Community

Jan 18, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Tevish_Szat wrote:

And, skills work for that.  But, as is the matter of perception, skills are rather understated.  They are not the first things that players (or gamers doing an evaluation) look towards in order to determine if something is there, supported.  in 3e, they looked at feats and spells, and there were feats and spells that supported the skill system, or provided new ways to enhance or use their skills.  In 4e, we'd be looking for something like this

Fast Talk - All Social 1
Your rapid and energetic speech baffles the dim-witted, placing them in a suggestable state
Encounter - No Source, Social, Non-combat
Standard Action, Range: Hearing.
Cha vs. Will
Target: One creature capable of understanding your language.
Effect: Immediatley make an attempt to bluff the target at a +4 bonus.
Miss: Your target shakes off your attempt to bamboozle them, realizing somethign is up -- make all further bluff checks against the target this encounter at a -2 penalty.

Skill Powers. They have them. They look pretty much exactly like this. I don't think there are quite enough of them - that is, I don't think as a replacement for utility slots, they are effective. It would be nice if every X levels/X ranks/whatever you got them more or less for free; simply something that would otherwise be houseruled, but gives players support and options for out-of-combat events.

That combined with the skill challenge rules getting as much support as combat would be a great addition to 5e. I'd really like to see that sort of change.

Thank you Ogiwan, very insightful This leads me to somewhat blame the modules that the DM's in my group ran, for my low opinion of 4th edition capability in being anything NON combat, as I have never DM'd 4th. I was too put off with the length of combat to adjust my campaign to it. They ran the official pre made modules, I can't remember there names as this was well over a year ago. There not usually bad DM's at all, in fact both that ran 4th have successfully ran pre made modules from 1st up to 3.0. So something wonky has happened and I think I can point the finger at the modules or the rule set, not the DM's.

The differences I can see between our groups is the foundation you have laid is a lot more solid with your backgrounds.

Also mine is a lot more diverse in role playing style, If I had to pigeon hole it would break down like -
Power gamer / Instigator (me by the way),
Instigator / Explorer,
Power gamer,
Story teller / Actor,
Power gamer / Thinker, 
Watcher,
Slayer / Actor / Thinker.

What I meant by asking if being a good DM helped, is would you feel comfortable in any rule set, or is 4th edition the only one you would be able achieve this ? Or another way to put it is - how much of this success is you, how much is it 4th edition ? It's a bit of a mute question in a way because I'm sure a larger part is down to you, but what I'm trying to figure out, can anyone accomplish what you have with 4th edition, or only people with time to write there own campaigns.

Jan 18, 2012 -- 1:54PM, Ogiwan wrote:

Sadly, I'm not seeing how 4e is a combat-focused game.

That may be because you, as a DM, manages to look past the mechanics and so create your story.
I can manage that as well.
But not every DM or player (and, my impressions is - many DMs and players) have difficulty doing that in 4th ed, because the impression 4th ed gives is that combat is all important, and people do not look past that.
At least, that is my experience: people know all teh pwoers their character shave, but they don't know what deity their cleric worships...

I should add though that I do see this in other systems as well (such as Pathfinder). When the DM asks us what we are going to do during their time off in town, some players look at their sheets sot see what their character can do.
I simply see this happen more in 4th ed.
Again, it *could* be the generation, rather than the system.

Gomez

The fact is that combat is central to the dramatic system of most roleplaying games I'm familiar with. No really, Storyteller systems by White Wolf, Feng Shui, Houses of the Blooded (Fate based system by John Wick, subverted perhaps?), Hero, etcetera (not to familiar with Gurps or Anima).

While most of the powers that affect roleplaying that I'm familiar with come from the Arcanist class (Spook, Suggestion, just off the top of my head) the rules for skill challenge actually encourage the DM to allow powers (or good roleplaying) to count as auto successes (or give a bonus to a relevent other roll) and the skill challenge and quest rewards systems are the first time D&D has had a measurable, quantified means of obtaining XP without the DM just 'winging it' or the (IMO) atrocious aquiring gold mechanic way back in the day.

What I think is that people got so used to not playing the game that when the game finally gave them the tools to be able to do what they had been doing, they felt that they were constrained, not rewarded. As an example of what I mean:

in an early Legends and Lore column, Mike Mearls mentions that his favorite class in prior editions was the Thief and how due to mechanical deficiencies in the class he was forced to 'think outside the box' in order to be effective in the campaigns he played in. Ironically, I also favored the Thief class but, instead of thinking outside the box, I played the game and struggled to understand why the game did not permit me to function well in my chosen role. 4TH Edition finally succeeded in allowing me to play the characters that I wanted to play with in the rules without feeling like I had to try to work around the game instead of playing it. This is why I struggle to understand the call to move backwards in time to an (again IMO) inferior game design.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 12:50AM, gomeztoo wrote:

Jan 18, 2012 -- 1:54PM, Ogiwan wrote:

Sadly, I'm not seeing how 4e is a combat-focused game.

That may be because you, as a DM, manages to look past the mechanics and so create your story.
I can manage that as well.
But not every DM or player (and, my impressions is - many DMs and players) have difficulty doing that in 4th ed, because the impression 4th ed gives is that combat is all important, and people do not look past that.
At least, that is my experience: people know all teh pwoers their character shave, but they don't know what deity their cleric worships...

I should add though that I do see this in other systems as well (such as Pathfinder). When the DM asks us what we are going to do during their time off in town, some players look at their sheets sot see what their character can do.
I simply see this happen more in 4th ed.
Again, it *could* be the generation, rather than the system.

Gomez

As a 4e DM myself, who recently finished a campaign, I sort of disagree.  I've managed to get some good, solid non-combat sessions using the 4e mechanics, not looking past them.  The skills system codifies enough to be pretty useful, but stays flexible enough to handle a variety of situations.  The ritual system, should you find a player who will make the most of it, can be really great for creative solutions as well as plot devicing.  

Half the battle is showing the players that non-combat approaches to problems are also a viable way to go about it.

You can have non-combat focused campaigns in 4e.

They are just really bland, offer no deep gaming experience ("Roll Insight, Roll Bluff, Roll Insight, Roll Bluff, oh you have a Bluff utility power?? Use it. Roll Insight,...). Good luck trying to make a character that is non-combat focused, deep (filling your skills attributes is not deep character customization, sorry), and that actually has a progression path that enable him to get better at it (instead of "oh +2 to Charisma -> better Bluff).

Half the battle is showing the players that non-combat approaches to problems are also a viable way to go about it.

And the other half is making them forget that so much of the game is focused on what they are actually NOT doing. Yay for useless powers taking space during your "non-combat" session/campaing.

Oh, and this guy, he knows!

Jan 18, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Tevish_Szat wrote:

I think that the crux of the problem here is this sentiment:

"I should have character options for interacting with the world outside of combat"

Combined with a feeling that 4e's powers have not provided the same.  Though I admit to seeing very little of 4e personally, I have not seen a great opposition to this feeling.  Instead, sides choose to talk cross purposes.  one will say "I don't have powers that do out of combat things" and the other replies "Look at these skills!"

It's a matter of perception, in part, and scale in others.  Perception comes in that I have yet to hear a 4e supporter name noncombat powers, and 4e defiers look upon powers as the core of a character.  So if the core is nothing byt combat effects, who cares about these little skill things on the side?  there's a perception that they aren't important, or at least aren't as important as powers.

And then there's scale.  People have made the unwise choice of making blaknet statments like "4e is all nothing but combat".  Others latch on to this false absolutism and refuse to see that the speaker might possess a legitimate grief that ought not be blanket invalidated by hyperbole.

Myself, I agree with the poster who said that D&D is a game with three parts: Combat, Role Playing, and Exploration.  I furthermore agree that two of these three items seem to have been neglected by the core RAW of 4e.  In my few experiences with the edition, it is what I have seen, and ancedotal evidence given to the contrary has not been set in direct opposition, but in a direction as to deflect the criticism and attack the absolute terms that are all too often used in error

So, if I want tools for exploration and role playing, what do those entail?

For roleplaying, the answer is simple: I need a framework that allows my character, who stands head and shoulders above me when it comes to matters of persuasion, to not be dragged down by my personal ineptness.  I do not have 18 Charisma.  I do not have a silver tongue.  When my character with 18 strength attempts to strike a foe, I am not expected to smash a brick in order to defeat this foe in effigy to determine success, neither should it be expected that the success or failure of the 18 charisma, silver tongued character be solely dependant on how persuasive I, the player, can be.  Perhaps I can dictate the tenor of my bard's speech, the line of reasoning by which he would seek to convince his foe.  I can even do my best bard voice and say a few words, a proxy for what the elloquent and sly character might say.  But, at the end of the day, I roll a die or two to see if he pulled it off.

And, skills work for that.  But, as is the matter of perception, skills are rather understated.  They are not the first things that players (or gamers doing an evaluation) look towards in order to determine if something is there, supported.  in 3e, they looked at feats and spells, and there were feats and spells that supported the skill system, or provided new ways to enhance or use their skills.  In 4e, we'd be looking for something like this

Fast Talk - All Social 1
Your rapid and energetic speech baffles the dim-witted, placing them in a suggestable state
Encounter - No Source, Social, Non-combat
Standard Action, Range: Hearing.
Cha vs. Will
Target: One creature capable of understanding your language.
Effect: Immediatley make an attempt to bluff the target at a +4 bonus.
Miss: Your target shakes off your attempt to bamboozle them, realizing somethign is up -- make all further bluff checks against the target this encounter at a -2 penalty.

Is it balanced or good design?  Probably not, but I made this up with limited knowledge of 4e over the span of about five minutes -- it could no doubt be refined by going through the same development process as any other power would.  If there were five or ten such options, it would certainly start to feel like support.


Now what about exploration?  How should exploration be supported?
Exploration was at first a trickier subject than Role Playing.  There seems to be a gemeral concensus that when mechanics and role playing meet, it's when a character is attempting more or less hostile negotiations; ie, not simply chatting with a friendly npc, but trying to get or convince.
Then, I looked at what I considered to be support for exploration in previous editions.  There are skills here too, of course, but there were also a plethora of spells -- Move Earth, (overland) Fly, Passwall, Water Breathing, Mount, and even Disintegrate can support exploration (though the last is also HIGHLY useful in combat).  by this, I reached the conclusion
Support for exploration comes in the form of powers or abilities that allow players to alter the rate and method in which they move, or that alter the terrain potentially opening new passages.
Again, I don't think that you need MANY powers in this direction, and unlike "Roleplaying" or "Social" abilities, exploration is not nearly as often discussed.  So perhaps they are there -- I haven't heard of them, but at the moment I'll just leave this little footnote.

I'm much in the same boat as Ogiwan. I've had games where a session had zero combat, although I mostly try to get in at least one or two.

We use the system to tell exciting and deep stories, and even if we come to a combat, I never experienced the multiple hour combat some people have clamoring about. Level + 6 encounters go down in less than 45 minutes. On level encounters take below 30 minutes.

People underestimate the capabilities of 4E quite often. As others have said: A problem of presentation mostly.

It's not that we underestimate 4e, we just came to the realization that we could do more and better with another system. 4e has lots of options for combat, even though there is too much of them and they seriously lack in quality, but is very under-whelming when it comes to Exploration and Social gameplay.

"But you can still do it, you are only limited by your imagination...!", well I could also do with it some spare changes and some house rules, would still wouldn't change the fact that the system I'm using to create deep, engaging, "real" stories (where life isn't just about whacking something for whatever reason) is rather poor.

But hey, go ahead since you guys are such good DMs, play your next campaign with just some coins, instead of with 4e, maybe then you will understand. People went in 4e expecting some emphasis on Exploration, Combat, and Social part, they got the Combat part for sure but the rest was as lacking and featureless as the coin system I was talking about.

And I want to point out that I was a 4e GM, I actually made 3.5 grognards try 4e, had some great games, BUT I quickly saw the glaring problems the edition had (hours long combats, no deep non-combat framwork or custumization, and a really bland power system).

@BeastSoulEyes you raise good points, and no matter the arguments to the contrary I think everyone realizes that this has been one of the biggest criticisms of 4e from day one. It is highly likely that the developers are going to move away from 4e in this respect. I think it is a given, in fact. So the defense of the 4e approach in this regard is moot - that approach is going to be gone. I expect 5e will be designed in part to address the concerns you raise.

Jan 18, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Tevish_Szat wrote:

I think that the crux of the problem here is this sentiment:

"I should have character options for interacting with the world outside of combat"

Combined with a feeling that 4e's powers have not provided the same.  Though I admit to seeing very little of 4e personally, I have not seen a great opposition to this feeling.  Instead, sides choose to talk cross purposes.  one will say "I don't have powers that do out of combat things" and the other replies "Look at these skills!"

And spells.. oh by the way they are called rituals?  
Skills are more significant in part because rituals and powers dont overwhelm them (thats right just because there is a waterbreathing ritual doesnt mean knowing how to swim isnt useful under important circumstances).
I also get the impression that skills are treated as broader more complex things
If I want to perform for a crowd to convince them of something or some other plot worthy goal, my DM has me rolling insight and depending on what I want to accomplish with the performance maybe (diplomacy, bluff or wierdly intimidate) and possibly history (not necessarily by the performer).  Its unlikely to be just roll against your dex with a bonus because of your background.(though that option is there)

Not sure but they seem presented as being used/useful in more situations than they were previously.  

Jan 19, 2012 -- 6:09AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

It's not that we underestimate 4e, we just came to the realization that we could do more and better with another system. 4e has lots of options for combat, even though there is too much of them and they seriously lack in quality, but is very under-whelming when it comes to Exploration and Social gameplay.

"But you can still do it, you are only limited by your imagination...!", well I could also do with it some spare changes and some house rules, would still wouldn't change the fact that the system I'm using to create deep, engaging, "real" stories (where life isn't just about whacking something for whatever reason) is rather poor.

I feel like this gets at an important facet of the editions rifts. Some players believe rules are only really needed for combat. Others don't. I am in the latter group. We've all seen the arguments for having social, exploration, etc rules, like

• Combat can be roleplayed without dice or rules.
• Just as much as my persons swordskill doesn't affect my fighter's ability to fight, my personal skill at persuasion shouldn't affect my diplomat's ability to diplomance.
• D&D rules put a lot of focus on telling you how you can advance - become better at something. That can apply to anything, even becoming better at making chairs or singing.
• Rules can add enjoyment. I like roll+adds mechanics. I like to sometimes succeed outrageously or fail horribly. I like those events to relate to my general likelihood of normal success or failure.
• Rules can add consistency. Last week I had a 70% chance to hit and Orc. This week (having neither levelled or geared up) I still have a 70% chance. Last week I had a 20% chance to bluff the guard. This week?
• If broad, catch-all rules are enough, why do you need more than one combat power? Just make those very broad in their application.

And so on. Trivial analysis tells you that you can apply rules to... well, pretty much to whatever you like. The payoff you will get from doing so varies. Perhaps the best argument that can be made against rules for social situations is that one might rather those pages were spent on more spells, combat tricks, or whatever; but with the vast amount of pages that will ultimately be published for a D&D edition that is kind of a weak argument. The core sets do their best work by providing for expansion upon the themes they have crystallised into their core rules frameworks.

Rant ends.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 6:09AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

People went in 4e expecting some emphasis on Exploration, Combat, and Social part, they got the Combat part for sure but the rest was as lacking and featureless as the coin system I was talking about.

Actually, I found it to be quite the other way around on the social and exploration part. I am currently reviving an older 4E campaign that was all about exploration, and we used the Skill Challenge mechanic quite nicely in that campaign.

From begin on the campaign features complex and diverse skill challenges as a medium for the exploration part. Together with the other game rules and actualy, you know, roleplaying, we came to incredibly awesome results.

I mean, come on, what exploration mechanics were present in older editions, pray tell? Name them, explain them and show me how you used them. Then we can continue that path of discussion. Far as I know there was nothing systemic / mechanical to aid you in the exploration, gameplay wise. What was there, with 3E, was a skill system. And that is also present in 4E.

Furthermore, social stuff.... what rules were present for social stuff in pre 4E, please? Except "I Win" spells that immediately obviated the need for social challenges? Again, you come to a skill and attribute roll system, something still present in 4E to boot.

So yeah... besides an awesome tactical combat engine, 4E also features for the first time a mechanic (SC's) the could be used to model more complex social interactions than "roll a single die". Sure, you could do the same in pre 4E, but as you argued "why bother if it's not given to you?" (paraphrased).

And yes, while I argue pro-SC, I would also like to point out that it took some time for WotC to catch up to the good modifications players made over the time. The SC mechanic in itself is quite awesome, it's applications as shown in earlier books is not so much. So there you go... something good to improve upon for 5E Wotc!

Jan 19, 2012 -- 4:22AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

You can have non-combat focused campaigns in 4e.

They are just really bland, offer no deep gaming experience ("Roll Insight, Roll Bluff, Roll Insight, Roll Bluff, oh you have a Bluff utility power?? Use it. Roll Insight,...). Good luck trying to make a character that is non-combat focused, deep (filling your skills attributes is not deep character customization, sorry), and that actually has a progression path that enable him to get better at it (instead of "oh +2 to Charisma -> better Bluff).

Now, I know from seeing you around these boards, that you prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder, right?

So, tell me, how is it a deeper gaming experience when you roll Bluff?   How is your Sense Motive skill any less bland or more colorful than my Insight?  In 3.5, a character gets better at skills over time.  They do in 4e, as well.  Both games even include a variety of spells and class features that are primarily intended for non-combat use.  

You say "good luck" to me trying to make a deep, non-combat focused character, but I don't need luck to do it.  I can make a Rogue, and get powers that let me run up walls and hide in shadows.  The skills on my 4e Rogue will actually cover more possible activities, because of the condensed skill list.

But no, it's only deep gameplay when you roll Bluff or Hide pre-4e.  In 4e, the same exact mechanic for determining such things is bland and empty. 

Jan 14, 2012 -- 1:22PM, The_Ubbergeek wrote:

Why are you guys abusing of strawmen and logical fallacies? This is not true that 4th edi. is all combat, it is highly rping.

You do not need load of rules for rping, ya know. 

No,  just try playing a Ravenloft campaign in 4e.    Most would agree that 4e isn't the right system for it.  
In those games you might have 90% role playing and about 10% combat.    Typically there is a huge portion of the scenario devoted to investigation and horror with a battle being the climax of the story. 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 6:54AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2012 -- 1:22PM, The_Ubbergeek wrote:

Why are you guys abusing of strawmen and logical fallacies? This is not true that 4th edi. is all combat, it is highly rping.

You do not need load of rules for rping, ya know. 

No,  just try playing a Ravenloft campaign in 4e.    Most would agree that 4e isn't the right system for it.  
In those games you might have 90% role playing and about 10% combat.    Typically there is a huge portion of the scenario devoted to investigation and horror with a battle being the climax of the story. 

That has nothing to do with 4E being a bad system, the Ravenloft thing.

Problem here is, 4E is a good game for the default Big Damn Hero trope. You are awesome from get-go. This clashes obviously with the more horror-like elements of Ravenloft and the general "crapsack world" feeling there.

I am the first to admit that 4E is not a good system for horror in it's default state. You can make it work, but 4E assumes a more heroic approach.

Now, pre 4E wasn't really all that good for horror games either, just a bit better because the earlier levels tend to be swingy and death can be common even with basic monsters. Playing Ravenloft would be more appropriate in a wholly different system IMO.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 6:48AM, Leichenreiter wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 6:09AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

People went in 4e expecting some emphasis on Exploration, Combat, and Social part, they got the Combat part for sure but the rest was as lacking and featureless as the coin system I was talking about.

Actually, I found it to be quite the other way around on the social and exploration part. I am currently reviving an older 4E campaign that was all about exploration, and we used the Skill Challenge mechanic quite nicely in that campaign.

From begin on the campaign features complex and diverse skill challenges as a medium for the exploration part. Together with the other game rules and actualy, you know, roleplaying, we came to incredibly awesome results.

I mean, come on, what exploration mechanics were present in older editions, pray tell? Name them, explain them and show me how you used them. Then we can continue that path of discussion. Far as I know there was nothing systemic / mechanical to aid you in the exploration, gameplay wise. What was there, with 3E, was a skill system. And that is also present in 4E.

Furthermore, social stuff.... what rules were present for social stuff in pre 4E, please? Except "I Win" spells that immediately obviated the need for social challenges? Again, you come to a skill and attribute roll system, something still present in 4E to boot.

So yeah... besides an awesome tactical combat engine, 4E also features for the first time a mechanic (SC's) the could be used to model more complex social interactions than "roll a single die". Sure, you could do the same in pre 4E, but as you argued "why bother if it's not given to you?" (paraphrased).

And yes, while I argue pro-SC, I would also like to point out that it took some time for WotC to catch up to the good modifications players made over the time. The SC mechanic in itself is quite awesome, it's applications as shown in earlier books is not so much. So there you go... something good to improve upon for 5E Wotc!

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

For the social aspect, the alignment system, you had plenty of situations where you had to work around this system when interacting with people, you had spells that worked around this system, you also had spells that played with the emotions of targets (Charm Person, yay). All of are more than lacking in 4e, with nothing worthwhile replacing them.

Before someone start accusing me of wanting to have casters do all the work, I will say that I am of the opinion that such tools and effects should be redistributed equally among casters and non-casters.

Skill Challenges are a failure, even 4e players know it. They were borked, got barely some support, and were not expande upon in any way. They were a good attempt to create a framework around skills, and give some structure to non-combat, but unfortunately did not get the attention they deserved, so yeahhhhh....

Jan 19, 2012 -- 6:48AM, Leichenreiter wrote:

Actually, I found it to be quite the other way around on the social and exploration part. I am currently reviving an older 4E campaign that was all about exploration, and we used the Skill Challenge mechanic quite nicely in that campaign.

From begin on the campaign features complex and diverse skill challenges as a medium for the exploration part. Together with the other game rules and actualy, you know, roleplaying, we came to incredibly awesome results.

Quoting myself ftw

It's not that we underestimate 4e, we just came to the realization that we could do more and better with another system.

You could have done better with another system, FATE for example.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

Oh man!  Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, and Light!  I love those spells.  I just opened up my PHB and there they were.  Hey, wait, this is my 4e PHB!  

Jan 19, 2012 -- 6:50AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Now, I know from seeing you around these boards, that you prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder, right?

So, tell me, how is it a deeper gaming experience when you roll Bluff?   How is your Sense Motive skill any less bland or more colorful than my Insight?  In 3.5, a character gets better at skills over time.  They do in 4e, as well.  Both games even include a variety of spells and class features that are primarily intended for non-combat use.  

You say "good luck" to me trying to make a deep, non-combat focused character, but I don't need luck to do it.  I can make a Rogue, and get powers that let me run up walls and hide in shadows.  The skills on my 4e Rogue will actually cover more possible activities, because of the condensed skill list.

But no, it's only deep gameplay when you roll Bluff or Hide pre-4e.  In 4e, the same exact mechanic for determining such things is bland and empty. 

Yep, both games include a variety of spells and class features that are primarily intended for non-combat use.

Except that one system has a quite reasonable amount of them, while in the other they are the exception and they are drowning under a sea of combat-focused options (MORE POWERS, MOOOORRREEEE), or are just relegated to the back of the book (poor rituals :'( ).

Yes I like PF and 3.5, but you wanna know the really REALLY fun thing about that?

I used to like 4e first before switching to 3.5/PF.

EDIT

You can make a Rogue that can climb walls and hide in shadows O.o,... amazing? No, not really.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

All three of those are in the game, two are rituals are one ins an atwill cantrip for wizards.  and in the PHB1 no less, it has been i nthe game since day 1.

fail.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:00AM, Leichenreiter wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 6:54AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2012 -- 1:22PM, The_Ubbergeek wrote:

Why are you guys abusing of strawmen and logical fallacies? This is not true that 4th edi. is all combat, it is highly rping.

You do not need load of rules for rping, ya know. 

No,  just try playing a Ravenloft campaign in 4e.    Most would agree that 4e isn't the right system for it.  
In those games you might have 90% role playing and about 10% combat.    Typically there is a huge portion of the scenario devoted to investigation and horror with a battle being the climax of the story. 

That has nothing to do with 4E being a bad system, the Ravenloft thing.

Problem here is, 4E is a good game for the default Big Damn Hero trope. You are awesome from get-go. This clashes obviously with the more horror-like elements of Ravenloft and the general "crapsack world" feeling there.

I am the first to admit that 4E is not a good system for horror in it's default state. You can make it work, but 4E assumes a more heroic approach.

Now, pre 4E wasn't really all that good for horror games either, just a bit better because the earlier levels tend to be swingy and death can be common even with basic monsters. Playing Ravenloft would be more appropriate in a wholly different system IMO.

I'm not suggesting that D&D ever played this role perfectly in the past.  I do however think that 2e did the best  job of it.   I thought it worked rather well infact.  Immunity to non-magical weapons, energy drain, good and evil mechanics, all helped to make the game a terrifying experience.    

At the moment I have my fingers crossed that 5e will have a horror theme toolbox.     

psssh im running players through my i6 ravenloft conversion currently and its going great. its basically word for word from the module and is going smoothly. of course, my players are actually capable of rp. they dont whine and bitch and accuse the game of keeping them from being able to do it; they probably realize how pathetic that sounds. i dont agree with you in the slightest

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

Following your line or argumentation, 4E thus has good exploration mechanics, as all the spells you named still exist. Light as an at-will cantrip, Detect Secret Doors and Endure Elements as Rituals.

Good thing is, the exploration elements don't step on the feet of combat elements this time around. Also, the exploration elements are more accessible and you do no longer need a main spellcaster to take care of those things.

In said D&D campaign of mine we are having an Ardent as our Ritual guy, whom makes exploration and uncovering the mysteries a fair bit easier. Even our Elven Ranger has access to a limited set of rituals.

See? 4E has splendid exploration mechanics, and allows for everyone to take them up with the right investment. A turn for the better, I would argue.

For the social aspect, the alignment system, you had plenty of situations where you had to work around this system when interacting with people, you had spells that worked around this system, you also had spells that played with the emotions of targets (Charm Person, yay). All of are more than lacking in 4e, with nothing worthwhile replacing them.

Which is, IMO, a good thing. Alignment was a bad mechanic simply because everyone has a different explanation for all the alignments. Ask five people about alignments and you get 10 opinions.

Alignment was also not a social mechanic. It was a morals mechanic that indicated how someone ticks, not how to interact socially with them. The only social mechanics in prior editions (mainly 3E) were a few social skills. 4E has those and Skill Challenges, which are quite usable in different social situations (not all, though).

Before someone start accusing me of wanting to have casters do all the work, I will say that I am of the opinion that such tools and effects should be redistributed equally among casters and non-casters.

Bingo, Rituals. Everyone has access to them with a bit of investment. Exactly what you want in the quoted post!

Skill Challenges are a failure, even 4e players know it. They were borked, got barely some support, and were not expande upon in any way. They were a good attempt to create a framework around skills, and give some structure to non-combat, but unfortunately did not get the attention they deserved, so yeahhhhh....

I disagree. They were badly implemented at the start, but received some make overs. They work quite well and provide a good framework for non-combat things that are categorizable with SC's.

My and many other groups work wonderfully with Skill Challenges. The only things I change with them is that I set the DC's myself, which is also more or less standard in D&D. Otherwise I just use them in smart ways to give the players some good challenges.

You could have done better with another system, FATE for example.

I do not think that I could have done better with FATE, even though I absolutely love FATE. The system (FATE) works well for games like Scion and Exalted, Dresden Files and a lot of other things. But I'll take my 4E as fantasy RPG of choice before FATE.

The frameworks and skill-sets provided by 4E give me the best results to date with my campaigns.

I do not see how I could have don better with FATE. I could have, with a fair deal of work, done the same, though. But then, 4E provides all I need, why work my butt off with FATE to do the same?

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:14AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Yep, both games include a variety of spells and class features that are primarily intended for non-combat use.

Except that one system has a quite reasonable amount of them, while in the other they are the exception and they are drowning under a sea of combat-focused options (MORE POWERS, MOOOORRREEEE), or are just relegated to the back of the book (poor rituals :'( ).

Really?  If we were to look at the whole of published 3.5 material, you don't think we'd be justified in calling it 'A sea of combat-fcoused options"?  I think we would be.  And yeah, rituals are at the back of the book.  So sad.  They're in the same place spell lists always were.

Yes I like PF and 3.5, but you wanna know the really REALLY fun thing about that?

I used to like 4e first before switching to 3.5/PF.

It's not surprising.  The only form of hate known to exceed a former fan's is the fury of a woman scorned.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:17AM, dmgorgon wrote:

I'm not suggesting that D&D ever played this role perfectly in the past.  I do however think that 2e did the best  job of it.   I thought it worked rather well infact.  Immunity to non-magical weapons, energy drain, good and evil mechanics, all helped to make the game a terrifying experience.    

At the moment I have my fingers crossed that 5e will have a horror theme toolbox.

I do not want to insinuate that D&D did a particularly bad job in it, either. It was okay, not all that supremely good at it, though.

If you want a good horror roleplaying, take up a dedicated horror RPG. They provide the tools up-front and have good themes and tropes in their repertoire.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:20AM, frothsof wrote:

psssh im running players through my i6 ravenloft conversion currently and its going great. its basically word for word from the module and is going smoothly. of course, my players are actually capable of rp. they dont whine and bitch and accuse the game of keeping them from being able to do it; they probably realize how pathetic that sounds. i dont agree with you in the slightest

Good for you, dude.

But I still think a dedicated horror RPG is better to play those games. Not to say that you can't with any edition of D&D, because you can (the general like for ravenloft indicates this quite clearly).

Thing is, 4E assumes a heroic viewpoint in general. You can work it into a heroic horror game, into a normal horror game, and anything in between, but it's not best suited for the task.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:12AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

Oh man!  Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, and Light!  I love those spells.  I just opened up my PHB and there they were.  Hey, wait, this is my 4e PHB!  

yeh terrible how things get moved on you and so they dont exist anymore. 

But seriously I really think the issue is that spells were hands down better than skill uses and now that nature skill and endurance skill or whatever still has uses. Both for emergencies and when you didnt plan ahead.  (If you dont have the components there is no ritual)

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:26AM, Leichenreiter wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:20AM, frothsof wrote:

psssh im running players through my i6 ravenloft conversion currently and its going great. its basically word for word from the module and is going smoothly. of course, my players are actually capable of rp. they dont whine and bitch and accuse the game of keeping them from being able to do it; they probably realize how pathetic that sounds. i dont agree with you in the slightest

Good for you, dude.

But I still think a dedicated horror RPG is better to play those games. Not to say that you can't with any edition of D&D, because you can (the general like for ravenloft indicates this quite clearly).

Thing is, 4E assumes a heroic viewpoint in general. You can work it into a heroic horror game, into a normal horror game, and anything in between, but it's not best suited for the task.

i agree completely. i also play call of cthulhu and find it much more suited to horror. my issue wasnt so much with whether 4e is an ideal system for horror rp, but more the completely absurd yet oft repeated assertions regarding rp in 4e

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:35AM, frothsof wrote:

my issue wasnt so much with whether 4e is an ideal system for horror rp, but more the completely absurd yet oft repeated assertions regarding rp in 4e

People making this assertion can for the most part be safely ignored. Try to reason with them once or twice, if they're a stuck record, just keep moving past them. No need to get pissed off because some people cry foul over imagined wrongdoings.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:34AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:12AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

Oh man!  Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, and Light!  I love those spells.  I just opened up my PHB and there they were.  Hey, wait, this is my 4e PHB!  

yeh terrible how things get moved on you and so they dont exist anymore. 

But seriously I really think the issue is that spells were hands down better than skill uses and now that nature skill and endurance skill or whatever still has uses. Both for emergencies and when you didnt plan ahead.  (If you dont have the components there is no ritual)

Also for exploration the "I cant cast it as a standard action!" whine is not warrented as exploration is usually not as time constrained.  

You can wait for 10 minutes for that endure elements.

I'd like to see noncombat mechanics that exist outside or parallel to combat mechanics. 

I miss some of the stupider skills like Craft (Beer) gone from 4E.  Backgrounds are great... but +2 to two skills is what I am really searching for.  I make characters that are no optimized, but based on specific roleplaying points.  If it's not critical to my vision, I char op - specifically for combat.

So I would like to see skills that have nothing to do with combat that you can take with a seperate set of Trainings or Skill Points.  There are very colorful Feats, but most characters take the same combat specific Feats.   

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:15AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

All three of those are in the game, two are rituals are one ins an atwill cantrip for wizards.  and in the PHB1 no less, it has been i nthe game since day 1.

fail.

So desperate to prove me wrong and defend your dear edition huh :D?

In case you haven't noticed my point was more about how 3.5 put more emphasis on effects like that than 4e, effects that are highly beneficial to Exploration gameplay. Oh in 3.5 they were spells, accessible, and supported, which is the exact opposite of Rituals.

Light being a cantrip for is cool, I like it! I wish they had made things like cantrips for each classes, and made a lot more of them, but hey, they were too busy pourring out thousands of unneeded stricly combat powers... oh well.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:59AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:15AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

All three of those are in the game, two are rituals are one ins an atwill cantrip for wizards.  and in the PHB1 no less, it has been i nthe game since day 1.

fail.

So desperate to prove me wrong and defend your dear edition huh :D?

In case you haven't noticed my point was more about how 3.5 put more emphasis on effects like that than 4e, effects that are highly beneficial to Exploration gameplay. Oh in 3.5 they were spells, accessible, and supported, which is the exact opposite of Rituals.

Light being a cantrip for is cool, I like it! I wish they had made things like cantrips for each classes, and made a lot more of them, but hey, they were too busy pourring out thousands of unneeded stricly combat powers... oh well.

I wonder why you say that the rituals are less accessable, in 4e they can be literally used by any class.  more accessable then being placed in a spell list.

In addition there are ritual categories, under "exploration" 94 rituals.  94 separate elements that are specifically geared towards exploration.  Yeah, 4e doenst encourage exploration at all.

I odnt get how rituals, which can also be purchased as scrolls so anyone can use them not just ritual casters, and all have clear categories, and have alot of the open ended effects that people seem to like are worse then previous edition spells that were locked to caster classes or scrolls that I beleiv erequired UMD as a skill roll to operate.

4e rituals are much more accessable and encourage exploration. 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 4:22AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

You can have non-combat focused campaigns in 4e.

They are just really bland, offer no deep gaming experience ("Roll Insight, Roll Bluff, Roll Insight, Roll Bluff, oh you have a Bluff utility power?? Use it. Roll Insight,...). Good luck trying to make a character that is non-combat focused, deep (filling your skills attributes is not deep character customization, sorry), and that actually has a progression path that enable him to get better at it (instead of "oh +2 to Charisma -> better Bluff).

So you're saying you can't have a "deep gaming experience" and good role playing if you don't have an expansive and exacting system to tell you exactly what you can and can't do?

Ummmm, wow. That's really the opposite of true.  Any character is as combat focused as that player wants them to be, period. Certain classes may have more skills available or built in (Bards, Rogues, etc.)  but it all comes down to the player. 4E's skill system is open enough to let role playing actually work things out. 3E's skill system became a needless, messy crutch that no other edition has.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:59AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

So desperate to prove me wrong and defend your dear edition huh :D?

In case you haven't noticed my point was more about how 3.5 put more emphasis on effects like that than 4e, effects that are highly beneficial to Exploration gameplay. Oh in 3.5 they were spells, accessible, and supported, which is the exact opposite of Rituals.

Since you did not yet answer my post, let me join in here.

3.5E did not put more emphasis on those effects, it provided them just like 4E did. The difference here, is that Rituals are really accessible, contrary to 3.5E, where you have to be among the elite of spellcasters to use them.

The real accessibility comes not from making it exclusive to only a select few. Real accessibility comes from providing access to everyone for a cost. Which is what Rituals do.

As for supported... Rituals have support. There are multiple hundreds of them (close to 400 if the compendium is right), and they all have their clear function.

So you are, right now, talking BS.

I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

Thanks!

Still pressed a bit by time but at least I can type some stuffs.

First off, you guys are putting a lot of weight on Rituals, a system that was as you guys, as 4e players, know (and before I forget 3.5 Rituals != 4e Rituals). Rituals did cover some space in Exporation and Social gameplay, but they were far from being enough to make those part of gameplay interesting.

Rituals were not accessible in that they were not truly a part of the customization of your character. You had to pay some non-negligeable amount of gold to access the feature, and if you were not a caster you would be investing in rituals that could end up being useless during the campaign and when you would use them you would lose access to them.
I guess you guys would sympathize with the fact that casters have an easier, and cheaper, time affecting the story in a non-combat way.

Also frankly, nothing was built on top of them, they barely had any feat concerning them, they were still heavily limited by monetary constraints (funny that you have to gain gold through Combat to be able to affect the story in a non-combat way).

The attempt to make the equivalent of Rituals more accessible to Martial characters was a failure too, most effects of those could be replicated with a simple skill check lol.

Rituals could have become something that would have made 4e less combat-focused, but you cannot deny that WotC did not support them well and to a point even forgot about them.

Now another point I want to make is 3.5 is NOT in my book a perfect system. However through making effects like the ones the 4e Rituals emulated at the core of the system through spells, 3.5 did a better job with those effects, and therefore did a better job promoting Exploration and Social gameplay through them.

EDIT

If I remember well, the only other attempts to make more rituals was a SINGLE Dragon article, a SINGLE. Other than that, they were forgotten in the 2 PHBs after the first, so yeah, well supported, I think not.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 9:15AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Also frankly, nothing was built on top of them, they barely had any feat concerning them, they were still heavily limited by monetary constraints (funny that you have to gain gold through Combat to be able to affect the story in a non-combat way).

First off, you do not have to gain gold through combat, you gain treasure parcels by defeating encounters. That includes "Solve the Murder", "Convince the Duke" and "Talk your way through the Guards trying to imprison you".

In now way, shape or form are you forced into combat to gain treasure parcels -> money.

That Rituals barely had any feats concerning them is only partly true (47 hits on the compendium for feats that concern themselves with rituals). Still, the Rituals don't need much feats, IMO, the system works very nicely as-is, esp. since skill feats are also important for some rituals and thus add to that, too, in a way.

The attempt to make the equivalent of Rituals more accessible to Martial characters was a failure too, most effects of those could be replicated with a simple skill check lol.

That much is true, Martial Practices were pretty much a waste of space, 'far as I am concerned.

Rituals could have become something that would have made 4e less combat-focused, but you cannot deny that WotC did not support them well and to a point even forgot about them.

400 Rituals is not "forgot about them" and also not "did not support them", my friend. That shows a constant track record of material. There is quite a lot of Rituals out there, many as good tools for exploration, scrying, hindering enemies and preparing advantages for yourself.

Now another point I want to make is 3.5 is NOT in my book a perfect system. However through making effects like the ones the 4e Rituals emulated at the core of the system through spells, 3.5 did a better job with those effects, and therefore did a better job promoting Exploration and Social gameplay through them.

How did 3.5E exactly do a better job at it?

4E lets you cast the spells as often as you want, if you have the materials ready. Everyone can learn them.
In 3.5E you have to use spell slots, strictliy limiting what you can do per day, requires you to choose between exploration, combat or obviating other skills and also restricts them further by only giving it to the full casters.

That doesn't sound like a better job, it sounds like a worse one.

EDIT

If I remember well, the only other attempts to make more rituals was a SINGLE Dragon article, a SINGLE. Other than that, they were forgotten in the 2 PHBs after the first, so yeah, well supported, I think not.

Sources for Rituals include, but are not limited to:

• Adventurer's Vault
• Arcane Power
• Dark Sun
• Demonomicon
• Divine Power
• Eberron and FR Player Guides
• Martial Power I + II
• 12 different Dragon Magazines

and a fair deal more.

The amount of Rituals is quite good. So far you are still speaking nonsense, my friend.

You still need to explain to me why limiting exploration tools to specific classes only and then again limiting it via spell slots is making it more available than making it available to everyone. This, still, sounds quite like a paradox to me.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 9:15AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

If I remember well, the only other attempts to make more rituals was a SINGLE Dragon article, a SINGLE. Other than that, they were forgotten in the 2 PHBs after the first, so yeah, well supported, I think not.

The forums ate my post but i think this needs to be disproven:

List of dragon magzines with rituals listed as source:

366
373
375
376
380
381
382
385
391
397
400
405 

dungeon magezines:

160
162
163
165
183
186

Not ot mention Arcane power, Adventurers vault, manual of the planes, ebberon, forgotten realm and darksun campaign setings and players books.

this is so disproven. 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 8:07AM, Gunthar wrote:

So you're saying you can't have a "deep gaming experience" and good role playing if you don't have an expansive and exacting system to tell you exactly what you can and can't do?

Ummmm, wow. That's really the opposite of true.  Any character is as combat focused as that player wants them to be, period. Certain classes may have more skills available or built in (Bards, Rogues, etc.)  but it all comes down to the player. 4E's skill system is open enough to let role playing actually work things out. 3E's skill system became a needless, messy crutch that no other edition has.

I do NOT want a system that tell me exactly what to do when it comes to Roleplaying or Exploration. I want a framework, which is NOT leaving the thing aside and ignoring, deeming it not important enough to deserve a framework as Combat definitively  got. I want something that can measure success and failure in Exploration or Roleplaying, that enable me to game it, that offer customization, and a path for progression.

4e Skill System could have fit the bill if it going expanded upon WAYYY more. Things like Skill powers were a nice, but again quickly forgetten about atempt to build upon skills, and investing in skills would gimp a lot in what seemed to matters most in 4e, Combat. I can give you this, Skills could have made 4e more open to other fields other than Combat, you guys visibly used them a lot for that, HOWEVER they are severely limited in their capacity to handle everything (I should really roll insight to represent a psionic gift, really?? So other characters with high Insight have psionics capabilities too??), in the amount of gaming that was built around them, and their capacity for progression (only ability scores, and backgrounds, where combat had gears, items, powers, classes, ect...).

on the feats thing.  there are 47 feats that have hits with "rituals"

lets compare it with some other keyword searches:

Stealth: 49
Hidden: 23
fire: 95
cold: 55 
diplomacy: 27 
athletics: 42
thievery: 17

I could go on, but the truth is that rituals have more support then alot of skills have featwise!

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:40AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:34AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:12AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

Oh man!  Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, and Light!  I love those spells.  I just opened up my PHB and there they were.  Hey, wait, this is my 4e PHB!  

yeh terrible how things get moved on you and so they dont exist anymore. 

But seriously I really think the issue is that spells were hands down better than skill uses and now that nature skill and endurance skill or whatever still has uses. Both for emergencies and when you didnt plan ahead.  (If you dont have the components there is no ritual)

Also for exploration the "I cant cast it as a standard action!" whine is not warrented as exploration is usually not as time constrained.  

You can wait for 10 minutes for that endure elements.

one thing i might want to see is the folowing:

rituals with a casting time of :
5 minutes or special
* special this ritual can be cast as part of a short rest.

maybe also some buff rituals that would have durations like :
for the next 2 encounters

Jan 19, 2012 -- 9:41AM, edwin_su wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:40AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:34AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:12AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 7:07AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Spells like Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, Light. for Exploration Sure I know that they were part of the problem in how casters became OP and needed, by nonetheless this is an exploration mechanism to make Exploration part of the game.

Oh man!  Endure Elements, Detect Secret Doors, and Light!  I love those spells.  I just opened up my PHB and there they were.  Hey, wait, this is my 4e PHB!  

yeh terrible how things get moved on you and so they dont exist anymore. 

But seriously I really think the issue is that spells were hands down better than skill uses and now that nature skill and endurance skill or whatever still has uses. Both for emergencies and when you didnt plan ahead.  (If you dont have the components there is no ritual)

Also for exploration the "I cant cast it as a standard action!" whine is not warrented as exploration is usually not as time constrained.  

You can wait for 10 minutes for that endure elements.

one thing i might want to see is the folowing:

rituals with a casting time of :
5 minutes or special
* special this ritual can be cast as part of a short rest.

maybe also some buff rituals that would have durations like :
for the next 2 encounters

the 5 minute thing... isnt that the same thing?  why woudnt you be able to cast a ritual during a short rest?  I guess it would matter if you viewed rituals as "tasks that don’t require much exertion" or not.

They recently published an article that has rituals with casting times of 1 minute or special:  This ritual can be cast as a standard action from a scroll. 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 9:30AM, Leichenreiter wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 9:15AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Also frankly, nothing was built on top of them, they barely had any feat concerning them, they were still heavily limited by monetary constraints (funny that you have to gain gold through Combat to be able to affect the story in a non-combat way).

First off, you do not have to gain gold through combat, you gain treasure parcels by defeating encounters. That includes "Solve the Murder", "Convince the Duke" and "Talk your way through the Guards trying to imprison you".

In now way, shape or form are you forced into combat to gain treasure parcels -> money.

That Rituals barely had any feats concerning them is only partly true (47 hits on the compendium for feats that concern themselves with rituals). Still, the Rituals don't need much feats, IMO, the system works very nicely as-is, esp. since skill feats are also important for some rituals and thus add to that, too, in a way.

The attempt to make the equivalent of Rituals more accessible to Martial characters was a failure too, most effects of those could be replicated with a simple skill check lol.

That much is true, Martial Practices were pretty much a waste of space, 'far as I am concerned.

Rituals could have become something that would have made 4e less combat-focused, but you cannot deny that WotC did not support them well and to a point even forgot about them.

400 Rituals is not "forgot about them" and also not "did not support them", my friend. That shows a constant track record of material. There is quite a lot of Rituals out there, many as good tools for exploration, scrying, hindering enemies and preparing advantages for yourself.

Now another point I want to make is 3.5 is NOT in my book a perfect system. However through making effects like the ones the 4e Rituals emulated at the core of the system through spells, 3.5 did a better job with those effects, and therefore did a better job promoting Exploration and Social gameplay through them.

How did 3.5E exactly do a better job at it?

4E lets you cast the spells as often as you want, if you have the materials ready. Everyone can learn them.
In 3.5E you have to use spell slots, strictliy limiting what you can do per day, requires you to choose between exploration, combat or obviating other skills and also restricts them further by only giving it to the full casters.

That doesn't sound like a better job, it sounds like a worse one.

EDIT

If I remember well, the only other attempts to make more rituals was a SINGLE Dragon article, a SINGLE. Other than that, they were forgotten in the 2 PHBs after the first, so yeah, well supported, I think not.

Sources for Rituals include, but are not limited to:

• Adventurer's Vault
• Arcane Power
• Dark Sun
• Demonomicon
• Divine Power
• Eberron and FR Player Guides
• Martial Power I + II
• 12 different Dragon Magazines

and a fair deal more.

The amount of Rituals is quite good. So far you are still speaking nonsense, my friend.

You still need to explain to me why limiting exploration tools to specific classes only and then again limiting it via spell slots is making it more available than making it available to everyone. This, still, sounds quite like a paradox to me.

Well I obviosuly did not remember it as well as I thought, I can give you that! It's been a long time since I actually followed the activity of 4e lol. But if I remember well, you had to have use a scroll if you didn't have a ritual book,  and if you did have a ritual book, you had the monetary aspect to handle, not sure about that though.

You still need to explain to me why limiting exploration tools to specific classes only and then again limiting it via spell slots is making it more available than making it available to everyone.

First off, for one simple reason => a less emphasized monetary component. Second, a greater closeness to the effect, the spell is part of what your character is, where in 4e Rituals are more like something your character use instead of being a part of him. Wizard having a ritual book is great, but put yourself in the shoes of others non-caster classes.

Also one very important reason I think 3.5 handled effects way better than 4e. Flavor.
Tying those effects to a class helpts give an indentiy to the class, it gives to it its own unique way to handle exploration, the class bringing to the table its own flavorful, unique way to help explore and engage the unknown. Seeing the Pallading cast Light in the deep, dark cavern IS iconic!

So yea, 3.5 did it better and with way less hassle.

Oh and to close this topic about Rituals, I invite you to compare the support Rituals had in 4e with the support spells had in 3.5

Jan 19, 2012 -- 9:50AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Oh and to close this topic about Rituals, I invite you to compare the support Rituals had in 4e with the support spells had in 3.5

I invite you to comment on how, somehow, people are able to have fun, intriguing games full of roleplay and periods where there actually isn't anything dying. Earlier in this thread, you said,

You can have non-combat focused campaigns in 4e. They are just really bland, [and] offer no deep gaming experience...

This is something that I find rather insulting, seeing as how, again, I have run sessions (recently!) that are non-combat, and are anything but bland and shallow gaming experiences. Furthermore, despite multiple other people saying, "No man, you can totally do this..." you refuse to listen to anybody, and continue to decry 4th edition as The Bane Of All Roleplaying Fun. While, generally, being quite rude, disparaging, and dismissive.

I'd like you to apologize. 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 9:50AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

First off, for one simple reason => a less emphasized monetary component. Second, a greater closeness to the effect, the spell is part of what your character is, where in 4e Rituals are more like something your character use instead of being a part of him. Wizard having a ritual book is great, but put yourself in the shoes of others non-caster classes.

I will give you this point with one BIG exception... its only less emphasized less monetarily with actual caster classes.  but once you get into magic devices like wands of Spell X it quickly becomes a monetary component.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 9:50AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

First off, for one simple reason => a less emphasized monetary component. Second, a greater closeness to the effect, the spell is part of what your character is, where in 4e Rituals are more like something your character use instead of being a part of him. Wizard having a ritual book is great, but put yourself in the shoes of others non-caster classes.

Also one very important reason I think 3.5 handled effects way better than 4e. Flavor.
Tying those effects to a class helpts give an indentiy to the class, it gives to it its own unique way to handle exploration, the class bringing to the table its own flavorful, unique way to help explore and engage the unknown. Seeing the Pallading cast Light in the deep, dark cavern IS iconic!

So yea, 3.5 did it better and with way less hassle.

Oh and to close this topic about Rituals, I invite you to compare the support Rituals had in 4e with the support spells had in 3.5

but in my experiance playing 3.X skills where totaly irrelevant.
becouse a wizard with his bag of holding with scrolls would beat any skill roll even if a character took all the feats he could find to boost that skill.

so if you sugested making a skill focused character and said so to other players you would get remarks like:
are you sure we already have a wizard for anything that can be done with skills.

getting a quest where sombody needed to sneak inside to get a key.
the logical choice for this would be the invisible, silenced pass without trace wizard,
not some rogue that has to rely on unpredictible skill rolls.

I can agree I exagerrated a bit, and hey if you guys say you can pull it off, good I will believe you. Now try to convince the myriad of people who left the system for this specifc reason .

As I said, unfortunately your non-combat campaigns will be limited to rolling skills, adding ability scores modifiers to your skill bonuses when appropriate, and making the wizard use rituals, although it is better than trying to do it flipping coins as a system resolution mechanic, it is SOOO much worse than what plenty of other systems have accomplished in making non-combat matter and fun!

Again, you CAN have non-combat focused campaigns in 4e, but the mechanics, or rather the lack of them, WILL limit your potential, and you seem like a great DM since you have succeeded where I failed in the past, making a 4e game that was not cannibalized by combat .

Now do mind that most people might NOT be as good as you and would be better off using another system.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:11AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

As I said, unfortunately your non-combat campaigns will be limited to rolling skills, adding ability scores modifiers to your skill bonuses when appropriate, and making the wizard use rituals, although it is better than trying to do some with flipping coins as a system resolution mechanic, it is SOOO much worse what plenty of other systems have accomplished in making non-combat matter and fun!

I dont see how if I played a previous edition of D&D how i would not be limited to rolling skills, adding ability modifiers to the skill bonuses where appropriate and making the wizards use his spells.

Granted using a previous edition of D&D is better then using a coin flipping mechanic but its not really all that great as you seem to be championing it.

Well you had spells :/.

And I will agree with you guys on this: they gave WAYYY to much weight to the casters when it comes to ways to affect the story. I wish more of those effects would have been redistributed to Martial characters.

Actually the only differance between those two situations is that instead of the "wizard with his rituals" you can substirute any class for it.  

I actually very much like that the exploration is not tied to "MUST HAVE WIZARD" in 4E. That made no sense to me and is highly disruptive to a gameworld like mine, focussing on exploration, simply because every explorer must be a wizard or suck hardcore at his job.

With Rituals you open up the exploration game to characters besides the already very powerful and overused wizard. Which is a good thing. I agree that the spells gave the wizard definition, but he was overdefined before you could even start with further definition via those spells.

The availability in 4E leaves me with more concepts to pick up, with better exploration in general, simply because I do not have to force a class down the player's throat.

The monetary compenent is one of discussion... but then again, 3.5E had monetary components on many spells, too. Do not forget that.

So far we have as limiting factors in pre 3.5E:

• Your Class (and not all spellcasters have access to all exploration spells)
• Your Spell Slots (which at times are needed for more than just exploration)
• Your Components (if needed)

In 4E you have as limiting factors:

• Small investment of ressources for some classes
• Components

In an earlier posting you stated:

In case you haven't noticed my point was more about how 3.5 put more emphasis on effects like that than 4e, effects that are highly beneficial to Exploration gameplay. Oh in 3.5 they were spells, accessible, and supported, which is the exact opposite of Rituals.

I posit again: Exploration tools in 4E are more accessible and just as well supported, quite contrary to your statement here. You have relatively easy access if you want it, with some classes already having this toolset from get-go.

Acquiring rituals and spending gold to use them is a better limiter than daily allotment of spells and only being able to use it as a certain class. This allows for an unspecific amount of Rituals per day, which can be important. Most of all, the cost of most rituals is fixed, and diminishes quite quickly in comparison to what your wealth should be at certain levels.

If you are level 20 casting some minor Rituals is a piece of cake and won't even leave a visible dent in your ressources.

All in all I find Exploration Tools to be readily available in 4E, for a good prize and without arbitrary limits on who can actually make use of them. You no longer need intrepid explorers to be wizards or casters to explain how the heck they came that far.

Besides the mentioned Rituals you also have the Skill Challenge system, and no matter what you say, I find them perfectly servicable and working. I used many SC's in my campaigns in the past, and most were a splendid success. They give us a fromwork in which to roleplay certain challenges that go beyond "single dice, roll!" difficulty.

On top of that you also have explicit usages of skills geared towards exploration (foraging, climbing, swimming, endurance, etc. etc.).

All in all 4E has a good toolset for Exploration.

The last thing to tackle now is the social side of things. Currently the social mechanics in D&D are a few powers (at times reimagining old spells) and rituals (zone of truth is quite nice) that require a bit set-up time.

Then again, the skills to play your Charisma 20 bard and other characters, as well as social Skill Challenges. Obviously the SC's need to be designed well to work good in a social context, but that is a matter of preparation work.

All in all 4E has a good toolset for Social Encounters.

So, what's missing now?

4E gives you more or the same tools as before. So where's the problem? Not with the system, I tell you that much! And hey, I can live with you disliking the system. Just don't misrepresent it and it's capabilities just because you don't like it.

How do you get those rituals ?

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:32AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

How do you get those rituals ?

THe exact dsame way you get spells in previouse editions.

Wizards gets free ones.

Buy them

find them

Kill things and take them. 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:32AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

How do you get those rituals ?

Possibilities:

• Knowing them (Wizards; for free)
• Buying them
• Finding them
• Tracking them down
• Steal another Ritualists book
• Invent them
• Ask the DM to place them as loot somewhere

So... now what? Can you agree that the tools are all there in 4E?

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:34AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:32AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

How do you get those rituals ?

THe exact dsame way you get spells in previouse editions.

Wizards gets free ones.

Buy them

find them

Kill things and take them. 

Where as spells you could learn them anytime, anywhere, sure you had to prepare, that's WAY better than having to get to the nearest big city (rituals are not simple groceries lol), or expect the GM to give one to you.

and BAM one SIMPLE case where 3.5 handling of those effects is more accessible than 4e Rituals.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:40AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:34AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:32AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

How do you get those rituals ?

THe exact dsame way you get spells in previouse editions.

Wizards gets free ones.

Buy them

find them

Kill things and take them. 

Where as spells you could learn them anytime, anywhere, sure you had to prepare, that's WAY better than having to get to the nearest big city (rituals are not simple groceries lol), or expect the GM to give one to you.

and BAM one case where 3.5 handling of those effects is more accessible than 4e Rituals.

Isnt my first point the exact same point you are making?

The wizards can learn them out of nowhere? 

Oh yes, I didn't notice this sentence was wrong, my bad.

They are not obtained in the same ways, that's pretty evident . No?

Yes, they learn them out of nowhere, why? You didn't knew it?

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:48AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Oh yes, I didn't notice this sentence was wrong, my bad.

They are not obtained in the same ways, that's pretty evident . No?

Yes, they learn them out of nowhere, why? You didn't know it?

Thats just my point, it is not a way that 3.x is better. it's the same.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:40AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:34AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:32AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

How do you get those rituals ?

THe exact dsame way you get spells in previouse editions.

Wizards gets free ones.

Buy them

find them

Kill things and take them. 

Where as spells you could learn them anytime, anywhere, sure you had to prepare, that's WAY better than having to get to the nearest big city (rituals are not simple groceries lol), or expect the GM to give one to you.

and BAM one SIMPLE case where 3.5 handling of those effects is more accessible than 4e Rituals.

you still needed your spellbook in 3.X to prepare spells.
just like spells in 3.X needed to be in your spellbook to use, 4th edition rituals have to be in your ritual book.

only with rituals you can act more on the fly then with spells.

scout comes back to party, seems we will be going into a area with lots of fire creatures and lava

3.X respone:
but i haven't prepared any spells for conditions like that can we camp here for 8 hours so i can prepare them ?

4th responce:
well lets see, the wizard sais as he takes his ritual book from his backpack, i'm sure i have some usefull rituals in here for situations like this
and within an hour the party is ready to go. 

Wizards in 3e got two spells added to their spellbook every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Sorcerers in 3e got new spells learned every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Clerics and Druids got an entire level's worth of spells dropped on them every odd level of their entire existence.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:55AM, Salla wrote:

Wizards in 3e got two spells added to their spellbook every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Sorcerers in 3e got new spells learned every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Clerics and Druids got an entire level's worth of spells dropped on them every odd level of their entire existence.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Wizards in 4e get two free rituals at 5th level, and again at 11th, 15th, 21st, and 25th level.

So not really any different. 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:19AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Well you had spells :/.

And I will agree with you guys on this: they gave WAYYY to much weight to the casters when it comes to ways to affect the story. I wish more of those effects would have been redistributed to Martial characters.

There is nothing stopping a non mage asking the mage to cast a spell, this is a team game. Granted the mage does have the power to say no, but I doubt that would be very often. 

When I'm talking about accessibility, I'm more talking about the fact that you did not need to own or find a 3.5 spell before mastering it and then being able to use it. You don't have to get to the nearest big city or influence the GM to get your non-combat option, it was part of your character, you learned it as you adventured.

Sure, unlike 3.5 spells once a ritual is mastered in your ritual book you can use it whenever you want, but if I remember well you still had to pay for the components with can be as much a burden has having to prepare everyday. But still, when it comes to first getting the thing, the way 3.5 handled it is better.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:58AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:55AM, Salla wrote:

Wizards in 3e got two spells added to their spellbook every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Sorcerers in 3e got new spells learned every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Clerics and Druids got an entire level's worth of spells dropped on them every odd level of their entire existence.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Wizards in 4e get two free rituals at 5th level, and again at 11th, 15th, 21st, and 25th level.

So not really any different. 

Oh, I didn't knew that, that's actually pretty cool! As you can see I didn't play a Wizard when I was still playing 4e :P.

However isn't that pretty much fly in the face of how Rituals were open to other classes?..

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:03AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

When I'm talking about accessibility, I'm more talking about the fact that you did not need to own or find a 3.5 spell before mastering it and then being able to use it. You don't have to get to the nearest big city or influence the GM to get your non-combat option, it was part of your character, you learned it as you adventured.

Sure, unlike 3.5 spells once a ritual is mastered in your ritual book you can use it whenever you want, but if I remember well you still had to pay for the components with can be as much a burden has having to prepare everyday. But still, when it comes to first getting the thing, the way 3.5 handled it is better.

I still dont understand this part.  Basicalyl what you are saying is that a 3e wizard had a spellbook and couldnt cast a spell that was not in his or her book.  But however if that wizard found a spell they could add it to their book pretty easily.

The only differance is that a 4e ritual caster once they find ritual (there is no implication that you need to go back to a city, a ritual caster can master a ritual that they find out in the wild.) they just have to spend 8 hours per tier ro master the ritual.

So the only differance is that a ritual caster needs to spens a bit of time to actually master the ritual.

Whereas a 3.x caster needs to get the spell, put it in their book and then have an extended rest and reprepare all of their spells.

I dont see the real differance. 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:06AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Oh, I didn't knew that, that's actually pretty cool! As you can see I didn't play a Wizard when I was still playing 4e :P.

However isn't that pretty much fly in the face of how Rituals were open to other classes?..

No?...

a wizards gets rituals at some levels for free.  doenst stop other classes form gaining rituals.

Does finding a wand or scroll of knock fly in the face that wizards in 3.x are masters of magic? 

My point is you shouldn't have to find your non-combat tools randomly in the wild, in a big city, or through the DM being nice with you. Sure Wizards can actually bypass this mechanism and get the rituals they want through a progression path (which I like, if I had known that I woulod definitively played a Wizard), but that still leaves the others casters and non-casters out in the cold, pretty sad for a system that is supposed to be open.

Sure, 3.5 spells were limited to classes, but at least by doing that they helped shape those classes and were not constrained so much by gold and in the ways to obtain them.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:06AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Oh, I didn't knew that, that's actually pretty cool! As you can see I didn't play a Wizard when I was still playing 4e :P.

There is a saying: Only talk about what you actually know. You claim many things, and many of those are frankly not true, as we have found out over the course of this thread. Maybe inform yourself a little better, before your start declaring facts that are wrong.

You could easily have asked, instead of blatantly stating wrong facts, y'know?

However isn't that pretty much fly in the face of how Rituals were open to other classes?..

It is part of the ressource investment you need to make to get a hold of them. I am, myself, fully okay with wizards getting a headstart in these things. You could also let your Ritualist invent the rituals in question (as stated above in my listing) by giving them a timeframe and requiring the necessary gold to buy the ritual in the store (to keep the fairness / balance, so to speak).

Then after the alloted time is up he gains access to the Ritual. And yes, while not every Ritual is as simple to acquire as an apple, the fact that it is after all open for everyone means that it is a lot more common than spells.

I would argue that any city with more than a few hundred people has at least a few rituals lying around or people trained in their use. Even hunters and maybe a few select people in the town guard know one or two.

The availability of Rituals is, obviously, tied to how much the DM wishes them to play a role in his campaign.

So yeah... in 3.5E you get spells for free. But you have to decide between a few hundred per level, not just the exploration ones, and that is what your character is capable of for a fair bit of time, then. You always must decide between being ready for combat or a utility-machine. The spell slots were never quite enough.

On the other hand, in 4E you do not have that limiting factor. You get Rituals in addition to being a capable wizard/fighter/ranger/shaman/whatever. THe additive nature of Rituals makes a big difference, along with them being open for everyone.

The classic example for this, if I remember correctly, is Conan. Never read it myself, but heared a lot about it, including that Conan did a fair number of rituals / spells. And he is most certainly not a trained wizard, I tell you that.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:20AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

My point is you shouldn't have to find your non-combat tools randomly in the wild, in a big city, or through the DM being nice with you. Sure Wizards can actually bypass this mechanism and get the rituals they want through a progression path (which I like, if I had known that I woulod definitively played a Wizard), but that still leaves the others casters and non-casters out in the cold, pretty sad for a system that is supposed to be open.

Sure, 3.5 spells were limited to classes, but at least by doing that they helped shape those classes and were not constrained so much by gold and in the ways to obtain them.

So where do you get your exploration tools?  you just expect them to be handed to you on a silver platter?  So it's "Unless the game gives everybody the tools right off the bat its not providing an enviroment of exploration"?

so since the game doesnt load everybody down default with torches, bedrolls, maps, 10' poles and potions the game isnt fostoring an enviroment of exploration?

to me Exploration isnt "oh look lets just wander out there and hopefully the wizard will level up enough to get the spells we need to survive."

I see buying rituals that you will use and need as a part of exploration as a party resource.

why are you going back to the city ot get endure elements?  shouldnt you have bought it or aquired it in other ways before heading out to the desert of really hot times? 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:55AM, Salla wrote:

Wizards in 3e got two spells added to their spellbook every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Sorcerers in 3e got new spells learned every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Clerics and Druids got an entire level's worth of spells dropped on them every odd level of their entire existence.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

If that's how your DM played it, yes.  Many DM's require players to find all spells they choose to add to their spellbook or their spell list.  The "for free" simply means for them that they don't have to spend the regular costs of adding the spell to their spellbook.  Adding any other spell costs money in terms of ink, pages, etc.  And clerics and druids always get their spells for free - that's never changed.  The difference is they have to make nice with their god; tick him or her off and bye-bye spells.

That's one of the things that 4E got away from is the role-playing aspect of spellcasting.  It isn't supposed to be easy; there is supposed to be a tradeoff (it costs money or carrying space to cart around a spellbook, a wizard without his spellbook is nigh useless, a cleric who goes off the rails is out of favor with his god and has no power, not enough pre-planning = ineffective caster).  That's what made martial types attractive - all else fails, they could use fists and improvised clubs to fight, or steal a weapon off another character, but a wizard without a spellbook, or the wrong spells, was hosed.

How do you avoid not preparing the right spells?  Pre-planning, which is totally a skill activity requiring a variety of characters.  The ranger or druid should know what kind of territory the party is venturing to, the wizard, priest or nature characters should know what kind of flora and fauna will be encountered and how to handle it.  Then the wizard can prepare the right spells, or spend time adding them to his spellbook if he doesn't already have them.  This was true for combat and non-combat spells, something 4E wouldn't let you do.     

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:32AM, bcomps wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:55AM, Salla wrote:

Wizards in 3e got two spells added to their spellbook every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Sorcerers in 3e got new spells learned every time they levelled.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

Clerics and Druids got an entire level's worth of spells dropped on them every odd level of their entire existence.  No cost.  No time.  No tutor.  Where did they come from?  Out of nowhere.

If that's how your DM played it, yes.  Many DM's require players to find all spells they choose to add to their spellbook or their spell list.   

Those DMs are houseruling, which is irrelevant to a conversation about the actual rules.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:03AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

When I'm talking about accessibility, I'm more talking about the fact that you did not need to own or find a 3.5 spell before mastering it and then being able to use it. You don't have to get to the nearest big city or influence the GM to get your non-combat option, it was part of your character, you learned it as you adventured.

Sure, unlike 3.5 spells once a ritual is mastered in your ritual book you can use it whenever you want, but if I remember well you still had to pay for the components with can be as much a burden has having to prepare everyday. But still, when it comes to first getting the thing, the way 3.5 handled it is better.

For arcane casters at least (and I say this as a 3.x player), this is false

Sorcerers have their Spells Known.  Wizards get 2 spells in their spellbook each levellup.

If you want to add to that pool, you have to a) Buy scrolls in a major city where there might actually be trade in such magic, either to use or to scribe into your spellbook as a wizard.  b) Find scrolls as treasure (same thing), or c) As a wizard, capture another wizard's spellbook and go through the arduous process of translating and transcribing it.

Is "2 free on levelling" a decent base?   yes, but it will usually only get you the most directly useful spells.  Assuming you (a generalist wizard, who wants the toolbox we're talking about) always want to get your highest level of spell avaliable, that means, after 0th and 1st which are strange, you're going to "naturally" get 4 spells of a given level.  From, say, 6th level, Player's Handbook ONLY, I'd probably want Greater Dispelling or Antimagic Field,  Legend Lore, True Seeing, Analyze Dweomer, and Disintegrate at a bare minimum.  some or all of  Flesh to Stone/Stone to Flesh, Move Earth, Control Water, Shadow Walk, Contingency, and Chain Lightning, Mass Suggestion, Geas/Quest, and the anti-magic abjuration I didn't take at first would be nice.  That's at least one and up to eleven spells I'd like to have acces to that I do need to purchase or find.  From the PHB alone.  If I'm a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard, I don't GET the option to learn more than 3 of those 15 spells without burning feats and can't use captured spellbooks either: one casting, one scroll.

Fake edit: Lookign it up, I can;t actually find where it is said that scrolls can be used to gain the spell in your spellbook... I think it's down to other spellbooks/purchased transcriptions, but I'd allow scrolls used that way and have for some time...

I may be coming late to this, but...

Combat isn't everything, but it is (almost) everything that needs rules.

Keep in mind that we aren't designing an experience, we're designing a rulebook.  It's the G part of RPG.  People don't need a book to tell them how to RP, and in fact the books shouldn't tell you how to RP.  What the books do, rather, is provide an agreed-upon set of resolution mechanisms that aren't under the purview of RP.  Like what happens when you swing your sword at the orc.  The RP decision is whether you swing your sword, and the G is what determines how effective you are at doing it.  It makes it something more than than cops&robbers' "I got you!  No you didn't!  Yes I did!" banter.

What people tended to not pick up on right away was that a lack of rules telling you what happened if your paladin broke his vows to be lawful good does not mean that there shouldn't be consequences under any circumstances.  Just that that sort of RP is best left up to the individual DM rather than in the rules as written.

Again, to sum up:  We need rules for combat and other "how does the outside world respond to my choices" interactions:  picking a lock, identifying magical residue, remembering some odd bit of obscure knowledge that my character knows but I as a player don't, that sort of thing.  What we don't need is rules for how to seduce the barmaid and get her to let slip who's been poisoning the mayor's wine.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:35AM, Salla wrote:

Those DMs are houseruling, which is irrelevant to a conversation about the actual rules.

Or interpreting the RAW to mean that just because you get the spells "for free" doesn't mean they mystically appear in your book.  You still have to find the spells somewhere.  Again, they interpret "for free" as meaning the normal requirements of spell learning (cost, time, failure chance, etc.) do not apply to these two spells.  Certainly this had been the case in earlier editions for all spells - there were no freebies.  So, many old school DM's read the rules this way.  Therefore, it's not a house rule but an interpretation of the rules.  You may wish to interpret them differently, and so be it.

From the SRD:
At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.

It flatly states 'you gain them' with no requirements.  There is no other way to interpret this; it is a house rule.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:55AM, Tevish_Szat wrote:

Fake edit: Lookign it up, I can;t actually find where it is said that scrolls can be used to gain the spell in your spellbook... I think it's down to other spellbooks/purchased transcriptions, but I'd allow scrolls used that way and have for some time...

I'm pretty sure that in the DMG in Scrolls it says that you can either cast the spell or transcribe it from the scroll to your spellbook, and that either use consumes the scroll.  If it doesn't say it, it's such a popular "house rule" that it may as well be canon.

   

I'd like the next edition to differentiate between "warriors" (characters whose main strength lies in combat, "supporters" (those who can help the warriors in combat, either healing, distracting, bluffing...) and "passives" (those who lay back in combat, trying to find any way to help or working hard to avoid being killed). Out of combat, supporters would be better prepared for adventuring, and passives even better. Every class would have a combat role (defender, controller, leader or striker) and a noncombat role (explorer, investigator or diplomat).

The DM would have the option to choose how much relative weight combat would have in his campaign and, depending on that, adding bonuses to the classes. That is, if combat will be just about half of the campaign, warriors will be way over the others in combat, but if combat would be more than 90% of the adventure, everyone would be able to fight on their own.

Combat balance should not be affected by noncombat factors.  Do not want.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:03AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

When I'm talking about accessibility, I'm more talking about the fact that you did not need to own or find a 3.5 spell before mastering it and then being able to use it. You don't have to get to the nearest big city or influence the GM to get your non-combat option, it was part of your character, you learned it as you adventured.

Sure, unlike 3.5 spells once a ritual is mastered in your ritual book you can use it whenever you want, but if I remember well you still had to pay for the components with can be as much a burden has having to prepare everyday. But still, when it comes to first getting the thing, the way 3.5 handled it is better.

all components can be substituted the same value as the component.
it is common for players to have all gold value carried in residium as it is much lighter.
 
in 3.x you also had spell components but most players used the feats so they could ignore those.
2nd was even worse remember to keep track of how many balls of of bat guano and sulpher you have.
( and no it is not a coincedence those are also the 2 main ingrideints in gunpowder.

 

Jan 19, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Mand12 wrote:

Combat balance should not be affected by noncombat factors.  Do not want.

I don't think I understand your post. Are you answering to me?
If that's the case, I never said noncombat factors would affect COMBAT, but the weight of combat in the overall campaign would affect class design (so players with weak wizards would have fun when they don't have to fight most of the time, but when nearly every encounter is a combat, they would be bored of hiding; conversely, wizards who can hold their ground in combat AND cast their way out of less violent situations would be better for campaigns with a lot of fighting). If class design is a noncombat factor, then I'm guilty of having it affect combat, although I'm not sure this is what you meant.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 12:57PM, edwin_su wrote:

in 3.x you also had spell components but most players used the feats so they could ignore those. 

More commonly in my experience, people utterly ignored material componants (without the feat). Of course, again, that's a house rule, and thus, does not belong in a discussion of actual rules.

(Which is good. I had a friend who had a friend who had a house rule that a natural 11 was a "double crit fail.")

Jan 19, 2012 -- 1:02PM, nirnel wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Mand12 wrote:

Combat balance should not be affected by noncombat factors.  Do not want.

I don't think I understand your post. Are you answering to me?
If that's the case, I never said noncombat factors would affect COMBAT, but the weight of combat in the overall campaign would affect class design (so players with weak wizards would have fun when they don't have to fight most of the time, but when nearly every encounter is a combat, they would be bored of hiding; conversely, wizards who can hold their ground in combat AND cast their way out of less violent situations would be better for campaigns with a lot of fighting). If class design is a noncombat factor, then I'm guilty of having it affect combat, although I'm not sure this is what you meant.

Why do you want to play a game where you only have fun some of the time?

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:53AM, edwin_su wrote:

4th responce:
well lets see, the wizard sais as he takes his ritual book from his backpack, i'm sure i have some usefull rituals in here for situations like this
and within an hour the party is ready to go. 

If you have the components and for those who want more sense of the value of being prepared use ritual specific components ( Is that a house rule or so trivial a house rule I didnt realize it )

Jan 19, 2012 -- 1:16PM, Mand12 wrote:

Why do you want to play a game where you only have fun some of the time?

Having a character who is more powerful than the rest (or who is far more powerful out of combat and a pretty decent warrior in combat) is not fun for other players, at least not for most of the players I know. Having a character who is CONSISTENTLY weak is not fun. Being powerful sometimes but depending on others on occassion is fun, because everyone has an occassion to shine.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 1:16PM, Mand12 wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 1:02PM, nirnel wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Mand12 wrote:

Combat balance should not be affected by noncombat factors.  Do not want.

I don't think I understand your post. Are you answering to me?
If that's the case, I never said noncombat factors would affect COMBAT, but the weight of combat in the overall campaign would affect class design (so players with weak wizards would have fun when they don't have to fight most of the time, but when nearly every encounter is a combat, they would be bored of hiding; conversely, wizards who can hold their ground in combat AND cast their way out of less violent situations would be better for campaigns with a lot of fighting). If class design is a noncombat factor, then I'm guilty of having it affect combat, although I'm not sure this is what you meant.

Why do you want to play a game where you only have fun some of the time?

1) Being out-of-spec does not mean "not having fun" -- at least, it didn't at any D&D table I've been at.  even though it wasn't the rogue's time to shine in the ghost haunted castle, or the warlock's when dealing with research and cloak-and-dagger politics, they've still tended to have some fun at those times.
2) Since it's not fun as a binary on-off switch... I'd like to play in a game where I'm not in the spotlight all the time, because there are other people playing too who would like some spotlight time.  And having the spotlight on everyone equally all the time is a pipe dream unless not only the characters, but the players are clones  (and I'm not sure it would be fun if you could do it.  you'd never be in the back lines, but you'd never stand out)

Jan 19, 2012 -- 2:19PM, Tevish_Szat wrote:

but the weight of combat in the overall campaign would affect class design (so players with weak wizards would have fun when they don't have to fight most of the time, but when nearly every encounter is a combat, they would be bored of hiding;

He said that he wants someone playing a wizard to have fun because there's not combat, but get bored when there is.  I was responding to that.

I suppose I've got my poor articulation filters set to maximum and was going by what seemed like the spirit off the initial post.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 2:22PM, Mand12 wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 2:19PM, Tevish_Szat wrote:

but the weight of combat in the overall campaign would affect class design (so players with weak wizards would have fun when they don't have to fight most of the time, but when nearly every encounter is a combat, they would be bored of hiding;

He said that he wants someone playing a wizard to have fun because there's not combat, but get bored when there is.  I was responding to that.

OK, so I said that if you played a wizard who is weak in combat (to the point of being useless in a fight) would be bored if nearly all the campaign was combat after combat. And propose a rule to adapt this class to a mainly combat campaign. Being bored doesn't come from being weak sometimes and strong some other times, but from being weak for entire gaming seasons, which would happen if the wizard of this example would be in a completely combat campaign. This rule would allow him to play a game that he doesn't find boring.

So you want rules to protect people from self-inflicted boredom?

Why not just avoid having classes that are weak and boring?

Again, I ask:

Why would you want to play a game in which your hero is weak and boring, even some of the time?

Why can't all characters be good in combat, so you're not bored if the game has lots of combat?  Why can't all characters be good out of combat, so you're not bored if the game doesn't have lots of combat?

NOTE:  This is not the same thing as saying that they have to be the same, or good at the same things in or out of combat.  Just that there is some meaningful contribution to make.

Mand12: this assumes that all players are going to be bored by characters that are weak in combat. That's not true. Not everyone finds combat to be the only interesting aspect of the game. I've had some very fun and memorable sessions playing weak characters that were not good at combat.

No, I'm not assuming that.  I'm assuming that the player in question created a character that would make him bored if there was a lot of combat, because that's what the premise was.

My question is why we even need to bother to implement rules to address that situation. 

That's not the same thing at all as making a character who is terrible in combat that you have fun roleplaying as someone who is terrible in combat.  If you're having fun, then by all means make whatever character you want. 

It's when you make your character that you want to have fun and that by the whims of the DM turns out not to be fun for you that we have a problem.  You shouldn't be prevented from making a character that is fun to you all of the time in any mix of combat-noncombat campaign focus.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 2:41PM, Mand12 wrote:

No, I'm not assuming that.  I'm assuming that the player in question created a character that would make him bored if there was a lot of combat, because that's what the premise was.

My question is why we even need to bother to implement rules to address that situation. 

That's not the same thing at all as making a character who is terrible in combat that you have fun roleplaying as someone who is terrible in combat.  If you're having fun, then by all means make whatever character you want. 

It's when you make your character that you want to have fun and that by the whims of the DM turns out not to be fun for you that we have a problem.  You shouldn't be prevented from making a character that is fun to you all of the time in any mix of combat-noncombat campaign focus.

Ah. OK, I agree with what you're saying here. Sorry for misunderstanding your prior post.

I like the idea that we can choose a play style in which all characters are not optimized around combat (and also that you can choose a style where they are if that's what you want). I agree, though, that people in the gaming group (players and DM) have to be on the same page. If you're making a character that won't be useful in combat, and you are in a group where the DM and/or other players are all combat-focused and that's the way the campaign is going to go, then no one is happy.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 11:56AM, Mand12 wrote:

I may be coming late to this, but...

Combat isn't everything, but it is (almost) everything that needs rules.

Keep in mind that we aren't designing an experience, we're designing a rulebook.  It's the G part of RPG.  People don't need a book to tell them how to RP, and in fact the books shouldn't tell you how to RP.  What the books do, rather, is provide an agreed-upon set of resolution mechanisms that aren't under the purview of RP.  Like what happens when you swing your sword at the orc.  The RP decision is whether you swing your sword, and the G is what determines how effective you are at doing it.  It makes it something more than than cops&robbers' "I got you!  No you didn't!  Yes I did!" banter.

What people tended to not pick up on right away was that a lack of rules telling you what happened if your paladin broke his vows to be lawful good does not mean that there shouldn't be consequences under any circumstances.  Just that that sort of RP is best left up to the individual DM rather than in the rules as written.

Again, to sum up:  We need rules for combat and other "how does the outside world respond to my choices" interactions:  picking a lock, identifying magical residue, remembering some odd bit of obscure knowledge that my character knows but I as a player don't, that sort of thing.  What we don't need is rules for how to seduce the barmaid and get her to let slip who's been poisoning the mayor's wine.

No, no, noooo, oh Gods no.

You realize how wrong what you are saying is??

Why does swinging a sword to hit something deserve a resolution mechanic, and seducing the barmaid does not?? They do happen in the same game reality?? Why is one worthy of structure and the other one isn't?? How is seducing the barmaid not going to provoke a reaction from the outside world (her giving you the palm)? The funny thing is that even in 4e you would use a rule to determine the outcome of this action (making a skill check).

I don't understand why you guys are so attached to this idea that for some reasons everything else other than Combat don't deserve a foundation, a framework, rules. I really, really don't get it.

RP deserve to have a good resolution mechanic as well as combat, it is a component of the game reality we are trying to create, and therefore also deserve to be expressed in the game world through mechanics. We aren't asking for rules that would say "you can only talk about the weather", we are asking for a framwork that would make gamification, and progression possible in RP. The 4e Skill system IS such a thing, unfortunately it wasn't handled that well and is way inferior to systems others RPGs have found to handle RP.

Jan 20, 2012 -- 2:20AM, BeastSoulEyes wrote:

Why does swinging a sword to hit something deserve a resolution mechanic, and seducing the barmaid does not??

Um. Seducing the barmaid does have a resolution mechanic. Either Bluff or Diplomacy versus a DC that the DM makes up. Same in 3e and 4e. The DM can also throw some + or - depending on what the PC says. You even recognize it here:

The funny thing is that even in 4e you would use a rule to determine the outcome of this action (making a skill check).

Well, mostly. You do the exact same thing in 3e too. But still.

I don't understand why you guys are so attached to this idea that for some reasons everything else other than Combat don't deserve a foundation, a framework, rules. I really, really don't get it.

RP deserve to have a good resolution mechanic as well as combat, it is a component of the game reality we are trying to create, and therefore also deserve to be expressed in the game world through mechanics. We aren't asking for rules that would say "you can only talk about the weather", we are asking for a framwork that would make gamification, and progression possible in RP.

Ok, then....start a thread where you explain the sort of system that you have in mind.

The 4e Skill system IS such a thing, unfortunately it wasn't handled that well and is way inferior to systems others RPGs have found to handle RP.

The 4e Skill system is pretty much exactly as useful as 3e, 3.5, and 3.52 (which some people call Pathfinder). In fact, since it trims off narratively (and functionall) useless skills (so called CraPPer skills, from Craft, Profession, Perform), it's better.

Jan 20, 2012 -- 4:29AM, Ogiwan wrote:

 
The 4e Skill system is pretty much exactly as useful as 3e, 3.5, and 3.52 (which some people call Pathfinder). In fact, since it trims off narratively (and functionall) useless skills (so called CraPPer skills, from Craft, Profession, Perform), it's better.

And skills being less over-ridden by spells means the skills are in fact more usefull. Skill challenges can further make skills more useful I think due to the encouragement to think broadly about how they are applicable and because skills become a seat of advancement. The strong similarities to a 3e skill system I think however is actually not really a high point in the design.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:53AM, edwin_su wrote:

4th responce:
well lets see, the wizard sais as he takes his ritual book from his backpack, i'm sure i have some usefull rituals in here for situations like this
and within an hour the party is ready to go. 

If you have the components and for those who want more sense of the value of being prepared use ritual specific components ( Is that a house rule or so trivial a house rule I didnt realize it )

well in 4th any ritual component can be sustituted with equal value of risidium.

Jan 20, 2012 -- 6:37AM, edwin_su wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:53AM, edwin_su wrote:

4th responce:
well lets see, the wizard sais as he takes his ritual book from his backpack, i'm sure i have some usefull rituals in here for situations like this
and within an hour the party is ready to go. 

If you have the components and for those who want more sense of the value of being prepared use ritual specific components ( Is that a house rule or so trivial a house rule I didnt realize it )

well in 4th any ritual component can be sustituted with equal value of risidium.

Prices of purchased items are under my control "and makes a lot of game world sense to boot" to say  the ritual specific components can be noticeably cheaper.

You can go with less planning and use residuum... but even with residuum when I need to save the kid who fell off the Docs the guy with the athleticism is going to beat the toes off the unplanned ritualist who didnt think they would need his water breathing today and the one who uses preplanned ritual specific components are more likely to decide they can afford waterbreathing today, but skills remain useful for when they dont.

^ I can agree to that, Skills seems to be more practical than rituals most of the time.

Anyway, to answer the last posts, I just want to clarify that I was not comparing 4e and 3.5 in my last post, or at least not directly. It was more like comparing 4e with the rest of the rpg world (there isn't just DnD and PF you know). The way Skills are functionning in 4e is ok, BUT would have been grandiose if WotC actually focused on developping it and building the game on top of it. I remember I was severely disappointed by Skill Powers, another proof WotC had no idea where to go with Skills.

Jan 20, 2012 -- 6:45AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 20, 2012 -- 6:37AM, edwin_su wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:53AM, edwin_su wrote:

4th responce:
well lets see, the wizard sais as he takes his ritual book from his backpack, i'm sure i have some usefull rituals in here for situations like this
and within an hour the party is ready to go. 

If you have the components and for those who want more sense of the value of being prepared use ritual specific components ( Is that a house rule or so trivial a house rule I didnt realize it )

well in 4th any ritual component can be sustituted with equal value of risidium.

Prices of purchased items are under my control "and makes a lot of game world sense to boot" to say  the ritual specific components can be noticeably cheaper.

You can go with less planning and use residuum... but even with residuum when I need to save the kid who fell off the Docs the guy with the athleticism is going to beat the toes off the unplanned ritualist who didnt think they would need his water breathing today and the one who uses preplanned ritual specific components are more likely to decide they can afford waterbreathing today, but skills remain useful for when they dont.

indeed my post was more directed at a post that said 3,x casters could react better to situations, and i just wanted to show that the same thing can be done with rituals, even more so as you don't need to wait 8 hours till you cam memorise another set of them.

Jan 19, 2012 -- 2:41PM, Mand12 wrote:

It's when you make your character that you want to have fun and that by the whims of the DM turns out not to be fun for you that we have a problem.  You shouldn't be prevented from making a character that is fun to you all of the time in any mix of combat-noncombat campaign focus.

The idea was making a ruleset that adapts to a variety of game styles (of course, a DM's game style can be thought about as a whim sometimes), so in the same rulebook you can have the rules to play a fun wizard for a combat-heavy campaign and for a diplomatic/investigative campaign. Liking the concept of a class, but not having fun playing it (or playing besides someone who plays it) in a certain game style because of unbalance, is something I have faced, so I thought about this rule.

Jan 20, 2012 -- 7:55AM, edwin_su wrote:

Jan 20, 2012 -- 6:45AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 20, 2012 -- 6:37AM, edwin_su wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 19, 2012 -- 10:53AM, edwin_su wrote:

4th responce:
well lets see, the wizard sais as he takes his ritual book from his backpack, i'm sure i have some usefull rituals in here for situations like this
and within an hour the party is ready to go. 

If you have the components and for those who want more sense of the value of being prepared use ritual specific components ( Is that a house rule or so trivial a house rule I didnt realize it )

well in 4th any ritual component can be sustituted with equal value of risidium.

Prices of purchased items are under my control "and makes a lot of game world sense to boot" to say  the ritual specific components can be noticeably cheaper.

You can go with less planning and use residuum... but even with residuum when I need to save the kid who fell off the Docs the guy with the athleticism is going to beat the toes off the unplanned ritualist who didnt think they would need his water breathing today and the one who uses preplanned ritual specific components are more likely to decide they can afford waterbreathing today, but skills remain useful for when they dont.

indeed my post was more directed at a post that said 3,x casters could react better to situations, and i just wanted to show that the same thing can be done with rituals, even more so as you don't need to wait 8 hours till you cam memorise another set of them.

Sure, sure the opposite criticism arises too often saying there is no benefit from planning... because you arent sacreficing spell slots and hampering your self in combat so I react to that as well... its basically what the Vancian caster fans claim.

I am specifically wanting in combat and out of combat classes because I feel then people will think less in terms of trading one for the other...  could be a pipe dream.