PDA

View Full Version : Ritual analysis (4e)



Kurald Galain
2008-11-25, 01:02 PM
In a recent thread, it was pointed out again that nearly all of the rituals printed so far are, in practice, nigh useless. In essence, rituals are the new monks: they look very nice on paper, but when used in play they don't work the way you'd think they would.

It seems that most rituals suffer from one or more (and in several cases, all) of the following problems:
(A) too long a casting time
(B) too expensive
(C) too weak or meaningless an effect
There are a handful of exceptions; for instance, Tenser's Floating Disk is useful at times, and Raise Dead can be a necessity.

So anyway, what I'd like to have some opinions on, is this:
(1) Supposing all rituals took one standard action to cast. Would that make them useful or overpowered? Or would problems B and C still make most of them impractical?
(2) Supposing all rituals required no reagents to cast (but still cost money to learn, as normal, and excepting item-creation rituals), would that make them useful or overpowered? Or would problems A and C still make most of them impractical?

Morty
2008-11-25, 01:06 PM
If all rituals took standard action to cast, some of them might become useful, other would get overpowered- such as Raise Dead. As for the reagents, I'm not sure. Again, some rituals would be fine as freebies, others would be overpowered without cost, like teleportation.
In general, the whole ritual section seems strangely "tacked on" to me. It's as if they were added to the game when it was already almost finished and they look odd in comparision to the rest. It's probably just me.

tyfon
2008-11-25, 01:23 PM
- Rituals are there because D&D needs Raise Dead
- Rituals are there because many players would complain "What happened to gentle repose". Get rituals, You fools - WotC says
- Rituals are there to patch system. If You need effect and there is no power for that - it is ritual.
- Rituals are there because powers are supposed to be all about same usefull, and are mostly combat oriented. Player that would have to take "Commune" would complain :"They et kickass attacks and I have to take that stuff?". It's all about balance.
...


- Rituals seem really to be there just for sake rewriting old spells that players remember. Here, end of book, ritual section whatever...

- Casting rituals for just money is incredibly anticlimatic idea.

Inyssius Tor
2008-11-25, 01:24 PM
Now, that would be an interesting idea. Ignoring the obvious and easily-houseruled "it makes death easier to recover from than unconsciousness" thing (and I restrict Raise Dead anyway):

From Ritually Speaking, Banish Vermin would permanently, easily, and instantly make parties above level 1 immune to [Swarm] enemies; level 2 casters get Create Magic Bonfire--deals fire damage as normal, takes up one square; and everyone above level 4 can just delay any afflictions they have indefinitely.

From the Player's Handbook, everyone can consult either Hand of Fate or Mystic Sages all the time. After level 12, casters can walk through walls. After level 6, everyone can discern lies. Other than that, it doesn't really seem too bad.

I think more work than just those two houserules would be needed.

Starsinger
2008-11-25, 01:27 PM
Now, that would be an interesting idea. Ignoring the obvious and easily-houseruled "it makes death easier to recover from than unconsciousness" thing (and I restrict Raise Dead anyway):

From Ritually Speaking, Banish Vermin would permanently, easily, and instantly make parties above level 1 immune to [Swarm] enemies; level 2 casters get Create Magic Bonfire--deals fire damage as normal, takes up one square; and everyone above level 4 can just delay any afflictions they have indefinitely.

From the Player's Handbook, everyone can consult either Hand of Fate or Mystic Sages all the time. After level 12, casters can walk through walls. After level 6, everyone can discern lies. Other than that, it doesn't really seem too bad.

I think more work than just those two houserules would be needed.

So... 3rd edition? :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 01:28 PM
OK, a summary of what I've said in the other thread:

(1) 10 minutes is not that long a time, particularly since few of these rituals are generally applicable in combat, and those that are have long durations.
All Illusions have a 24 hour duration, Water Breathing lasts for at least an hour, as does Water Walk.

Hand of Fate is not something you'd cast during combat, but can be very helpful for checking your plan before an assault. Mending is good for general repair, and for cleaning up after a breaking & entering. Silence allows you to conduct negotiations in perfect secrecy.

Most rituals fall into one or the other category. Outside of combat, 10 minutes is an inconvenience at worst. Inside of combat, it could be fatal, but pretty much any "combat ritual" has a long enough duration that you cast it beforehand. Planning is necessary to use rituals well, but not Batman-level planning.

(2) The gold cost can be burdensome, but it can be solved by the DM including extra treasure in the form of reagents.
A reasonable objection is that adventurers are notoriously stingy with their treasure, and are unlikely to expend it for the "weak" ritual effects. However, if the DM starts including jars of Residuum or other reagents among the treasure the PCs find, this problem should be largely resolved. Yes, the PCs might spend it all on making magic items instead, but if that happens you just turn off the spigot. Resale worries can be dealt with by not including Magic Marts in your towns.

Yakk
2008-11-25, 01:37 PM
The gold costs of rituals are high at the level you get them. At that level, they are flashy effects.

By 5 levels later, they are getting significantly cheaper.

By 15 levels later, they are petty cash.

Saph
2008-11-25, 01:39 PM
(1) 10 minutes is not that long a time, particularly since few of these rituals are generally applicable in combat, and those that are have long durations.

It might not be a huge length of time, but it's an inconvenience, and it means the other 4-5 players at the table have to sit around waiting for you to finish. And if any monsters are lurking, 10 minutes is a huge length of time, and a potentially deadly one.

90% of the time it's just annoying, and 10% of the time it's deadly - and having to pay for the privilege is just the icing on the cake. As I said, I honestly think that the 4e designers were saying "We really hate all these utility spells that players used effectively in 3.5. We want you to be able to bring back the dead and a few more things, so we'll make that so cheap you can't not take it, but as for everything else, we're going to try and make them as impractical as we can to encourage you not to use them."

Basically, they're just badly designed. I think some combination of the time-reduce and gold-reduce ideas would be good - maybe cut the casting time of most of them to 1 minute, and reduce the cost to a fraction of what it is now. (Obviously this wouldn't apply to the already-ridiculously-good ones like Raise Dead.)

- Saph

overduegalaxy
2008-11-25, 01:41 PM
One of my 4e DMs switched the "minutes" to "rounds" for casting times. Rituals did get used more often than my other 4e game, but that also probably had to do with having a wizard and two clerics in that party.

Eorran
2008-11-25, 01:43 PM
I think of Rituals the same way I think of Skill Challenges: good concept, shaky implementation.

Rituals are a great way to include magic into a campaign without it having to appear on a spell list somewhere. Ritual magic is extremely flexible by nature, and PCs won't automatically expect to be able to duplicate the effects of a ritual. It's great for plot-related events.

The actual rituals in the PHB have varying levels of goodness, and may require modification to be effective. I'm against standard-action casting for most, but perhaps 1 minute casting times for some of the simpler ones. That means the ritual could be used in a combat situation, but it's not recommended. Ritual costs may need to be adjusted as well.

On the other hand, some rituals can supply a creative player with a lot of options. I have a player whose wizard is building himself a hovertank out of tenser's floating disk and a customized metal top. It's not game-breaking yet, and he's having a lot of fun with the idea of riding into battle on his armored disk, with little slots for vision and pointing his wand at enemies.

tyfon
2008-11-25, 01:44 PM
Why do We need to put all rituals on the same shelf? Some magic requires full moon, 10 acolytes and full night of chanting, others can be peformed just by staring at the candle and cutting rune on your palm.

We are not obligated to fixed duration !

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 01:47 PM
It might not be a huge length of time, but it's an inconvenience, and it means the other 4-5 players at the table have to sit around waiting for you to finish. And if any monsters are lurking, 10 minutes is a huge length of time, and a potentially deadly one.

Wait, the player doesn't need to chant 10 minutes. If nothing else is going to happen, the exchange should go like this:
Caster: "I cast Water Breathing on the party"
DM: "OK, that takes 10 minutes. Anyone want to do anything?"
Everyone: "No"
DM: "Fine. 10 minutes pass, and everyone has Water Breathing for the next 4 hours."

This is game time. It takes very little RL time, so none of the players are going to get bored in the next 30 seconds (I hope!).

And if something does happen:
DM: "Fine. 5 minutes into the ritual, 10 scrags burst out of the water, surprising everyone." *much rolling* "Caster, it's your turn. Want to finish the Ritual?"
Caster: "Hell no! I cast Magic Missile!"

Since an interrupted ritual costs no ritual components (PHB 299), there is very little lost.

Saph
2008-11-25, 01:52 PM
Wait, the player doesn't need to chant 10 minutes.

It's roleplaying. In our groups, if one player says he starts doing something that'll take 10 minutes, there'll be at least one player whose character is going to wander off to do something else in the meantime. And there's no way the characters are going to want to stop for ten minutes just so the wizard can get his clothes clean.

In 4e, one player casts Water Breathing, and everyone has to stand around for 10 minutes while he finishes. In 3.5, one player casts Water Breathing, and it's over in six seconds. The 3.5 way is better.

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 01:57 PM
It's roleplaying. In our groups, if one player says he starts doing something that'll take 10 minutes, there'll be at least one player whose character is going to wander off to do something else in the meantime. And there's no way the characters are going to want to stop for ten minutes just so the wizard can get his clothes clean.

In 4e, one player casts Water Breathing, and everyone has to stand around for 10 minutes while he finishes. In 3.5, one player casts Water Breathing, and it's over in six seconds. The 3.5 way is better.

- Saph


:confused:

Your characters can't sit in one place for 10 minutes? Really?

Well, I'll have to say that your experience is different from mine then. Even when roleplaying, I've found only the most hyperactive of adventurers are unable to wait 10 minutes for a reward.

Hell, how do they handle night watches? Or when the Rogue needs to pick a lock, or disarm a trap?

Yukitsu
2008-11-25, 02:01 PM
3.5ers spend a standard action to use rope trick then fall asleep without a watch. In 4E, they get the Eladrin to do it.

3.5ers either knock down the door, or the wizard or rogue uses a wand of knock. 4E, they have to pick it, if they want to be quick about it. 3.5ers send in expendable summoned mooks to "disable" traps, while in 4E, you usually need to actually disarm them. Unless you have a full party of eladrin/warlocks.

Totally Guy
2008-11-25, 02:04 PM
Rituals are also good for the DM. The villain can have a lot of interesting ways to use rituals.

So far in my game the villians have used...

Hand of Fate to trick the party into doing his dirtywork for him.
Detect Object to locate an orb the mayor carried.
Wizard's sight to frame the mayor.
Linked Portal... far too many times.
Mending to seal a vault with the adventurers inside. This failed.
Eye of warding was used by an antagonist that was actually good.
Landslide was used off-camera by a villain to seal a valley.
Arcane lock was used as a warning beacon to the villain's door.
Magic mouth was used to taunt the adventurers.
Phantom steed was used to escape.
Animal messenger has been used off-camera to tell the sahuagins to mobilise.
Sending was used by a villain to propose a sincere truce.

If I keep this up I think I'll have my players wanting to use them at higher levels.

KKL
2008-11-25, 02:05 PM
In 3.5, one player casts Water Breathing, and it's over in six seconds. The 3.5 way is better.

- Saph

Of course, the 3.5 way lead to WIzards being able to do everything as a standard action.

I much prefer the 4e way, even id the rituals take a long ass time. Because the Wizard then didn't have the solution to everything at the tip of their fingers.

Saph
2008-11-25, 02:12 PM
Handle it? :P

But seriously, it's not that you can't use 4e Rituals. You can. It's just that it's bad design. It doesn't add anything to the game that if I play 4e I have to spend 100x as long to cast Water Breathing and pay a load of money as well.

It's not that 4e rituals are unusable - it's that they could be much, much better. That's the point.

- Saph

KKL
2008-11-25, 02:14 PM
Handle it? :P

But seriously, it's not that you can't use 4e Rituals. You can. It's just that it's bad design. It doesn't add anything to the game that if I play 4e I have to spend 100x as long to cast Water Breathing and pay a load of money as well.

It's not that 4e rituals are unusable - it's that they could be much, much better. That's the point.

- Saph

How is it bad design to not have the Wizard be able to take care of everything as a standard action and virtually cost-free? It sounds to me like you just want the 4e wizards to be as equally broken as the 3.5e wizard in terms of disturbing versitility.

Morty
2008-11-25, 02:20 PM
How is it bad design to not have the Wizard be able to take care of everything as a standard action and virtually cost-free? It sounds to me like you just want the 4e wizards to be as equally broken as the 3.5e wizard in terms of disturbing versitility.

Except in 3ed wizard didn't have everything by a standard action until very high levels due to limitation in spell slots. Unless he used scrolls and wands which, guess what, isn't costless.

Saph
2008-11-25, 02:21 PM
How is it bad design to not have the Wizard be able to take care of everything as a standard action and virtually cost-free?

Player options that are next to useless are bad design. The majority of the rituals in the Rituals chapter of the PHB are next to useless. Hence, bad design.

I think a major reason for it is overreaction along the lines that you're demonstrating. Since many spells in 3.5 were so effective, they went to the opposite extreme in 4e and made them useless in all but situations so specific that they'll virtually never come up.

- Saph

Blackfang108
2008-11-25, 02:25 PM
I have a player whose wizard is building himself a hovertank out of tenser's floating disk and a customized metal top. It's not game-breaking yet, and he's having a lot of fun with the idea of riding into battle on his armored disk, with little slots for vision and pointing his wand at enemies.

I am so doing this if I ever play a wizard.

KKL
2008-11-25, 02:27 PM
Player options that are next to useless are bad design. The majority of the rituals in the Rituals chapter of the PHB are next to useless. Hence, bad design.

I think a major reason for it is overreaction along the lines that you're demonstrating. Since many spells in 3.5 were so effective, they went to the opposite extreme in 4e and made them useless in all but situations so specific that they'll virtually never come up.

- Saph

They take a long time, yes. They're useless? Not at all. You can't just load up on utility spells and go firing them off willy nilly like some sort of idiot. Rituals in 4e need foresight, as opposed to a trigger finger and the appropriate scroll/wand/spell on hand.

Yakk
2008-11-25, 02:28 PM
Handle it? :P

But seriously, it's not that you can't use 4e Rituals. You can. It's just that it's bad design. It doesn't add anything to the game that if I play 4e I have to spend 100x as long to cast Water Breathing and pay a load of money as well.

It does. Because being able to breathe water takes preparation, drowning is a threat that cannot be nullified in a single round with a single action.

On the other hand, if there is a plot that involves staying under water for an extended period of time, the ritual allows for it to work. It requires that the party arrange for the time to cast the ritual -- which means that they need a safe spot for a period of time after they make the decision.

The cost is high when you get it initially -- it is new and shiny -- but by the next tier, it is dirt cheap.

And yes, players can choose to run off and do things while someone else works on a ritual or other magic. It isn't very polite to the the other players at the table.

TwystidMynd
2008-11-25, 02:29 PM
:confused:


In our groups, if one player says he starts doing something that'll take 10 minutes, there'll be at least one player whose character is going to wander off to do something else in the meantime.

Your characters can't sit in one place for 10 minutes? Really?



Characters? I have trouble getting my players to sit in one place for 10 minutes!
I mean, sure we all go to class regularly and sit there for an hour...
And sure, we meet weekly and sit together for hours on end talking about slayind dragons...
And sure, we take hour-long breaks during the week to sit around the table and talk to each other while we eat...
And sure...

Wait a second.

Most of my life is composed of sitting around with my friends for long periods of time! Come to think of it, that's probably what the PCs do for those long stretches of time where we don't explicitly state what they're doing. They're probably snacking, talking, reading, bio-ing, or any variety of mundane non-heroic things that normal people do. Not every character has wanderlust or ADD... and those that do probably get killed off pretty quickly, when they interrupt the DM's Villian's Final Awesome Speech and get squished by rocks.

FoE
2008-11-25, 02:30 PM
It might not be a huge length of time, but it's an inconvenience, and it means the other 4-5 players at the table have to sit around waiting for you to finish.

What in the name of all the gods are you talking about? Saph, you don't wait for rituals to finish in real-time, do you?

I agree with Glug. Rituals are great for the DM, not just the players. The only Ritual I think should be shortened is Comprehend Languages, since the duration of the ritual makes it hard to prepare ahead of time for meeting with lizard men, or whatever you need it for.

Artanis
2008-11-25, 02:37 PM
I'm looking at the rituals in the PHB and FRPG, and there's nothing that seems like it can only ever be useful in combat ever. Most only seem particularly useful out-of-combat. Taking a little bit of time to cast when you have a lot of time to spare doesn't exactly seem crippling to me.

As for characters wandering off in ten minutes, that only matters if the character gets into trouble. And if somebody can't avoid getting into trouble for the amount of time it takes to make and eat a PB&J sandwich, then he won't survive very long in a dungeon:

"We should check this room for traps. Ten minutes should be enough time."
"Screw that, I get bored five minutes in and pull the big lever that's labeled 'Kill Everybody In The Room'."
"..."

Saph
2008-11-25, 02:42 PM
It does. Because being able to breathe water takes preparation, drowning is a threat that cannot be nullified in a single round with a single action.

If I've taken the time to prepare a Water Breathing spell one way or another, why shouldn't I be able to use it in a single round? The whole "Your character isn't allowed to be this competent" theme that I see coming up in these discussions irks me a bit.

Yes, I can live with the clunky 4e rituals, and yes, I can figure out ways to make them sort-of-effective-but-not-really (because with the same amount of effort you can usually do the job better another way). But what's the point?

- Saph

DiscipleofBob
2008-11-25, 02:44 PM
I personally like the idea of casters using rituals ahead of time, but storing them in scrolls or the like. So they use the 10 minute casting time and regeants, but can use their rituals as needed. The only thing needed to add is some sort of expiration period on the ritual "scrolls" or some element so they don't accumulate into ridiculousness.


Wait, the player doesn't need to chant 10 minutes. If nothing else is going to happen, the exchange should go like this:
Caster: "I cast Water Breathing on the party"
DM: "OK, that takes 10 minutes. Anyone want to do anything?"
Everyone: "No"
DM: "Fine. 10 minutes pass, and everyone has Water Breathing for the next 4 hours."

This is game time. It takes very little RL time, so none of the players are going to get bored in the next 30 seconds (I hope!).

And if something does happen:
DM: "Fine. 5 minutes into the ritual, 10 scrags burst out of the water, surprising everyone." *much rolling* "Caster, it's your turn. Want to finish the Ritual?"
Caster: "Hell no! I cast Magic Missile!"

Since an interrupted ritual costs no ritual components (PHB 299), there is very little lost.

Okay, so what happens if the reason you need Water Breathing is the giant cave-dwelling sea monster the party was hunting is getting away? What if the party is running away from some monsters or angry mobs and needs to take cover in the water? What if the BBEG puts cement shoes on the princess and throws her in the water while sending his Scrag minions after the party? What if the sahuagin BBEG is just firing up his doomsday device to sumberge the entire continent, the countdown of which is measured in rounds not minutes?

Or, even more likely, it'll go something like this:
Caster: "I cast Water Breathing on the party."
DM: "Okay, that takes 10 minutes, anyone want to do anything?"
Rogue: "How far is it to the other side?"
DM: "About 50 yards."
Rogue: "I look into the river. Do I see or think there might be anything waiting for us there?"
DM: "It seems pretty calm and serene."
Rogue: "Okay, guys, I'm going to go scout ahead. I go swim across."
Caster: "Huh?"
Fighter: "I better be not too far behind him, in case he does run into anything. I swim across as well."
DM: "What about your heavy armor?"
Fighter: "I store it in my Bag of Holding or I just take my time swimming. It's an empty river, right?"
Cleric: "I better go with them. There might be an ambush or something on the other side. They might need healing. Yell if you need some help, okay?"
(Everyone makes it to the other side)
Caster: "Er... how much longer?"
DM: "9 minutes."

Or, in the other scenario.
DM: "You see Scrags making their way toward the shore."
Caster: "Crap, I stop casting and cast Magic Missile."
(X rounds of combat later...)
Caster: "Okay, now that it's all clear I cast Water Breathing."
DM: "Okay, that takes 10 minutes, anyone want to do anything?"
Rogue: "How far is it to the other side?"
DM: "About 50 yards."
(repeat)


A lot of the justification for Rituals is that it somehow keeps the wizard from solving everything, but what about those who've never had that problem in 3.5? I've played with wizards and while their damage output was certainly greater, and my group's never really felt somehow irrelevant just because the caster has Dancing Lights ready to navigate through the cave.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 02:45 PM
I agree with Glug. Rituals are great for the DM, not just the players. The only Ritual I think should be shortened is Comprehend Languages, since the duration of the ritual makes it hard to prepare ahead of time for meeting with lizard men, or whatever you need it for.

See, I object to this, because in the game I'm playing, we use 'em all the time. Linked Portal is obvious, but here are some other uses:

- Water Breathing to investigate the bottom of a ship, looking for the "missing gold"

- Hand of Fate to select the most useful book out of a Library

- Phantom Steed to prepare for a quick get-away

- Eyes of Alarm to guard the camp for the night when out in highly dangerous country.

- Speak With Dead to find out who caused the slaughter of a temple.

I've found these very useful as a player. All you have to do is get your head out of the 3E mindset of "magic = insta-solution" and put a little more planning into your adventures. Honest, it works well.

EDIT:

Okay, so what happens if the reason you need Water Breathing is the giant cave-dwelling sea monster the party was hunting is getting away? What if the party is running away from some monsters or angry mobs and needs to take cover in the water? What if the BBEG puts cement shoes on the princess and throws her in the water while sending his Scrag minions after the party? What if the sahuagin BBEG is just firing up his doomsday device to sumberge the entire continent, the countdown of which is measured in rounds not minutes?

Then I guess you should find a non-magical solution, and smack yourself for not casting Water Breathing before hunting the sea monster, or fighting a Sahuagin. You can hold your breath, you know (Endurance). :smalltongue:

Magic should not be the default solution to all your problems. Not only is it lazy, but it means that all your non-magic types have nothing to do when faced with a problem. Turns out, Fighters are great at swimming and holding their breath for a long time :smallbiggrin:

DiscipleofBob
2008-11-25, 02:48 PM
I'm looking at the rituals in the PHB and FRPG, and there's nothing that seems like it can only ever be useful in combat ever. Most only seem particularly useful out-of-combat. Taking a little bit of time to cast when you have a lot of time to spare doesn't exactly seem crippling to me.

As for characters wandering off in ten minutes, that only matters if the character gets into trouble. And if somebody can't avoid getting into trouble for the amount of time it takes to make and eat a PB&J sandwich, then he won't survive very long in a dungeon:

"We should check this room for traps. Ten minutes should be enough time."
"Screw that, I get bored five minutes in and pull the big lever that's labeled 'Kill Everybody In The Room'."
"..."

Never mind the fact that the Rogue or the character with the highest Perception can go into the room, find all the traps, and disable them in less than half the time it would take for the wizard to finish his ritual.

Human Paragon 3
2008-11-25, 02:52 PM
What if rituals took, say, 3 full rounds to cast? That way a raise-dead mid combat could be exciting: will the ritual work or will they disrupt it? Can we survive the three rounds without our wizard? etc.

Alternately, rituals could have their casting time shortened to 3 full rounds at an additional risk or increased spellcraft DC. Would be itneresting to say the least.

KKL
2008-11-25, 02:52 PM
Okay, so what happens if the reason you need Water Breathing is the giant cave-dwelling sea monster the party was hunting is getting away?
Frigging chase after it? Swim after it? Hold your breath?


What if the party is running away from some monsters or angry mobs and needs to take cover in the water?

Dive in, hold breath, swim to safety.


What if the BBEG puts cement shoes on the princess and throws her in the water while sending his Scrag minions after the party?

Get someone to swim after her while everyone else kinda fights them? Preferably someone with high STR?


What if the sahuagin BBEG is just firing up his doomsday device to sumberge the entire continent, the countdown of which is measured in rounds not minutes?

If he's that close, just smash the machine. Or smash him. Or smash both.

Saph
2008-11-25, 02:52 PM
Never mind the fact that the Rogue or the character with the highest Perception can go into the room, find all the traps, and disable them in less than half the time it would take for the wizard to finish his ritual.

Exactly.

Oracle, the problem with your examples is that in most cases, with the same amount of time, forethought, and money it takes to solve a problem with a ritual, you could solve the same problem without the ritual. There's the odd one like Water Breathing which can't be duplicated without magic, but for most, the rituals just aren't worth the trouble.

- Saph

Eorran
2008-11-25, 03:02 PM
I really think the point of rituals is that they are used when the party has the time available. In situations that are rushed, they'll have to come up with another solution - that doesn't mean the ritual is a bad design.
To use the water breathing example, if the party has the time, they'll probably use it. If there's a reason they are rushed, they'll have to do something different - swimming, holding your breath, find a log or a boat, whatever. Water breathing was intended not to be available if you suddenly fell into a pool - you'd have to rely on your skills, a team member's skills, or some clever thinking to get out of it.
When a spell is available that eliminates the need for an entire set of skills, it should have a significant drawback. Otherwise, you either have the spell ready (no challenge), or you don't (you're hosed).

DiscipleofBob
2008-11-25, 03:06 PM
See, to me it seems that the 10-minute casting time for rituals was added for one reason and one reason only: to make said spells and effects unavailable in combat. Never mind the practical use of, oh, Silence in combat, WotC just doesn't like us using there CLEARLY out-of-combat effects in combat.

TwystidMynd
2008-11-25, 03:18 PM
Exactly.

Oracle, the problem with your examples is that in most cases, with the same amount of time, forethought, and money it takes to solve a problem with a ritual, you could solve the same problem without the ritual. There's the odd one like Water Breathing which can't be duplicated without magic, but for most, the rituals just aren't worth the trouble.

- Saph

That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? If you're given an obstacle, and you have enough time, forethought, and money, and you're given the choice between doing it Magically and Non-magically... if the Magical solution is always better than the non-magical solution, then that makes non-magical characters useless. You get a world where the only reason why something isn't magic is because DM Fiat says "Uh, the world isn't very interesting if everyone's a mage, so I'm going to say that there's a Mine here. Yes, I KNOW that a mage could get the materials out of the mine quicker, faster, and easier than the effort it would take for 40 miners to work here, but then my story sucks!"
And that applies to every mundane feature in the world... it becomes a world so filled with magic that it's difficult to identify with, and "low-magic" worlds become unworkable within the system (a complaint I've heard leveled at 4e). Taken to the logical economic conclusion, every 3.x universe would be completely filled with Wizards, Artificers, Clerics, etc, because they can do everything a non-caster can do, but better, quicker, and cheaper.

But if I'm playing D&D, I want to play in a world where a Fighter or Rogue have an impact on the party; that's what we signed up for when we decided to play D&D instead of MageWorld.

Rituals help to tone down casters. A Ritual Caster can accomplish a wide variety of things and, sometimes, things that no one nearby (within a 5-minute radius) can accomplish. For those situations, Rituals are a great thing. For the rest of the time, it's nice to know that it's better to have the Rogue pick the lock rather than let the Wizard do it, because that makes for a world where miners can exist in a consistent world, and it makes Princesses with Cement Blocks thrown into the sea a scary thought, and it makes Doomsday Machines with 5 minutes left on the timer horrifying.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-11-25, 03:24 PM
That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? If you're given an obstacle, and you have enough time, forethought, and money, and you're given the choice between doing it Magically and Non-magically... if the Magical solution is always better than the non-magical solution, then that makes non-magical characters useless. You get a world where the only reason why something isn't magic is because DM Fiat says "Uh, the world isn't very interesting if everyone's a mage, so I'm going to say that there's a Mine here. Yes, I KNOW that a mage could get the materials out of the mine quicker, faster, and easier than the effort it would take for 40 miners to work here, but then my story sucks!"
And that applies to every mundane feature in the world... it becomes a world so filled with magic that it's difficult to identify with, and "low-magic" worlds become unworkable within the system (a complaint I've heard leveled at 4e). Taken to the logical economic conclusion, every 3.x universe would be completely filled with Wizards, Artificers, Clerics, etc, because they can do everything a non-caster can do, but better, quicker, and cheaper.

But if I'm playing D&D, I want to play in a world where a Fighter or Rogue have an impact on the party; that's what we signed up for when we decided to play D&D instead of MageWorld.

Rituals help to tone down casters. A Ritual Caster can accomplish a wide variety of things and, sometimes, things that no one nearby (within a 5-minute radius) can accomplish. For those situations, Rituals are a great thing. For the rest of the time, it's nice to know that it's better to have the Rogue pick the lock rather than let the Wizard do it, because that makes for a world where miners can exist in a consistent world, and it makes Princesses with Cement Blocks thrown into the sea a scary thought, and it makes Doomsday Machines with 5 minutes left on the timer horrifying.

Well said.

Yukitsu
2008-11-25, 03:28 PM
That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? If you're given an obstacle, and you have enough time, forethought, and money, and you're given the choice between doing it Magically and Non-magically... if the Magical solution is always better than the non-magical solution, then that makes non-magical characters useless. You get a world where the only reason why something isn't magic is because DM Fiat says "Uh, the world isn't very interesting if everyone's a mage, so I'm going to say that there's a Mine here. Yes, I KNOW that a mage could get the materials out of the mine quicker, faster, and easier than the effort it would take for 40 miners to work here, but then my story sucks!"

For world building, most people are level 1 (mining spells don't happen until you get sculpt stone, or rock to mud or something.) and most people have the mental stats of 10 or 11. Not really great caster base. Most people in a given setting won't choose to become a wizard because it's expensive (5gp bag, X gp book.) and because they could make faster, easier money picking up a pick axe and selling metal to smiths.

Saph
2008-11-25, 03:32 PM
That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? If you're given an obstacle, and you have enough time, forethought, and money, and you're given the choice between doing it Magically and Non-magically... if the Magical solution is always better than the non-magical solution, then that makes non-magical characters useless.

It doesn't really work that way, though. I DM a 3.5 Red Hand of Doom game, and while the casters can get a lot done, they usually have better things to spend their resources on than duplicating stuff that you don't need magic for.

You can keep a balance betwen non-magical and magical. You don't need to nerf utility magic totally into the ground to keep non-magical ways of doing things useful. With most 4e rituals, their GP cost is already high enough to make them unavailable to 99% of the population anyway.

- Saph

Skjaldbakka
2008-11-25, 03:42 PM
Wow. Rituals are one of the few things I actually like about 4e. I'm actually playing a ranger with warlock pact and ritual casting, so I can mess around with it.

Aside from PCs with ADOS (attention deficit oooh shiny), I don't see how a 10 minute ritual casting time is a bad thing. It encourages planning. Maybe its just my Mage the Awakening background, but I appreciate magic that involves carefully planning.

It does annoy me that I have to spend a feat to get arcana as a skill.

Blackfang108
2008-11-25, 03:45 PM
It does annoy me that I have to spend a feat to get arcana as a skill.

to be fair, you could have chosen Arcana as your Warlock Cross class skill.

it IS on the list.

EDIT: ADOS describes most of the players I know.

and only three characters ever, including 2 of mine.

Probably 30+ characters, if not more. (most campaigns die quickly.)

Skjaldbakka
2008-11-25, 03:46 PM
Warlock Pact is the feat that I am taking to get Arcana as a trained skill on my ranger.

It annoys me that I had to take that feat.

FoE
2008-11-25, 03:49 PM
See, I object to this, because in the game I'm playing, we use 'em all the time.

Well, in fairness, I think they're useful for players too. Except for the inability to cast them in combat, I don't see why people complain about lengthy casting times when the game doesn't proceed in real time anyway. It's like players complaining about having to walk into Mordor when the trip is as as long as it takes for the DM to say "And you walk into Mordor," provided there are no encounters along the way.

((Note that my example is completely unrealistic. One does not simply walk into Mordor. :smalltongue:))

I just wanted to point out that, when people whine about Rituals, they only seem to whine about how it impacts the player, not the DM. Rituals are great from the DM's perspective. NPCs aren't prohibited from using them, and residuum makes for a great treasure item. Entire quests could be spun from having to find incredibly rare rituals.


With most 4e rituals, their GP cost is already high enough to make them unavailable to 99% of the population anyway.

Ninety-nine per cent of the population aren't adventurers. :smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 04:52 PM
You can keep a balance betwen non-magical and magical. You don't need to nerf utility magic totally into the ground to keep non-magical ways of doing things useful. With most 4e rituals, their GP cost is already high enough to make them unavailable to 99% of the population anyway.

So, I second TwystidMynd. That is it, exactly.

But on this point, I'd like to note that we're not talking about avoiding a Tippyverse, we're just talking about adventurers, and party roles. As has been said, by making magic the last resort, rather than the first resort, you encourage creative problem solving and give the non-magical PCs something to do. In your particularly example, for instance, it's not that the wizard couldn't solve all the problems, but rather that he wouldn't bother to solve them, because he had better things to do with his spell slots. In 4E, players start with a mundane approach to problems (even hard ones) which provides more conflict & challenge than taking a standard action to fix things.

Clearly, though, this is a difference in playing philosophies. You seem to prefer "easy magic" where powerful effects cost little time and resources to accomplish. I like the "hard magic" of 4E because everyone gets used to working things out by hand, and magic becomes a special option, rather than the default.

Rockphed
2008-11-25, 05:05 PM
I just wanted to point out that, when people whine about Rituals, they only seem to whine about how it impacts the player, not the DM. Rituals are great from the DM's perspective. NPCs aren't prohibited from using them, and residuum makes for a great treasure item. Entire quests could be spun from having to find incredibly rare rituals.

Isn't finding a cure for a disease the entire point of one of the Final Fantasy games?




Ninety-nine per cent of the population aren't adventurers. :smallwink:

And most of the Non-adventurers who do perform rituals make the components themselves. For instance, priests prepare sacred incense and Druids gather rare Herbs under the light of the appropriate moon with a golden sickle in one hand and a sprig of holly or mistletoe in the other. Residuum is the product of the Disenchant Magic Item ritual, and I don't remember what Arcane spells use, though it is probably things like Eye-of-newt or Hens-teeth or such stuff.

hamishspence
2008-11-25, 05:13 PM
"fillet of a fenny snake, in the cauldron boil and bake...."

FoE
2008-11-25, 05:32 PM
Residuum can be subsituted for components (which cost money and, at the DM's discretion, can be hard to find) for casting Rituals.

Saph
2008-11-25, 05:37 PM
As has been said, by making magic the last resort, rather than the first resort, you encourage creative problem solving and give the non-magical PCs something to do. In your particularly example, for instance, it's not that the wizard couldn't solve all the problems, but rather that he wouldn't bother to solve them, because he had better things to do with his spell slots.

Your claim that 4e rituals encourage creative problem-solving isn't remotely borne out by my experience, I'm afraid. In the Keep on the Shadowfell games I've played, the basic assumption of every group was that the problems would be solved by killing everything that moved, on the grounds that that would be the simplest and most effective way to accomplish the mission. (It turned out to be a correct assumption.) By contrast, in my 3.5 game players come up with all sorts of weird and creative plans, often turning around exactly the abilities removed in 4e.


In 4E, players start with a mundane approach to problems (even hard ones) which provides more conflict & challenge than taking a standard action to fix things.

Eh? Why on earth should using non-magical means create more conflict and challenge? It doesn't in my experience - but if it did, then by your logic, why have rituals at all? If mundane > magic, why not remove magic altogether?

- Saph

Eorran
2008-11-25, 05:57 PM
Your claim that 4e rituals encourage creative problem-solving isn't remotely borne out by my experience, I'm afraid. In the Keep on the Shadowfell games I've played, the basic assumption of every group was that the problems would be solved by killing everything that moved, on the grounds that that would be the simplest and most effective way to accomplish the mission. (It turned out to be a correct assumption.) By contrast, in my 3.5 game players come up with all sorts of weird and creative plans, often turning around exactly the abilities removed in 4e.
...
Eh? Why on earth should using non-magical means create more conflict and challenge? It doesn't in my experience - but if it did, then by your logic, why have rituals at all? If mundane > magic, why not remove magic altogether?

- Saph

My experience with the modules, and the experiences I have heard, lead me to believe that Keep on the Shadowfell sucks for demonstrating the capability of 4e as a game. Your experience is similar to most people's, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think the desire with Rituals is to make a magic that is capable of doing things non-magic can't do, and to make it possible to accomplish goals when no other way would suffice. Mundane should be better than magic most fo the time - otherwise you creep towards Tippyland. There should be times, though, when magic is the better or only solution.
4e may not have hit that window, in your experience.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-25, 06:05 PM
Your claim that 4e rituals encourage creative problem-solving isn't remotely borne out by my experience, I'm afraid. In the Keep on the Shadowfell games I've played, the basic assumption of every group was that the problems would be solved by killing everything that moved, on the grounds that that would be the simplest and most effective way to accomplish the mission. (It turned out to be a correct assumption.) By contrast, in my 3.5 game players come up with all sorts of weird and creative plans, often turning around exactly the abilities removed in 4e.
I heard KotS is actually a terrible module for this; I'm inclined to agree, if it left htat impression with you. Mine have been more like Oracle Hunter's, Ritual-wise.

ColdSepp
2008-11-25, 06:07 PM
I heard KotS is actually a terrible module for this; I'm inclined to agree, if it left htat impression with you. Mine have been more like Oracle Hunter's, Ritual-wise.

KoTS Is horrible. It's a real shame it was what WoTC used as their flagship for 4E. No RP potential, unless a DM reworks it significantly.

Edea
2008-11-25, 06:17 PM
I dunno about 4e being good or bad, but KotS has TERRIBLE problems in it, even when it is run through competently.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-25, 06:47 PM
That rituals are useful for the DM is really not an argument; by design, NPCs in 4E work differently anyway, and if the story requires that some NPC is a clairvoyant, he can be clairvoyant by fiat without requiring some divination ritual.

It's also interesting that whenever people point out that rituals are so great, they always mention the same handful, whereas there are nearly a hundred rituals in existence. Yes, water breathing is useful in an underwater adventure, nobody disputes that. It is in fact one of the few rituals that isn't pointless.

On the other hand, there's things like Wizard Lock. The primary time when locking a door would be beneficial is either when you're defending a building, or when something is chasing you. Turns out that in nearly all cases, the PCs are attacking the building, and that the ritual is specifically worded so as to be useless in a chase.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 06:47 PM
Eh? Why on earth should using non-magical means create more conflict and challenge? It doesn't in my experience - but if it did, then by your logic, why have rituals at all? If mundane > magic, why not remove magic altogether?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: KotS is a terrible module, particularly as the launch module for a new system. For the love of god, tell your friends not to play it!

As for the quote: there is a big difference between "gather the materials, take the time, and hope you roll well" to cast a spell and "sleep for 6 hours and cast as a standard action."
To spell it out, Rituals take time and effort by the characters to cast and, as you've noted, there is often an easier, mundane way to accomplish that end. This is not always the case; sometimes magic is the only way to accomplish something, or it may be the best way to do it, but it is by no means the first tool selected by an adventuring party.

In 3E, magic is easy. If your wizard has the spell prepared, he takes a standard action and casts it. Lock undone, wall passed, party teleported. If the particular spell is currently prepared, the wizard may use a Catch All Spell (like Wish or Shadow Evocation) to create the appropriate effect. Or the party could do something else, and when the wizard runs out of spells and everyone sleeps, he can prepare it in the morning. And if, for some reason, the wizard does not have a Catch All or the spell in his spellbook, then he can go buy a scroll (if allowed) or the party can figure out some other way around the problem.

At worst, 3E magic imposes a limited opportunity cost (one spell slot) in its use, and even then any caster worth his salt carries around a few scrolls of useful utility spells in case they are needed. Why should you try something risky to solve a problem when a no-roll spell can do it for you?

In 4E, this kind of magic is costly, in terms of time and money, and requires substantial preparation (time and having the reagents on hand) to use. And even then, many of these rituals require a skill check to succeed, so they're not even guaranteed to work. Faced with this, why would anyone resort to magic if there is a chance of solving the problem some other way?

In summary, 3E magic and 4E magic are on opposite sides of a spectrum. 3E magic is so easy to prepare and foolproof in execution that every adventuring party should resort to it first. To do otherwise invites failure through botched rolls and possibly injury or death in the process. 4E magic is costly and unreliable. There is now risk either way that you try to overcome a challenge, so why not try the quick and dirty method (non-magic) first?

This is why making magic harder provokes more innovative problem solving from PCs, and presents more real challenges, than you will find in an easy-magic system.

EDIT:

On the other hand, there's things like Wizard Lock. The primary time when locking a door would be beneficial is either when you're defending a building, or when something is chasing you. Turns out that in nearly all cases, the PCs are attacking the building, and that the ritual is specifically worded so as to be useless in a chase.

You're thinking far too narrowly.
Arcane Lock is an excellent spell for when you want to create a barrier which only you and your allies can pass. Yes, closing out pursuers is one time you may want this effect, but it is by no means the only time.

For example, when investigating a church that appeared to be the front for an evil cult, our party wizard cast Arcane Lock on the front doors to make sure no outside helpers came in, and that no cultists got out. We did this before stirring up the hornets nest, because we thought ahead.

Another time this is useful is if you are trying to create a safehouse in the middle of hazardous territory; you can make sure nobody sneaks in through the front door without having to break it down. Or if you want to hide a secret door; even if they "find" the door, they won't be able to get it open. And what about securing your inn room from thieves and spies? Handy, no?

This is part of the problem with 3E magic - everyone uses it as a quick & dirty way to fix a problem. Someone chasing you? Hold Portal on the last door you came through - problem solved. I can understand how someone with this point of view might find 4E magic "useless" but I assure you, it can be very useful in practice.

And another thing - so what if only some rituals are commonly cited as being useful? That alone shows that ritual magic isn't a broken mechanic; people are using ritual magic to do things.

I believe your argument was that "nearly all rituals" are useless. How many rituals would you like someone to find a use for before this statement no longer applies?

Skjaldbakka
2008-11-25, 06:53 PM
by design, NPCs in 4E work differently anyway, and if the story requires that some NPC is a clairvoyant, he can be clairvoyant by fiat without requiring some divination ritual.

What I hate the most about 4E.


Turns out that in nearly all cases, the PCs are attacking the building, and that the ritual is specifically worded so as to be useless in a chase.

Wouldn't that make the ritual a justification for how you can have doors that are locked with magic? Seems counter-intuitive to me, given the preceeding quote.

Saph
2008-11-25, 07:03 PM
This is why making magic harder provokes more innovative problem solving from PCs, and presents more real challenges, than you will find in an easy-magic system.

This really isn't true. Harder magic reduces the number of effective options available to PCs. That's no more likely to provoke innovative problem solving than any other restriction. By contrast, giving players effective utility powers encourages them to come up with weird, innovative plans that make use of them. I love coming up with creative, innovative plans . . . which is why I can't stand 4e rituals.

And it definitely doesn't produce more real challenges - this is so illogical that I honestly don't know where you're getting it from. Challenge difficulty is a function of how tough the DM makes the problem vs. how powerful/smart/lucky the players are. Unless you have a DM who doesn't scale encounters, there is absolutely no relation between a game's power level and how challenging it is.

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 07:09 PM
This really isn't true. Harder magic reduces the number of effective options available to PCs. That's no more likely to provoke innovative problem solving than any other restriction. By contrast, giving players effective utility powers encourages them to come up with weird, innovative plans that make use of them. I love coming up with creative, innovative plans . . . which is why I can't stand 4e rituals.

And it definitely doesn't produce more real challenges - this is so illogical that I honestly don't know where you're getting it from. Challenge difficulty is a function of how tough the DM makes the problem vs. how powerful/smart/lucky the players are. Unless you have a DM who doesn't scale encounters, there is absolutely no relation between a game's power level and how challenging it is.

I suppose we must disagree then. I, personally, don't see how giving a wizard the spell "Unlock Door" causes them to consider more options when faced with a locked door. And giving players broad magic just encourages your wizard to figure out how to be more creative with his powers, while leaving the mundanes to wait until the wizard solves the problem.

I believe that magic should not always, or even often, be the answer. And no spell should be so widely applicable that it alone becomes "the answer" for a wide range of problems. Giving magic a meaningful price, restricting its usage, and narrowing its scope are all ways to reduce this problem. And it is a problem unless you are playing a party of all magic users - this is why WoD Mage is fun, despite having ludicrously broad & powerful magic. When one player has the quickest, easiest, and safest solution to every problem, the other players do not need to do anything aside from figure out how the wizard should solve the next problem.

Yes, it's fun for the wizard, but it's not fun for the fighter.

EDIT:
And because I post this every time the "easy vs. hard" magic debate comes up: Writing Excuses Episode 15 (http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/05/18/writing-excuses-episode-15-costs-and-ramifications-of-magic/). Listen to it, and you'll hear the various reasons I prefer hard to easy magic. It is also funny :smalltongue:

Saph
2008-11-25, 07:27 PM
I suppose we must disagree then. I, personally, don't see how giving a wizard the spell "Unlock Door" causes them to consider more options when faced with a locked door.

So you think the existence of the spell 'Knock' in 3.5 means every party uses it to unlock every door, all the time?

Try your predictive powers, Oracle. :) I've been playing a 3.5 World's Largest Dungeon game for a couple of years now, and we're 90% of the way through to the end. Now, the World's Largest Dungeon is full of locked doors. Want to guess how many times the spell 'Knock' has been used between the various casters who've passed through the party?

- Saph

Kurald Galain
2008-11-25, 07:30 PM
For example, when investigating a church that appeared to be the front for an evil cult, our party wizard cast Arcane Lock on the front doors to make sure no outside helpers came in, and that no cultists got out.
Yes. Turns out that you could have accomplished the same thing faster and cheaper with some nails and wooden boards.



Another time this is useful is if you are trying to create a safehouse in the middle of hazardous territory;
Turns out that doesn't work, because it's faster and cheaper to bash down a locked door than to put up the locking ritual.



you can make sure nobody sneaks in through the front door without having to break it down.
Or, for that matter, pick the lock. Lockpicking is a standard action that allows infinite retries.

Here's the catch: you appear to be playing the ritual from fluff ("it locks doors") instead of from what the rules actually state ("...but it is expensive to do so, takes a long time during which you can be interrupted, and can rather easily be broken down or picked, except by enemies that aren't a threat to you anyway"). But if you're not playing the rituals by RAW, you're essentially proving my point for me.



I believe your argument was that "nearly all rituals" are useless. How many rituals would you like someone to find a use for before this statement no longer applies?
Half of them. Note, by the way, that every "Guide To 4E Casters" I could find on gleemax or brilliantgameologists proclaims most rituals as useless.



And another thing - so what if only some rituals are commonly cited as being useful?
The point is that my original post pointed out exactly that some rituals are useful, whereas most are not. This includes such "gems" like Brew Potion, which costs exactly as much in reagents as it would cost to buy the complete potion; or Detect Object, which has such a pitiful range (150m at near-epic levels) and duration (5 minutes) that you'd be hard pressed to find anything more than with a simple search check; or Travelers' Feast, which costs more than actual food and takes longer to cast than it would take to hunt animals.



Wouldn't that make the ritual a justification for how you can have doors that are locked with magic? Seems counter-intuitive to me, given the preceeding quote.
Ah, but the DM more likely than not ignores the time and money costs for that ritual, which underlines my point. Also, it is a given in 4E that NPCs don't follow the same rules that PCs do.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 07:34 PM
So you think the existence of the spell 'Knock' in 3.5 means every party uses it to unlock every door, all the time?

Try your predictive powers, Oracle. :) I've been playing a 3.5 World's Largest Dungeon game for a couple of years now, and we're 90% of the way through to the end. Now, the World's Largest Dungeon is full of locked doors. Want to guess how many times the spell 'Knock' has been used between the various casters who've passed through the party?

Would you have preferred I called the spell "Solve Problem?" Obviously I didn't mean the actual Knock, but I was giving an example. And I bet you haven't used Knock because the party Rogue could always just Take 20 and unlock every door. It's what I do, and it uses the same principle: the zero risk path.

My basic point stands: how does giving the wizard a spell that will solve a given problem with 100% success rate and minimal risk and expense cause a party to be more innovative?

So far it seems you are more innovative when you are a caster with broad, flexible spells, but is your party? Or do they just give you suggestions as to how to solve the latest problem with magic? Did the party Rogue want to try and disarm the three traps on the locked door, or did he prefer the party Wizard cast Knock from 100 some feet away, and let the traps go off harmlessly?

Kurald Galain
2008-11-25, 07:40 PM
Second edition had a spell called "Fool's Gold", which made illusory gold that disappeared after awhile. This is, indeed, a neat concept for a spell to e.g. fool merchants with.

Until you read the actual rules for it, and note that the material component costs more than the value of the fake gold you get. Oops. Of course, this didn't bother those people who didn't use the material component rules.

Most rituals are exactly like that. Cool concepts that only work as long as you ignore (or house rule over) the details.


(edit)


My basic point stands: how does giving the wizard a spell that will solve a given problem with 100% success rate and minimal risk and expense cause a party to be more innovative?
That's a straw man. Rather, compare the spell Silent Image with the ritual Hallucinatory Item, and see which of the two allows for more innovation.

Rockphed
2008-11-25, 07:42 PM
Half of them. Note, by the way, that every "Guide To 4E Casters" I could find on gleemax or brilliantgameologists proclaims most rituals as useless.

Are these the same Brilliant Gamers that thought Monks were broken a year after 3.5 came out? Somehow I fail to trust Conventional Wisdom on the internet in regards to things that are relatively new.

As to the nails and boards, how much noise does casting an arcane lock create? Somehow, pounding nails into a church door doesn't strike me as being stealthy.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 07:42 PM
YHere's the catch: you appear to be playing the ritual from fluff ("it locks doors") instead of from what the rules actually state ("...but it is expensive to do so, takes a long time during which you can be interrupted, and can rather easily be broken down or picked, except by enemies that aren't a threat to you anyway"). But if you're not playing the rituals by RAW, you're essentially proving my point for me.

*Shrug* A first level Eladrin Wizard (18 INT, Trained, Racial = 4+5+2 = 11) can make a door locked with a 26+ DC if he rolls a 10 or better. An optimized first level Rogue (18 Dex, Trained, Focused = 12) would need at least a 14 to open that door (versus an 8 for other Heroic Locks) and he could not pick it at all if the Eladrin rolled a 17 or better - 14 if the Eladrin Focused. That seems pretty secure to me, particularly if you allow (by RAW) up to 4 people to help with the ritual (+8).

Seems pretty secure to me. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, and bashing down a door does give some alarm no? Not bad for 25 gold, when you need it. Like if you came to the church's door without your carpentry tools :smalltongue:

Trust me, these rituals are a lot more useful than you give them credit for. No, they're not a "win button" to any situation, but they can be very useful if you really need it.

EDIT:

That's a straw man. Rather, compare the spell Silent Image with the ritual Hallucinatory Item, and see which of the two allows for more innovation.

Yes yes, the Caster can be very innovative. How about the party?

Kurald Galain
2008-11-25, 07:48 PM
*Shrug* A first level Eladrin Wizard (18 INT, Trained, Racial = 4+5+2 = 11) can make a door locked with a 26+ DC if he rolls a 10 or better. An optimized first level Rogue (18 Dex, Trained, Focused = 12) would need at least a 14 to open that door (versus an 8 for other Heroic Locks)
Yes. Now do the math. This table shows the chance the rogue gets it open in a given number of rounds.

{table]Rounds|%chance
1|35
2|57
3|73
4|82
5|89
[/table]

This arcane lock has over an 80% chance of stalling the rogue for no more than twenty-four seconds. That's hardly more than a speed bump.



and he could not pick it at all if the Eladrin rolled a 17 or better - 14 if the Eladrin Focused.
Yes, but you're conveniently overlooking how easy it would be for him to pick if the Eladrin rolled a 4 or worse. The rogue gets a free reroll each round, the caster's rerolls cost gold and ten minutes each.

Saph
2008-11-25, 07:52 PM
Would you have preferred I called the spell "Solve Problem?" Obviously I didn't mean the actual Knock, but I was giving an example. And I bet you haven't used Knock because the party Rogue could always just Take 20 and unlock every door. It's what I do, and it uses the same principle: the zero risk path.

My basic point stands: how does giving the wizard a spell that will solve a given problem with 100% success rate and minimal risk and expense cause a party to be more innovative?

Oracle, there is no 3.5 spell called 'Solve Problem'. There are a bunch of spells that have specific, limited effects. If you're high enough level to have access to a functionally infinite number of 1st- to 3rd-level spells (which is what you seem to be assuming) then something like a locked door is not a 'problem', it's a piece of terrain that can be manipulated. The spells do a variety of things, and everyone has access to them one way or another.

Since the spells actually work - work effectively and reliably - then players can make plans that depend on them. It's like building Lego with more pieces - there are more constructions you can make. With spells that are inefficient, overpriced, and arbitrarily restrictive (4e rituals) then any plan involving them is limited by how clunky they are. In the end, a substantial part of the plan ends up being dictated by the weaknesses of the spell you're trying to use. You have less options.

- Saph

Kurald Galain
2008-11-25, 07:54 PM
Are these the same Brilliant Gamers that thought Monks were broken a year after 3.5 came out?
No. It's simply a forum like this one, with an admittedly stupid (or arrogant) name.


As to the nails and boards, how much noise does casting an arcane lock create?
Somehow, chanting for ten minutes doesn't strike me as being stealthy either. However, the Adventurer's Vault lists a Silent Hammer as a level-2 magical item. So in terms of stealth, my bet is on the nails and boards.

FoE
2008-11-25, 07:57 PM
Yes. Turns out that you could have accomplished the same thing faster and cheaper with some nails and wooden boards.

Except that implies the adventurers are walking around with boards, nails and hammers (what are they? adventurers or carpenters?) and hammering on nails tends to create a lot of noise. Noise that attracts evil cultists wondering why someone is banging on the front door with a hammer. Compare said noise to someone speaking softly.


Turns out that doesn't work, because it's faster and cheaper to bash down a locked door than to put up the locking ritual.

Or, for that matter, pick the lock. Lockpicking is a standard action that allows infinite retries.

Are we trying to lock a door or trying to open it? Why would I cast a locking ritual to open a door?


The point is that my original post pointed out exactly that some rituals are useful, whereas most are not. This includes such "gems" like Brew Potion, which costs exactly as much in reagents as it would cost to buy the complete potion; or Detect Object, which has such a pitiful range (150m at near-epic levels) and duration (5 minutes) that you'd be hard pressed to find anything more than with a simple search check; or Travelers' Feast, which costs more than actual food and takes longer to cast than it would take to hunt animals.

Some Rituals have limited effectiveness, yes. But they're not useless, which would imply that they have no use in any situation.


That's a straw man.

Ohmigod, do you know what that term means and how it should be used? 'Cause I don't think you do, nossir.

Here's the Wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) It might be helpful.

I'm done. I'll leave you guys to tear at Oracle Hunter's arguments. Because winning the debate will definitely change things for the better.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 08:09 PM
Yes, but you're conveniently overlooking how easy it would be for him to pick if the Eladrin rolled a 4 or worse. The rogue gets a free reroll each round, the caster's rerolls cost gold and ten minutes each.

:smallconfused: I'm pretty happy with a door that I know is secure if I roll at least a 5. Why aren't you?

Anyhow, there are 49 Rituals in the PHB. Let's see if I can get to 25:

Divination Rituals (7)
Hand of Fate, Commune With Nature, Speak With Dead, Consult Mystic Sages, Consult Oracle, Loremaster's Bargain, Voice of Fate

Creation Rituals (3)
Enchant Magic Item, Brew Potion, Disenchant Magic Item

Travel Rituals (8)
Tenser's Floating Disk, Endure Elements, Phantom Steed, Linked Portal, Water Breathing, Shadow Walk, Planar Portal, True Portal

Healing Rituals (3)
Cure Disease, Remove Affliction, Raise Dead

Miscellaneous Rituals (5)
Comprehend Languages, Leomund's Secret Chest, Sending, Eyes of Alarm, Eye of Warning

26, not including rituals I'm sure you would object to (ex: Arcane Lock) but I find useful. If you have any objections, you need only find 2 to "win" :smalltongue:

EDIT:

Since the spells actually work - work effectively and reliably - then players can make plans that depend on them. It's like building Lego with more pieces - there are more constructions you can make. With spells that are inefficient, overpriced, and arbitrarily restrictive (4e rituals) then any plan involving them is limited by how clunky they are. In the end, a substantial part of the plan ends up being dictated by the weaknesses of the spell you're trying to use. You have less options.

And here I thought adventurers took risks :smalltongue:

Well, that's that, really. I think magic that works 100% reliably means that the party doesn't need to consider other options - the magic one will always work. To me, that seems like less options for the party for any given situation; but for you, that's a plus. Therefore, we have no choice but to disagree.

Saph
2008-11-25, 08:22 PM
Well, that's that, really. I think magic that works 100% reliably means that the party doesn't need to consider other options - the magic one will always work. To me, that seems like less options for the party on any given situation, but it is a plus for you. Therefore, we have no choice but to disagree.

Man, you must hate 4e combat, then. Just look at that Cleric power, 'Healing Word'. It heals someone up from dying 100% reliably! It doesn't even matter how far into negatives they are! And even if they die, there's Raise Dead. OMG, something that brings someone back from the dead every single time? With no lasting effects? And they made it cheaper than 3.5, too! It's terrible the way 4e's gone in the direction of 'easy magic'. If only 4e made healing magic less reliable, you'd have more options.

:smalltongue:

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 08:29 PM
Man, you must hate 4e combat, then. Just look at that Cleric power, 'Healing Word'. It heals someone up from dying 100% reliably! It doesn't even matter how far into negatives they are! And even if they die, there's Raise Dead. OMG, something that brings someone back from the dead every single time? With no lasting effects? And they made it cheaper than 3.5, too! It's terrible the way 4e's gone in the direction of 'easy magic'. If only 4e made healing magic less reliable, you'd have more options.

Are you trying to ignore my point? I'm not talking about combat (and since when has magic healing not always prevented death?) I'm talking about out of combat magic; ritual magic.

The difference? 4E combat gives all party members several options on any given round - they can all meaningfully contribute to any combat. If 4E had an Encounter Power that, say, knocked all the enemies unconscious until the end of the Encounter (no attack roll, no save end) then yes, I would be irritated; now everyone just waits for the wizard to cast "Win Combat" and then Coup De Graces the fallen. I guess you could fight the combat normally, and not use "Win Combat" but why would you? While "Win Combat" is another "option" for the party to use in combat, it actually renders all the other options meaningless - "Win Combat" would always be the first thing you'd try in a combat.

Now, look at out of combat. Since I appear to be unable grasp what you do with 3E magic, give me an example of a situation you solved with the creative use of magic. Pay attention to the role of your other party members; did they have to take any risks to carry out your plan? Did they contribute anything more than being a warm body?

Saph
2008-11-25, 08:37 PM
I was just making a joke, Oracle. You were saying how much you preferred limited, unreliable 'hard' magic to works-every-time 'easy' magic. I was making the point that when it comes to healing and recovery, magic has gotten steadily 'easier' all the way through D&D's editions, from 2nd to 3rd to 4th. In every one, bringing people back magically from the brink of death or actual death has gotten simpler and more reliable.

I thought that was funny, but you seem to have taken offense at it, which wasn't my intention. I'll take that as a sign to withdraw.

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 08:50 PM
I was just making a joke, Oracle. You were saying how much you preferred limited, unreliable 'hard' magic to works-every-time 'easy' magic. I was making the point that when it comes to healing and recovery, magic has gotten steadily 'easier' all the way through D&D's editions, from 2nd to 3rd to 4th. In every one, bringing people back magically from the brink of death or actual death has gotten simpler and more reliable.

I thought that was funny, but you seem to have taken offense at it, which wasn't my intention. I'll take that as a sign to withdraw.

Ah, sorry about that. I normally do try to keep a good sense of humor, but I guess I got wrapped up in the debate (as I am wont to do).

My apologies for snapping at you; it was not deserved. :smallredface:

Yukitsu
2008-11-25, 08:51 PM
Are you trying to ignore my point? I'm not talking about combat (and since when has magic healing not always prevented death?) I'm talking about out of combat magic; ritual magic.

The difference? 4E combat gives all party members several options on any given round - they can all meaningfully contribute to any combat. If 4E had an Encounter Power that, say, knocked all the enemies unconscious until the end of the Encounter (no attack roll, no save end) then yes, I would be irritated; now everyone just waits for the wizard to cast "Win Combat" and then Coup De Graces the fallen. I guess you could fight the combat normally, and not use "Win Combat" but why would you? While "Win Combat" is another "option" for the party to use in combat, it actually renders all the other options meaningless - "Win Combat" would always be the first thing you'd try in a combat.

The odds of "win combat" winning outright are fairly low. Against a single appropriate CR mook, it's pretty likely, but against say, 3 level 1 guys getting hit by a level 3 casters sleep spell, the odds that one is still up is pretty high. Party contributions take care of what chance leaves unscathed, which is actually more likely to be the big bad, for most combats.

PaladinBoy
2008-11-25, 08:53 PM
Now, look at out of combat. Since I appear to be unable grasp what you do with 3E magic, give me an example of a situation you solved with the creative use of magic. Pay attention to the role of your other party members; did they have to take any risks to carry out your plan? Did they contribute anything more than being a warm body?

I think the point here is that 3.5 didn't allow anyone but the Wizard to contribute...

Allow me to play devil's advocate... it's not like a ritual is exactly a multiplayer thing either. A party member can try to give you +2. How easy is it to get the max +8 from four helpers, and how much does that really contribute? (I don't have time to crunch those numbers now.)

Now, looking at it from the other side, at least the Fighter can have rituals too. It's not just the Wizard's show in 4e.

I would say that multiple party members can all cast different rituals in order to improve efficency, but I'm not sure how you'd get into a situation where you have 10 minutes to burn but not 20, or so on.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 08:54 PM
The odds of "win combat" winning outright are fairly low. Against a single appropriate CR mook, it's pretty likely, but against say, 3 level 1 guys getting hit by a level 3 casters sleep spell, the odds that one is still up is pretty high. Party contributions take care of what chance leaves unscathed, which is actually more likely to be the big bad, for most combats.

Heh, that's why I described "Win Combat" as a no-fail spell, in 4E terms. No attack roll to hit, unconsciousness lasts until the end of the Encounter (no save ends).

I guess its 3E equivalent would be an enemy-targeting AoE "Save or Die" spell, except without the "Save" part :smalltongue:

(it would also ignore SR and pierce and magic immunities)

EDIT:

Allow me to play devil's advocate... it's not like a ritual is exactly a multiplayer thing either. A party member can try to give you +2. How easy is it to get the max +8 from four helpers, and how much does that really contribute? (I don't have time to crunch those numbers now.)

Actually, my point is that rituals are not fail-safe enough to automatically trump most other courses of action. On this particular point, I don't consider people rolling "aid other" checks as "contributing;" the party contribution would come from dealing with other facets of the situation. Or, in the alternative, 4E rituals are used sufficiently rarely that the other party members will try to solve the problem on their own first, before turning to the wizard and saying "fix this."

I also don't think the "anyone can cast Rituals" thing contributes to my point; few other classes can cast Rituals as well as a Wizard. Even Clerics are limited, since the most important skills (Arcana & Religion) are INT based, and they get Ritual Casting for free.

Yakk
2008-11-25, 10:02 PM
If I've taken the time to prepare a Water Breathing spell one way or another, why shouldn't I be able to use it in a single round? The whole "Your character isn't allowed to be this competent" theme that I see coming up in these discussions irks me a bit.
The same reason why relatively low-level all-day flight, instant teleportation, and save-or-die spells where eliminated.


Yes, I can live with the clunky 4e rituals, and yes, I can figure out ways to make them sort-of-effective-but-not-really (because with the same amount of effort you can usually do the job better another way). But what's the point?

A low level, instant-casting, water breathing spell simply removes the obstacle.

A water breathing spell that takes time to cast allows for plot that take place under water, but does not eliminate water as an obstacle.

I'd be all for a high paragon/low epic water breathing ritual, or even item. Practically, once your Arcana check hits ~+20, you can have a 24 hour water breathing ritual up on yourself -- so having one that can be cast quickly isn't much of a difference. And the cost exponentially becomes unimportant.

But there remains a window in which under water adventures are both exotic and expensive, yet possible because of the structure of the ritual. At the same time, it isn't reduced to "did your wizard remember to check off the water breathing spell scroll? If so, then this thread-of-drowning trap can be ignored."

And yes, a first level PC rogue is an amazingly talented lock picker.

quillbreaker
2008-11-25, 11:51 PM
It's roleplaying. In our groups, if one player says he starts doing something that'll take 10 minutes, there'll be at least one player whose character is going to wander off to do something else in the meantime. And there's no way the characters are going to want to stop for ten minutes just so the wizard can get his clothes clean.

In 4e, one player casts Water Breathing, and everyone has to stand around for 10 minutes while he finishes. In 3.5, one player casts Water Breathing, and it's over in six seconds. The 3.5 way is better.

- Saph

How do the 3.5 wizards in your games ever get spells back? The rest of the party has to wait a totally insane 8 hours for a sleep period (that's, what, enough time to cast 48 4th ed rituals?), then wait additional time for the wizard to read the silly spellbook. The party barbarian can raze a small nation in that time.

BlackRabite
2008-11-26, 02:22 PM
I don't have my notebooks here with me but in my current 4E campaign we have house ruled rituals somewhat like this:


-You can follow the casting rules of the ritual by RAW with no change.
-You can cast the ritual twice as fast for a 20% increase in the casting cost.
-You can cast the ritual at a rate of (1 round per ritual level minus half the casters level, minimum time 1 round) for twice the cost of the ritual
-You can double the amount of time it takes to cast the ritual normally to decrease the cost by 75%

Those aren't the exact numbers but it's close enough to how we do it I think. My players do it at a reduced cost quite frequently and the wizard has actually burned the residuum to do a one round cast of silence twice already. It's worked out very well.

In our game world ritual casting plays out much like it does in the Dresden world. You have to make a ritual circle and use fancy doodads or residuum to complete it. The more time to have to use fancy doodads and make the circle + runes and such perfect the less money (residuum) it takes to power. The less time you have to can skip the doodads by simply pouring out a circle of residuum and wasting resources to make the spell work.

Blackfang108
2008-11-26, 02:39 PM
The party barbarian can raze a small nation in that time.

Has, in my group.

And, to be fair, it was a medium sized nation.

>.>

<.<

What, I was bored.

Artanis
2008-11-26, 02:41 PM
The party barbarian will raze six small nations in that time.
This is probably more accurate for the players Saph described :smallbiggrin:

mangosta71
2008-11-26, 03:22 PM
Except that implies the adventurers are walking around with boards, nails and hammers (what are they? adventurers or carpenters?) and hammering on nails tends to create a lot of noise. Noise that attracts evil cultists wondering why someone is banging on the front door with a hammer. Compare said noise to someone speaking softly.

Also note that boarding the door shut prevents the party from going through, which is counter-productive. If I'm understanding correctly, the whole point is that the caster and his group can go through, but nobody else can.

Grynning
2008-11-26, 08:41 PM
I don't have my notebooks here with me but in my current 4E campaign we have house ruled rituals somewhat like this:


-You can follow the casting rules of the ritual by RAW with no change.
-You can cast the ritual twice as fast for a 20% increase in the casting cost.
-You can cast the ritual at a rate of (1 round per ritual level minus half the casters level, minimum time 1 round) for twice the cost of the ritual
-You can double the amount of time it takes to cast the ritual normally to decrease the cost by 75%

Those aren't the exact numbers but it's close enough to how we do it I think. My players do it at a reduced cost quite frequently and the wizard has actually burned the residuum to do a one round cast of silence twice already. It's worked out very well.

In our game world ritual casting plays out much like it does in the Dresden world. You have to make a ritual circle and use fancy doodads or residuum to complete it. The more time to have to use fancy doodads and make the circle + runes and such perfect the less money (residuum) it takes to power. The less time you have to can skip the doodads by simply pouring out a circle of residuum and wasting resources to make the spell work.

This. Sounds like a great solution to me, and I might borrow these for my new game.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-27, 04:38 AM
:smallconfused: I'm pretty happy with a door that I know is secure if I roll at least a 5. Why aren't you?
Because it isn't secure. Once again, do the math: on an average arcana check, the door will stop the rogue for about twenty seconds. On a four or less, it will stop him for about six seconds. And don't even tell me that rogue is optimized, he's not even using thief tools.

So you're spending ten minutes (and gold) to put up a barrier that can be bypassed in ten or twenty seconds and you don't see any problem in that?


Anyhow, there are 49 Rituals in the PHB. Let's see if I can get to 25:
Interesting, I"ll get back to that in a few hours.



Actually, my point is that rituals are not fail-safe enough to automatically trump most other courses of action.
You're missing my point (and I believe, Saph's as well). It's not about having a "win combat" button. It's about having options, as in things that can be used when needed (without requiring half an hour of chanting) and which can be used in creative ways (for which most rituals pile up way too many restrictions).

As I said before, compare the spell Silent Image with the ritual Hallucinatory Item, and see which of the two allows for more innovation.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-27, 04:41 AM
Also note that boarding the door shut prevents the party from going through, which is counter-productive. If I'm understanding correctly, the whole point is that the caster and his group can go through, but nobody else can.

Correct, but note that the assumption that an Arcane Locked door can't be passed by anyone else is completely false. It's about as effective as a sign that says "Don't enter this door, pretty please". :smallbiggrin:

(edit) you know the funny thing? WOTC is fully aware that the Arcane Lock ritual in the PHB is pretty much useless because of its casting time - that's why in the Adventurer's Vault, they printed an item which does the same thing in six seconds rather than ten minutes. Which is precisely what I'm suggesting here.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-27, 09:59 AM
Anyhow, there are 49 Rituals in the PHB. Let's see if I can get to 25:
I find it interesting that you object to "Solve Problem" spells in 3E, but apparently have no problem with the "Remove Affliction" ritual. It is a prime example of a "solve problem" effect, to the point where its name is essentially a synonym: regardless of what problem is afflicting a character, poof! It's gone now. As you say, magic that works 100% reliably means that the party doesn't need to consider other options - the magic one will always work, and this bars the DM from using plots based on curses, diseases, or other afflictions (unless he handwaves RA to remove "all afflictions except those I don't want it to remove").

But yes, RA is a very effective ritual. However, there are a bunch of rituals on your list that really don't work.

Commune with Nature is a good example. According to the fluff, it lets you "know exactly where to find food, shelter, or a clue to the location of the thing you seek". Indeed, if the DM rules it that way, it is useful. But according to the crunch text, what it actually does is give you three or four yes/no answers about the area within one mile of your location, for a substantial price, and in a casting time that would let you cover several miles without employing magic. Good luck finding an "exact" location on the basis of three yes/no questions.

Another example is Loremaster's Bargain: an interesting concept that is nerfed to oblivion. Aside from being rather expensive and costing a ludicrous amount of time, (1) the creature contacted isn't guaranteed to know the answer to your question, (2) the creature is guaranteed to have its own agenda, (3) you must pass a skill challenge to get an answer at all, so you'd better hope your DM has read the skill challenge errata, and (4) after all this the creature might, emphasis on might, be genuinely helpful and informative.

Now I fully expect any competent DM to handwave these limitations, just like every DM I've played with so far has handwaved the casting time for Tenser's Floating Disk, or how your DM apparently handwaves the easiness of lockpicking Arcane Locks. However, that's the Oberoni Fallacy: the point is that as written, the LB ritual is pretty bad (although TFD is decent).

And a few minor examples: Eye of Alarm is obsoleted by having an elf, drow or eladrin in the party, or indeed by simply keeping watch. Eye of Warding is obsoleted by Eye of Alarm, since by the time it destroys a scrying sensor, whoever was scrying for you has already found you. Secret Chest is obsoleted by bags of holding and the like, plus it says so in the player's handbook that character encumbrance should not be taken into account anyway. Shadow Walk is useful in theory, but it requires a big investment in advance, for something that might become useful once or twice in a campaign, tops. Thus, unless the DM is focusing his campaign on making the ritual useful, chances are players won't have invested in it by the (one) point it comes in handy.

There's a similar problem with all of the Enchant Item rituals, and most of the Divination rituals, but I'll get to that some other time. At any rate, if the aim was to show that at least half of the rituals are useful, you're not particularly close yet.

icefractal
2008-11-27, 03:21 PM
I really don't know why skills are considered to be "more roleplaying" or "more challenge" than rituals. It's just a check either way:
Rogue: I use Knock to open this door (rolls die).
Rogue: I use Thievery to open this door (rolls die).
Rogue: I take out a sledgehammer and smash down this door (rolls die multiple times).

Now if rituals were only for spellcasters, I could somewhat see a point - why give only some players the good tools? But they aren't - anybody can use rituals. The rogue could be the one casting Knock! And the character investment for a trained skill is no more serious than learning rituals, so it isn't like the skill is more fundamental to the character.



As for "magic as a last resort" - why should it be? D&D is not a low-magic game, nor one where people are sparing with the magic they have. Wizards throw out spells every round, even more so than in 3E, and many classes have semi-magical effects at their disposal. Heck, even some animals are magically augmented (those lightning scorpions, for instance). As far as fitting with the rest, magic as a first resort makes perfect sense.

Even aside from that, there should be a trade-off. Rituals be worse in every way is not a trade off. A trade off would be something where rituals were:
A) Faster but expensive.
B) Better but slower.
C) Better but expensive.

Knock doesn't fit any of those categories - it is slower, more expensive, and worse than using Thievery (two minutes or less, 25% better chance) or just smashing down the door (usually less than a minute, even for strong doors, no check required).


As for fixing rituals, I don't there's one unified fix. I think rituals should be put into three categories:
A) Actually powerful stuff, like Raise Dead, which keeps its full cost and time.
B) Those which keep their full cost but take only 1-3 rounds.
C) Those which keep their full time but are otherwise free.

Kantolin
2008-11-27, 03:38 PM
My basic point stands: how does giving the wizard a spell that will solve a given problem with 100% success rate and minimal risk and expense cause a party to be more innovative?

Part of it is... well, these two scenarios.

Scenario A: Party has a half hour to decide to do something.
Party Leader: So, can we solve this problem?
Wizard: I can solve it with a ritual
Fighter: I can solve it mundanely.
Leader: Which is cheaper / more effective?
Wizard: They're about laterals.
Leader: Okay, we flip a coin, or decide which is more useful carefully.

Scenario B: Party has two rounds to decide to do something.
Leader: So, can we solve this problem?
Wizard: No.
Fighter: I can solve it mundanely.
Leader: Ah. Then I guess we're going with that one, then.

Scenario B without 10 minute casting time:
Party Leader: So, can we solve this problem?
Wizard: I can solve it with a ritual
Fighter: I can solve it mundanely.
Leader: Which is cheaper / more effective?
Wizard: They're about laterals.
Leader: Okay, we flip a coin, or decide which is more useful carefully.

Alternately, in 3.5, using spells like 'knock' to solve your problems meant you couldn't do so later. I have actually seen a wizard who memorized very little but things like knock, fly, and spider climb, and used them to solve all sortsof obstacles and then was completely useless during all of the resulting combats. :P

And on the other hand, saying 'I fix the problem' is about the same no matter which way you slice it. If you're looking for wacky off the wall solutions, you're not likely to get those in either category unless your players cannot do anything in a given situation, and the more of those that come up, the less likely your players will find a creative solution for it.

Yakk
2008-11-27, 03:47 PM
Now if rituals were only for spellcasters, I could somewhat see a point - why give only some players the good tools? But they aren't - anybody can use rituals. The rogue could be the one casting Knock! And the character investment for a trained skill is no more serious than learning rituals, so it isn't like the skill is more fundamental to the character.
The character investment in being able to learn (all rituals) is about the same as the character investment in being able to be trained in (one skill).

If rituals replace all skills (like magic did in 3e), that sort of makes learning skills pretty dumb?

A high-dex PC rogue who is trained and has skill focus in thievery is not a typical NPC thief. He's the best damn thief that that PC has ever met, and the ability for that thief to crack a wizard lock should be surprising to the wizard.

A more typical thief -- a 12 dex locksmith -- would have no chance of unlocking that lock. Congrats! Your lock is now petty theft proof.

Roderick_BR
2008-11-27, 03:48 PM
Oddly enough, rituals are a way of rescuing some classic atmosphere.
The group getting ready to go, while the party's caster prepares some buffs in advance (I really need to finish reading the books to see what's useful), including the classic stories of a wizard needing some cool ritual to some power effect (like in books and movies), instead of the wizard just snapping his fingers and make (often for free) a game bending/breaking effect.
Also to stop turning casters into do-it-all toolboxes, while everyone else just tag along to carry his bag.
And as usual: In 3.x, using magic is too easy. You require the same experience to know how to swing a piece of sharpened metal, and to warp reality in less than 6 seconds, and you can cast it several times a day without any cost (except for the few spells with spell components that are actually expensive).
So, yes, they took out the spell's speed, so you can't cast a spell in the morning that'll last all day, cast a spell before entering the dungeon that'll last for hours, cast a spell right before entering the BBeG's trone room that'll last several minutes, then rush in, tumble through the guards, then cast a spell and a quickened spell and take down the BBeG in one round (unless the BBeG is an equaly powerful caster).
Because making a wizard not be stupendously more powerful than the entire rest of the group combined obviously makes him suck so much that no one will ever want to play again.

Eclipse
2008-11-27, 04:34 PM
I still haven't had a chance to play 4e, so this comes from only reading through the books a few times. However, I have to agree with people who say rituals as they are now prevent the wizard from being the win button, and let the rest of the party get more involved. It also allows the DM to provide challenges that can't all be solved with the snap of a wizard's fingers.

I really don't see what's wrong with needing to be prepared in order to make effective use of magic. In fact, in most fantasy I've read this is exactly how it happens: wizards who think things through carefully and prepare ahead of time are victorious over their foes, while those who are complacent and don't prepare enough end up defeated, captured, or most likely dead.

In 3rd edition, wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and druids were basically the only thing that could oppose each other, assuming all classes were built optimally. It rarely worked out in this fashion, as building and playing a caster optimally can be very difficult until you've played the game many times, which is likely why most people never have these kinds of balance issues.

However, it's perfectly reasonable that WotC fixed this issue by rebalancing utility magic. Have they nerfed it too much? Possibly. However, seeing as many rituals are still useful with preparation, I would say I don't think so. In fact, given that they keep the flavor of all the utility magic from 3rd edition without it being overpowered, I would say they've been pretty successful.

That said, if your group thinks ritual magic needs tweaking, there's nothing stopping you from tweaking it. The beauty of tabletop gaming is that the game can be customized to the taste of the group playing it. Yes, that doesn't change the fact that the rules as written "have a problem", however, the problem is a matter of taste, not universal, as is evidenced by this long debate. The swinging cost vs. casting time fix mentioned above strikes me as an excellent house rule for people who want more flexibility with their rituals. Since any class can access rituals, the modifications you make are far less likely to favor one class too heavily, since if they become powerful enough, everyone will learn them anyway. If this happens, you might have made them too good though.

Speaking of anyone being able to learn rituals, I like what this does from a roleplaying perspective... makes it easy to make a warrior mage (or warrior priest, though clerics in third qualified anyway), who blends steel and sorcery to solve his problems. Sure, he won't be flinging his magic around in battle, but he might magically prepare for it, among other options.

Skjaldbakka
2008-11-27, 04:57 PM
I like that I can add a little bit of magical feel to my ranger w/o much of a sacrifice in terms of build.

That being said, I don't have enough money as a starting character to have a ritual book, much less any rituals in the ritual book, so I'm pretty much taking a feat and hoping the DM lets me play with it.

icefractal
2008-11-27, 05:16 PM
The character investment in being able to learn (all rituals) is about the same as the character investment in being able to be trained in (one skill).

Not quite - the ritual feat has a prerequisite, so that's two feats, and more importantly, you have to learn the rituals individually, finding a source and paying for it for each one. Not to mention, many of the rituals need skill checks, so you'll probably need 2-3 skills trained to get much benefit.

Skills are generally wider than individual rituals as well. Knock only emulates one of the many uses of Thievery, for instance.

Eorran
2008-11-27, 05:54 PM
I'm curious - I've seen several criticisms of specific rituals on this thread, but does anyone object to rituals as a concept? It seems Rituals share a failing with Skill Challenges of being a good idea with mediocre to poor details.
I love the idea of a separate type of magic, one that's a bit more involved, requires more planning, with more enduring results. Paying a price is great - GP's a bit clunky way to handle it, but I can't think of a better one.
I think it's easier to change details of Rituals than it is to change details of utility spells from previous editions.

Yukitsu
2008-11-27, 05:58 PM
I think utility is not more powerful in combat, and adds a great deal of versatility to ones options. I don't like the implementation at all, as even with foresight on my behalf, casting most of these won't be useful until the point of contact.

Eclipse
2008-11-27, 06:07 PM
I like that I can add a little bit of magical feel to my ranger w/o much of a sacrifice in terms of build.

That being said, I don't have enough money as a starting character to have a ritual book, much less any rituals in the ritual book, so I'm pretty much taking a feat and hoping the DM lets me play with it.

If you're playing in a cooperative party, maybe the wizard or cleric will share?

Also, if this is the case, I'd say this is an excellent roleplaying opportunity as well. A wizard might appreciate that someone outside of his trade still put in the effort to gain some understanding of what magic can do, and how to effectively use it, as well as maybe talk some shop in regards to magic.

Skjaldbakka
2008-11-27, 06:16 PM
Currently, there is a rogue, a paladin, a ranger (me), maybe a cleric, and an unkown.

The cleric couldn't afford a ritual book with his starting money, since he wanted to have weapons and armor.

Reluctance
2008-11-27, 06:30 PM
If Saph is still reading this, I wonder how often she and people with her perspective spend on the other side of the screen.

3.x is wonderful if you want player options coming out of your ears. It's also a nice system if you're a sandboxing, seat-of-your-pants improv sort of DM. Noncasters may suck, but there's a caster type for whatever concept you may want to play so it all evens out.

The problem? You're setting a pretty high bar if DMs need to be able to adjudicate, balance, and keep things flowing smoothly on the fly like that. Most DMs are happiest when they can do some prepwork and have it actually be useful. I don't care how awesome your character is, they don't do you much good when DMs either give up in frustration or blanket the world in anti-magic fields to keep things under control.

Rituals, I'll grant that the casting time is a flavor thing. Once your casting time is "too long to be efficient in combat", five minutes is as good as ten. Fast-magic fans could probably cut all casting times by a factor of five with few problems, even ten if they really wanted to cut things close. Personally I like the flavor of magic being time-consuming and chancey.

Random thought: I wonder how easy-magic fans would feel about this option. You can "prepare" any ritual at its full casting time and cost, and it remains held until finished with a standard action or until you take an extended rest. Brings back the vancian spirit and allows these effects on the fly while trying to skirt the abuses earlier editions were so familiar with.


Edit: Skjaldbakka. Clerics and wizards automatically have spell/ritual books as part of their class feature. And it wouldn't be a bad house rule to allow a ritual book and a single first level ritual to any character who takes the Ritual Caster feat; if somebody is willing to spend the character resources like that, they should at least have something cool they can do to show for it.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-27, 06:55 PM
The character investment in being able to learn (all rituals) is about the same as the character investment in being able to be trained in (one skill).
Absolutely not. You get a number of skills free at character creation, plus one essentially for free if you multiclass; rituals cost hundreds or thousands of gold pieces, money which could be better spent on items with a permanent effect.


Oddly enough, rituals are a way of rescuing some classic atmosphere.
The group getting ready to go, while the party's caster prepares some buffs in advance (I really need to finish reading the books to see what's useful), including the classic stories of a wizard needing some cool ritual to some power effect (like in books and movies),
Yeah, except that rituals don't actually work that way. Like you said, you need to finish reading the books.



I really don't see what's wrong with needing to be prepared in order to make effective use of magic. In fact, in most fantasy I've read this is exactly how it happens: wizards who think things through carefully and prepare ahead of time are victorious over their foes, while those who are complacent and don't prepare enough end up defeated, captured, or most likely dead.
Same answer as to Roderick - rituals don't actually work that way.


I'm curious - I've seen several criticisms of specific rituals on this thread, but does anyone object to rituals as a concept?
To my knowledge, nobody objects to the concept. I certainly don't. Like skill challenges, yes, it is a decent idea with extremely sloppy execution. Probably a "committee design".


The cleric couldn't afford a ritual book with his starting money, since he wanted to have weapons and armor.
The rules are somewhat unclear on the matter, but I believe it is intended that clerics and wizards get a ritual book for free. To anybody who picks up the ritual feat later than first level, 50 gp is not such a great obstacle.


If Saph is still reading this, I wonder how often she and people with her perspective spend on the other side of the screen.
I can't speak for Saph, but myself, I DM a lot. In fact I prefer it to playing. Incidentally, I am in fact a "sandboxing, seat-of-your-pants improv" sort of DM. Both to casters and to noncasters; I rarely play at the level where casters eclipse everybody.



Rituals, I'll grant that the casting time is a flavor thing. Once your casting time is "too long to be efficient in combat", five minutes is as good as ten.
What about eight hours?



Random thought: I wonder how easy-magic fans would feel about this option. You can "prepare" any ritual at its full casting time and cost, and it remains held until finished with a standard action or until you take an extended rest.
Decent, assuming that the component cost isn't paid unless you actually use the rituals, and assuming there's a limit to the amount of rituals you can leave "hanging" simultaneously.

Saph
2008-11-27, 07:26 PM
If Saph is still reading this, I wonder how often she and people with her perspective spend on the other side of the screen.

Well, I could tell you, but it does kind of sound like you've got your own ideas on the subject already. :P

Kurald pretty much sums up what I think; it's not the concept that's bad, it's the execution. I strongly suspect the reasons the bulk of the rituals ended up so ineffective is because of the same kind of reasoning Eclipse and Roderick are using - the designers were so terrified of making spellcasters too powerful that they overreacted.

- Saph

Eclipse
2008-11-27, 08:17 PM
Random thought: I wonder how easy-magic fans would feel about this option. You can "prepare" any ritual at its full casting time and cost, and it remains held until finished with a standard action or until you take an extended rest. Brings back the vancian spirit and allows these effects on the fly while trying to skirt the abuses earlier editions were so familiar with.


I'd say that if this is done, it should probably be limited to a couple of ritual spells held in reserve, maybe one per five levels or something like that. Also, certain powerful rituals should never be allowed to be prepared in this manner, such as raise dead. Let's face it, it's hard enough to die as it is in 4th edition, and while I don't think that's a bad thing, raise dead in the middle of battle seems like a bit much.





Same answer as to Roderick - rituals don't actually work that way.


So, originally I was responding to this, then realized you're right for the most part, in that most rituals really don't help with life or death situations. That said, I've still found some uses for quite a number of rituals, and there are still a few that will help you get out of a life or death situation. All of these were just going through the book quickly, and seeing if I came up with something on the spot. I didn't wait to think, if I came up with something, I wrote it down, otherwise, I just moved on.

First, I'm going to pull out everyone's favorite ritual in this thread, water breathing. Cast it ahead of time when going on an ocean adventure to hunt the krakken, or during a storm at sea, and you're prepared when your ship capsizes.

Next, animal messenger. If you have two casters, you have a bird or squirrel or whatever is appropriate become a relay between the two groups. You can send messages between the two groups without risk of the enemy discovering what you had to tell the other group in the event the animal is intercepted, as would be the case if you used a written message. Sure, it takes a little longer than writing a note, but as I said, it's much more secure than a note as well.

Discern lies. You're questioning someone, and need to know if they're telling the truth. If he's been captured, then he isn't going anywhere in the next five minutes. If it's a scheduled interview, you cast the spell before entering, something you should do anyway if you don't want the interviewee to know about the spell.

Drawmij's instant summons. If you had this one cast, then you'll find yourself not so helpless when you wind up captured with all your stuff taken away. Just recall that dagger to hand to cut your bonds, your wand to burn them away, and so forth. If you're in a cell and not bound, even better, as you can call and use your weapon on the unsuspecting guards when your cell is opened for some reason. Also, this one lasts until discharged, so it's basically just like preparing a spell in 3.5.

Hallucinatory item. This can be used to mask the cave you're spending the night in. Sure, it can still be found if someone actually touches the illusion, but if there's someone searching for you, there's a good chance they won't bother since they're looking for promising clues, not just check every inch of mountain. Just make sure the ranger covers your tracks.

Leomund's secret chest. Can be used in a manner similar to Drawmij's instant summons, though you'll need more time to yourself for it to be effective in this manner. The upside is you can get a full complement of replacement gear if you have the time and ability to rifle through the chest. Can also be used to stash treasure so you only need to keep the necessities on you.

Loremaster's bargain. Sure, it requires a skill challenge. If your group likes skill challenges, this won't be a problem. If they don't, it's likely that you aren't using them and this will turn into simple roleplay. Either way, it's all good. After convincing the entity to help, you get specific information about what you ask. Sure, there's a chance of failure, but with divination type spells there should be, because knowing things you couldn't find out otherwise is incredibly powerful.

Magic circle. Have a stronghold? Why not ward it against dangerous creatures? Summoning a dangerous creature? Why not protect yourself first?

Make whole. Repair broken gear. Open a business in which you make home repair at high speed. (10 minutes is quick for things such as replacing a door.) Also repair fragile valuables and art pieces that have somehow been broken or shattered. Charge a premium for speed, and you'll easily make more than the cost of the ritual. Use your profit to fuel more rituals, or buy new gear for the party. Be sure to target aristocrats, as they can best afford your services.

Phantom steed. Need to get somewhere quick? Know you'll be riding into battle? Either way, these have got your back. At lower levels, they're best used solely for speedy transportation. As you go higher in level, they can be used to cross bodies of water that are small enough to be crossed in twelve hours or less at a movement rate of 15-20 squares. When you can get them to fly, well, the entire party can attack from above as long as everyone has ranged attacks and you prepare ahead of time. Otherwise, tanks on the ground, distance fighters in the air.

Linked portal. Yeah, you have to go to predefined locations. Yes, you even have to know what symbols you need. But, once you've been someplace that has a circle, you can get back quite speedily from just about anywhere as long as you have permission to use the circle in said location. Or even if you don't have permission if you're willing to risk the consequences. Also great if you can get a teleportation circle in your base, since then you can use that as the way in and return to said base at any time.

Planar portal. Want to travel the planes? I don't know of many ways aside from this ritual.

Raise dead. I think we all agree this one is useful. If not, well, it brings your allies back to life. Always a good thing... well, as long as you like your allies anyway.

Sending. Better version of animal messenger.

Shadow walk. Can get you where you need to go faster than many other methods, especially when no teleportation circles are available at your destination. Great for beating other people to where you need to go, as mentioned in it's description.

Tenser's Floating Disk. Carries stuff for you. Also, now you can ride the disk around for cool points. Admittedly not that useful, but it's fun.

True Portal. Teleport anywhere you can describe, from anywhere, unless it's warded anyway. Then you can still teleport close to that location. Will save lots of time over traveling by other means.

TheEmerged
2008-11-27, 08:50 PM
RE: Starting with a Ritual Book. This isn't "unclear" at all. It's spelled out directly in both the Cleric & Wizard sections under the header Ritual Casting".


"You possess a spellbook, a book full of mystic lore in which you store your rituals and your daily and utility spells.


"You possess a ritual book, and it contains two rituals you have mastered..."

Yakk
2008-11-27, 10:17 PM
This includes such "gems" like Brew Potion, which costs exactly as much in reagents as it would cost to buy the complete potion;
Doesn't that ignore the 10% to 40% random markup on magic items?

Artanis
2008-11-28, 02:12 AM
Plus, the ritual lets you make any potion that you meet the level requirements for. If you buy the wrong sort of potions, you're SOL, but with the ritual, you instead buy a few potions, buy the reagents for more, and then brew up what you need should you want something more specific than a healing pot.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-28, 04:34 AM
RE: Starting with a Ritual Book. This isn't "unclear" at all. It's spelled out directly in both the Cleric & Wizard sections under the header Ritual Casting".
True enough, but I've seen several people being confused about whether or not you have to pay for it (just like a fighter has to pay for his sword), to the point where this warranted a FAQ entry on the WOTC site.


Doesn't that ignore the 10% to 40% random markup on magic items?
Depends on whether your DM uses said markup (e.g. the entire LFR setting), or allows you to haggle for it, or also gives you a similar markup on residuum.

The creation rituals are among the more useful rituals primarily because they aren't such a time and money sink - not that that's saying much. Their inherent problem is that if your DM lets you obtain whatever items you wish, as suggested in the rules, there'll be a Magical Item Shoppe so you won't need the ritual; whereas if your DM wishes to restrict magical item availability, he'll have to prohibit or restrict this ritual. Either way, little point in taking it. Now this doesn't cover every situation, but it does mean that the ritual is only useful if the DM deliberately makes it so.


Plus, the ritual lets you make any potion that you meet the level requirements for. If you buy the wrong sort of potions, you're SOL, but with the ritual, you instead buy a few potions, buy the reagents for more, and then brew up what you need should you want something more specific than a healing pot.
That only holds true if you're going to be away from any place where you can buy potions for an extended amount of time. By the way, I should point out that most of the potions as printed really aren't worth your money either (the prime exception being healing pots). Potions are a money sink. If you're going to use a lot of, say, potions of fire resistance, you should buy a cloak of resist fire instead. Unless you wish to play a gonk, of course :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2008-11-28, 05:31 AM
That said, I've still found some uses for quite a number of rituals, and there are still a few that will help you get out of a life or death situation.
That's an interesting read, but I'm afraid there are a few things you've overlooked. The problem is that rituals contain a large number of pitfalls: things that look good at first glance, but turn out not to work if you read the details. Really, rituals are the new monks.

At any rate, you have convinced me that certain rituals are cheap enough to simply carry around forever on the off chance that you'll need them. That would be in circumstances that'll come up rarely if ever, but it'll be worth the look on your DM's face when they do. Still, that only goes for a handful.



First, I'm going to pull out everyone's favorite ritual in this thread, water breathing. Cast it ahead of time when going on an ocean adventure to hunt the krakken, or during a storm at sea, and you're prepared when your ship capsizes.
You can't use it for a hunt, because it only lasts one hour. Since the ritual affects only one person per casting, I somehow doubt you'll have sufficient time to cast it during a storm either. Thankfully the rules don't prohibit concentrating on a ritual on a violently thrashing ship.



Next, animal messenger. If you have two casters, you have a bird or squirrel or whatever is appropriate become a relay between the two groups.
Problem: this only works if you know where the other group is, because the ritual requires that you set a location. The location also can't be something that's dangerous to the animal (so the example they give, of using carp, is silly). AM is a useful ritual, albeit in a highly specific situation that is unlikely to come up often. But it's also cheap enough to keep around just in case you might need it.



Discern lies. You're questioning someone, and need to know if they're telling the truth.
This could actually work, but it is, in my experience, surprisingly rare that the player characters aren't in a hurry when they capture someone. In general, the issue lies in getting someone to talk, which requires intimidate rather than insight (if you can scare somebody into talking, he's not lying; if you can't, he can simply shut up and won't be lying either). Also, obsoleted by a certain warlock power, although of course not every party will have that.



Drawmij's instant summons. If you had this one cast, then you'll find yourself not so helpless when you wind up captured with all your stuff taken away. Just recall that dagger to hand to cut your bonds, your wand to burn them away, and so forth.
Three problems here: first, being captured and stripped of your items is a common trope on these boards, but really doesn't happen all that often in actual games (say, along the lines of "once per campaign"). Second, if it does, you usually don't know ahead of time. And third, this is 4E: you don't need a weapon (or implement), as your strength lies in your powers.



Hallucinatory item. This can be used to mask the cave you're spending the night in.
Problem is that disbelieving is too easy: each creature is allowed a check when they see it, and each time they interact with it, and they automatically succeed if they touch it. This is the same problem as arcane lock - the enemy gets way more checks at it than you do. That said, it should actually work for hiding in an area with only one entrance, if for little else. How often do you hide in a cave, anyway?



Leomund's secret chest.
Obsoleted by bags of holding and the like, by party members with sufficient strength score to carry stuff, and by the fact that the PHB states you should simply ignore character encumbrance anyway. Furthermore, you can't use it as you would a Drawmij's, because you require time, components, and a spellbook to bring the chest to your side.



Loremaster's bargain.
As I explained above, I actually love this ritual because any competent DM will handwave the limitations anyway. However, as written, this ritual has so many limitations as to be effectively worthless.



Magic circle. Have a stronghold? Why not ward it against dangerous creatures?
Setting aside the fact that most player characters don't, in fact, have a stronghold, it is true that once they do, this ritual is brokenly good as written.



Make whole. Repair broken gear. Open a business in which you make home repair at high speed.
Very nice idea, and one of the first steps to make 4E into Tippyland (the other being Leomund's Transportation Agency). This probably won't make you as much money as simply going on a dungeon crawl, but it is one of the few rituals that has a practical use. Gear rarely breaks, but the ritual is cheap enough to carry in reserve for when it does.



Phantom steed. Need to get somewhere quick? Know you'll be riding into battle? Either way, these have got your back.
Another ritual that's quite decent; however, if you frequently need to get somewhere quick, or to ride into battle, I'd recommend investing in actual steeds. Note that you effectively need to be epic level to reliably get them to fly.

The portal spells and raise dead are useful, no argument there. Same for Tenser's. Sending has its uses, although it will rarely come up. Shadow Walk, however, is not: it is also something that will rarely come up, and is very expensive, and its one hour casting time seriously interferes with the fact that it's only useful when you're in a hurry.

(edit) I just spotted a problem with Cure Disease and Remove Affliction: you add half your level to the check, as usual; but you subtract the full level of whatever the problem is from the check. This'll probably need the same errata as Pick Pocket got. I also just noticed that one of WOTC's flavor text writers is a White Wolf fan :smalltongue:

Oslecamo
2008-11-28, 05:48 AM
Three problems here: first, being captured and stripped of your items is a common trope on these boards, but really doesn't happen all that often in actual games (say, along the lines of "once per campaign"). Second, if it does, you usually don't know ahead of time. And third, this is 4E: you don't need a weapon (or implement), as your strength lies in your powers.


Actually, fighter, rogue and ranger need specific kinds of weapons to get the most of their powers.

The cleric will just be fine shooting lasers from his eyes.

Actually, how the hell do you restrict a cleric in 4e whitout keeping him permanently inscoscious?

Kurald Galain
2008-11-28, 05:53 AM
Actually, fighter, rogue and ranger need specific kinds of weapons to get the most of their powers.
It's true enough that being imprisoned and stripped of your gear is decidedly sub-optimal for everybody. That said, if you can survive for a while without your magical amulet, your glowing boots, your mystical bracer, your helmet of thingy, your belt of awesomeness, and whatever else is on your christmas tree, then whether or not you have your trusty Snickersnee isn't going to be that big a deal.

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-28, 05:55 AM
IMHO, the ritual system has been builded this way to help railroading. The whole "heal in a night" concept and similar things all point in that direction.

Some of the spells of the 3rd edition would be fixed increasing casting time too (or adding rules of variable casting time, wonderful idea in PHII or CM if I remeber well). But 3 rounds or 1 minute is very different from 10 mins.

Anyway, I've seen my players overcome situations with group coordination and the Beguiler casting silence in the right object (Stone? Arrow? Knight?). That kind of amusing scene wuold be forbidden in 4th. Maybe It's my prejudice (I can admit it), but seems to me that rituals lead to approach to the problem always in the same way (or at least, in less ways). CHOP CHOP CHOP DEAD.

As a side effect, rituals add other mundanity to magic (more accessible could mean more mundane).

I'm pretty sick with all the whole story of "winning button" spells. of course, it can happen. But can happen even with a charging smite evil with a mercurial greatsword. Let players have their moment of glory. And, at least in my experience, if the 3.5 Wizard has always the right spell, one of the two:

-The player is cheating
-The DM does not challenge enough the party (or is stuck with the whole 4 encounter/day metagame crap AND IT WOLDN'T BE ENOUGH)

I've seen that a lot of DM lack of imagination and flexibility. If players have access to a spell that make them pass a wall, maybe walls are not a problem anymore for them. They are GROWN. I's time to challenge them in a different way. A fantasy setting means fanatstic locations, think outside the box.

This not means, of course, that previous systems are perfect.
But I'd prefer to let players have mechanics able to support their level-dependant crapness or awesomeness. Work and changes would be aimed to that. Rituals and the game concept behind them are not he right anwer IMHO.

Artanis
2008-11-28, 12:34 PM
That only holds true if you're going to be away from any place where you can buy potions for an extended amount of time. By the way, I should point out that most of the potions as printed really aren't worth your money either (the prime exception being healing pots). Potions are a money sink. If you're going to use a lot of, say, potions of fire resistance, you should buy a cloak of resist fire instead. Unless you wish to play a gonk, of course :smalltongue:
And 3e's water breathing spell was only useful if you were going to go swimming. Since water breathing seems to be the ultimate example of now-rituals that should always be useful, if even that has its limitations, then I don't see how "actually going into a dungeon for a couple days" is exactly crippling. And even with just healing potions, there are situations where you can "run out of the wrong type" (such as running out of healing pots and would rather brew some than start using the Heal Or Rez stash).

Besides, one would hope that there's better potions in some book or another someday :smalltongue:



Edit: Addendum:

If players have access to a spell that make them pass a wall, maybe walls are not a problem anymore for them. A fantasy setting means fanatstic locations, think outside the box.

There aren't many fantasy setting with no walls anywhere ever...

RPGuru1331
2008-11-28, 01:31 PM
Actually, how the hell do you restrict a cleric in 4e whitout keeping him permanently inscoscious?

Just tie him up the same as everyone else. RAW be damned, that's going to prevent his casting.


There aren't many fantasy setting with no walls anywhere ever...
Or Modules for that matter. DnD never remembers its own capabilities.

Artanis
2008-11-28, 01:59 PM
Another thread I saw after I posted reminded me of this bit as well:


And, at least in my experience, if the 3.5 Wizard has always the right spell, one of the two:

-The player is cheating
-The DM does not challenge enough the party (or is stuck with the whole 4 encounter/day metagame crap AND IT WOLDN'T BE ENOUGH)
The thread I saw? It was about how Wizards didn't need to prepare all the utility spells they could ever want because they had scrolls and wands. All they had to do was prepare the save-or-die/lose/suck/etc. spells that would work in nearly every encounter (a big list of which was in TLN's Batman guide), and if something specific came up, whip out a wand or scroll.

So the player didn't have to cheat to get around the spells-per-day restrictions because he could just use the feat that he got for free.

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-01, 03:46 AM
Another thread I saw after I posted reminded me of this bit as well:


The thread I saw? It was about how Wizards didn't need to prepare all the utility spells they could ever want because they had scrolls and wands. All they had to do was prepare the save-or-die/lose/suck/etc. spells that would work in nearly every encounter (a big list of which was in TLN's Batman guide), and if something specific came up, whip out a wand or scroll.

So the player didn't have to cheat to get around the spells-per-day restrictions because he could just use the feat that he got for free.

IMHO, in the wizard repertoire are more broken spell like Celerity. Save or suck does not work always, monster save (at least, they do unless the DM allows broken super spell DC builds). And items cost XP.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-01, 01:39 PM
IMHO, in the wizard repertoire are more broken spell like Celerity. Save or suck does not work always, monster save (at least, they do unless the DM allows broken super spell DC builds). And items cost XP.

Y'see, the problem with XP Costs is that XP is a renewable resource that can create permanent items. If a party wanted, they could "camp" an orcish nation and then start murdering patrols to get the "spare" XP to make whatever they wanted. Heck, if the wizard wanted he could deck out his entire party by "farming" these orcs!

Of course, XP costs vanish as soon as someone finds a Candle of Invocation and starts abusing Summoned Wishes. :smallannoyed:

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-02, 03:26 AM
Dunno... Your's a good point, but it seems to me that these are example of a game in wich the DM has a little control.

I mean... tha PCs "camp" the orcs without any moral implication (no mentioning that orc farming for XP is metagame)? Or the DM allows summoned creatures wishes work perfectly? As an example, if you were the DM, you'll make the player comfortable about summoning an EFREETI or a PIT FIEND and ask things to them?

turkishproverb
2008-12-02, 03:31 AM
Dunno... Your's a good point, but it seems to me that these are example of a game in wich the DM has a little control.

I mean... tha PCs "camp" the orcs without any moral implication (no mentioning that orc farming for XP is metagame)? Or the DM allows summoned creatures wishes work perfectly? As an example, if you were the DM, you'll make the player comfortable about summoning an EFREETI or a PIT FIEND and ask things to them?

Alot of people seem to think that RAW says an EFREETI isn't allowed to try to twist your wish form my experience. I've never seen anything like that, and frankly such beasts are known to be tricky BEFORE being forced to do things. :smallconfused:

Eclipse
2008-12-02, 04:22 AM
Another thread I saw after I posted reminded me of this bit as well:


The thread I saw? It was about how Wizards didn't need to prepare all the utility spells they could ever want because they had scrolls and wands. All they had to do was prepare the save-or-die/lose/suck/etc. spells that would work in nearly every encounter (a big list of which was in TLN's Batman guide), and if something specific came up, whip out a wand or scroll.

So the player didn't have to cheat to get around the spells-per-day restrictions because he could just use the feat that he got for free.

Another possibility, depending on the utility you're looking for, is to memorize save or die/lose/suck spells in whatever quantity you feel is appropriate, along with your defenses. Leave any utility slots unfilled. For any spell slots you leave unfilled, you can fill them with utility spells later by taking some time to study. Perhaps still keep wands on hand for emergencies though.



When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-02, 02:28 PM
Dunno... Your's a good point, but it seems to me that these are example of a game in wich the DM has a little control.

I mean... tha PCs "camp" the orcs without any moral implication (no mentioning that orc farming for XP is metagame)? Or the DM allows summoned creatures wishes work perfectly? As an example, if you were the DM, you'll make the player comfortable about summoning an EFREETI or a PIT FIEND and ask things to them?

The problem with the Orc example is that it can be extremely RP correct. An Orcish tribe is raiding some villages on the fringe of the empire - orcs are always raiding someone, right? The PCs, seeing the army doing nothing, establish a base camp out in the wilderness. They'll use magic to create earthen fortifications, or just Mansion it up every night - whatever.

Now, the PCs know they can't take on the whole tribe all at once, so they launch a guerrilla war against the orcs, targeting patrols and hunting parties to wear down the aggressive part of the warband. Eventually the tribe will try to take out these raiders, but a single PC group can be very hard to target, unless you give the tribe high-level casters. Bad comes to worse, the tribe might launch a vengeance strike on one of those villages, but it is much easier to defend a village from a large raid than to assault a raider's camp.

I don't know if I could, in good faith, penalize the PCs for acting in this way without being a huge jerk.

As for Efreeti perverting wishes, the Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) spell grants Candles of Invocation as one of its basic effects - twisting the magic there is pure "rocks fall." Aside from that, a Candle of Invocation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#candleofInvocation) acts like a Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) Spell, which allows "Immediate Services" to be demanded without payment or condition. I don't see how even an Efreeti could twist such a wish without the PCs declaring shenanigans.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-02, 02:34 PM
As for Efreeti perverting wishes, the Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) spell grants Candles of Invocation as one of its basic effects - twisting the magic there is pure "rocks fall." Aside from that, a Candle of Invocation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#candleofInvocation) acts like a Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) Spell, which allows "Immediate Services" to be demanded without payment or condition. I don't see how even an Efreeti could twist such a wish without the PCs declaring shenanigans.

You could just let the PCs declare shens; The wish abuse is just that. Abuse.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-02, 02:42 PM
You could just let the PCs declare shens; The wish abuse is just that. Abuse.

I... I guess, but they're just using straight RAW. There's no Rules Lawyering anywhere; I would have to just say "this doesn't work because it'd be too good" and be done with it.

Which I can, and do, do as a DM, though I prefer to just outlaw/remove the offending items instead of making individual rulings that squish the creativity of my players.

hamishspence
2008-12-02, 02:46 PM
straight RAW, when its used like that, Is rules lawyering. Like DC0 Epic spells- none exist in any supplement- they Weren't supposed to Work that way.

wish looping is not fair- wish- gate- more wishes- gate.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-02, 02:46 PM
Which I can, and do, do as a DM, though I prefer to just outlaw/remove the offending items instead of making individual rulings that squish the creativity of my players.

Is it really 'creative' to use a popular internet abuse of rules?