D&D 5E Homebrew Variant Ritual Casting Rules

[doctorbadwolf]

Rituals are one of the best things to get ported over from 4e to 5e. However, they worked better in 4e, partly because they were a separate track from powers.

Now, the ritual caster feat is one way to go, but it’s a hard sell for multiclassed spellcasters, who already have ritual casting, but cannot ever progress it beyond their levels in that Spellcasting class. As well, there are many tables that do use homebrew and 3pp, but don’t use or like feats.

And it’s interesting to let someone be a scholar who knows how to cast rituals, but has no knack for channeling actual spell power.

So, my bud and I worked out the following ideas.

You can learn any ritual, as long as you have proficiency in Arcana (for Wizard spells), Religion (for Cleric Spells), or Nature (for Druid Spells. Doing so takes at least 8 hours of study, instruction, or research. See the Ritual Learning Time By Level chart to see how long a ritual of any given level takes to learn.

Casting a ritual that you know, but that is not available to you from a character feature such as a Ritual Casting class feature or the Ritual Caster feat requires an ability check, as if casting from a scroll. If you miscast the ritual, your DM May roll on the Ritual Casting Complications table, or choose a complication of their own devising. Routine rituals of little power, with ample preparation time, and many ritual participants, may not require a roll, per DM discretion. Casting a ritual spell of 6th level or higher in this way always requires a check.

If you spend a hit die or spell slot as part of casting the ritual spell, you can gain a bonus to the ability check. haven’t decided what, yet. 1d4? Advantage? Proficiency modifier?
my current idea is 1 HD =1d4, 2=1d6, 3=1d8, 4=1d10, 5=1d12, can’t go past 5HD.

Anyone got thoughts on this one?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mean, I suppose it can work... but my main thought is to question whether there are many tables for whom they don't already have characters that are casting rituals that you need more people to be able to do so? If you have one PC that can cast Comprehend Languages, what is the need for having other PCs be able to do so? You only need the one character to have it to gain whatever it is the ritual can do.

I suppose if a particular table has their PCs split off on their own quite frequently to roleplay and adventure by themselves that having individual PCs being able to cast 10-minute rituals might be somewhat useful... but how often does a normal table split off like that?

At the end of the day if you think your players all want to cast rituals (even the combat PCs) and don't want to spend a feat slot on it, then a set up such as you present could be fine. I just don't know if it's really necessary to actually try and concocted a full set of rules. Heck... it'd be easier just to give everyone at your table the Ritual Caster feat for free and be done with it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, I suppose it can work... but my main thought is to question whether there are many tables for whom they don't already have characters that are casting rituals that you need more people to be able to do so? If you have one PC that can cast Comprehend Languages, what is the need for having other PCs be able to do so? You only need the one character to have it to gain whatever it is the ritual can do.

I suppose if a particular table has their PCs split off on their own quite frequently to roleplay and adventure by themselves that having individual PCs being able to cast 10-minute rituals might be somewhat useful... but how often does a normal table split off like that?

At the end of the day if you think your players all want to cast rituals (even the combat PCs) and don't want to spend a feat slot on it, then a set up such as you present could be fine. I just don't know if it's really necessary to actually try and concocted a full set of rules. Heck... it'd be easier just to give everyone at your table the Ritual Caster feat for free and be done with it.

I appreciate the feedback, but I think that we have some very different assumptions about the game and the people at the table.

I can't imagine the group ever caring about whether someone already has a given ritual, or rituals in general, before deciding whether they want to be able to use rituals. Such decisions are made based on the desires and goals of the character. Now, "no one has this very useful tool" is a reason that often leads to someone learning to do something, but we only worry about "doubling up" during character creation or when picking major character features like subclass.

There are no "combat PCs" in any of the campaigns I'm part of, and we haven't had someone who only cares about combat in over a decade. Even then, it was just the people who only played because it was what their freinds happened to be doing that were like that. IME, no one stays a maker of "combat PCs" in a game where everyone else is engaged with the game world, where the DM asks players things like "who cares about you?" and "who trained you?" and the like, etc.
We don't push anyone toward three dimensional characters, but IME even the most "combat is what is fun about dnd" players tend to get into other aspects of the game at such a table.

Giving everyone the feat for free might be "easier" by some measure, but it isn't how we do things, and it isn't half as much fun for anyone at any table that I am part of. It took me and my buddy about half an hour of texting back and forth to work out those rules above. Not a meaningful amount of time or effort. So, easier isn't really...a concern, here?

But it also wouldn't be satisfying in the fiction. Not everyone should have ritual casting. Not everyone will learn any rituals. The posted rule would allow a scholar to learn some rituals by spending time and money. That feels right. It makes sense. Everyone just having ritual casting doesn't. Requiring some specialised knowledge (proficiency in the appropriate skill), and taking longer to learn if you don't have access to spells of that level, makes sense, and makes the gameplay feel like the narrative. It also allows someone to put in work to get what they want, when the game mechanics make gaining that the traditional way a bad deal. It feels like cheating yourself to take ritual caster as an MC caster with 4 or so levels of a full caster class. It's a feat to...get the rest of a class feature. That's wonky. So, we fix.
5e isn't a game that cries for extreme caution in such things, to be frank.

Now, I would personally allow someone to try to cast from a ritual book with enough preparation, because narratively it makes sense that a ritual is something that just works if done correctly, but anything above level 2 would be complex enough that it would comprise a complex skill challenge, as would a unique ritual to do a specific thing that isn't really covered by the rules or where the existing rules don't really fit the scenario, like counteracting a complex contingency-triggered ritual of lichdom, as in my recent eberron session.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We are also planning on expanding the number of ritual spells in the game, many of which will have little utility outside of ritual use (ie, not things for hectic moments).

They’ll be assigned to classes, but I expect that a lot of rangers and Paladins and the like will end up learning them.

 

[Garthanos]

We are also planning on expanding the number of ritual spells in the game, many of which will have little utility outside of ritual use (ie, not things for hectic moments).

They’ll be assigned to classes, but I expect that a lot of rangers and Paladins and the like will end up learning them.

I definitely prefer 4e rituals all around both in terms of variety and connection to components /just saying

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I definitely prefer 4e rituals all around both in terms of variety and connection to components /just saying

Sure, but the main other DM of my group wants to avoid reworking the entire rituals system for 5e, so we are looking at the OP, which is less impactful on the whole system.

 

[Garthanos]

Sure, but the main other DM of my group wants to avoid reworking the entire rituals system for 5e, so we are looking at the OP, which is less impactful on the whole system.

I once postulated making every spell a ritual with fast casting manipulations exhibited by PCs and villains as something strange that the world at large might consider extremely abnormal

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I once postulated making every spell a ritual with fast casting manipulations exhibited by PCs and villains as something strange that the world at large might consider extremely abnormal

Could be interesting, yeah.