Will all spells be attacks?

[Hellcow]

Just one question please, Hellcow. Are rituals restricted to Power Sources? Meaning for example, can a Wizard perform a Raise Dead-Ritual?

Hmm. They've been so close-mouthed about rituals, I don't feel I can reveal too much, and it's hard to say something brief without some people jumping to the wrong conclusion. I'll just say that it really is a separate magic system, with restrictions and variables of its own.

Yes, I understand the notion that you are driving. But that doesn't seem to really help the "Utility spells used to make traps or other clever tricks to deal with problems".

No question about it. You can't use create water to drown someone in his airtight tank if create water can't be used in combat. But there are other advantages you do gain under the new system; it's a tradeoff. And as for making traps with utility spells, you can certainly do that - provided you have time to set the trap out of combat. Just because you can't use a ritual DURING combat doesn't prevent you from devising clever ways that it can assist you in combat.

 

[Rechan]

No question about it. You can't use create water to drown someone in his airtight tank if create water can't be used in combat. But there are other advantages you do gain under the new system; it's a tradeoff. And as for making traps with utility spells, you can certainly do that - provided you have time to set the trap out of combat. Just because you can't use a ritual DURING combat doesn't prevent you from devising clever ways that it can assist you in combat.

True. It does reduce the flexibility.

Assuming a little time then helps - while no 'make a punji pit in under a minute' type situation, I hope you can really bring rituals to bare for defenses/etc in a situation like "Your town is going to be invaded in a day. What do you do."

 

[Hellcow]

Assuming a little time then helps - while no 'make a punji pit in under a minute' type situation, I hope you can really bring rituals to bare for defenses/etc in a situation like "Your town is going to be invaded in a day. What do you do."

With a day to work, you could do far more with rituals than you could with similar Vancian magic. Short-term? Less flexible, certainly. Long-term? More flexible, IMO. Which again is why I like their potential for Eberron - because it's easy to see how they could be incorporated into daily life.

 

[Felon]

I don't think those imply a setting at all, really. There's always been short/instant vs. long term, etc etc.

You're just not getting the concept of implied setting then, and you've certainly completely misssed the rather basic point I was making. You commented that D&D's implied setting was designed so that a given DM could unplug it from his campaign, apparently fixating on "implied setting" as being a bunch of fictitious people, places, and things. The way rules and mechanics address elements like mechanic imply certain things about the setting D&D is in, and that's the context of my reference to an implied setting. It's simple enough to change the name of the deities in a campaign. It's not so simple to unplug and rewire core mechanics such as rituals. It's a lot more work.

 

[Felon]

Haven't read every post in the thread, so let me go ahead and ask: do we have any confirmation that characters will have to learn rituals individually (a la the old wizard spellbook approach), categorically, or will any given caster simply be able to attempt any given ritual that he shares a power source with? Also, do we know if a ritual typically consumes anything other than time (i.e. money, or "slots" for rituals known/available).

 

[FadedC]

Haven't read every post in the thread, so let me go ahead and ask: do we have any confirmation that characters will have to learn rituals individually (a la the old wizard spellbook approach), categorically, or will any given caster simply be able to attempt any given ritual that he shares a power source with? Also, do we know if a ritual typically consumes anything other than time (i.e. money, or "slots" for rituals known/available).

There was a recent reference to rituals coming in books (which teach you the ritual) and scrolls (which give a 1 shot casting of it).

 

[Felon]

There was a recent reference to rituals coming in books (which teach you the ritual) and scrolls (which give a 1 shot casting of it).

I rather like that!

 

[Rechan]

You're just not getting the concept of implied setting then, and you've certainly completely misssed the rather basic point I was making.

No, there's a difference between "not getting" and "disagreeing".

I do not agree that mechanics = implied setting.

 

[Felon]

No, there's a difference between "not getting" and "disagreeing".

I do not agree that mechanics = implied setting.

Good lord. Arguementative much? Game mechanics implicitly affect certain aspects of a setting. If you want characters to have access to magical resource X, then the rules may dictate that you have to include element Y in your setting, and that can have effects that ripple outwards to affect other elements. Take Heroes of Battle for instance. They go into what a historical medieval armies resources are, then they explain how an army set in D&D would be dramatically different. That's an acknowledgment of the implied setting. It's a fairly elementary principle, and it's decidedly devoid of subjectivity. How one can claim to understand that principle and still dispute it without being a native to Bizarroworld is something I'm curious to hear.

 

[Mort]

No, there's a difference between "not getting" and "disagreeing".

I do not agree that mechanics = implied setting.

How do you reconcile the concern you have, that 4e won't allow you to play a certain type of character with the belief that mechanics do not affect or lead to an implied setting? The two statements seem contradictory.
In other words how can you say "this game won't allow me to play x character" and at the same time say "there are no implications on setting imposed by the system?"