D&D 5E Is It Time to Partition Ritual and Non-Ritual Spells?

[GreyICE]

I find it interesting that some are concerned with there being trap choices in wizard spells. I've always felt the uncertainty involved in spell preparation is part of the fun of playing a Vancian caster. Even some of the mainstay spells, like fireball, are situational due to potential consequences.

D&D Next gives wizards some decent at-will spells to round out the rough edges, and rituals provide even more of a safety net. Further siloing would only harm the last vestiges of the Vancian risk/reward system.

However the number of spells has been cut drastically. By mid-high levels in 2E and 3E, there was no risk/reward because of the vast number of spell slots available and the ability to make spell scrolls/wands/etc. Therefore, magic users were reward/reward - vast flexibility, with almost infinite access to every important spell.

At the moment, the number of spells is highly limited, and it looks like a 10th level wizard might have access to ~15 spells overall (compared to probably 25-30 or more (depending on how big of a scroll/wand collector they are) in 2E/3E.

Given that they're drastically limiting the number of spell slots and metagamey mechanics that allow access to less commonly used spells, doesn't it make sense to allow rituals? I mean if you're sacrificing 1 spell slot in 30 for a limited use spell, that's one thing. If you're sacrificing gold for 1 spell scroll you have a 3% chance of needing that's another.

When you're sacrificing 1 spell in a small handful with no spell scrolls available, well... that's quite the thing. Ritual magic just makes sense.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
Given that they're drastically limiting the number of spell slots and metagamey mechanics that allow access to less commonly used spells, doesn't it make sense to allow rituals? I mean if you're sacrificing 1 spell slot in 30 for a limited use spell, that's one thing. If you're sacrificing gold for 1 spell scroll you have a 3% chance of needing that's another.

When you're sacrificing 1 spell in a small handful with no spell scrolls available, well... that's quite the thing. Ritual magic just makes sense.

Agreed on the sense.
Here's another consideration that I don't think has been fully addressed:

When scribing a scroll for a ritual that has material components, when do the components get used up? If the components get used up during the process of scribing the scroll, then you don't have to keep carrying those ingredients around, and encumbrance becomes less of a problem. You could even hand the scroll to a Pixie PC who has ritual casting, and have the Pixie fly off somewhere else to complete the ritual from the scroll without worrying about the weight of the components.
On the other hand, if the components get used up during the act of casting the ritual from the scroll, then encumbrance is a greater deterrent to the use of scrolls because of the weight.

I hope WotC addresses this issue explicitly during the 5E development.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

However the number of spells has been cut drastically. By mid-high levels in 2E and 3E, there was no risk/reward because of the vast number of spell slots available and the ability to make spell scrolls/wands/etc. Therefore, magic users were reward/reward - vast flexibility, with almost infinite access to every important spell.

At the moment, the number of spells is highly limited, and it looks like a 10th level wizard might have access to ~15 spells overall (compared to probably 25-30 or more (depending on how big of a scroll/wand collector they are) in 2E/3E.

Given that they're drastically limiting the number of spell slots and metagamey mechanics that allow access to less commonly used spells, doesn't it make sense to allow rituals? I mean if you're sacrificing 1 spell slot in 30 for a limited use spell, that's one thing. If you're sacrificing gold for 1 spell scroll you have a 3% chance of needing that's another.

When you're sacrificing 1 spell in a small handful with no spell scrolls available, well... that's quite the thing. Ritual magic just makes sense.

I'm not sure we disagree. As you say, dedicated spellcasters in Third Edition ended up with so many spell slots that the risk/reward balance was thrown off. Reducing the number of spell slots was a good idea.

In the current playtest the spellcaster remains forced to choose his loadout. Rituals exist as a fallback, but there remains a distinct advantage to having the proper spell prepared, which is that you can cast it quickly and without extra cost. I like this balance.

What I oppose is separating rituals from spells. This level of siloing prevents the spellcaster from taking a risk by preparing a situational spell, which in turn also removes the payoff from having the right spell at the right time. It's this payoff that makes Vancian casting cool.

 

[Kraydak]

I'd agree that 'silo'ing rituals is an idea that's time has certainly been here a while. Among the many deep and insoluble problems with the Vancian model is a tendency for combat spells to eclipse others. Spell slots are few, combat is important, life-or-death, interaction can always be allowed to degenerate into combat, and exploration can usually be handled at a measured pace, allowing needed spells to be brought in in other ways. Combat spells become the priority, and combat dominates the game.

That is a very strong argument AGAINST siloing rituals. Powerful spells risk stomping over everyone's toes. If, however, spell casters are limited to a very small number of spells loaded at any given time, then they can't make other characters redundant. No Rogue is going to worry about losing his job to a wizard who can load only two 2nd level spells, which can include Knock, Invisibility, Web and Stinking Cloud. If the wizard can cast Knock at will though, life gets ugly, fast. Conversely, the need/desire to have an emergency backup Knock, or Invisibility, or Dispel Magic, lets the Fighter breath easier.

 

[GreyICE]

I'm not sure we disagree. As you say, dedicated spellcasters in Third Edition ended up with so many spell slots that the risk/reward balance was thrown off. Reducing the number of spell slots was a good idea.

In the current playtest the spellcaster remains forced to choose his loadout. Rituals exist as a fallback, but there remains a distinct advantage to having the proper spell prepared, which is that you can cast it quickly and without extra cost. I like this balance.

What I oppose is separating rituals from spells. This level of siloing prevents the spellcaster from taking a risk by preparing a situational spell, which in turn also removes the payoff from having the right spell at the right time. It's this payoff that makes Vancian casting cool.

Not sure I disagree either. I'd like to see some sort of non-gold cost for rituals (hit dice? Something that drains a resource) while allowing a small amount of the flexibility that used to be gained from scrolls/wands. Definitely not separate lists for rituals/non-rituals, although I'd really like it if there were some spells that were ritual only (there's just some things that should not be available in 6 seconds). A small number of rituals per day will not threaten to remove decisions, especially with a long casting time.

I'd be more concerned with certain universal spells that are "always good" threatening decision making (there were quite a few of these in previous editions).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Not sure I disagree either. I'd like to see some sort of non-gold cost for rituals (hit dice? Something that drains a resource) while allowing a small amount of the flexibility that used to be gained from scrolls/wands. Definitely not separate lists for rituals/non-rituals, although I'd really like it if there were some spells that were ritual only (there's just some things that should not be available in 6 seconds). A small number of rituals per day will not threaten to remove decisions, especially with a long casting time.

I'd be more concerned with certain universal spells that are "always good" threatening decision making (there were quite a few of these in previous editions).

I'm sure there will always be some.

I disagree that some spells should be ritual only, exactly. You're right that there is a need for spells that take a long time to cast or that involve multiple casters. But preparation should still be part of those spells. Perhaps spells that require several slots to be prepared, but those slots can be spread over multiple casters. One of the marks of being a high level caster is the ability to cast these spells with little to no help.

 

[Stalker0]

What if ritual spells used magic item attunement slots?

So I can use the comprehend language ritual, and know languages all day, but I lose one of my attunement slots for magic items.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What if ritual spells used magic item attunement slots?

So I can use the comprehend language ritual, and know languages all day, but I lose one of my attunement slots for magic items.

That would be workable in a campaign with a lot of magic items, I suppose. If everyone's thinking "which item do I attune? I can't possibly attune them all," then it's a very real limitation that makes rituals a fairly minor feature. OTOH, if items are terribly rare, it's like getting free items...

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

What if ritual spells used magic item attunement slots?

So I can use the comprehend language ritual, and know languages all day, but I lose one of my attunement slots for magic items.

That is an interesting idea. What you describe is something between a spell and a magic item. This could be the spark of a really cool module.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That is a very strong argument AGAINST siloing rituals. Powerful spells risk stomping over everyone's toes. If, however, spell casters are limited to a very small number of spells loaded at any given time, then they can't make other characters redundant.

Well, they can't do it /as often/.

If the wizard can cast Knock at will though, life gets ugly, fast. Conversely, the need/desire to have an emergency backup Knock, or Invisibility, or Dispel Magic, lets the Fighter breath easier.

That's a very clumsy way of balancing. When the adventure is obviously tending towards combat, the caster preps all combat spells and obviates the fighter, when it's obviously going to be non-combat, he preps the right spells and overshadows the rogue at the most important moments. Sure, sometimes, when he has the wrong spells prepped or the day drags on, the fighter or rogue might get to pitch in by dealing with the second- or third- most important thing so the caster doesn't have to bother with it. Plus, when the campaign tends heavily towards combat, the thief is just useless, while the caster can prep all-combat; when it goes heavily towards non-combat, the fighter might as well not show up, while the caster just preps a different set of spells.

Now that we've heard the "three pillars" articulated and the concept rings true, it would make sense to start equipping every class with balanced features and abilities /for each of those pillars/. Rituals would correspond to the 'exploration' pillar to a high degree, while prepped spell stay combat-oriented. You'd still have how casters deal with interaction to hammer out, but it would be a fair start.

The issue of casters not overshadowing other characters would have to be confronted head on: by making spells that are actually balanced.