Essentials -- What happened to Rituals?

I think part of the problem with the whole "There's no non-combat focus" issue is that I think its fairly hard to write that into a book. After all, what would you put into a PHB to emphasize "out-of-encounter" interactions?

That being said, I understand that many of the adventures have had notable shortcomings in the form of NPC backgrounds/motivations/mannerisms, etc. I think this is the biggest issue most people have. I imagine that there are two issues driving this problem. 1) the authors tend to be paid by the word and are thus given word count limits, so when things need cutting, they likely cut from the NPCs rather than the encounters. 2) NPCs are really a gaming group by gaming group kind of thing. In other words, an NPC who ends up playing a central role in one group's campaign may not ever come up in another's even if they are running the same adventures. Different players will latch onto different NPCs for whatever reason. As a result, I think that WotC, for good or ill, has chosen to go with rather brief info on the NPCs and let the DM flesh it out as needed. As it stands, I don't need highly detailed information on 10 NPCs every adventure because my group is unlikely to interact much with more than 2 (and even that is pushing it).

As for rituals, I do know that some of the SOW adventures specifically mention rituals (though in the guise of assuming that the PCs will use certain types of rituals during their investigation). Again, I'm not sure how exactly to work rituals into a published adventure without making it look like railroading "If the PCs perform the Scry ritual they will learn that BAMF is on Nitwit Island." In that situation you still need other clues to get the party to Nitwit Island because if the party for some reason does not have access to Scry, then they are hosed.

So in summary, I too would love to see better implementation of rituals in published adventures but I'm not even certain how I would do it myself. Of course, then my invoker and bard players would have to actually remember that they are, in fact, ritual casters. :hmm:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think one of the problems with rituals was the cost. Yes, it wasn't much. But many players were saving every silver for that next item upgrade. Especially when thier DM didn't do wishlists. They may have been getting useful items, but there's always that "I'd love that" item out there to save up for.

Ironically, the new rarity system introduced alongside essentials should solve the problem and give the characters plenty of extra cash. Enough that many would be ok with spending some on rituals. But then they left them out. :erm:
 

some of the rituals got written into classes (like raise dead getting a similar version as a utility power).

There was some mention at some point of a product coming out next year that was to have rituals (as well as other PHB1 stuff like warlords) in a more updated/essentials format. I recall the name or know the status of that particular product though.
 



It helps, but the one issue is that because the RC didn't reprint the core rules for ritual casting and the DDI Compendium does not contain those rules there is actually one and only one source, a printed copy of a PHB1, which isn't that hard to get but isn't exactly a book that most players buying Essentials would expect to need and which they're rather unlikely to pay $25 or thereabouts for just to get that one thing.

I dunno when you last checked it out, but the core rules for Rituals are on the DDI Compendium now.

Rituals entry (core rules): http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/glossary.aspx?id=430

Ritual Book/Scrolls:
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/glossary.aspx?id=429
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/glossary.aspx?id=431

Components (including the associated skill):
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=8758
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=8759
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=8760
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=8761
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=8762

The only thing missing are more in-depth descriptions of the categories of rituals, but those are mostly self-explanatory anyway.
 


It's unfortunate because I felt Rituals represented some great design.
Mmm. I would take issue with that. I think ritual represent a great idea. I think if they were well designed and implemented, players would use them more.

I applaud the attempt to provide a place for big non-combat spells. I think the implementation is lackluster and the rules for ritual scrolls downright confusing.

I had a couple rituals that were big plot points in my last campaign. Players had to acquire hard-to-find ingredients to even start the ritual, which was then a skill challenge. These were big, important rituals. Obviously not every ritual warrants that kind of time and effort but I think it would have been nice to see something more interesting than 'I pay 1000 gold and perform the ritual'.
 

I dunno when you last checked it out, but the core rules for Rituals are on the DDI Compendium now.

Interesting. That is new since a while ago, not sure when I actually searched for it. Nice to see it is there anyhow.

Mmm. I would take issue with that. I think ritual represent a great idea. I think if they were well designed and implemented, players would use them more.

I applaud the attempt to provide a place for big non-combat spells. I think the implementation is lackluster and the rules for ritual scrolls downright confusing.

I had a couple rituals that were big plot points in my last campaign. Players had to acquire hard-to-find ingredients to even start the ritual, which was then a skill challenge. These were big, important rituals. Obviously not every ritual warrants that kind of time and effort but I think it would have been nice to see something more interesting than 'I pay 1000 gold and perform the ritual'.

I keep hearing this, but then people generally compare with previous edition 'ritualistic' type spells (ones that are generally non-combat and often in AD&D at least had onerous costs and casting times). What is the difference? What is the difference really between 4e rituals and a lot of the things in 3.x where you spent time and money to do something (crafting mostly)? I haven't seen people complain that any of those things were 'bad designs'.

Honestly I really haven't yet gotten from anyone what is bad about the DESIGN? I'm interpreting what you're saying as basically it should be more flavorful, but isn't that kind of really up to the people in a specific game? The DM (or the player for that matter) can describe the actual casting process in whatever way they want. Generally the rituals specify about as much information about how they are cast as say an AD&D spell ever did. For that matter 4e spells don't really detail how they are cast either, even when it could potentially be mechanically significant, but I haven't really heard people complain about that as bad design.

I've also heard lots of complaints about cost, but the cost of MOST rituals is trivial. The ones that aren't trivial have major game impact and casting them is pretty significant. A character would want to consider carefully what advantage he's getting, just like if he was going to say drink a potion. Effectively saying that giving rituals a cost is bad design has to cover ALL OTHER CONSUMABLES as well, since there is really no significant mechanical difference in terms of you pay for something and you get something. Now maybe all consumables are a bad idea, but I haven't really heard that suggested too seriously. The other aspect of this is that if a ritual is BUILT IN to an adventure in some fashion, then of course the PCs shouldn't be paying for it. They may be out of pocket, but if casting it was the only way to succeed and the adventure was designed that way then the cost should be made up somehow.

So we are back to presentation and motivation basically IMHO. I'm not really super comfortable with the 'it is the failing of the DM that rituals don't see much use in a given game'. OTOH I just haven't seen where the design really falls down or what the better alternative design is (and trust me there are a bunch of threads here where we've gone over this numerous times, ALL the alternatives to a casting cost have significant issues and aren't really well suited for all cases even if they would work for a few).
 

I think part of the problem is that even more than items, rituals come with a lot of niggly book-keeping, and it between the two it can be very easy to just forget about rituals and save up for an item instead.

4e is very good at cutting down on this kind of thing, and for many people rituals and even item cost buck that trend in a not-good way.

I think a good solution would be to simpplify costings for both, and then make rituals just another sort of item- once you have it, you can use it once a day or at the cost of a surge or w/e, and you don't have to worrry about endless cost issues. OTOH, it would mean you don't have quite as many of them, even if they don't use the same resource as your items.

Another idea would be to give each ritual a conbat mode, and a campaign mode. Balance the combat mode against item usage, so for instance, where a wizard might boost a power with their magic staff, they might instead trip or push an opponent with a floating disk. These powers would probably not be quite as good as an item power, but that balances the campaign usage.

Of course, a reply to this would be the idea of moving items and powers into a similar 'campaign space', but I think that's a good direction to move in either way. Who says you can't use your portable hole to carry grain to a starving village, or keep warm using your flamebalde?

To a degree this could be improvised, but a simpler item/ritual system could give good GM support for such calls. Even a basic power rating and some keywords would allow a GM to map items and rituals into skill challenges, for instance, and better 'eyeball' such effects in more freeform terms. Can a flame blade blaze brightly enough to burn through a wooden door? Well, a level 17 flame blade probably can. . .
 

Remove ads

Top