D&D 5E Expanding Ritual Spells?

[Quartz]

How would allowing many more spells to be cast as Rituals affect the game? In particular I'm looking at spells like Raise Dead, Reincarnate, and the like but really any spell that doesn't have to be hurried, like Scrying.

I'm thinking the Gray Mouser in the case of arcane magic, and paladins for divine magic.

 

[Tallifer]

I certainly preferred the expansive 4E lists of rituals. However, because gold is not needed for much else, higher level characters would have too easy access to magic if there was as much ritual magic in 5E as in 4E. I think. Maybe.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Honestly, I think the concept of ritual magic was the best thing to come out of 4e and I'm glad it was worked I to 5e.

Particularly for divination and abjuration type spells, I think having more of them available as rituals would be fine. I'd hesitate about adding stuff like raise dead or damage dealing spells of any kind, though, unless you want to stipulate that such magic requires cooperation between multiple participants to perform the ritual or have a similar limitation. Otherwise I think you run the risk of easy overuse.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

The biggest effect this will have is freeing up more spell slots for use in combat. If the typical scouting spells like scrying and arcane eye don't cost spell slots it becomes less of a trade off to cast those spells preemptively when at an adventure location and thus would probably become more common a tactic. You could make the argument that instead of a resource cost the party is paying a time cost, but IME that usually isn't as relevant. Not all adventures have time pressure, but all adventures will tax the caster's spell slots.

 

[Quartz]

I'd hesitate about adding stuff like raise dead or damage dealing spells of any kind, though, unless you want to stipulate that such magic requires cooperation between multiple participants to perform the ritual or have a similar limitation.

For Raise Dead and the like, consider a game without a high-level cleric or druid.

Imagine the following PCs: a Devotion Paladin with Ritual Magic: Cleric, a Rogue with Ritual Magic: Wizard, and a Barbarian with Ritual Caster: Druid. It looks to me like a decent way of allowing a milieu to be low in combat magic yet have access to high level magic.

Otherwise I think you run the risk of easy overuse.

Why? Don't forget that it requires a precious feat, and you have to choose the class of ritual magic. You can't just cast every ritual.

 

[Ath-kethin]

For Raise Dead and the like, consider a game without a high-level cleric or druid.

Imagine the following PCs: a Devotion Paladin with Ritual Magic: Cleric, a Rogue with Ritual Magic: Wizard, and a Barbarian with Ritual Caster: Druid. It looks to me like a decent way of allowing a milieu to be low in combat magic yet have access to high level magic.



Why? Don't forget that it requires a precious feat, and you have to choose the class of ritual magic. You can't just cast every ritual.

I consider games with NO clerics or druids, because as a rule I ban full casters in my campaigns. So I've thought about this quite a bit.

Having raise dead take 10 minutes to cast (normal ritual time) instead of an hour is unlikely to limit much of anything. If your goal is to retain the capability of parties to render death more or less meaningless in a campaign that lacks high level casters, this would do it. Providing eternal life is worth a feat for most players, I'd bet.

That's why I'd add additional limitations on it. Require cooperation or other considerations that aren't just spending more money, since money itself becomes pretty meaningless very quickly in 5e.

My 2 coppers.

 

[TallIan]

I think that WotC have mostly done a good job of sorting combat and utility (ritual) spells, I doubt you’ll break the game by adding a few more well considered rituals.

Consider Unseen servant mostly a utility spell, but can be used in combat - if cast before - to hold a torch. Hardly game breaking but something like that needs to be considered.

I consider games with NO clerics or druids, because as a rule I ban full casters in my campaigns. So I've thought about this quite a bit.

Having raise dead take 10 minutes to cast (normal ritual time) instead of an hour is unlikely to limit much of anything.

Not entirely relevant but rituals take 10 mins longer that normal, not 10 mins. So for spells that have casting time longer that 1 action the only difference is whether a spell slot is used or not.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Not entirely relevant but rituals take 10 mins longer that normal, not 10 mins. So for spells that have casting time longer that 1 action the only difference is whether a spell slot is used or not.

Oops. Good call. I misremembered that.

I think my point still stands.

 

[Nagol]

Fundamentally, increasing the number of rituals increases the flexibility of casters (especially Wizards) as the spells that can be cast without using a spell slot increases. It also increases the capability of the caster in combat as the caster no longer has to hold back a spell slot for those utility spells that became rituals.

So the upshot is expect more magic cast in non-combat situations where newly ritualised spells provide value and expect more magic to be cast in combat.

Last I checked, 5e didn't suffer from granting casters too little flexibility.

 

[Caliban]

Personally, I like the idea of some magical effects and spells only being available via ritual (i.e. you cannot cast them at all except in ritual form), and some rituals taking hours or days to complete, instead of 10 minutes plus.

Raise Dead and Resurrection could certainly be moved into that category.