D&D General Arcanists Without Spell Slots

[Sorinth]

Variable outcomes, generally.

And tbh a small chance of failure just means that experts are more reliable ritualists, rather than everyone being about the same.

And the occultist rogue fits because it fits and because its a skill based concept yhat benefits from lots of proficiencies and some expertise.

If the failure case is always progress with a setback then it could work, but failure being nothing happens I don't see being worthwhile.

So for example, suppose we take a classic occultist ritual about contacting the the dead. There's probably already been a bunch of social/exploration encounters to get everyone and everything needed for the ritual, to then roll a nat 1 and not contact the dead person is going to suck and make the occultist feel useless, especially when another PC could've just cast Speak with Dead with no chance of failure. But on the otherhand if that nat 1 means the contact works but the occultist is immediately possessed and turns hostile, during this possession the occultist has visions/shared memories and so is able to gather the info the party wanted, but they now have a combat encounter to deal with. That could be a fun encounter, and won't make the occultist feel useless since they got the info they wanted.

I could also buy into something like a ritual needs X things, if you get all X it's auto success, but if you are missing one or more then there's a skill check where failure can mean nothing happens. Because at least then it's a choice, do we spend the time/effort to gather the missing pieces of the ritual or do we just roll the dice with what we have. Failure where nothing happens here won't feel like my class/subclass is useless with failure because it was an informed choice and not just luck.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well one way you could do it.

1. Cantrips. You can add riders onto them.

2. Level 18 wizard ability comes online at level 6. Lvl 1 spells only. You can cast them at will. Level 2 comes online 12, lvl 3 18.

3. 2014 book of shadows

Ritual caster, good cantrips, good at rituals low level spells at will.

You could also do curated spells proficiency bonus per long rest.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I was thinking about this after reading a thread about the "magic level" in D&D. How could you evoke a low level magic feel but still play someone that is a mage?

I haven't really worked out a full solution, but the idea of using more rituals and making cantrips still something harder to pull off, and reserving "actual" spellcasting too very late levels seems obvious.
The challenge is of course that if it's not a fully fledged caster, what does make it useful in combat and allow it to still compete with a caster?

I don't think of it as something that fits "into" a subclass, because the power levels there feel too limited. I'd probably make it its own class, and maybe it's subclass could be focused on its non-spellcasting focus (so you could have something more going into the direction of a Rogue and something going more into the direction of a Fighter.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the failure case is always progress with a setback then it could work, but failure being nothing happens I don't see being worthwhile.

So for example, suppose we take a classic occultist ritual about contacting the the dead. There's probably already been a bunch of social/exploration encounters to get everyone and everything needed for the ritual, to then roll a nat 1 and not contact the dead person is going to suck and make the occultist feel useless, especially when another PC could've just cast Speak with Dead with no chance of failure.

Why do you assume a bunch of extra work has happened already? Find body, prepare ritual, make arcana or religion check.

And it would be a change to all ritual casting, so the only way to gwt no failure chance is spending a resource.

But on the otherhand if that nat 1 means the contact works but the occultist is immediately possessed and turns hostile, during this possession the occultist has visions/shared memories and so is able to gather the info the party wanted, but they now have a combat encounter to deal with. That could be a fun encounter, and won't make the occultist feel useless since they got the info they wanted.

That is much worse than nothing happening.

I could also buy into something like a ritual needs X things, if you get all X it's auto success, but if you are missing one or more then there's a skill check where failure can mean nothing happens. Because at least then it's a choice, do we spend the time/effort to gather the missing pieces of the ritual or do we just roll the dice with what we have. Failure where nothing happens here won't feel like my class/subclass is useless with failure because it was an informed choice and not just luck.

Sometimes characters fail. I dont understandt issue here.

 

[Sorinth]

Why do you assume a bunch of extra work has happened already? Find body, prepare ritual, make arcana or religion check.

In most fiction you when you have say a seance you're gathering personal effects, getting people who knew the person, doing it at a specific location, a specific time of day/year, etc... That all seems like work to me, but if there's no work involved, and failure is nothing happens, then can't they just try again until they roll better? If they can take 10 or take 20 then it seems pointless to make it a skill check in the first place.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In most fiction you when you have say a seance you're gathering personal effects, getting people who knew the person, doing it at a specific location, a specific time of day/year, etc... That all seems like work to me, but if there's no work involved, and failure is nothing happens, then can't they just try again until they roll better? If they can take 10 or take 20 then it seems pointless to make it a skill check in the first place.

Why would they be able to try again at no cost? In terms of general game design, that is terrible.

Time and resources lost, even ypur idea of consequences as long as it isnt "you have to try to kill yoyr friends now", can all be results of rolling too poorly.

And you can litwrally just say, "if you fail the minimum DC ypu cannot try again for 24 hours. If you fail by 5 or more, you can never try again."

And btw, 1 doesnt mean auto failure in 5e, so all you need to make it so that you won't totally fail is expertise, help from other characters, and maybe most rituals can have optional ways to get an extra bonus.

A ritualist class/subclass could then have the ability to add their Int mod as an extra bonus, or the ability to treat a 1 or 2 as a 3, etc. Ways to ensure they always hit the baseline DC.

 

[Sorinth]

Why would they be able to try again at no cost? In terms of general game design, that is terrible.

Time and resources lost, even ypur idea of consequences as long as it isnt "you have to try to kill yoyr friends now", can all be results of rolling too poorly.

And you can litwrally just say, "if you fail the minimum DC ypu cannot try again for 24 hours. If you fail by 5 or more, you can never try again."

I mean sure, but have you presented anything to suggest why they can't just try again? Seems like the only thing is just some gameist rule about how often you can try. And even then couldn't another PC just try?

Not trying to be rude here as I do like the concept of an occultist who isn't using spell slots but can still do magic through rituals and the like. But I'm struggling to see the gameplay you want, that's fun/interesting.

And btw, 1 doesnt mean auto failure in 5e, so all you need to make it so that you won't totally fail is expertise, help from other characters, and maybe most rituals can have optional ways to get an extra bonus.

A ritualist class/subclass could then have the ability to add their Int mod as an extra bonus, or the ability to treat a 1 or 2 as a 3, etc. Ways to ensure they always hit the baseline DC.

I mean if you make it so you can't fail even on a 1, then I'm not sure why even have a roll and previously you said that yes they should fail and that's not a problem. So I'm a bit confused.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean sure, but have you presented anything to suggest why they can't just try again? Seems like the only thing is just some gameist rule about how often you can try. And even then couldn't another PC just try?

It is bad design to let them keep trying without any cost or risk. It is that simple. whether that means lost component cost, minor negative consequences, or just having to wait, failure should matter at least a little.

As for another PC, in some cases sure. It is the same as any other skill task.

Not trying to be rude here as I do like the concept of an occultist who isn't using spell slots but can still do magic through rituals and the like. But I'm struggling to see the gameplay you want, that's fun/interesting.

Idk what to say then. Rolling to do the thing is more fun than treating the task as a button that just does the thing.

I mean if you make it so you can't fail even on a 1, then I'm not sure why even have a roll and previously you said that yes they should fail and that's not a problem. So I'm a bit confused.

You dont see the difference between not needing to roll and "experts can ensure success (sometimes via prep) but less expert characters will still be risking failure"?

its like a rogue with tools disarming a trap after level 7. They cannot fail by 5 or more, they can rarely fail at all. That doesnt mean it isnt good design to have skill checks to disarm traps with a distinct chance of failure for less expert characters.