feel special. Not everyone should be able to do everything out of combat, so that, when not in combat, you can still feel like you're making a unique contribution.

I'm not arguing with your idea. It sounds interesting and has a lot of potential. It needs more fleshing out of course, and has some kinks to work out, but I'm confident it's doable. I'm not convinced it will be for everyone however. I suspect balancing non-combat roles will require a heavy amount of gamist design to ensure balance, for example. Specifically when it comes to balancing the "solver" role since you could argue "scouting" is a problem to solve and so on.

But I'm going to shut up now about your roles ideas because it's getting off topic.

I will, however, state the following. The problem you have with the world of non-combat is one I personally do not share. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I prefer the more free-form nature of the non-combat mechanics such that I'm not so sure I'd want to tie down characters to specific non-combat roles. My guess is this is the crux of why you dislike rituals (and skills) in their RAW implementation and I am content with them.

Above, I outlined what might happen if the party comes up to a cliff, in a way that everyone can contribute. Wizard uses the ritual to float, Fighter keeps monsters at bay, Rogue scouts ahead to find out what's on the other side, Cleric can help mitigate anyone's failure (give the Rogue darkvision, keep the Fighter alert, enhance the Wizard's ritual check, and heal everyone if anything falls apart).

You can't cross the chasm with a skill challenge, just like you can't raise the dead with a skill challenge. Magic has a clear role to play in solving the problem. Everyone else contributes in their own way.

Why can't that all be represented as a skill challenge? That looks like perfect skill challenge fodder to me. But then so does raiding the dead Seriously though, if an adventuring party needed to resurrect someone and didn't have the ritual, why not make an adventure/skill challenge out of it? Or, if you find the ritual boring or whatever, why not make performing the ritual just part of a skill challenge? Endless possibilities here.

A rule that requires you to be a good DM to use it is probably a rule that needs improving.

Eh, what rule doesn't "require" you to be a good DM for it to work well? A bad DM can drive your skill choices into the ground, your creativity through the mud, and any chance of combat creativity through the ringer. Pigeonholing rituals as needing a good DM more than other rules just doesn't work for me as a valid argument against them.