(4e) Rituals

[FoE]

Other player: while the wizard is busy for ten minutes, I start making perception checks.
DM: Ok, after thirty seconds you have found the door.
Other player: wizard, you can save your money and stop casting now.

Your argument is flawed. If you could already find the secret door with a Perception check, why would you bother casting the ritual?

A large number of rituals, especially the lower-level ones, are just there to fill gaps in the party's abilities to get through a dungeon. Don't have a rogue or another party member with the Thievery skill? Put the appropriate rituals in your ritual book. It costs a little gold, but it's better than nothing.

[Saph]

Your argument is flawed. If you could already find the secret door with a Perception check, why would you bother casting the ritual?

You wouldn't. That's the point.

A large number of rituals, especially the lower-level ones, are just there to fill gaps in the party's abilities to get through a dungeon. Don't have a rogue or another party member with the Thievery skill? Put the appropriate rituals in your ritual book. It costs a little gold, but it's better than nothing.

Yes, but to use the above example: how likely is it that by, say, 4th-level, a five-member party won't have a single character with good Perception? I mean, really?

- Saph

[MartinHarper]

Other player: while the wizard is busy for ten minutes, I start making perception checks.
DM: Ok, after thirty seconds you have found the door.
Other player: wizard, you can save your money and stop casting now.

PHB: Perception says "Failure: You can't try again until circumstances change" and "usually searching takes at least 1 minute".

[Reverent-One]

Yes, but to use the above example: how likely is it that by, say, 4th-level, a five-member party won't have a single character with good Perception? I mean, really?

If your die rolls suck, having a good perception might not be enough. A +15 on perception might not mean you'll find a secret door if you roll a 1.

[Kurald Galain]

A large number of rituals, especially the lower-level ones, are just there to fill gaps in the party's abilities to get through a dungeon.

Yeah, that's what they're intended for, except that they don't actually work that way.

Theory is all fine and dandy, but your examples don't hold up in practice. Parties without thievery skill are rare; and even then, unless your DM is deliberately ruling "yuo need a ritual heer!!!" your odds are still better by having the high-dex character roll a bunch of times. Did you notice how e.g. the Open Lock action allows infinite retries, one per round? Oops.

PHB: Perception says "Failure: You can't try again until circumstances change" and "usually searching takes at least 1 minute".

One minute is still a lot less than ten. You do realize that the ritual is pointless unless you already know in which room the door is, right? Otherwise you have to repeat it in every location where there might be a door, which does wonders for your cash flow.

[Reverent-One]

One minute is still a lot less than ten. You do realize that the ritual is pointless unless you already know in which room the door is, right? Otherwise you have to repeat it in every location where there might be a door, which does wonders for your cash flow.

How is it pointless if you merely in which room there is a secret door? That doesn't mean you know where the door is so you can go through it, which is what the ritual Detect Secret Doors tells you.

[Yuki Akuma]

One minute is still a lot less than ten. You do realize that the ritual is pointless unless you already know in which room the door is, right? Otherwise you have to repeat it in every location where there might be a door, which does wonders for your cash flow.

You do realise that even though one minute is less than ten, the point is that you can only try once, right?

Ranger: Okay, we've found the room with the secret door! I make a Perception check. *roll* ... Five.
DM: After a minute of searching, you don't find anything.
Rogue: Alright, I'll make a Perception check instead. *roll* Fifteen! Did I find anything?
DM: Nope.
Wizard: *sigh* Okay, I cast Detect Secret Doors.
DM: Wizard performs the ritual. After ten minutes, the ritual complete, a ghostly outline of a door appears in the left wall.
Wizard: Seriously, guys, stop rolling so badly, this is really playing havoc on my funds.

[FoE]

Yeah, that's what they're intended for, except that they don't actually work that way.

Theory is all fine and dandy, but your examples don't hold up in practice. Parties without thievery skill are rare; and even then, unless your DM is deliberately ruling "yuo need a ritual heer!!!" your odds are still better by having the high-dex character roll a bunch of times. Did you notice how e.g. the Open Lock action allows infinite retries, one per round? Oops.

Which brings us to the other benefit of Rituals: they emphasize the importance of skills. You could go the lazy route of using rituals ... but they can't be cast in a pinch and they'll cost you money no matter what. So why cast a ritual when you could pick the lock yourself?

[Hatu]

Which brings us to the other benefit of Rituals: they emphasize the importance of skills. You could go the lazy route of using rituals ... but they can't be cast in a pinch and they'll cost you money no matter what. So why cast a ritual when you could pick the lock yourself?

They don't really "emphasize" the importance of skills at all. It's just that, since Rituals do next to nothing themselves, whatever value skills have remains unchallenged. If Rituals gave a bonus to certain skill use that could only be used when trained, that might emphasize the importance of skills. As is, they merely fail to overshadow skill use.

-H

[cupkeyk]

I like some rituals, but some really are retarded. My problem with the arguments so far is that they are all encompassing.

Yuki Akuma makes a good point about Rituals. Wizards, which more often are Orb wizards because They are broken, would try a perception check before resorting to DSD anyway.

I particularly like the FRPG Rituals, Like Symbul's Conversion and Darklight.

Raise Land basically creates you and Earth more, Throw in a Shift Mote and you have a very expensive, albeit cool, airship that you control with your brain. Not to mention you can have your house and farm there.

The Dragon 366 also offers useful Rituals like Delay Affliction and Earthen Ramparts.

[Oracle_Hunter]

They don't really "emphasize" the importance of skills at all. It's just that, since Rituals do next to nothing themselves, whatever value skills have remains unchallenged. If Rituals gave a bonus to certain skill use that could only be used when trained, that might emphasize the importance of skills. As is, they merely fail to overshadow skill use.

Well, I'd like to say that the "Rituals do nothing" belief is wrong - at least in my experience. In play I use Rituals all the time, at full cost and full time expenditure. The trick is to use Rituals that are lower than your level.

You will have enough gold at, say, Level 11 to cast Linked Portal whenever it is convenient. Or Phantom Steed or Water Breathing. Detect Object is too expensive to use casually, so you'll actually have to go out and find the missing object most of the time. It's fun, trust me.

Now, I've already argued with Saph & Kurald Galain about the assertions they've made here, so I won't bother repeating myself. To sum up:

Spoiler

Show

(1) The Time & Money requirements in Rituals makes magic less of a Plan A than in 3E. This makes the players spend more time planning and considering the proper course of action rather than just using a magic shotgun (however creatively they use the spells). For more on why this is good, see this podcast.

(2) Within the framework of 4E, even "low powered" Rituals can be tremendously useful. Arcane Lock, for example, can be used to make a virtually unpickable lock at 1st level, which is handy for securing the campground in a dungeon or for trapping hostiles within their base. All it takes is creative thinking and planning.

As for the proposed house rule, my major concern is the "substitute time for skill" rule. This revives the "scroll monkey" character of 3E, who merely has a high enough UMD or Caster Check to use spells well above his level. In 4E, this sort of power-boost was restricted by skill checks for several rituals. Now, instead of being completely beyond the reach of low level characters, anyone can use Cure Disease without concern for the patient, and every Arcane Lock is either Knockable or impossible to pick without one.

If you want to have 3E magic in 4E, use all your rules except this one, and you should be OK.

[KKL]

Wizards, which more often are Orb wizards because They are broken,

Orb Wizards are fine, it's only when you layer on penalties to save ends that it becomes really troublesome.

[Grynning]

Orb Wizards are fine, it's only when you layer on penalties to save ends that it becomes really troublesome.

well, also the fact that there is no duration on the penalty - it just stays on for the rest of the encounter. That's fairly nasty.

Anyways, I think part of the problem is that the anti-ritual folks are all assuming automatic success on skill checks like perception, for one. As others pointed out you CAN fail these rolls - as a DM I see my group botch on moderate to high DC checks I ask them for pretty consistently. I DO believe that skills should be better than rituals, but I DON'T think that makes rituals useless.

The other part of the problem is that people are thinking of the time and money aspects as if they were hard and fast mechanics, which they really aren't. Game money and game time have absolutely no relation to how well the system works and can be glossed over very easily.

I don't strictly enforce economics/wealth in my games because D&D economics have always been a joke. I keep the players in magic items appropriate for their level but generally assume they have enough cash on hand to do things like rituals unless it has a particularly high cost. It's just like how most DM's in 3.5 that I knew never really made the wizards keep track of spell components.

Also if you think about it the time factors given for skills are just as artificial as those for rituals. Why does it only take one "minute" to make a perception check to find crap? Who knows? I certainly spend more than a minute looking for crap in my house on a daily basis. It's a game, it doesn't follow the rules of the real world.

Point is, if you don't like the expense of rituals - house rule it out. Ta-da! Same with the time factor. Just keep them A) not usable in combat and B) not automatically better than a skill check and they are functionally THE SAME.

4E =/= simulation. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to work. Do crap on the fly. Role-playing out skill and ritual use does wonders for both if you just realize that mechanics don't always follow perfect logic.

[Kurald Galain]

How is it pointless if you merely in which room there is a secret door?

It means that whenever you don't actually know where the secret door is (because it is, you know, a secret door), the ritual won't help. Honestly, how often are you really looking for a secret door that you already know the location of? And then, if it lets you find it, it doesn't tell you how to open it either. As Saph already pointed out, DSD is a heavily nerfed version of a 2E/3E spell that nobody used back then, either.

You do realise that even though one minute is less than ten, the point is that you can only try once, right?

Sure, but if you assume that the entire party rolls so poorly on finding the door that the players already know is there, it is also quite possible for the wizard to roll so low on his ritual check that he won't find it either.

So to sum up, for DSD to be useful,
(1) the players must know where a secret door is
(2) the characters must fail their perception checks to locate it
(3) in addition, the characters must lack access to several skill boosts, such as assisting, bardic Inspire Competence, ranger Advise, or the LFR card that lets you take 10.
(4) it must be important enough (and safe enough) to spend several minutes on
(5) during this time, the DM must disallow other ways of searching for the door (e.g. tapping the walls; remember that we're looking for a door that we already know is there)
(6) the ritual user must pass the (admittedly easy) check to locate the door with the ritual
(7) now, the party still has to figure out how to open it
(8) and the ritual user must have prepared for this situation in advance by investing money in it that he could have better spent elsewhere.

Wow, yeah, that will happen a lot.

Which brings us to the other benefit of Rituals: they emphasize the importance of skills ... So why cast a ritual when you could pick the lock yourself?

That's a hilarious remark. It's like saying that Dwarf Bread on the Discworld is good food. So the point of rituals is now that they are so utterly useless that players will opt to do something else instead, and this is somehow any different from not having rituals in the first place.

My problem with the arguments so far is that they are all encompassing.

Really? Read this one again: "Rituals should have one of (1) a high cost, (2) a high casting time, or (3) a limited effect; most rituals as printed have all three."

I particularly like the FRPG Rituals, Like Symbul's Conversion and Darklight.

The Dragon 366 also offers useful Rituals like Delay Affliction and Earthen Ramparts.

I like the idea of Darklight, but it's too expensive to use on a regular basis (and also, mostly for flavor). Trading a daily power for a healing surge is not a good trade, ever (you only run out of surges if the part is in Big Trouble, and if it is, you'd better have your dailies ready!) Earthen Ramparts is highly situational and easily ignored because of movement rules, in addition to being done cheaper and more quickly with a shovel. Delay Affliction is not bad, but very situational.

Well, I'd like to say that the "Rituals do nothing" belief is wrong

That's because it's a straw man. The actual belief is "Rituals should have one of (1) a high cost, (2) a high casting time, or (3) a limited effect; most rituals as printed have all three."

In play I use Rituals all the time, at full cost and full time expenditure.

And that's also a straw man, because (based on your examples here) there are just three or four rituals that you use a lot. There is, indeed, a category of "highly specific things that are cheap enough to keep around in case you need them". What you're overlooking is that (1) this is a very small category, and (2) pretty much every other ritual is utterly worthless.

* Linked Portal is useful
* Phantom Steed is mostly flavor (because you could also use actual horses, and note that flying mounts are available way earlier than this ritual lets you get them)
* Water Breathing is highly situational and will likely come up no more than one or two times per campaign, but isn't too expensive either.
* Detect Object is silly, because it has such a tiny range that indeed you must go out and find the missing object. So it's a dwarf bread.
* Arcane Lock is completely useless, because you're overlooking the fact that any enemy that's a credible threat to you can bypass it in less than thirty seconds, on average (whereas it takes ten minutes to cast).

Anyways, I think part of the problem is that the anti-ritual folks are all assuming automatic success on skill checks like perception, for one.

That was just one example, and note that the ritual user can just as easily fail his ritual check. To use a better example: although neither needs a skill check, why would you sink a lot of money into Earthen Ramparts when you can do the same, for free, and faster, with a shovel?

I DO believe that skills should be better than rituals, but I DON'T think that makes rituals useless.

If skills are better, and they're also cheaper and faster (which, indeed, they are), how does that not make rituals useless? Or do you subscribe to the Dwarf Bread idea above?

The other part of the problem is that people are thinking of the time and money aspects as if they were hard and fast mechanics, which they really aren't.

My point for a long time has been that anyone who is using rituals frequently has a DM that, yes, handwaves away the restrictions and requirements (such as, yes, time and money). Threads on the subject indicate that this is indeed the case (either that or, like OH above, the player unknowningly sticks to only the few rituals that do work).

I believe that is a good thing. However, it is also an Oberoni fallacy: it doesn't change the fact that as written, most rituals are utterly useless.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And that's also a straw man, because (based on your examples here) there are just three or four rituals that you use a lot. There is, indeed, a category of "highly specific things that are cheap enough to keep around in case you need them". What you're overlooking is that (1) this is a very small category, and (2) pretty much every other ritual is utterly worthless.

Did you just call my personal experience a "straw man?"

You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

But, if you decide that you need an exhaustive list of Rituals I've used:

Spoiler

Show

Water Walking - to deliver a corpse into deep water

Secret Chest - to conceal and transport wealth securely

Hand of Fate - to select a book in a library that would most assist us on our quest

Eyes of Alarm - to ward our campsite

Arcane Lock - to protect our rear when infiltrating a cultist's church, and to seal up side entrances when sneaking through a giant's home

Phantom Steed - quick travel between non-Circled locations

Commune with Nature - to avoid navigational hazards while sailing

Magic Circle - to create a secure staging point when assaulting a demonic fortress

Linked Portal - obvious

Water Breathing - obvious

Comprehend Languages - also obvious

I repeat that Rituals are most useful once you have a few levels on them. 1st level Rituals are plenty powerful, but are really too expensive to use until you have enough wealth that 70-100 gold isn't that much. This limits the use of magic-as-problem-solver, which has several salutatory effects (see previous post).

[Kurald Galain]

You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Here you go, enjoy reading.

But, if you decide that you need an exhaustive list of Rituals I've used:

That's such a short list that you've just made my point for me. And I suspect that even on that short list, there are several that you've only used once, or that you needn't have used in the situation in question.

I repeat that Rituals are most useful once you have a few levels on them.

To reiterate, there is a category of "highly specific things that are cheap enough to keep around in case you need them". What you're overlooking is that (1) this is a very small category, and (2) pretty much every other ritual is utterly worthless.

So you're saying rituals are great because a small group of them are useful, and I'm saying rituals are badly designed because all of them outside that small group are completely pointless. That's not even a contradiction.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Here you go, enjoy reading.

Since we're quoting:

Spoiler

Show

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Well, I'd like to say that the "Rituals do nothing" belief is wrong - at least in my experience. In play I use Rituals all the time, at full cost and full time expenditure. The trick is to use Rituals that are lower than your level.

And that's also a straw man, because (based on your examples here) there are just three or four rituals that you use a lot. There is, indeed, a category of "highly specific things that are cheap enough to keep around in case you need them". What you're overlooking is that (1) this is a very small category, and (2) pretty much every other ritual is utterly worthless.

I don't see how providing an anecdote of my own experience is misrepresenting an opponent's argument.

At any rate, I feel confident I can let my points rest as presented (if anyone is still reading). I have provided anecdotal evidence of Rituals being used effectively by RAW, and I have provided links to support my arguments as to why 4E Ritual casting is designed as it is. Others have noted, hypothetically, why Rituals are impossible or impractical to ever use. At this point, other readers will just have to draw their own conclusions, I suppose.

But if anyone is interested in me rehashing arguments:

Spoiler

Show

Your argument appears to be that no amount of actual Ritual use will prove that Rituals are useful as written. If that is not your actual argument, I would appreciate it if you could outline the conditions which would make Rituals "useful." In a previous threat I listed slightly over half of the available Rituals in Core that were useful as written, and your response was to say "no, these are only useful in select situations."

Now, if Rituals required unique components or were Vancian this would be a good argument, but since there is no opportunity cost for having a Ritual ready to use (unlike memorizing a spell in 3E) this does not matter. There is no penalty for "having" a Ritual, and even if it is only useful in a specific, but not unique, circumstance (like having to stay underwater for a long time) then it must still count as "useful."

If your definition of "useful" is "can be used in most situations" then you miss the point of 4E magic. It is supposed to be something used rarely or in special situations; it is not supposed to be a panacea. If you prefer "magic as panacea" then 4E is obviously not for you.

4E Rituals are not things like "Summon Cream Pie" or "Hold Clown," they are spells that can (and are) used to solve not uncommon situations that one would run into on an adventure. Using them in non-obvious situations is an art, just as it was in 3E, and they can, in fact, be used in this fashion.

I know. I have used them in a game with full casting times and full casting costs, played by the RAW.

[Saph]

At any rate, I feel confident I can let my points rest as presented (if anyone is still reading). I have provided anecdotal evidence of Rituals being used effectively by RAW, and I have provided links to support my arguments as to why 4E Ritual casting is designed as it is. Others have noted, hypothetically, why Rituals are impossible or impractical to ever use. At this point, other readers will just have to draw their own conclusions, I suppose.

That's a pretty unfair summary of what I've been saying. I've said that, in practice, the majority of rituals are useless because it's nearly always possible to solve the problem better/cheaper/faster with skills or with common sense - while at the same time, there are a select handful of rituals which are so ridiculously good that you'd have to be insane not to take them. That isn't hypothetical, it's based on actual play.

I'm also unimpressed with the claims made in this thread about how 3e magic 'solves everything'. If your reasoning leads you to conclude that Detect Secret Doors is some kind of uber-spell, I think it's pretty obvious that you've made a mistake somewhere.

- Saph

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's a pretty unfair summary of what I've been saying. I've said that, in practice, the majority of rituals are useless because it's nearly always possible to solve the problem better/cheaper/faster with skills or with common sense - while at the same time, there are a select handful of rituals which are so ridiculously good that you'd have to be insane not to take them. That isn't hypothetical, it's based on actual play.

I'm also unimpressed with the claims made in this thread about how 3e magic 'solves everything'. If your reasoning leads you to conclude that Detect Secret Doors is some kind of uber-spell, I think it's pretty obvious that you've made a mistake somewhere.

Yes, and I've countered in practice that Rituals are useful for solving the very problems that skills cannot solve. I've given examples, but that doesn't seem to be enough.

As for the "magic solves everything" claim, I'll reiterate the discussion we had in a previous thread

Spoiler

Show

Magic in 3E was virtually costless, both in terms of time and money. As noted in this podcast, costless magic results in people using magic to solve everything. Why invest in picking locks when your party wizard can cast Knock? Or, better yet, invest in scrolls of Knock? Why improve your Hide skill if the party wizard can just cast Invisibility (or use a scroll or a wand)? Those scrolls ran at about 200 gold apiece, chump change for LV 5+, and a Wand of Invisibility was 9K - pricey, but not crippling. And those very effects are available for free to anyone with sufficient caster levels; for spontaneous casters, the "investment" needed is trivial.

Plus, these spells had, by and large, a 100% success rate, as opposed to skills which could fail. So you had a situation where you could choose between 100% Success x Small/No Cost versus >100% Success x Small/No Cost; the correct answer would almost always be to use magic.

And we're not even talking about higher level shenanigans, like Wish loops and such silliness. Magic could deliver results for many (perhaps most) situations for as much actual cost as a skill, but with no chance of failure. This is "magic solves everything;" logically, anyone with magic can and should solve their problems with magic rather than mundane means.

[MartinHarper]

Honestly, how often are you really looking for a secret door that you already know the location of?

By coincidence, it happened in my second 4e session. They had a rough map of the place they were invading (the Sunless Citadel). None of the players rolled well on Perception, and the Wizard didn't have the Detect Secret Doors ritual, so they had to skip past the first secret door in the dungeon.

during this time, the DM must disallow other ways of searching for the door (e.g. tapping the walls; remember that we're looking for a door that we already know is there)

Tapping on the walls and all that stuff is included in the Search check. This isn't OD&D.

[FoE]

That's a hilarious remark. It's like saying that Dwarf Bread on the Discworld is good food. So the point of rituals is now that they are so utterly useless that players will opt to do something else instead, and this is somehow any different from not having rituals in the first place.

Not "useless." That wasn't my point. Rituals aren't useless. It just means that the solution to every problem isn't "I cast a spell!" Now there's more emphasis on using skill and wit to solve puzzles and get through dungeons.

That's because it's a straw man.

I've read that Wikipedia page too. You're mis-using the term. If anything, you were committing the same fault you're accusing Oracle Hunter.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, and I've countered in practice that Rituals are useful for solving the very problems that skills cannot solve. I've given examples, but that doesn't seem to be enough.

If you're trying to prove that rituals in general are so great, and the best you can come up with is a short list with eleven rituals (some of which you used only once, and some of which didn't make a difference when you used them) then you have completely failed to prove your point. Ironically, your evidence underlines Saph's and my statement, that only a very small group of rituals are ever worth using.

As for the "magic solves everything" claim, I'll reiterate the discussion we had in a previous thread

Actually, Saph has a fair point. That you insist in trying to turn this into a 3E-vs-4E debate really shows that you don't have an argument. This isn't about 3E, or any other RPG I could name. This is solely about 4E, which happens to have a few design flaws. Even if no other RPG in the world existed, those flaws would still be there.

It's no coincidence that most character building guides point out how useless rituals are. Even WOTC is (becoming) aware that they messed up with rituals, because they've begun printing items that obsolete certain rituals by doing the same job as a standard action, and classes that can use certain rituals for free. Wanna bet that Arcane Power has some feat or class feature that makes rituals less nonsensical for the PHB classes?

[Oracle_Hunter]

If you're trying to prove that rituals in general are so great, and the best you can come up with is a short list with eleven rituals (some of which you used only once, and some of which didn't make a difference when you used them) then you have completely failed to prove your point. Ironically, your evidence underlines Saph's and my statement, that only a very small group of rituals are ever worth using.

My point is that Rituals are not as totally worthless as you seem to believe. Yes, some of the Rituals are poorly costed, but the idea of using time & money to limit "mundane" spellcasting is not as crazy as it sounds. And indeed, many of the Rituals are just fine as written.

I have listed 11 Rituals because I am playing a level 13 character and therefore have no experience with the higher level ones. Of the 39 Rituals I have available to me, I've found use for a third in a couple of months of play, and if our DM cared about food or carrying capacity, I may have use for some more. In fact, of the Rituals I haven't used, the only ones I think are useless are:

Spoiler

Show

Magic Mouth - I suppose you could use it to leave a message for your party, but meh
Detect Secret Doors - DMs don't put Secret Doors that you can't find, by and large.
Hallucinatory Item - the "can't move" limitation makes this virtually useless for adventurers
Wizard's Sight - ridiculously limited
Detect Object - the range limit is too tight
Hallucinatory Creature - very limited, and the "touch to disbelieve" line eliminates most uses.

I've used 11 (actually, I forgot about Speak With Dead and Endure Elements... and maybe some others) and I find only 6 of them to be worthless, out of 39 total. To me, that's not so bad.

Now, this is not to say that Rituals are perfect. I think it's a good idea to give some classes free casting for certain low level Rituals (I would add "Gentle Repose" for Clerics and one 1st level Rituals of their choice for Wizards) but I do not expect to see Paragon Paths getting free access to Linked Portal any time soon. Or at least I hope not; WotC has a nasty habit of Codex Creep.

Briefly, I'll note that accusations of "edition warz" are both out of line and non-responsive. I made a legitimate comparison between the style of magic used in 3E and 4E - 3E is designed to have low-cost magic, and 4E is designed to have high-cost magic. I then made actual arguments as to why I prefer the 4E system, and what I mean by "magic solves everything." If you would like to explain why my argument is flawed, I would be happy to hear it.

[Oslecamo]

Plus, these spells had, by and large, a 100% success rate, as opposed to skills which could fail. So you had a situation where you could choose between 100% Success x Small/No Cost versus >100% Success x Small/No Cost; the correct answer would almost always be to use magic.

O'rrly?

Invisibility has actually a big chance of failing. By levels 5 and above monsters start to have stuff suh as see invisibility at will, true sight, "something"sense, or simply obscene spot checks, so the invisible wizard gets find and butchered before he can say "time stop".

Your friendly neighbour rogue on the other hand who bothered to take hide ranks and craven can go inside the dragon's vault and out whitout anyone ever noticing.

Knock is really fun. Untill you find several doors locked in a row. Rogue can use pick lock ad nauseum.

Why use charm monster when you can bluff/diplomacy out of any situation?

Don't have magic powers? Just pick some ranks in UMD and you can play caster all you want!

And we're not even talking about higher level shenanigans, like Wish loops and such silliness. Magic could deliver results for many (perhaps most) situations for as much actual cost as a skill, but with no chance of failure. This is "magic solves everything;" logically, anyone with magic can and should solve their problems with magic rather than mundane means.[/spoiler]

Fact, is, in 3e you're not fighting against mindless monsters with only combat abilities like in 4e.

You're fighting monsters with LOTS of utility abilities, who can see your juicy soul a thousand kilometers away, create a thousand doors on their lair, laugh at your scry atempts, have wizshes of their own, and solving all those problems with magic can get very expensive very quickly.

And actually, if these boards are any proof, knowledge checks are one o the caster's strongest weapons, since it allows the caster to know it's oponent's ADN and history life no matter how well said oponent is proetected against magic.

That's 3e skills true power for you. Int is never a dump stat.

[MartinHarper]

If you're trying to prove that rituals in general are so great, and the best you can come up with is a short list with eleven rituals (some of which you used only once, and some of which didn't make a difference when you used them) then you have completely failed to prove your point.

Well, there are many magic items - many more than rituals. Most people will only ever use a fraction of them. Using over a quarter of the available rituals in a single campaign is actually good going.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, there are many magic items - many more than rituals. Most people will only ever use a fraction of them. Using over a quarter of the available rituals in a single campaign is actually good going.

Not if it's the same quarter (actually less than that) in every campaign. Because that indicates the remaining 75% or more might as well not exist.

With a handful of exceptions or misprints, if a random party finds a randomly chosen magical item (of appropriate level), the item will be a net benefit to the party. However, with a handful of exceptions, if a random party finds a randomly chosen ritual (of appropriate level), using it can easily be a net detriment, so the party is better off selling it to an NPC.

To slightly expand on OH's list - Travelers Feast costs a lot more than, and does the same as, actual food. Shadow Walk is problematic since its extreme casting time (and rather short duration) conflict with the fact that you only need the ritual if you're in a hurry. And observe creature / view location / view object suffer from the same problems as wizard sight.

[Kaiyanwang]

O'rrly?

Invisibility has actually a big chance of failing. By levels 5 and above monsters start to have stuff suh as see invisibility at will, true sight, "something"sense, or simply obscene spot checks, so the invisible wizard gets find and butchered before he can say "time stop".

Your friendly neighbour rogue on the other hand who bothered to take hide ranks and craven can go inside the dragon's vault and out whitout anyone ever noticing.

Knock is really fun. Untill you find several doors locked in a row. Rogue can use pick lock ad nauseum.

Why use charm monster when you can bluff/diplomacy out of any situation?

Don't have magic powers? Just pick some ranks in UMD and you can play caster all you want!


Fact, is, in 3e you're not fighting against mindless monsters with only combat abilities like in 4e.

You're fighting monsters with LOTS of utility abilities, who can see your juicy soul a thousand kilometers away, create a thousand doors on their lair, laugh at your scry atempts, have wizshes of their own, and solving all those problems with magic can get very expensive very quickly.

And actually, if these boards are any proof, knowledge checks are one o the caster's strongest weapons, since it allows the caster to know it's oponent's ADN and history life no matter how well said oponent is proetected against magic.

That's 3e skills true power for you. Int is never a dump stat.

Copypasted. (Even as a DM i cheat knowledges sometimes, sometimes against and sometimes in favor of the players )

Further, in 3.x some magic has some cost. Barred XP, there are campaign-specific or plane specific (as an example, cast a divine spell in the Shadowlands in Oriental Adventures).

More, IMHO the whole solving magic thing is somewhat linked to the 4 encounters/day issue - or the misinterpretation of the concept. (and how encounters are runned - how many utiity spells spellcaster must prepare, and what spells- maybe a zone of the underdark has, as an example, an issue with nodes - so node spellcasting spells must be prepared, or spells liked to that node.. or whatelse. So you must decide, and you don't have infinite spell slot

And the magic item availability in the campaign could not be the standard one.

Just before the flame wave, I say this thing not to say that 3.x is perfect but the IMHO, the "magic solves anything" in actual play sound to me like "I can only charge and full attack". A sign of unimaginative gamestyle.

*drinks another half pint of grog*

[Saph]

Magic could deliver results for many (perhaps most) situations for as much actual cost as a skill, but with no chance of failure. This is "magic solves everything;" logically, anyone with magic can and should solve their problems with magic rather than mundane means.

Didn't you just say something about theoretical as opposed to practical a few posts back? I run a 3.5 game - I have it written up on these boards, in fact - and 3.5 magic does not make skills obsolete or solve everything. My players routinely get into problems because they're all full casters and don't have a skillmonkey in the party. If your reasoning was accurate, the full casters would all be able to solve every problem as well or better than a party which had skills. They can't.

I obviously can't disagree with your argument about why you prefer the 4e ritual system to the 3.5 utility magic one, because it's your preference. However, I can check your generalisations about 3.5 vs. 4e magic against my actual gameplay experience, and I can tell you they don't match at all.

- Saph

[Oracle_Hunter]

Didn't you just say something about theoretical as opposed to practical a few posts back? I run a 3.5 game - I have it written up on these boards, in fact - and 3.5 magic does not make skills obsolete or solve everything. My players routinely get into problems because they're all full casters and don't have a skillmonkey in the party. If your reasoning was accurate, the full casters would all be able to solve every problem as well or better than a party which had skills. They can't.

But isn't that odd? The theoretical calculations makes it fairly clear that, particularly for dangerous situations, people would choose the 100% effective option versus the >100% effective one, if both are available (and they usually are). The only reason why I can see people not rely on magic (via UMD, for example) is because their skills are also 100% effective. This gets into an (even more off topic) point about the flaws of a skill point system, so I'll digress.

But, for my edification, could you give an example of a situation where your casters got into a problem that a skill monkey would have solved better?

[Saph]

But isn't that odd? The theoretical calculations makes it fairly clear that

Oracle, your theoretical calculations are wrong! That's the whole point! If they were right, they would accurately model the way 3.5 games work, and they don't.

I could go into detail as to the reasons, but the summary points would be that you significantly overestimate the effectiveness of magic (the spell does what it says, not necessarily what you want), you don't take into account the opportunity costs (what could you have bought instead of that 2nd-level wand?), and you don't consider the fact that most magical effects have magical counters (dimensional lock, detect magic, see invisible).

Finally, you treat magic and skills as if they're an either/or choice, when the truth is that they're far more effective when used to complement each other. The intelligent question to ask in a 3.5 game isn't "Why should we use skills instead of magic?", it's "Why would we ever want to use one or the other when we can be so much more effective by using both?"

But, for my edification, could you give an example of a situation where your casters got into a problem that a skill monkey would have solved better?

Diplomacy.

- Saph