Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 6045761" data-attributes="member: 882">Ritual spells aren't an alien concept in pre-4E editions, they were present in scrolls, wands and potions. In 3E in particular, utility spells were most often relegated to a scroll.I love Rituals because they accept the fact that some spells just can't competitive for preparation, because they are highly circumstantial. I think they should extend them if anything, so that skills can access the Ritual system rather than just spellcasters. So many archetypal fantasy features such as alchemy, herbalism, poisons and curses have been difficult to implement in D&D previously, and I think Rituals offer considerable flexibility. The best thing about them, in my opinion, *is* the cost - it means that the party can leverage effects towards their goals at the cost of party resources - nobody has to be the cleric stuck healing or the wizard stuck preparing nothing but fly, the burden can be shared.I will say that also, in world-building terms, free Rituals would break that sense of exoticism magic has - if a free ritual exists to cure disease, why isn't everyone healthy? If it costs gold, or rare ingredients, then the economics works. Oh and the way that the designers think they can make a weaker spellcaster acceptable is to *modify an entire subsystem*, without regard for the consequences, in compensation suggests to me that they are accountants, not designers.</blockquote>