# So why can ANYONE use rituals?



## Sitara (May 30, 2008)

From what I gather, everyone can use rituals. Apart from being very disappointing, why is this?

It makes no sense that a fighter can cast tenser's Floating Disc. Shouldn't it have been better to leave rituals to arcane and divine power sources only? (so only wizards, paladins, clercis and warlocks could use them?)

Is anyone else planning to houserule this right away? Since rituals don't really affect combat, at least not directly, I don't see any balance issues. Just a flavor (magic should be reserved for magic users) type thing.


----------



## Andur (May 30, 2008)

Anyone who meets the prerequisites can use rituals.

Why can't a Fighter who has a sufficent ability scores and has trained in the "arts" not be able to have a floating disc?  Just because he uses martial instead of arcane powers?  Totally not related...

I have a cookbook, I can read, and I have ingredients, why can't I make a cake or a souffle or even poached eggs just because I'm an soldier?  Or can only CIA graduates cook?


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2008)

Why _shouldn't_ anyone be able to use rituals? 

Seriously. The magic is in the ritual itself - say the right thing, do it in the proper procedure, have the elements in hand, and it goes off. It's the equivalent of "Hastar Hastar Hastar", or saying "Bloody Mary" in front of a mirror five times. Or more accurately, tossing salt over your shoulder to ward off spirits, and other "Do X, Y, and Z or else".

Knowing the words and the proper procedure is what accounts to being trained in Religion or Arcana.

It also means that an exceptional blacksmith doesn't have to beg a wizard or a cleric to help him make a magical item; he can do it himself, if he's got enough chops and skill.


----------



## RandomCitizenX (May 30, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> From what I gather, everyone can use rituals. Apart from being very disappointing, why is this?
> 
> It makes no sense that a fighter can cast tenser's Floating Disc. Shouldn't it have been better to leave rituals to arcane and divine power sources only? (so only wizards, paladins, clercis and warlocks could use them?)
> 
> Is anyone else planning to houserule this right away? Since rituals don't really affect combat, at least not directly, I don't see any balance issues. Just a flavor (magic should be reserved for magic users) type thing.




Anyone can use a ritual so that parties can get by without a caster in the party. If it fits the flavor of your setting then houserule it to casters only. I know my game will be leaving it as is since I want to be able to have moments similar to Conan the Barbarian, where the resurrected Conan even though the PCs left alive were a rogue and a ranger.


----------



## NHBaggesen (May 30, 2008)

Well, it is only everyone with the Ritual Casting feat that can perform rituals (though others can help, if I understand correctly). So performing rituals require some sort of training, and size they are also keyed to skills like Arcane and Religion that is a other functional limitation. All in all I'd say that if a fighter or rogue has taken the required feat, and has training in the appropriate skills then it is ok that they can perform rituals.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 30, 2008)

Because rituals are the vending machines of the universe.

You put in your money and out pops a ritual.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Fighter who can cast floating disc --> ftrN/wiz1 in 3E parlance


----------



## inkmonkeys (May 30, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Because rituals are the vending machines of the universe.
> 
> You put in your money and out pops a ritual.




_Someone's_ been reading their Dresden.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (May 30, 2008)

Technically, non-casting classes cannot use Rituals until they're Paragon level (and pick up the feat Ritual Caster), and THEN they have to pick up the required Skill with another feat (Skill Training for Arcana or Religion).

I like this approach, especially for a low magic game.


----------



## Agamon (May 30, 2008)

To do so requires an Arcane skill check.  Not sure if it needs to be a trained skill check, but that sure makes sense.  So that's a couple feats the fighter would have to take to do just Arcane rituals.  Getting those feats cold translate in game to learning to "be more like a wizard".
Not a big deal.

Mechanic-wise, it follows the idea that anyone can fight, anyone can heal, anyone can find traps and anyone can cast spells.  No role is absolutely completely necessary.


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> From what I gather, everyone can use rituals. Apart from being very disappointing, why is this?
> 
> It makes no sense that a fighter can cast tenser's Floating Disc. Shouldn't it have been better to leave rituals to arcane and divine power sources only? (so only wizards, paladins, clercis and warlocks could use them?)
> 
> Is anyone else planning to houserule this right away? Since rituals don't really affect combat, at least not directly, I don't see any balance issues. Just a flavor (magic should be reserved for magic users) type thing.




There's quite a lot of in-game reasons or world reasons you can use, but the real reason is -- apparently, WOTCs marketers determined most D&D players are narcissists with ADD, and can't stand anyone else being able to do something they can't, or getting 'spotlight' time at the table.

So, everyone can do everything, the fighter and the wizard have the same BAB and defenses, and the trees are all kept equal.

Personally, I think this is a misfire. It presumes everyone who plays D&D likes the same playstyle. If this were true, the wide disparity between how classes play would have left the rules two editions ago. I think D&D, and class-based systems in general, attract players who life different playstyles -- either those who just like fighters, or just like wizards, or those who want their next character to feel different from their last one. 4e says "Nein! You ist all the same!", and I think people who like that would be happier with a pure point-based system, either simple like BESM or complex like Hero.

To be fair, in my one play session, it did seem like the cleric and the warlord -- both leaders -- played out very differently, so we'll see how it goes. 4e seems very much to be a game which reads poorly but which might play well.


----------



## Andur (May 30, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> Technically, non-casting classes cannot use Rituals until they're Paragon level (and pick up the feat Ritual Caster), and THEN they have to pick up the required Skill with another feat (Skill Training for Arcana or Religion).
> 
> I like this approach, especially for a low magic game.




Technically, you can pick up the Ritual Caster feat at first level and have to already have to have Arcana or Religion trained.  So Human Fighter 1:

Feat:  Skill Training:  Arcana, Ritual Caster 

1st level Human Fighter can now learn and use first level Rituals.


----------



## Baka no Hentai (May 30, 2008)

I guess it really depends on your view of "*HOW MAGIC WORKS*" in your campaign setting.

In mine, Arcane Power is everywhere, and easily accessible to those who know how to use it. So it makes sense that those who put forth the effort would be able to access it, at least in some rudimentary fashion.  Rituals give such people a means of harnessing that power given the time and materials to use them. The same with Divine rituals, if a worshipper gains favor from their God and makes a request in the proper manner with the proper tribute, why would said God deny them simply because they didnt take levels of Cleric?

If your campaign setting favors the notion that only Wizards, Warlocks and Clerics should be able to access *any* amount of Divine or Arcane power, then you are free to house-rule the system to fit your needs.


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> There's quite a lot of in-game reasons or world reasons you can use, but the real reason is -- apparently, WOTCs marketers determined most D&D players are narcissists with ADD, and can't stand anyone else being able to do something they can't, or getting 'spotlight' time at the table.



... or the designer's realized that it's bad design to place the lion's share of effective problem-solving abilities in the hands of relatively few classes. Note: the 'if you want to meaningfully participate in the game, play a spellcaster' argument is inherently unhelpful. Or, why is greater player participation a _bad_ thing, precisely?

... or the designer's realized that placing magic rituals in reach of all PC's makes the game resemble a number of it's source materials _better_.

... or the designer's realized that this kind of line-item access to wahoo makes for greater flexibility in character design than 3.x's clunky, never-quite-right-even-after-a-_lot_-of-tries take on magical multiclassing.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> There's quite a lot of in-game reasons or world reasons you can use, but the real reason is -- apparently, WOTCs marketers determined most D&D players are narcissists with ADD, and can't stand anyone else being able to do something they can't, or getting 'spotlight' time at the table.




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## 1of3 (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 4e says "Nein! You ist all the same!", and I think people who like that would be happier with a pure point-based system, either simple like BESM or complex like Hero.




I'm glad my 4E hasn't started talking. You know, it's "seid" not "ist".


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 30, 2008)

EDIT: Won't be baited.


----------



## marune (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You say this like it's a negative thing.




You know what, most of the time I agree with you.


----------



## AllisterH (May 30, 2008)

I'm not sure why "anyone" is considered a guy who is Trained in Heal/Arcana and then spends resources on Ritual Training.

Isn't this by definition,not "anyone"?


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (May 30, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> Technically, you can pick up the Ritual Caster feat at first level and have to already have to have Arcana or Religion trained.  So Human Fighter 1:
> 
> Feat:  Skill Training:  Arcana, Ritual Caster
> 
> 1st level Human Fighter can now learn and use first level Rituals.




Arrg, didn't see that. I thought it was Paragon! I may need to houserule that, but honestly - my players won't attempt to cheat other characters out of stuff like that simply to min/max at 1st level.

Either way, the DM firmly controls what Rituals enter the game. Since Ritual Caster doesn't "grant" Rituals upon purchase of the feat, general players can bicker about itall they want; DM fiat rules once again by definition of the rules.


----------



## Cheesepie (May 30, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> Technically, you can pick up the Ritual Caster feat at first level and have to already have to have Arcana or Religion trained.  So Human Fighter 1:
> 
> Feat:  Skill Training:  Arcana, Ritual Caster
> 
> 1st level Human Fighter can now learn and use first level Rituals.



What's wrong with this? Not only does this fighter miss out on feats that help him in combat, but I personally think you could make a pretty cool character concept out of a fighter who dabbles in magic.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 30, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> From what I gather, everyone can use rituals. Apart from being very disappointing, why is this?




That's... open minded.

Not everyone can use rituals, only those trained in magic.

People who are trained in the Arcana (or Religion) skill and have the Ritual caster feat are trained in magic.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Fighter who can cast floating disc --> ftrN/wiz1 in 3E parlance



Noone listens to meeeee


----------



## Henry (May 30, 2008)

As I said in another thread, Angel, Wesley, and Giles from the BtVs television series are examples of people who can cast rituals, but are not spellcasters per se; There are probably other examples of "ritual casters" in novels or movies that I'm blanking on, but there is precedent in other avenues of fantasy.


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> ... or the designer's realized that it's bad design to place the lion's share of effective problem-solving abilities in the hands of only a few classes. Note: the 'if you want to meaningfully participate in the game, play a spellcaster' argument is inherently unhelpful.




Then you need to explain why everyone put up with it from 1974-2008, when there were many competing games that offered more equal representation.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then you need to explain why everyone put up with it from 1974-2008, when there were many competing games that offered more equal representation.



 They didn't. They went off to play WoW. It's time to reclaim that space.


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2008)

Cheesepie said:
			
		

> What's wrong with this? Not only does this fighter miss out on feats that help him in combat, but I personally think you could make a pretty cool character concept out of a fighter who tabbles in magic.



Aye. Back when I played Exalted (yeah, I went there) I played the Fighter equivalent. However, I had taken Occult as trained skill (it was cheaper to advance in it than a non-trained skill). The character concept was a warrior-mystic. 

I didn't know any spells (You need a high occult score and dedicate the equivalent of a feat per spell you know). But my high Occult score let me 1) Summon and negotiate with spirits, 2) Knowing and successfully executing mundane methods of dealing with the supernatural (laying down lines of salt to ward from undead), and 3) General arcane knowledge.


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

1of3 said:
			
		

> I'm glad my 4E hasn't started talking. You know, it's "seid" not "ist".




Not according to my Captain America Junior Patriot Guide To Spies and Saboteurs, (c) 1941, it isn't!


----------



## Cheesepie (May 30, 2008)

Of course, why the hell would you take Skill Training (Arcana) and not the Wizard multiclass feat?!


----------



## Henry (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then you need to explain why everyone put up with it from 1974-2008, when there were many competing games that offered more equal representation.




Network externalities? 

I don't mind it myself, because the idea of a Fighter who knows just enough ritual casting to "know a bit of magic" but who doesn't know it well enough to use it in combat is a neat idea to me.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then you need to explain why everyone put up with it from 1974-2008, when there were many competing games that offered more equal representation.




That's easy!

Brand Loyalty: Not just for cigarettes anymore


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not according to my Captain America Junior Patriot Guide To Spies and Saboteurs, (c) 1941, it isn't!



 Lorem ipsum dolor.


----------



## AllisterH (May 30, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> As I said in another thread, Angel, Wesley, and Giles from the BtVs television series are examples of people who can cast rituals, but are not spellcasters per se; There are probably other examples of "ritual casters" in novels or movies that I'm blanking on, but there is precedent in other avenues of fantasy.




And again, I'll mention Conan.

Conan himself uses ritualitic magic (and yes Virginia, it was written by REH himself and not the "imitators")


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> They didn't. They went off to play WoW. It's time to reclaim that space.




Gee, they started playing WoW in 1974?

One of the earliest innovations in gaming was the removal of classes, with Runequest being one of the first biggies. You could pretty much make any character you wanted there. And, for what it's worth, everyone had access to basic combat/utility spells at no "cost" in other skills, and everyone would eventually join a rune cult and get access to powerful/specialized magic. (Sort of like a paragon path...) Yet, while RQ certainly had its fans, it never came close to D&D with its bland fighters, glass mages, and mobile medkit clerics, nor did D&D incorporate RQ concepts in AD&D, AD&D 2, BECMI, or D&D 3.

Yet now, suddenly, it's become a good idea, despite no market demand for it -- and no obvious shift to other RPGs which already offer that playstyle?

Why is that?


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Gee, they started playing WoW in 1974?
> 
> One of the earliest innovations in gaming was the removal of classes, with Runequest being one of the first biggies. You could pretty much make any character you wanted there. And, for what it's worth, everyone had access to basic combat/utility spells at no "cost" in other skills, and everyone would eventually join a rune cult and get access to powerful/specialized magic. (Sort of like a paragon path...) Yet, while RQ certainly had its fans, it never came close to D&D with its bland fighters, glass mages, and mobile medkit clerics, nor did D&D incorporate RQ concepts in AD&D, AD&D 2, BECMI, or D&D 3.
> 
> ...



 Sit amet, consectetuer.


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then you need to explain why everyone put up with it from 1974-2008, when there were many competing games that offered more equal representation.



_Sales_ are the ultimate measure of _design quality_?

Note that a lot of factors factor into market dominance. Quality isn't always high on the list cf. Budweiser.


----------



## fuindordm (May 30, 2008)

Hong speaking in tongues... a sure sign of the RPG apocalypse?


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> And again, I'll mention Conan.
> 
> Conan himself uses ritualitic magic (and yes Virginia, it was written by REH himself and not the "imitators")




One can argue Cugel's attempts to use Iuconnous spells is also a model of this...and one which shows why you need a high Arcana skill.


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Sit amet, consectetuer.




Is that Latin for "I do not actually have any facts to refute your argument, so, I'm going to try to be witty and hope no one notices"?


----------



## Jer (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> There's quite a lot of in-game reasons or world reasons you can use, but the real reason is -- apparently, WOTCs marketers determined most D&D players are narcissists with ADD, and can't stand anyone else being able to do something they can't, or getting 'spotlight' time at the table.




This is one of the most disgustingly insulting things I've seen you say on these boards, Lizard.  I like your posts normally, and I think you have a lot of insight in many areas, but this is just rude and insulting to a lot of players.

The ritual casting rules are another attempt at walking a fine line between opening up classes to more diverse character concepts while still holding them true to their archetypal roots.  Previous editions have tried to work on this problem in different ways - kits (2e), multiclassing/Prestige Classes (3e) and now 4e has its own set of solutions to this problem.  We'll see how effective they are in play.

Personally I'm disappointed that the ritual casting rules apparently require non-spellcasters to be "Paragon tier" before you can pick up the Ritual Casting feat.  That's a shame - it strikes me that there's a certain type of Fighter/Magic-User concept that can be built from taking a fighter base class, training in Arcana, and taking the Ritual Casting feat.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Is that Latin for "I do not actually have any facts to refute your argument, so, I'm going to try to be witty and hope no one notices"?



 Adipiscing elit.


----------



## AllisterH (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Gee, they started playing WoW in 1974?
> 
> One of the earliest innovations in gaming was the removal of classes, with Runequest being one of the first biggies. You could pretty much make any character you wanted there. And, for what it's worth, everyone had access to basic combat/utility spells at no "cost" in other skills, and everyone would eventually join a rune cult and get access to powerful/specialized magic. (Sort of like a paragon path...) Yet, while RQ certainly had its fans, it never came close to D&D with its bland fighters, glass mages, and mobile medkit clerics, nor did D&D incorporate RQ concepts in AD&D, AD&D 2, BECMI, or D&D 3.
> 
> ...




Valid question and I'll try not to do a Hong

I think the main reason why it seems like now there are so many "I want to do cool stuff" _IS_ because of 3E.

In 1e/2e, most games didn't get past level 9. Seriously, I would hope that we could agree that easily the majority of players stopped at/around name level. As well, in 1e/2e, the difference between a level 9 wizard and a level 10 fighter was beginning to be noticeable (most of the SoD spells would fail on the fighter and the mages HP wasn't as high but the effect of other spells now gave more options for the mages) but nowehere was the gulf like what a standard core-only wizard is compared to a core-only fighter in 3.5

Not only did 3E actually power up the wizard but by quite rightly stating, "we have 20 levels, we should use them all", it caused a shift in perception. It's one thing to play the fighter at levels 1-9 in 2e alongside an equivalent xp mage and AN entirely different game than levels 10-20 in 3E.

Another change that probably increased the "demand" was the fact that at mid to high levels in 3.x D&D, EVERYTHING was about the magic. Items, defeating monsters, defeating non-combat encounters. It all came down to "The spell" which only half the starting PHB classes had access to.

So, I think the "blame" if any can be laid at the feet of 3.x and NOT WoW or Anime


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Lorem ipsum dolor.



Dude, your posts got deleted the last time you did this. Plz don't start that again.


----------



## Cheesepie (May 30, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> Personally I'm disappointed that the ritual casting rules apparently require non-spellcasters to be "Paragon tier" before you can pick up the Ritual Casting feat.  That's a shame - it strikes me that there's a certain type of Fighter/Magic-User concept that can be built from taking a fighter base class, training in Arcana, and taking the Ritual Casting feat.



We already discussed that this was an error, and Ritual Casting is actually heroic tier.


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yet now, suddenly, it's become a good idea, despite no market demand for it -- and no obvious shift to other RPGs which already offer that playstyle?



I think you'll find plenty of demand for it now that it's a part of the game w/the D&D brand.

And note that _I_ think rituals are a good idea because I personally prefer rules that encourage greater/broader player participation, which, incidentally, in no way necessitate a breakdown in niche protection -- unless, of course, the niche you're protecting is _factotum_. Disclaimer: I formed this opinion independent of market research.



> Why is that?



Because it's now part of the D&D brand. Why else?


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (May 30, 2008)

The ritual casting feat isn't the only way for non-mages to cast rituals.

Ritual scrolls don't require any feats because they are "primed" with some of the needed magic. They still require components in addition to the cost of the scroll, plus the relevant skill check. The scroll is consumed when the ritual goes off.

So yes, a fighter with enough gold can cast some useful rituals without training, but he'll never outclass a wizard or cleric. For me, it fits the idea of what a magic scroll/ritual is. I like the Buffy/Angel reference from earlier.


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> This is one of the most disgustingly insulting things I've seen you say on these boards, Lizard.  I like your posts normally, and I think you have a lot of insight in many areas, but this is just rude and insulting to a lot of players.




It's not my opinion, it's what the design intent is based around. I'm not just discussing ritual casting -- I've got no problem with people burning 2-3 feats to do what a wizard can do out of the box -- but the entire 'new paradigm'. The game design is ruthlessly egalitarian, and presumes that uniformity in play style is desired by the player base. I disagree, and the weight of history (that D&D has always supported diverse classes even when other games embraced uniformity) is on my side, Hong's attempts to remember his High School latin notwithstanding.



> Personally I'm disappointed that the ritual casting rules apparently require non-spellcasters to be "Paragon tier" before you can pick up the Ritual Casting feat.  That's a shame - it strikes me that there's a certain type of Fighter/Magic-User concept that can be built from taking a fighter base class, training in Arcana, and taking the Ritual Casting feat.




I didn't hear that, and I agree -- it is disappointing, and kills a lot of otherwise interesting concepts. Houserule, anyone can take it if they're trained in Arcana or Religion.


----------



## keterys (May 30, 2008)

... I was excited that I could treat some rituals in a more Buffy-esque style, via handing out a plot scroll and having whoever try to do it, or have a game that didn't include a cleric/wizard because people wanted to.

Guess I have ADD


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's not my opinion, it's what the design intent is based around. I'm not just discussing ritual casting -- I've got no problem with people burning 2-3 feats to do what a wizard can do out of the box -- but the entire 'new paradigm'. The game design is ruthlessly egalitarian, and presumes that uniformity in play style is desired by the player base. I disagree, and the weight of history (that D&D has always supported diverse classes even when other games embraced uniformity) is on my side, Hong's attempts to remember his High School latin notwithstanding.




Yes, Lizard.


----------



## Cadfan (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's not my opinion, it's what the design intent is based around.



Its your opinion of what the design intent is based upon, filled with insulting terms.  Its also an implication that the game was designed for people who possess certain listed negative characteristics, paired with the implication that someone who likes the game must therefore have those negative characteristics.


----------



## Cheesepie (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The game design is ruthlessly egalitarian



Could you elaborate?


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The game design is ruthlessly egalitarian



"Ruthlessly"... come on. That's like 'brutally fair' or 'mercilessly generous' . It's a good phrase only if you mean it is as self-parody.



> ...and presumes that uniformity in play style is desired by the player base.



Try to equalize the relative _number_ of player options doesn't mean a uniform play style. Unless you're forming your rhetoric in Newspeak.



> ...the weight of history (that D&D has always supported diverse classes even when other games embraced uniformity)



I think that draws the wrong conclusion from the 'weight of history'. History shows us that whichever --fundamentally different-- game gets sold as "D&D" will do well (for a while).


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Apropos of nothing, Ruthless Egalitarian sounds like a nifty epic destiny.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2008)

Like Hong says, multiclassing is nothing new and has been in the game in some form since 1974. If anything 4e is stricter on the class divide than 1e-2e and much stricter than 3e, a good thing imo. I can see why Mouse says it feels like BD&D.


----------



## AllisterH (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's not my opinion, it's what the design intent is based around. I'm not just discussing ritual casting -- I've got no problem with people burning 2-3 feats to do what a wizard can do out of the box -- but the entire 'new paradigm'. The game design is ruthlessly egalitarian, and presumes that uniformity in play style is desired by the player base. I disagree, and the weight of history (that D&D has always supported diverse classes even when other games embraced uniformity) is on my side, Hong's attempts to remember his High School latin notwithstanding.
> .




Actually, I don't think this was EVER true even back during OD&D/1E. Look at Gary's own gaming group when they played at mid to high levels. Everyone was a spellcaster and the fighters were all henchmen.

I honestly don't think D&D even in its infancy was designed for fighters to actually be run by people past level 11.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> "Ruthlessly"... come on. That's like 'brutally fair' or 'mercilessly generous' . It's a good phrase only if you mean it is as self-parody.




Well, _The Fountainhead_ is kinda parodic.


----------



## Agamon (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Apropos of nothing, Ruthless Egalitarian sounds like a nifty epic destiny.




Yoink!

I knew something would come of the Great hong v Lizard battle!


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I honestly don't think D&D even in its infancy was designed for fighters to actually be run by people past level 11.



1974 OD&D didn't have spells beyond 6th level, which are available at level 11. You're right that the wizard/fighter balance kind of sort of works if you stop at name level. It breaks if you go beyond that because now the wizard is having fun for too long. Prior to 4e of course D&D worked on the principle of 'limited fun' AKA everyone is bored for most of the time, which ties into Lizard's comment about narcissists with ADD. In Lizard speak I think this means people who don't like being bored.

The OD&D splats broke D&D by introducing spells above 6th level, encouraging play to go on into the teens. 1e cemented this and the game's been broken ever since. 3e obviously wasn't playtested much at high level. It has a great tactical combat system, most of which was retained by 4e, but a sucky magic system which they pretty much just copy and pasted from 1e.


----------



## Kobold Wisdom (May 30, 2008)

Cheesepie said:
			
		

> What's wrong with this? Not only does this fighter miss out on feats that help him in combat, but I personally think you could make a pretty cool character concept out of a fighter who dabbles in magic.



Vlad Taltos......

Grey Mouser.......

Yes, all HORRIBLE concepts.


----------



## Starbuck_II (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I didn't hear that, and I agree -- it is disappointing, and kills a lot of otherwise interesting concepts. Houserule, anyone can take it if they're trained in Arcana or Religion.



Wait, does it count as houseruling if you are ruling back to RAW?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not according to my Captain America Junior Patriot Guide To Spies and Saboteurs, (c) 1941, it isn't!



My German is very rusty, but here is what Babelfish says, which is how I remember the limited amount I can remember goes:

Sie sind der ganzer selbe!

Of course, that is the polite version (Sie).  If you are on a more personal level with the person you are talking to:

Du bist der ganzer selbe!

Captain America, teach bad German to young, impressionable youth.  No wonder Bucky turned into the Winter Soldier.  Betrayal.


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> "Ruthlessly"... come on. That's like 'brutally fair' or 'mercilessly generous' . It's a good phrase only if you mean it is as self-parody.




You've clearly never lived in San Francisco.



> Try to equalize the relative _number_ of player options doesn't mean a uniform play style. Unless you're forming your rhetoric in Newspeak.




Seems to me it does, esp. when 3x went for diversity via resource management (Wizard vs. Sorcerer vs. Psion, for example.) Likewise, the difference between sustained and burst damage output has been nullified, on a class vs. class level -- everyone has roughly equal DPS.



> I think that draws the wrong conclusion from the 'weight of history'. History shows us that whichever --fundamentally different-- game gets sold as "D&D" will do well (for a while).




One could also argue that this is because the key tropes of D&D were popular, the strong class distinctions among them. Remove them, and is the D&D brand name enough?


----------



## Voss (May 30, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> From what I gather, everyone can use rituals. Apart from being very disappointing, why is this?



I find this the exact opposite of disappointing.  Its one of the best features of 4e.  The spellcasters are no longer playing the real game alone while everyone else is a bottom feeder.  

As to why, well that is a reason in itself.  Plus with rituals... as long as you can do the dance and say the words, why couldn't anyone do it?



> It makes no sense that a fighter can cast tenser's Floating Disc. Shouldn't it have been better to leave rituals to arcane and divine power sources only? (so only wizards, paladins, clercis and warlocks could use them?)



Not really.  Floating disc is a fairly high magic example, but I see no reason why someone who's put in the effort to learn can't do the ritual.  I may not have a BS in computer sci, but that doesn't mean I can't write up a C program.  



> Is anyone else planning to houserule this right away? Since rituals don't really affect combat, at least not directly, I don't see any balance issues. Just a flavor (magic should be reserved for magic users) type thing.



I see a big balance issue.  The party ends up being all martial (fighter, ranger, rogue, warlord): all rituals are denied them.  Just because they can't toss spells or incant prayers doesn't mean they can't chalk out some lines in the dirt and do a little chant.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

When (it was thought that) some classes have lower DPS than others, they complain. When all classes have the same DPS, they complain. It must be an egalitarian thing.


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> When (it was thought that) some classes have lower DPS than others, they complain. When all classes have the same DPS, they complain. It must be an egalitarian thing.



You can please most of the people some of the time, or some of the people most of the time, but you can't please nerds.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 30, 2008)

inkmonkeys said:
			
		

> _Someone's_ been reading their Dresden.



Now, this explains why 4E magic so close to Dresden Files magic. 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, _The Fountainhead_ is kinda parodic.



Ayn is (edit: one of) my favorite self-parodist(s).


----------



## The Little Raven (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> When (it was thought that) some classes have lower DPS than others, they complain. When all classes have the same DPS, they complain. It must be an egalitarian thing.




To paraphrase Peter Gabriel...

"The only constant I am sure of is this accelerating rate of complaints."


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> When (it was thought that) some classes have lower DPS than others, they complain. When all classes have the same DPS, they complain. It must be an egalitarian thing.




Ah, but was it the same people complaining both times?

If those who value uniformity over diversity are the majority, 4e will be a smash. If they aren't, it will be a case study. We'll know in a year or so.

(Of course, it's very possible that third party supplements and optional rules will restore a lot of what has been lost, depending on how stringent the GSL is on rewriting key rule assumptions. At the very least, the expected flood of new powers, builds, options, and so on will do a lot to remove the apparent blandness.) (I mean, really, four at-wills total per class, and you get two? Way to limit diversity in the same class...)


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 30, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> My German is very rusty, but here is what Babelfish says, which is how I remember the limited amount I can remember goes:



Babelfish is useless! According to me, Lizard's "Nein! You ist all the same!" should be:

"Nein! Ihr seid alle gleich!"

I'm a German soon-to-be-physicist, trust me!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You've clearly never lived in San Francisco.



Touché. 



> Seems to me it does, esp. when 3x went for diversity via resource management



For _some_.



> One could also argue that this is because the key tropes of D&D were popular...



Again, placing the majority of problem-solving tools in the hands of a small number of classes isn't a 'key trope', it's a design flaw that's only become more problematic over time with the increase of spells-per-day for the caster classes (not only is magic the best solution to most obstacles, now you get more of it!).  



> strong class distinctions among them.



This doesn't erase strong class distinctions any more than access to magical effects via item does. Rituals can be seen as a (slightly) less commoditized version of items, though I think they're more than that, largely because I think that players respond differently to 'my guy can do this!' vs. 'my guys stuff can do this!'.  



> Remove them, and is the D&D brand name enough?



<looks at the significant changes in built-in assumptions and play mechanics between AD&D --> 2e --> 3e> "Yes!".


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Ah, but was it the same people complaining both times?
> 
> If those who value uniformity over diversity are the majority, 4e will be a smash. If they aren't, it will be a case study. We'll know in a year or so.
> 
> (Of course, it's very possible that third party supplements and optional rules will restore a lot of what has been lost, depending on how stringent the GSL is on rewriting key rule assumptions. At the very least, the expected flood of new powers, builds, options, and so on will do a lot to remove the apparent blandness.) (I mean, really, four at-wills total per class, and you get two? Way to limit diversity in the same class...)



 Yes, Lizard.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 30, 2008)

Kobold Wisdom said:
			
		

> Vlad Taltos......




I was about to make a comment about Vlad being an exceptional witch, and then I realized witchcraft in his world is just rituals.

Which led to another idea - that rituals are another "Power source" so to speak. A complete different kind of magic than Wizardry, a kind anyone can learn, and have that supported by fluff in the world.  

I think I'll use that in my game.


----------



## Xyl (May 30, 2008)

Are you suggesting that the kindly mayor of the village the players are staying in, who never recieved arcane training in his life, _shouldn't_ be able to summon a demon using a blasphemous ritual contained in the bloodstained tome he found in the possessions of the robed traveller who died under mysterious circumstances in the inn?

Because if he couldn't, that wouldn't be much fun.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> There's quite a lot of in-game reasons or world reasons you can use, but the real reason is -- apparently, WOTCs marketers determined most D&D players are narcissists with ADD, and can't stand anyone else being able to do something they can't, or getting 'spotlight' time at the table.




I think you're being intentionally facetious with this statement.  Either that, or you've just chosen to believe what you want.  It's a helluva leap given the evidence and information we do have about design goals.  The above opinion (and it is an opinion) is based on nothing that I have read or heard.  If you can point me to statements that state that DnD players are narcissistic twitches, I'd really like to see them.

While I will grant you that "too equal" is bad (true equality equals one class with all the same features across the board), I do not believe 4e has gone that far.  With regards to rituals, it's not even close.  Others have presented numerous examples and requirements that prove the option is not available to _everyone_.  As best I can tell, you have ignored these points.  Nor have you provided any compelling evidence for your point, only unsupported conjectures and non-factual information.

It's cool if you don't like the game, or where it's going.  Really, it is.  But you seem to be trying to dig yourself out of a hole.  Keep going and you'll hit China!


----------



## -Avalon- (May 30, 2008)

I do not see it the same way as most of you obviously...

I don't see the uniformity you speak of... inferring that everyone will be uniform and "equal" is like assuming that every human in RL will become good at everything...

Construction workers will be programming computers as well as anyone else.

Graduates from Le Cordon Bleu will not have any advantage in cooking over the rest of the world.

It is not uniformity.  It is a rules system that allows players to build the type of character they wish to play.  everyone has the same options, and if your entire group all ends up playing the same character... hmmm....


----------



## JohnSnow (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You've clearly never lived in San Francisco.




Is that supposed to be a slam? Because, ya know, I do live in San Francisco, and that kinda seems like the passive-aggressive form of an insult.

Besides, I thought the normal accusation was that we were all "elitist liberals." Please enlighten me as to how "elitist" and "ruthlessly egalitarian" go hand-in-hand? Or, alternatively, you could just, ya know, refrain from making political comments, like the CoC asks.



			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Now, this explains why 4E magic so close to Dresden Files magic.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




For the record, I'm in favor of anything that makes D&D magic more closely resemble the best conceived magic system in a novel _ever_.

It's not that "anyone" can do magic, it's that any PC who chooses to study magic is considered one of the "fortunate few" who have "the gift." With the general populace, it may be that only 1 person in 10,000 (or less) can actually cast magic (rituals or spells). But PCs are special, and if the player wants his rogue to be able to be skilled with magic, the rogue just has "the gift."

It would be rude to make the fighter's player "roll dice" or some such to see if his character had the gift for magic. We don't make the wizard player "roll dice" to make sure his character isn't totally incompetent in a fistfight. It's all about "proper training." Which means, in D&D, having the relevant skills and feats.

For the record, the magic system in _Midnight_ worked similarly to this, and it worked like a charm.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (May 30, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that the kindly mayor of the village the players are staying in, who never recieved arcane training in his life, _shouldn't_ be able to summon a demon using a blasphemous ritual contained in the bloodstained tome he found in the possessions of the robed traveller who died under mysterious circumstances in the inn?
> 
> Because if he couldn't, that wouldn't be much fun.




That's awesome. I'll assume the ritual in question acts as a scroll and the page crumbles into dust -- it's kind of the "Quickstart Guide" in the front of the DMG (Demon Mastery Guide). 

Alternately, a shard of a religious fragment, carved in stone, could be found in the ruined tomb of a long-dead wealthy merchant. It's a Raise Dead ritual. This fellow hoarded the thing all his life, hoping to cheat death... then died of old age after all. (Voila, a "do over" for the party in case they screw up and die at low levels, works even if they don't have a cleric, and it's a lot easier to tie into the campaign story than "Um, I'm gonna reroll that so Bob can keep playing."  )

I dig the Cugel the Clever reference as well -- for some reason I'm imagining a charisma-based half-elf warlord with Skill Training:Arcana and Dilettante to give him just one in-combat spell that's not a bluff or trickery. He could "lead from the rear" with threats of mighty magic. Sort of a bard type, I suppose.

*throws flash powder*
"Back, you bandits, lest you face my Excellent Prismatic Spray!"
*uses Magic Missle*
"And that's just a TASTE of my true power!"
"...if they don't buy it,_ run._"

That seems to combine pretty well with purloined rituals and "borrowed" expensive material components. Man, now I want to play that guy.


----------



## trystero (May 30, 2008)

Lizard:


> ...nor did D&D incorporate RQ concepts in... D&D 3.



Interestingly, 3e designer Jonathan Tweet doesn't seem to agree with you on that last claim: see his web site for his list of design elements in 3e that were directly inspired by _RuneQuest_.


----------



## Sir Brennen (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Seems to me it does, esp. when 3x went for diversity via resource management (Wizard vs. Sorcerer vs. Psion, for example.) Likewise, the difference between sustained and burst damage output has been nullified, on a class vs. class level -- everyone has roughly equal DPS.



Errrm... no. Diversity is still maintained in 4E - one of the design goals was to reinforce the archetypes even more (rather than have, for example, the Cleric out-fighter the Fighter.) The "ruthless elegaltarian" approach is in terms of making all classes as fun to play, to have lots of options. Doesn't mean their all the same, even if some of the underlying mechanics of resources have been consolidated.

And Damage per _Round_? Strikers will be doing the most to a single target, Controllers have AoE affects to damage multiple targets (if they choose those sorts of powers; conceivably they could do little DPR, but hinder opponents significantly in other ways.) Defenders have decent DPR, but also tend to lower or draw the DPR of opponents. Leaders can have decent DPR, but also reduce opponent DPR through healing.

What was your point again?


----------



## occam (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Apropos of nothing, Ruthless Egalitarian sounds like a nifty epic destiny.




Ruthless Egalitarianism is the new True Neutral!

Lawful Good < Good < Ruthlessly Egalitarian > Evil > Chaotic Evil


----------



## Scribble (May 30, 2008)

Off topic here but:

JohnSnow you're in San Francisco? Small world.


----------



## Harshax (May 30, 2008)

Anyone casting rituals if freaking awesome!

Now I can play a rogue-scholar. Or an Elric inspired adventurer.

EDIT: You can also remove Arcane and Divine power sources entirely, and very easily run a conan-esque game. Very, very, awesome.


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2008)

How hard can it be to say "Klaatu barada nikto", anyway? 

And what's the worst that could happen?


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 31, 2008)

ANYONE can't use rituals, only clr and wiz. For a ftr to use a ritual he spends time (well a feat) to learn it instead of learning to use 2 swords (or whatever). Seems a weird question to me


----------



## Scribble (May 31, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> How hard can it be to say "Klaatu barada nikto", anyway?
> 
> And what's the worst that could happen?





Whaaaaat?!?! I said it!!!


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 31, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> ANYONE can't use rituals, only clr and wiz. For a ftr to use a ritual he spends time (well a feat) to learn it instead of learning to use 2 swords (or whatever). Seems a weird question to me




Don't forget a feat for Skill Training (Arcane) or Skill Training (Religion).


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 31, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Don't forget a feat for Skill Training (Arcane) or Skill Training (Religion).



Good point although he can cast the healing ones without them, heal is a ftr class skill.

As an aside do you have to be trained in a skill that is associatted with a ritual? Or can you use them untrained cos some don' need checks/rolls?


----------



## IanB (May 31, 2008)

Forget players, this change is *completely awesome* from a DMing perspective.  I love the fact that I can have non-spellcaster badguys do things like summon demons or raise the dead or whatever, it really opens up a huge amount of narrative space.

Any minor nitpicking I might want to do about player access is trivial compared to how great that is - but then I'm a ruthlessly egalitarian Berkeley grad, although I don't live in the city.


----------



## Harshax (May 31, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Good point although he can cast the healing ones without them, heal is a ftr class skill.




No he can't. He still needs the Divine Ritual Feat. (unless it was a scroll)


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 31, 2008)

Harshax said:
			
		

> No he can't. He still needs the Divine Ritual Feat. (or whatever it is called)




And to make sure everyone is on the same page, the prerequisites for Ritual Casting are Arcana or Religion as Trained Skills. So you _have_ to spend two feats as a Fighter to cast rituals.


----------



## Lizard (May 31, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Is that supposed to be a slam? Because, ya know, I do live in San Francisco, and that kinda seems like the passive-aggressive form of an insult.



I lived there for almost ten years, 1995-2004. What, you think I don't speak from experience?



> Besides, I thought the normal accusation was that we were all "elitist liberals." Please enlighten me as to how "elitist" and "ruthlessly egalitarian" go hand-in-hand? Or, alternatively, you could just, ya know, refrain from making political comments, like the CoC asks.




Egalitarianism is a very elitist idea. That's not a joke.




> For the record, I'm in favor of anything that makes D&D magic more closely resemble the best conceived magic system in a novel _ever_.




But it already resembled "The Dying Earth"!



> It's not that "anyone" can do magic, it's that any PC who chooses to study magic is considered one of the "fortunate few" who have "the gift." With the general populace, it may be that only 1 person in 10,000 (or less) can actually cast magic (rituals or spells). But PCs are special, and if the player wants his rogue to be able to be skilled with magic, the rogue just has "the gift."




Just to clarify since there's two arguments going on here:
a)I like rituals.

b)I like that anyone willing to burn the feats needed to do so can use rituals.

c)I don't like that power, attack, save, etc progressions for all classes are now identical and that so many abilites are minor variants on [N]W+Condition, save ends. I think that WOTC is misreading a major aspect of what makes D&D, D&D -- strong class distinctions.

d)I believe that resource management -- spell points, spell slots, chakra bindings, whatever -- are fun and add flavor. From my brief time playing 4e, I'm not sure that healing surges/dailies give very much resource management fun. OTOH, that was in a constricted and unnatural play environment, and "real play" might be quite different.


----------



## Lizard (May 31, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Errrm... no. Diversity is still maintained in 4E - one of the design goals was to reinforce the archetypes even more (rather than have, for example, the Cleric out-fighter the Fighter.) The "ruthless elegaltarian" approach is in terms of making all classes as fun to play, to have lots of options. Doesn't mean their all the same, even if some of the underlying mechanics of resources have been consolidated.




My limited experience supports this, but I'm still not convinced. I'll need to see it play over time. 



> What was your point again?




I've seen a lot of players seriously turned off by the entire uniform progression/uniform powers concept. Perhaps they're a minority and WOTC has a smash on their hands. Perhaps they're not, and 4e will not be nearly as big as it deserves to be. We'll see.


----------



## Ahglock (May 31, 2008)

I do not like Rituals at all from what I have read.

1.  They do not feel magical to me.  This feels too much like its just the words and the powders that do the ritual and not the person.  I like the feel of magic when it seems the caster is investing something into it, the caster is the magic part of the equation not the words.

2.  I think two feats is too light of a requirement.  To me it would be like a feat that said pick 4 skills from another classes class skill list you are considered trained in those.  Its not much more but I'd want a multi class feat to a class with a power source that has the power source of the ritual you are mimicking. 

 I'd want rituals for every power source not just arcane and divine, though I'd want martial ones to have a non-magical feel to them, and I'd hope except for what is seen as key balance essentials they accomplish different goals.  I don't think I'd give any class the ritual casting feat for free.


----------



## baberg (May 31, 2008)

Boy, some people are going to be real upset when they learn you don't need a feat at all to actually perform the rituals, if they're written on a scroll.  Mister 8 WIS Fighter can resurrect just as well as Ms 18 WIS Cleric, and at the same level too.


----------



## werekraken (May 31, 2008)

Well, wizards are still able to use rituals far more easily than most. 

First off, wizards don't have to spend any feats.

Also, wizards get free rituals in their spell books without even having to pay money for them. 

Considering that fighter abilities are just as good if not better than many spells, and that fighter magic items will often be far more useful to fighters than rituals, and that fighters have to waste 2 feats to get the ability to blow their hard earned gold on rituals, it will not be too weird to have all classes get this kind of access to rituals. We will see how it turns out after a year or so of actual gaming. Its true that access to rituals is like having access to an infinite number of out of combat abilities (provided you have the money and the necessary skill).


----------



## broghammerj (May 31, 2008)

For those excited about rituals I ask you this question.  Does the fact that anyone can use rituals bring us one step closer to no classes and point based character builds?  I mean it's not too far from saying you want to play a spell caster, then spend two feats and some skill points.

The question is can my wizard spend a few feats and wield a great sword and plate armor as well as the fighter.  I haven't kept up on the news releases and leaked PDFs to know the answer.


----------



## Lizard (May 31, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Boy, some people are going to be real upset when they learn you don't need a feat at all to actually perform the rituals, if they're written on a scroll.  Mister 8 WIS Fighter can resurrect just as well as Ms 18 WIS Cleric, and at the same level too.




Trivially houseruled -- or just don't allow ritual scrolls.

Even so, how necessary is it? I'm going to assume there's an advantage in terms of cost to casting a ritual without a scroll -- not to mention the fact you aren't dependent on the DMs whims as to availablity.


----------



## Lizard (May 31, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I do not like Rituals at all from what I have read.
> 
> 1.  They do not feel magical to me.  This feels too much like its just the words and the powders that do the ritual and not the person.  I like the feel of magic when it seems the caster is investing something into it, the caster is the magic part of the equation not the words.




This feels very magical to me, much more so than most D&D magic. It allows the DM a lot of leeway in making magical flavor and in requiring specific items as components. Want to do Break Enchantment? (I'm guessing that's a ritual now) You need the eye of a medusa. The skill checks to determine effect also add a lot -- magic in D&D is so...damn...RELIABLE. In most source material, magic isn't point-and-click. I appreciate that reliable combat magic is a major part of what defines D&D, but adding in variable, skill-based effects to non-combat magic is Really Damn Cool.

Rituals are a Win for 4e. No doubt. They fix the Swiss Army Wizard problem, they increase DM control of magic in a flavorful way, and they open up a lot of possibilities for things which would never have been balanced as spells. "Anyone can do them" is neutral for me; I like it because it more closely models a lot of fantasy fiction where any poor fool can read the magic words...but the gods help him if gets it wrong.
(Insert Army of Darkness joke here.)


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 31, 2008)

Harshax said:
			
		

> No he can't. He still needs the Divine Ritual Feat. (unless it was a scroll)



Ooops you are right, missed that pre-req of trained arcana or religion for ritual caster feat


----------



## hong (May 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Egalitarianism is a very elitist idea. That's not a joke.




RUTHLESS EGALITARIAN
lvl 10 elite brute
Large aberrant humanoid
Initiative -1
Hp 120
AC 30, Fort 24, Ref 12, Will 10
Hive mind: +2 def when adjacent to 2 other ruthless egalitarians


----------



## Drammattex (May 31, 2008)

"Candyman! Candyman! Candyman!" 

There. Anyone can do a rituaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!

*splatter*


----------



## Harshax (May 31, 2008)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> For those excited about rituals I ask you this question.  Does the fact that anyone can use rituals bring us one step closer to no classes and point based character builds?  I mean it's not too far from saying you want to play a spell caster, then spend two feats and some skill points.




4E *is* a point by system. WotC spent most of them, and presented you with 8 *builds*.



> The question is can my wizard spend a few feats and wield a great sword and plate armor as well as the fighter.  I haven't kept up on the news releases and leaked PDFs to know the answer.




The question implies that a Fighter casting rituals is as good as a wizard casting rituals. No and No.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2008)

They make the classes too narrow, and people complain. They make the classes too broad, and people complain.


----------



## Voss (May 31, 2008)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> For those excited about rituals I ask you this question.  Does the fact that anyone can use rituals bring us one step closer to no classes and point based character builds?  I mean it's not too far from saying you want to play a spell caster, then spend two feats and some skill points.




Thankfully not.  The rituals are pretty much stuff you do outside of combat, while 90+% of your class is stuff you do in combat.  In a way its a separate group of 'skills' that doesn't impact your class.  Though various classes have an easier time accessing it than others.  Clerics and wizards get it for free, its only one feat for warlocks and paladins, and two feats for everyone else.  

In a way its hedge magic, or depending on how you look at it, 'high magic' while the wizard is really just a battlemage- someone optimized for combat magic and nothing else.  



> The question is can my wizard spend a few feats and wield a great sword and plate armor as well as the fighter.  I haven't kept up on the news releases and leaked PDFs to know the answer.



Absolutely not.  He can swing a greatsword, and even be proficient in it, but he doesn't have the stats or the powers to back it up.  You could cripple his ability to be a wizard and invest the stat points into strength and con to put him in a place where he can make a basic attack thats roughly similar to a fighter, but he's going to be really bad at both.

And a heavy armor wearing wizard isn't worthwhile.  Since AC involves armor bonus and int/dex bonus for light armor, he's going to have a competitive AC without spending the resources on plate... and it will get more competitive as he goes up in level and his int increases


----------



## Ten (May 31, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> RUTHLESS EGALITARIAN
> lvl 10 elite brute
> Large aberrant humanoid
> Initiative -1
> ...




 Propoganda (Minor): Close Burst 2, Every time Ruthless Egalitarian scores a critical hit, it may use this ability.  Target is Stunned (Save ends).  If target succeeds his save, target is Dazed (Save ends).  If target fails his save, target is forcibly and painfully converted into a Ruthless Egalitarian no longer under player control.


----------



## see (May 31, 2008)

To summarize:

An 8th level wizard or cleric can Raise Dead from a ritual book.
An 8th level paladin or warlock can Raise Dead from a ritual book if he expended one feat for Ritual Caster.
An 8th level fighter, ranger, rogue, or warlord can Raise Dead from a ritual book if he expended two feats (one for training in either Arcana or Religion, one for Ritual Caster).


----------



## Jack Colby (May 31, 2008)

It's not disappointing, it's awesome.  And it's about time.  It only makes sense that anyone could follow written instructions, once they understand how to make sense of them.  

Plus, now we can ditch spellcasting classes and use rituals only, which at least in my mind simulates the magic of Sword & Sorcery fiction pretty well.  Even Conan uses magic once in a REH story, by imitating the actions of a Pict. 

Rituals are one of the very best changes made in 4E.


----------



## Stogoe (May 31, 2008)

Harshax said:
			
		

> No he can't. He still needs the Divine Ritual Feat. (unless it was a scroll)




I would totally let a player take Ritual Casting (Restoration Only) if his character was only trained in Heal.

But I have a feeling that most available rituals in my campaign are going to be found as scrolls.  Ritual tomes will be rare beyond rarity.  Although maybe not so much that it screws over spellcasters.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 31, 2008)

I just treat "Ritual Caster" as a class you can multiclass into without hitting your multiclass limit.

Really not that big a deal.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 31, 2008)

Like most non-Lizard people in this thread, I like the idea that rituals are available to anyone who has spent the time and effort to learn casting them (picked the feats). 

Take a common archetype: a wise old sage, who has delved deep into ancient lore and has knowledge of things most people have never even heard of. Along the way, he has learned some rituals and incantations that are useful in his studies.

The ritual rules make this a very easy thing to do in 4e; in 3e, you'd have to make him an adept or a wizard, and both of those bring stuff with them that's quite outside the archetype.


----------



## Lizard (May 31, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Like most non-Lizard people in this thread, I like the idea that rituals are available to anyone who has spent the time and effort to learn casting them (picked the feats).




You didn't bother actually reading my posts, did you?


----------



## Dire Bare (May 31, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Like most non-Lizard people in this thread, I like the idea that rituals are available to anyone who has spent the time and effort to learn casting them (picked the feats).



Well then, it's clear you must be one of those narcissistic ruthless egalitarians from San Francisco who speak in racistly insulting comic-book German!!!


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 31, 2008)

I'm not very happy that anyone can learn and use rituals. To me, the greatest and most mysterious powers of wizards, clerics, druids and other magic users was their ritual magic, not just the spells that blow things up. Now those things have been offered to everyone. This isn't just about martial classes having rituals, it's also about wizards casting raise dead and clerics casting leomund's secret chest. It just ruins so much of the flavor that differentiated them, IMHO. Now, anyone can, with the expenditure of _at most_ 2 feats, have access to many of the greatest powers of wizards, clerics _and_ druids from previous editions. 

For the same reasons that characters have different roles in combat, I liked how, in previous editions, different magic users had different specialites and roles outside of combat. If you needed a disease cured or a special blessing, you went to the temple (or your party cleric). If you needed your keep magically warded or something hidden away in a secret chest, you went to the wizard guild (or your party wizard). Now, anyone with the ritual casting feat and enough money (or anyone that can afford the appropriate scroll) can do any and all of these things.

I guess one can say that the power of a ritual is contained within the ritual itself. But to me, that just cheapens what magic is. Magic has always been a very difficult thing to learn and do. It wasn't just about learning incantations, ingredients, prayers or formulae, it was about learning how to harness your own personal power and mental discipline (or faith) to do amazing things. Now, all of the power of a ritual is in the tools rather than the user. And that is just not how I think magic should be.

Now, the only type of magic that wizards can truly call their own are their simplest of spells. Shooting magic missiles and lightning bolts is something only wizards can do, but anyone can learn to cast scrying, magic circle or teleport? If anything, it should be just the opposite, IMHO. Ritual magic should be harder to do than the simpler stuff. And to make it something that any old joe can pick up for _at most_ two feats just totally wrecks how special and powerful these types of things are.

But oh well, I guess it's easy enough to house rule that only divine casters can use heal/religion rituals and only arcane casters can use arcane rituals. I just wish I didn't have to.


----------



## baberg (May 31, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> anyone can learn to cast scrying, magic circle or teleport?



Any class can cast scrying, magic circle, or teleport *if* they take multiple Feats in order to learn how to do it.  For a Fighter, taking two feats at character creation means he's spent 66% of his time learning how to cast rituals instead of focusing on swordplay (unless he's a human, in which case he's spend half his time learning rituals instead of swordplay).

Why do people always ignore that?


----------



## Incenjucar (May 31, 2008)

Personally, I've seen too many movies and books where archaeologists and evil business people have been using rituals to demand that only a wizard can do it.

Besides, again, multiclassing is done with feats.

If it really bugs you, make people multiclass into a spellcasting class before taking the feat to get what they really want.


----------



## Derren (May 31, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Any class can cast scrying, magic circle, or teleport *if* they take multiple Feats in order to learn how to do it.  For a Fighter, taking two feats at character creation means he's spent 66% of his time learning how to cast rituals instead of focusing on swordplay (unless he's a human, in which case he's spend half his time learning rituals instead of swordplay).
> 
> Why do people always ignore that?




Can those feats only be taken at character creation? If not then this is probably the reason.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 31, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Any class can cast scrying, magic circle, or teleport *if* they take multiple Feats in order to learn how to do it.  For a Fighter, taking two feats at character creation means he's spent 66% of his time learning how to cast rituals instead of focusing on swordplay (unless he's a human, in which case he's spend half his time learning rituals instead of swordplay).
> 
> Why do people always ignore that?




I didn't ignore that. And he doesn't have to take those two feats at 1st level, either. He can always get them later. Also, don't ignore the fact that feats are supposed to be much less significant to character power in this edition and characters also get more of them than they did in 3e (fighters excepted, of course, but they have powers now to cover things like cleave and whirlwind attack). Two feats in this edition is alot less a cost than two feats in 3e, especially for fighters.


----------



## baberg (May 31, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I didn't ignore that. And he doesn't have to take those two feats at 1st level, either. He can always get them later.



Yes he can.  So instead of spending half of his upbringing studying ritual casting and arcana/religion, now he's spending two levels studying ritual casting and another two levels studying arcana/religion, bypassing all of the other feats they could be looking at.  Instead of learning how to wield his weapon more efficiently he's learning how to read, understand, and utilize magic.  What's wrong with that?



			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Two feats in this edition is alot less a cost than two feats in 3e, especially for fighters.



What does 3e have to do with anything?  This is 4e.  It's a different game.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 1, 2008)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Well then, it's clear you must be one of those narcissistic ruthless egalitarians from San Francisco who speak in racistly insulting comic-book German!!!



With ADD.  You forgot the ADD.  Trust me, narcissism is better with ADD.  Every time I walk past a mirror, its like falling in love for the first time.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You didn't bother actually reading my posts, did you?




I guess not. Even I could tell you really like rituals, and I'm usually one of the first to butt heads with you.


----------



## PeterWeller (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> There's quite a lot of in-game reasons or world reasons you can use, but the real reason is -- apparently, WOTCs marketers determined most D&D players are narcissists with ADD, and can't stand anyone else being able to do something they can't, or getting 'spotlight' time at the table.
> 
> So, everyone can do everything, the fighter and the wizard have the same BAB and defenses, and the trees are all kept equal.




Aside from this being a little over the top and nasty even for you, I did appreciate the Rush reference.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 1, 2008)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Aside from this being a little over the top and nasty even for you, I did appreciate the Rush reference.




Fundamentally, my biggest worry left about 4e now that I've played it is lack of diversity. Maybe WOTC's market research proves my play experience is on the far end of the bell curve, but in the groups I've been in, differences between classes has not been a point of friction. It's the job of the DM to make sure everyone has a chance to shine in their speciality, and if a player exploits their powers/shtick to jump in on another player's niche, the GM should smack him down or explain to him that "That's not how we do things here". 

I was with most of my gaming group today, trying to explain why 4e wizards are so nerfed in terms of flexibility, because "they were taking over for the rest of the party". Thing is, while this is reported all the time online, I've never seen it in play. To test it, I even have tried to make a "swiss army knife wizard" for my current PC, but, in actual play, he can't afford to prepare all his "utility" spells since he needs every one of his big-ass nukes to keep his feathered ass alive. Memorizing "Knock" instead of a buff/damage spell is stupid/pointless for him, and besides, it would be rude to try to show up the rogue, and I know it, and the DM knows it, and the other players know it.

Based on the preview material, there's basically two builds for each class and they carry through all the way to epic level. The problem with making it impossible to be mediocre is that it is also impossible to be great.


----------



## Victoly (Jun 1, 2008)

You know what _else_ I _totally_ hate?  How come classes without any skill with magic whatsoever get to use _magic_ items?  I mean, gawd, my wizard didn't spend those years at the magic academy just so that some brutish thug of a fighter could use a _magic_ weapon!

/sarcasm

Ahem.

Now that we've got the RP/flavour issue out of the way, I think the main goal of the ritual system was to give the party access to certain essential tools regardless of which classes are being played.  With the ritual system a party of a fighter, warlord, ranger, and rogue could choose to invest a few feats and have the ability to create magic items or raise the dead.  While these abilities _have_ traditionally been associated with wizards and clerics respectively, from a mechanics point of view it has always amounted to "managerial stuff that the party does between encounters that isn't roleplaying" (at least in my games).  My players would collaborate on deciding which magic items to craft - it didn't _really_ matter who had the feat when you looked at the bigger picture of the party as a whole.  Also, there's no reason to deny some of the abilities granted by rituals to just about anyone.  Why should clerics be the _only_ ones able to heal ability damage, for example?

I can see where Lizard is coming from here, but I think that the ritual system should free up players a bit more into playing the class they want to play.

Besides, in my games it isn't really the mechanical differences that distinguish the members of the party - it's the personality and attitude of the character that does that.  So the fighter can craft magic items.  So what?  What counts about the experience is the motivation and attitudes of the characters.  _That's_ what really makes them stand out.


----------



## Victoly (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> To test it, I even have tried to make a "swiss army knife wizard" for my current PC, but, in actual play, he can't afford to prepare all his "utility" spells since he needs every one of his big-ass nukes to keep his feathered ass alive. Memorizing "Knock" instead of a buff/damage spell is stupid/pointless for him, and besides, it would be rude to try to show up the rogue, and I know it, and the DM knows it, and the other players know it.



No offense, but I don't think you were Batman-ing it hard enough.  You don't need damage spells when you can just coup-de-grace everything with your quarterstaff.


----------



## PeterWeller (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Based on the preview material, there's basically two builds for each class and they carry through all the way to epic level. The problem with making it impossible to be mediocre is that it is also impossible to be great.




Eh, the way I look at it is that's twice as many viable builds as some of these classes have had before.  Also, mechanics have never really been the way my players differentiate themselves from one another.  The current wizard, Peristicles is a totally different character than our old FR wizard, Xistol, even though they have remarkably similar spell books.

I mean, we (my group, we) never had a problem with BECMI or early AD&D's lack of diversity; we just wished the rules made a little more sense, and weapony types were as interesting as spelly types.  3E fixed the former, and now 4E has come and fixed the latter.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 1, 2008)

Victoly said:
			
		

> No offense, but I don't think you were Batman-ing it hard enough.  You don't need damage spells when you can just coup-de-grace everything with your quarterstaff.




I'm a humanoid raven with a Strength of 6. I need someone to carry my material components for me. I ain't coup-de-gracing nobody, nohow.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You didn't bother actually reading my posts, did you?



 Ooh! Ooh! I did! I did!


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Fundamentally, my biggest worry left about 4e now that I've played it is lack of diversity. Maybe WOTC's market research proves my play experience is on the far end of the bell curve, but in the groups I've been in, differences between classes has not been a point of friction.




That's rather egalitarian of them.



> Based on the preview material, there's basically two builds for each class and they carry through all the way to epic level. The problem with making it impossible to be mediocre is that it is also impossible to be great.




 Impossibility of mediocrity (standard, daily)
+16 vs Will; hit: target takes -10 to all attacks and defenses until end of ruthless egalitarian's next turn; miss: target takes -5 instead.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> To test it, I even have tried to make a "swiss army knife wizard" for my current PC, but, in actual play, he can't afford to prepare all his "utility" spells since he needs every one of his big-ass nukes to keep his feathered ass alive.




Scribe Scroll.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> The problem with making it impossible to be mediocre is that it is also impossible to be great.




Great compared to what?  The designers have tried to reduce the differences between the best classes and the worst ones, but characters aren't competing against other characters (unless the player gets joy from out-minmaxing everyone else at the table) they're competing agains the monsters and NPCs.  How does removing suckage make it impossible to be great?


----------



## epochrpg (Jun 1, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> Technically, you can pick up the Ritual Caster feat at first level and have to already have to have Arcana or Religion trained.  So Human Fighter 1:
> 
> Feat:  Skill Training:  Arcana, Ritual Caster
> 
> 1st level Human Fighter can now learn and use first level Rituals.




Or be smarter and take Arcane Initiate instead of Skill Training, so you can cast Magic Missile 1/Encounter too.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 1, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> For the record, I'm in favor of anything that makes D&D magic more closely resemble the best conceived magic system in a novel _ever_.
> 
> It's not that "anyone" can do magic, it's that any PC who chooses to study magic is considered one of the "fortunate few" who have "the gift."



And some Dresden rituals can be done even without "the gift", like protection circles. Just ask Butters.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 1, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> Scribe Scroll.
> 
> 
> 
> Great compared to what?  The designers have tried to reduce the differences between the best classes and the worst ones, but characters aren't competing against other characters (unless the player gets joy from out-minmaxing everyone else at the table) they're competing agains the monsters and NPCs.  How does removing suckage make it impossible to be great?




Compared to other possible characters, esp. in a niche or focused way. It's fun to be notably better with, say, an axe than a sword, or to be able to really shine in a given situation. From what I've seen of 4e, The Math slams down hard on diversity -- defenses will all be within 1-4 points of each other, even at high levels, for both PC and NPCs, hit point spreads are closer together, the "pick the best of two" for defenses means no one risks a real weak spot or has to balance two attributes instead of min-maxing one (see thread on Int), etc.

"Great" is by definition a relative term. If everyone is equal, no one is great. That's the way it is. 3x gave a lot of options for hyper-focus, even at low levels. 4e gives you two builds. So it goes.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "Great" is by definition a relative term.




Correct.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 1, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Or be smarter and take Arcane Initiate instead of Skill Training, so you can cast Magic Missile 1/Encounter too.




_If_ you have Int 13. Which itself is a cost to pay.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's fun to be notably better with, say, an axe than a sword, or to be able to really shine in a given situation.



But were not talking about being good with either a sword or axe. We're talking about being good with a sword vs. being good at everything else with a mere 8 hours notice.



> From what I've seen of 4e, The Math slams down hard on diversity...



1) There are other ways to achieve character diversity than raw mechanical abilities.

2) This doesn't hurt systems like Mutants and Masterminds. The fact that our party's brick does than same damage with a punch as my character does dropping a pyramid on a foe's head in no way leaves us feeling too same-y.



> If everyone is equal, no one is great.



Some people can still _play_ better then others. It's not all about builds.

And is this essentially a Harrison Bergeron  thing?



> So it goes.



I see it is...


----------



## broghammerj (Jun 1, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Any class can cast scrying, magic circle, or teleport *if* they take multiple Feats in order to learn how to do it.  For a Fighter, taking two feats at character creation means he's spent 66% of his time learning how to cast rituals instead of focusing on swordplay (unless he's a human, in which case he's spend half his time learning rituals instead of swordplay).
> 
> Why do people always ignore that?




It's the fact that so many more feats are available.  So the cost of two feats isn't so expensive over the long haul.  Too cheap if you ask me.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 1, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> 2) This doesn't hurt systems like Mutants and Masterminds. The fact that our party's brick does than same damage with a punch as my character does dropping a pyramid on a foe's head in no way leaves us feeling too same-y.




Having played M&M...it did for me. I found the "Everyone of PL X has Attack X, Defense X, and does Damage+X" to be terribly dull.



> And is this essentially a Harrsion Bergeron  thing?




It does seem some of the 4e designers took that story as a model, not a warning.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 1, 2008)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> It's the fact that so many more feats are available.  So the cost of two feats isn't so expensive over the long haul.  Too cheap if you ask me.




It depends on what you're giving up.

If you have a wizard/cleric in the party who gets the ability "for free", then taking the feats seems to be a bit sub-optimal. I can see reasons why, for character concept, for backup (Who raises the Cleric?), etc, but it's not a clear no-brainer.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It does seem some of the 4e designers took that story as a model, not a warning.




Incorrect.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Compared to other possible characters, esp. in a niche or focused way. It's fun to be notably better with, say, an axe than a sword, or to be able to really shine in a given situation.




Seems like 4e actually provides a lot more mechanical diversity based on type of weapon.  3e you had what, weapon focus and weapon specialization?  In 4e they've got access to fairly different sets of powers keying off different ability scores.

As far as a chance to shine goes, there's a fine line between giving a character a chance to shine, and having one char be so good at something that the rest of the party just sits around while he does his thing.  It's pretty clear that Wizards has decided to fix the latter, even if it impacts the former, but I think a specialized character will still have a decent chance to shine while others can still contribute.  

Take skills for example.  The gap between a fairly optimized skill and an unoptimized one is probably going to be about 8-10 points (skill training plus an optimized attribute versus untrained with a dump stat).  Skill focus could add to that, but let's just assume 9 points for now.  That's enough for the optimized character to be much more effective at using that skill, but not so much that the optimized character can't fail at any DC the unoptimized character can succeed at.  The char with the unoptimized skill has a chance of succeeding, and can at least make an aid another check to help the optimized character.  With skill challenges, Wizards has gone even farther along this line by bringing in other skills.  Rather than just having the Diplomat make all the rolls, now the character with history can contribute something to the negotiation skill challenge.

Does this diminish the spotlight on the guy with the maxed out open lock or diplomacy skill?  Maybe a little, but he's still going to be a lot better than the other characters and I think the tradeoff is worth it if it allows everyone to contribute at least a little something.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> "Great" is by definition a relative term. If everyone is equal, no one is great.




See, from my perspective, it's not about making everyone equal, it's about making sure nobody is gimped.  Better is fine, so much better that challenging one character means everyone else is ridiculously overmatched is not.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> 3x gave a lot of options for hyper-focus, even at low levels. 4e gives you two builds.




It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, but my guess is there may be more builds, or at least more customization within builds, coming down the pike.  I guess we'll see when the martial splatbook comes out.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> Does this diminish the spotlight on the guy with the maxed out open lock or diplomacy skill?  Maybe a little, but he's still going to be a lot better than the other characters and I think the tradeoff is worth it if it allows everyone to contribute at least a little something.




More to the point, he's better than the other characters, but he's also a LOT better than any other person who's significantly lower level than him. When you're 10th level in a world full of 1st level minions, you are a Big Deal. Later on, you'll be 30th level in a cosmos of 20th level minions, and you will still be a Big Deal. Just because you happen to hang out with a bunch of other 10th or 30th level people is irrelevant. D&D is and has always been about exceptional individuals who are miles more competent than the average joe, ruthless egalitarians notwithstanding.


----------

