So why can ANYONE use rituals?

[ThirdWizard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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