|
5 years ago ::
Mar 08, 2008 - 9:05PM
#61
|
|
|
Where does it state this? I was arguing that it said that to a friend but he said it wasn't there? I'd like your help on this if you got the location...
I don't have my books in front of me atm, but I do remember saying it somewhere sort of obvious... It might be on the back cover somewhere, but I'm almost 100% certain it's somewhere on the first page, or at least somewhere in the first chapter. If I unpack my books tonight I'll find it and post later...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 08, 2008 - 10:20PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2005
|
me: Are you saying that if you have have the ritual, all you have to do is spend gold to make magic items.
wyatt: yes.
The problem is that this doesn't actually tell us anything. What is a ritual, exactly? What is the opportunity cost of learning a ritual? How general are they?
We don't know any of this. If someone spends a feat to learn how to make magic items, are you really going to complain? Or maybe it isn't a feat at all, but something you have to learn from someone else, in which case the DM can stringently control which ones are available to learn.
Gold does need to be able to be spent on magic items in some way, because there's little else for a high level character to spend their gold on.
Well trust me when I say there are a lot of DMs who do there own world design. I think you must lead a sheltered life.
What are you even talking about? I said nothing about world design whatsoever in the quoted portion of text. This is a completely nonsensical statement and doesn't counter my argument in many way.
The majority of players never DM, in my experience.
And saying I live a sheltered life is just random flaming; you can't even distinguish between their and there, and are calling me sheltered? Seems to undercut your ability to insult me a bit, methinks.
Where does it state this? I was arguing that it said that to a friend but he said it wasn't there? I'd like your help on this if you got the location...
I put it in my post; maybe you should actually read it? I said it is on page 8, as well as in the first chapter after "Introduction", and is implied in the introduction as well. It is NOT specifically labelled as rule zero, but it IS stated as being the primary thing behind the game - the DM is the ultimate arbiter.
Maybe the different groups I've played in over the last 20+ years are wierd but we always had 3 - 5 DMG's and Monster manual's at the table.
I was DM roughly 1/2th the time, and that increased to 100% of the time over time. At college, I was DM about a third of the time, but when I wasn't, it was always one of two other people. Only about half the people had DMed in the past, and a lot of them are repeat DMs. It seems like most groups I've been with have 1-2 DMs; a lot of other people don't have DMGs and MMs, though rarely I'll run into a player with DMGs.
I almost never am the only person with a DMG or a MM, but usually there aren't more than 3 DMGs at the table, and typically I've got the only one as people don't tend to bring the other books along unless they need 'em.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 5:06AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
Responding to Titanium Dragon...
Your first point about rituals....
A ritual is something a player will be able to get in the normal course of adventuring. We at least know that. I would say it is very akin to a feat but not the same obviously.
I think you would probably have to openly rule 0 to keep a player from taking this ritual. Even then you probably don't want to prevent them from making ANY magic item.
Your second point about not saying anything about world design....
I construed what you wrote as saying that almost all DMs use commercial campaign settings. I believe you can see from these boards if nowhere else that this is obviously not true. Many do use commercial settings but many do not. I believe to believe that you would have to have led a "sheltered life" at least in relation to knowledge of D&D groups. It had nothing to do with your life in general. Just your knowledge of D&D groups. Sorry if I offended.
Your third point about what you thought I was saying about rule 0...
I wasn't disputing your comment about rule 0. In fact others have beat you to that point. I was talking about the text somewhere saying that the DMG was only for the DM. Now obviously I want more evidence than that its called the DM guide. If you look at a couple of the posts previous to yours you'll see that others understood my question.
Now some completely independent points...
I realize that some players both DM and play. This is not uncommon but I would not say its super common. I mean most people have a single group of friends they play with and typically one of them is DM most of the time. I think in college though this may not be true. I'm talking about people that have graduated college or are still in high school.
I think a DM that works to keep a sense of wonder in his games will have a happier group even if they resist at first. And I don't mean screwing with them over identify etc...
Again not trying to start a flame war here. Just my observations. I think we must have got our communications wires crossed in our previous posts Titanium Dragon.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 7:32AM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2008
|
I believe rituals will be basic spells not covered by combat powers. Things like Wizards Lock, Knock, and such.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 1:35PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2006
|
I believe rituals will be basic spells not covered by combat powers. Thinks like Wizards Lock, Knock, and such.
Right. Any non-combat spells are now rituals; you spend money instead of spell slots to cast them; and you can learn and know as many as you can find.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 1:53PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Which in turn makes adventuring more fun, since the fighter specializing in greatswords has that magical greatsword he needs, not some crummy longsword he found in a random stash.:P
I've always preferred adventures where me and the rest of the party are using stuff we find in stashes rather than crafting or going to mage-mart.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 3:30PM
#67
|
|
|
Rituals are spells that have no combat application, and hence are long to accomplish; I highly doubt your average cantrip is a Ritual. These are more likely to be at-will. However, stuff like divination spells are likely to take time out of combat.
That we know; however, how this applies to item creation, we don't know. As far as anyone here knows, it might be the fact that rituals for item creations require material components. Simplest way to restrict that: not have them be available.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 3:46PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2004
|
Rule 0, when invoked at the table, has, in my experience, more often than not, simply frustrated players and reduced enjoyment of the game. I have been playing since 2e; this has been my experience with every edition and every group I've played with.
I am in favor of house rules set ahead of time, with player input and knowledge beforehand. Rule Zero as carte blanche for the DM to do as he pleases, however, is a blight on the game.
Down with Rule Zero! Up with the DM as a participant!
And as a comment, I offer you all an example of rule #0 in action.
[Lulu] was a witch, a variant of a magic user that was described in Dragon magazine. She had powers like a dance of seduction and love potions -- stuff like that. She survived quite well, and she ended up being my character for years. All my friends bugged me that my favorite character was female, but I thought it was kind of cool that it didn't matter what sex your character was.
When she was twenty-third level one of the Dungeon Masters (DMs) that I played with all the time just, I guess, got tired of her, and he killed her. She was riding on her dragon's back above the clouds, and he made it rain acid upwards.[/quote]
( http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dungeons-drago … 989p1.html )
And I agree that DMs have enough power without resorting to rule #0. If nothing else they can always threaten to not DM 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 4:09PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2004
|
I highly doubt that is the case. To make the concept of creature intuitive, the creature's lv should ideally correspond with how soon the party can expect to take it on. Meaning that a 4th lv party should still have a fair chance of winning against a 4th lv solo enemy. It may drive them near the edge, but in the end, they should prevail.
A Dm should not have the second guess the intentions of the designers and estimate that a 4th lv foe is actually more apt for a 5th, or perhaps even 6th lv party, and not at all suitable for a 4th lv party to face.
The adventure was made not for public consumption, or even as an adventure at all. It was part of one of the "delves" (back-to-back fights) at the DnDXP, and the designer says that his thoughts were along the lines of "I should add a dragon, because they are cool, but it will be too hard.. huh, well, they complain one can't die in 4Ed.. let's show them."
To sum it up, six level 1 characters should have gone up against 600Xp worth of monsters, but instead got an 875Xp dragon (or was it 825.. something like that) And the end result was apparently 75% TPKs. Still, fun to see that the "XP as CR" works well enough.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 4:28PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2005
|
Ugh, that's not rule 0, thats jackassery on an epic scale.  Actually, the dragon fight illustrates something that is a VERY good thing about 4ed, even if you do end up in a fight above your level that has an almost certain chance of TPK, it can still be interesting rather than the instant TPKs that can happen even against something at your level in 3.x
|
|
|
