Rituals in D and D: The gift of Now

Scadouche!

There is a saying from Kung Fu Panda which explains why the time we live in is called the present. I really like it, and I was reminded of it when I started writing this post about rituals. I’d like to take a look at what I liked about spellcasters in earlier editions and how that plays into ritual use and I’d also like to talk about some things DnDnext that I have heard in the twitter rumor mill. But rather than focus on the past or the future I would like to live in the now and enjoy the gift of the present, even if that means I need to rewrap it a bit.

I have always been attracted to spellcasters. Since I started playing I have played mostly spellcasters. Occasionally I played against type, even going so far as to play a character who was afraid of magic. What really attracted me to spellcasters was their versatility. I always enjoyed having a magical answer to situations. Whether it was asking The Powers That Be for answers to life’s big questions or flying over canyons, I liked my wizards to be able to do awesome magical things.

It was a bummer having to choose between something like Levitate which could be very useful and a Fireball which was almost always useful. To alleviate this problem I always tried to find a way to make my non combat spells useful even in combat. For example what would happen if I levitated an orc and then let it drop? Why it would fall and get hurt that’s what. That’s one of the things I miss most about the older editions.

No door can stop me for I am the master of Knock!

I think its ok for spells to be used in ways that aren’t immediately obvious. That was part of the fun of playing a spellcaster. When you were up against the wall and the red dragon had just eaten the paladin and the rogue was just knocked down from the breath weapon you know you only have one chance to save the day. What do you do you when you look at your spellbook and you have just one magic missile left in your combat spell section? You polymorph the dragon into a rat, which then explodes and leaves rat/dragon guts all over a disgusted looking Paladin.

In 3e and 4e you can’t do things like that. The spells and there effects started to become more clearly spelled out and you couldn’t use them as creatively anymore. The trade off in 4e is that you don’t have to fire a crossbow five minutes into the day, you will always have something magical and awesome to do, which is nice. The problem is that you lose out on some of the non combat awesomeness as well. A plus five bonus to your next diplomacy check is more specific than you make friends with the target, but it’s not nearly as much fun, unless you make it be so. To be fair I have had a couple of experiences lately where I have been able to bring a little bit of the creative spellcasting back into D and D and it made my day when the DM’s let me do it. In fact, one of the things that excites me about DnDnext is that they seem to be bringing back some of the creativity and exploration to the game.

Yes! I have completed my summon Lassie
ritual. Now we can save Timmy!

Where 4e really shines in this regard is the often overlooked ritual system. By divorcing the combat spells from the non combat spells 4e made it possible to be effective and magical in combat and still have interesting magical things to do outside of combat. The problem is that because of some of the costs inherent in the system it often gets completely ignored. Many classes get ritual casting for free, and some other type of benefit when using them. Other classes however have to pay a feat to have access. A problem here is that some classes that really need access to rituals to do their jobs like the warlord don’t get ritual casting for free. In fact it’s pretty common now to have no ritual casters in the party at all. It is certainly possible to play that way, but you are really missing out if you do.

There are a couple of must have rituals. First, unless you have an artificer in your party you really need the Comrade’s Succor ritual. I recommend cure disease and the other healing magic related rituals. You never know when you are going to need to bring someone back from the dead or get rid of a horrible curse. The Linked Portal and other similar rituals are good for helping you get where you need to go. Another favorite at low levels is the Eye of Alarm ritual. You never have to be surprised from sleep again if you make good use of this ritual.

The major problem for me with ritual casting is the material cost associated with casting them. Not only do you have to pay to get the rituals, but you also have to pay to cast them. On top of this they usually have a significantly long cast time. It’s not that you are really giving anything up. The cost of casting low level rituals is usually negligible especially compared to magic items of similar levels. The problem is that I have never really enjoyed the logistics resource management in D and D. I hate tracking ammunition, and I despised tracking spell components. So, often I don’t use a ritual even when it would be perfect to use it. Even worse sometimes I even forgot to use rituals I could have used for free because I forget about them among all the other options I have on my sheet they kind of get lost.

I have had a couple of ideas for making ritual casting a part of your game. First if you are really concerned about the costs, see if you can use the inherent bonuses system. If you distance the expected math of the game from magic items it frees you to spend your gold on other things. You could also keep a list of your rituals handy. One of my friends actually has copies of his rituals in a folder he keeps with his characters. Another thought I have had is asking for, or handing out rituals or ritual components as treasure. If you have some ideas how to use rituals in your game or want to recommend some must have rituals of your own feel free to post them in the comments below. Until next time remember, don’t let your DM tell you no. It’s always, “Yes and…?” 

A Time for (Edition) War, A Time for Peace (I Swear it's not too Late)

This post is a response to Bruce Cordell's blog post A Time to Heal on the DnD Next playtest group. You should take the time to read it if you haven't and vote on the poll. If you haven't yet and you are at all interested in DnD next you should bookmark that page and make your voice heard. For those of you expecting Weekly Homebrew I am going to try to get an article out at the normal time, but I really wanted to respond to Cordell's article.

I did pick up the t-shirt though

If you follow my blog you know that although I am definitely not an Edition Warrior (tm), I do have some concerns about the direction DnD next is going. If all you play are home games with your friends who all have similar playstales perhaps my concerns sound overblown to you. But imagine this, you go to your FLGS, a con, or even the D and D Virtual Table all set to play some 4e DnD. When you arrive the DM says I'm sorry I'm running Basic D and D I hope you can adjust. If you are a 1e Veteran the scenario also works in reverse just imagine your DM started running 4e one day without letting you know.

But you say DnD next is big enough for everyone. You can play your 4e Wizard with my 1e Fighter all at the same table. Well first I am not entirely convinced that will be the case. I certainly hope it is the case. I have no problem with someone else playing a Vancian Wizard, but I have no interest in it. I have talked a lot more about this subject here, but even if I can bring my character to the table, there is another problem which Cordell's article pointed out that I hadn't even considered. That problem is the Cure Selfish Wounds Cleric.

What do you mean all I know how to do is one sword swing?

I am a big fan of party optimization. I think D and D works best when you have a well rounded party both mechanically and for story purposes. At the very least you should try to have some connections between your characters so they have some reasons to work together and you should at least think about how they will work together in combat. I tend to weigh in on the side of game versus simulation, even though I really enjoy the shared storytelling aspect. I may be in the minority, but I believe that the game will run better if you have a balanced and well planned party.

Because of this I think it's very important to know what you are getting into for party composition. I know not everyone agrees with me, but it's how I prefer to roll. I like to have an idea what the others are playing so I can either pick something that will make us totally awesome, like a lazylord for a group with lot's of good basic attacks. Or conversely, I can fill in some roles to keep us at least at the baseline. That's one reason I really like the Berserker. I can provide some baseline defense while also bringing the pain to those who oppose me.

I am Delzoun you will FEAR ME!

The problem with bringing back some of the older edition stereotypes is that we left them behind for a reason. Some things can be fun to have at the table even if I don't like them. I suppose a Vancian wizard would probably fall under this, although I really don't want to have to rest after one round because my friend cast his one spell for the day. What I really don't want to deal with at the table is a cleric who doesn't heal or lead in any other way. I think a destruction cleric trope is fine, but if you are going to have a cleric there needs to at least be some baseline that they operate at for healing and whatever else leading means to you. I really like how this was handled in 4e all leaders have a baseline healing that is cheap and easy. I don't want to see a return of CoDzilla.

When I play D and D I want to show up at the table and have an idea what experience I am going to have. I want to be able to talk to my DM and the other players before the game and show up knowing whether I am going to play something like 4e, something like 1e or something like GURPS. I may enjoy playing all those games, but if I show up to play 4e and I am handed GURPS I will be disappointed. Furthermore if I am told to expect a cleric and I find Delzoun god of destruction sitting across from me I'll be disappointed as well. Not because I want Brian to play a cleric, but because I would have brought the cleric if I had known Brian was going to play Delzoun. As always your mileage may vary. Until next time remember don't let your DM tell you no. It's always, "Yes and...?"

D and D Class Design Seminar Special: Rarity

Ok maybe a little Magic in D & D is ok

I am working on a post for tomorrow about the use of rituals past, future and especially, present, but I am also following the D and D XP Seminar on class design and I feel the need to respond to one of the bits they just released and a reaction I saw from @deadorcs on twitter. I want to be very clear that I am not accusing Wizards of the Coast from turning D and D into Magic the Gathering. I am also still kind of excited about D and D next, but I was very concerned when they said that they were considering making some classes common, some uncommon, and some rare. I know Wizards isn't trying to magicify... magictate... magic... they aren't turning Dungeons and Dragons into Magic the Gathering. I think the wording is perhaps just unfortunate.

What really bothered me though was a reaction I saw on Twitter. More on this later.  At first I wasn't pleased with the idea. Both because of the inevitable comparison to Magic, and because broadly I think the idea might be a good one in general, it is not something I want to see coded into the game. The idea actually fits much better as a module perhaps even one associated with campaign settings. That is I think it would be ok to have Wizards in Forgotten Realms be common, while sorcerers are uncommon and warlocks are rare. What I don't want is that idea coded into the core.

No, you can't play a warlock in my game Scott.

As a DM I wouldn't mind the book giving me some ideas for how to detail class rarity, but maybe I want Wizards to be rare and warlocks to be a dime a dozen.  As a player I want to be able to play the character I want to play without undue hassle. So when @deadorcs suggested that in his campaign he was going to want a truly awesome backstory if one of his players wanted to play a rare class. I have no problem limiting myself for a theme game, such as this one. But one of the things I liked about 4e was that everything was core. I hated when I bought a book to play the cool new class, that my DM would say no we are limiting things to core.

It really bothered me Wizards introduced magic item rarity into the game with Essentials. If magic items are a player resource, which they had been from the beginning of 4e then they should stay a player resource. If you want them to be a DM resource that's fine, but the rest of the game needs to support that. I happen to like having them as a player resource, again because so many times I "needed" a magic item which my DM wouldn't let me have. On the other hand,  I have enjoyed the mystery of discovering cool new magic items that comes along with them being a DM resource. My main concern is that if anything in the game is a player resource it should be class. Let's keep the core big and inclusive so I don't have to work harder than the swing a sword fighter just to get to the table. Until next time remember don't let your DM tell you no. It's always, "Yes and...?"

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love 5e

Don't worry men they'll take our 4e from our cold dead hands.

I imagine most of you have heard this by now but, just in case you haven’t, a new iteration of Dungeons and Dragons was announced yesterday. Between being stuck in retail land and all the hubbub, I almost didn’t get my Pixie review done on time. My first reaction was to entrench deeply in 4e and get ready for the edition war. Instead, I took a deep breath, looked around and found some things to be encouraged about. I am not a 5hilistine or a 4deventurer, but I can relate to both sides. I very much enjoy and love 4e, warts aside. Despite that, I am tentatively optimistic about the next iteration and I’d like to tell you why.

I, along with many people, am melancholy about the premature death of 4e. I believe 4e had at least a few more years in it. Even though it had a few problems, with the VT finally in open beta and the newly awesome Heroes ofthe Feywild, I truly enjoyed playing it as did many others. However, I understand the importance of publish or perish, and I recognize the desire to bring all the lost children back to D&D. There are people I miss playing with that only play Pathfinder (or 2^nd edition or any number of other systems) so I am kind of excited about a system that could bring us all back together. It would particularly exciting if they continue to provide good digital tools so I can keep playing D&D with my friends around the world and maybe reconnect with some lost ones as well. I am excited about the goals for the new iteration at the very least.

I didn't know you had your hand in that too

The main reason I am excited about the next iteration of D&D is that I will get to have a hand in it. One of the main problems with 4e was the lack of open playtesting. I think if Wizard’s had gotten the community involved in 4e it would have been a better game far earlier. Additionally, there would have been far less fracturing and perhaps the edition war could have been completely avoided. Jokes about making the fans do unpaid game design aside, I think a game by the fans and for the fans is the best thing I have ever heard. I am very happy with the level of communication from Wizard’s about the new edition and I look forward to some hardcore playtesting.

Fear my ULTIMATE D&D

As I said, I am far from convinced the new iteration is going to work. I am pleased with the goals of the new iteration, but I am very concerned they won’t be able to actually meet those goals. I really have two large problems with the directions the game is headed. The first is that I find it hard to believe that an Ultimate of D&D will work. There are too many diverse desires among the player base. Just as an example there are many people for whom the D&D does not work without Vancian spellcasting. There are others, myself included, who despise Jack Vance for what he has done to all my wizards. I’m willing to give Wizards the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps there is a way for both of us to play at the same table, but I am skeptical.

My second large concern is the idea of a modular system that seems to be the direction the game is headed. I may do a longer post on my problem with a modular system as it goes on and we get more information. For now my major concern is that I like having a large set of core assumptions to build a game on. I am worried that I will not be able to find a dm willing to run the kind of game I want to play. This can always be a concern, but I like most of the core assumptions of 4e and so if I look for 4e DMs I can at least go in expecting that most of the game will be what I want and the DM and the players can work out for ourselves what things might be different. If the base game is enough of what I like then it might not be a problem so I’m keeping optimistic until more information comes out.

I am not surprised that another iteration of D&D is in the works. I am a little sad about the end of 4e. I have some concerns about the direction the game is headed, but I am glad Wizards handled the announcement the way they did. I hope they really intend to have open playtesting and will listen to the feedback the playtesting generates. Until next time, remember, whatever your edition, don’t let your DM tell you no. It’s always “Yes and…?”