Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5091627" data-attributes="member: 2067">But they didn't have to be. Again, if the information is important, the DM puts it in front of the PC's either automatically, or as a reward for accomplishing something (combat, skill challenge, whatever). If it's not important, then finding it out isn't going to matter unless the DM decides to make it important.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.That's not quite my original point. I do believe 4e revolves around encounters, that they (both combat and noncombat, but more combat) have a central place in the game, they are the point of conflict, by design if not in every DM's campaign. I think the amount of pages taken up by powers that deal damage alone probably provides evidence for that point, but there's more than that as supporting evidence. This is in contrast to some of the "old school" styles where the dungeon was the central point of conflict, by design if not in every DM's campaign. 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. Because if it's an optional rule, it might as well not act like it's a default rule.I think I've been more than clear that magic should not be a panacea. I've provided at LEAST a half-dozen examples of situations where the roles division means that magic can't handle every problem. I don't know why it is so hard for some people reading my posts to understand the concept, but if people are willing to talk about it, I'll be happy to try to explain it further. Against certain problems, yes, magic should be the first/primary solution.In other situations, the non-magical abilities of other classes should be the first/primary solution, and magic should be the less desirable thing to use. The thing present in the game now isn't usually even considered a solution unless the DM chooses to include them, and even then, is never really the first solution, due to the high gold and time costs. This is just like roles in combat. In certain cases, the striker is going to be the one you want (against solos or elites, for instance). In other cases, the controller is going to be more your style (against minions, or large groups of closely-knit enemies). In some combats, Defenders will triumph (say, against Brutes), while in others, Leaders will be champs (say, against Artillery). In most battles you're going to have a mix of monster types that let each one shine, and in most adventures you're going to have a mix of challenge types that let the wizard, cleric, thief, and fighter, each shine, in their own way.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. As far as the ritual system is concerned, it doesn't do this very well.Which is a problem for players who like to do cool things with magic. Given that this is a fantasy RPG, I'd think that would be at least "some of them." Magic should sometimes be the primary solution. The current rituals system doesn't make that feasible unless the DM decides to play it up.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.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?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.</blockquote>

Verification