Malacoda
First Post
I am currently writing up a review of EoM:ME for RPG.net, and I have a question I was hoping to get clarified by Ryan before I finalize the review.
Who are rituals for? Who is the target user for these mechanics and how are they expected to be used? Are they more for non-spellcasters and situations requiring skills that the group does not have?
The book says "Ritual spells are difficult to cast, but can be very powerful if the caster is willing to take the risk." The thing is, mathematically speaking, ritual magic seems like it would rarely be successful for spells that are considerably above what the caster can otherwise cast, if he has the skills.
For example, a 5th level Smart Hero spellcaster can get a Knowledge (arcane lore) of +20 with the right mix of profession, feats and talents (and might be able squeeze out a little more if he wanted to concentrate on rituals). The best he can have in a magic skill is level + 3, or +8 total. Thus his ritual skill is 12 points higher than his magic skill. But, becuase the DC for rituals is 10 points higher, that works out to a +2 advantage. Plus, in order to succeed, he must make ten successful rolls without failing consecutively.
It seems that in order for rituals to be worthwhile to anyone but non-spellcasters, base chance for success on a roll needs to be better than 50%; at 50%, the chances of succeeding on 10 rolls without consecutive failures is not good. For the above spellcaster, without assistance or other factors, his 50% chance falls on level 10 spells. So, to have a decent chance of success he would have to go lower, perhaps as low as 7. If he used normal spellcasting, he can cast a level 7 spell in two rounds with a 80% chance of success.
Maybe I have Mage: The Ascension on the brain, where rituals are used to cast larger or more potent effects, like wards, that are impractical to cast as a quick spell. The quote from the book, above, seems to support this line of thought, but the mechanics do not.
I am looking for clarification so I don't "ding" ME for something I may have wrong; I could be reading something improperly or have somehow missed some critical bit of info, or not understand the intent.
Who are rituals for? Who is the target user for these mechanics and how are they expected to be used? Are they more for non-spellcasters and situations requiring skills that the group does not have?
The book says "Ritual spells are difficult to cast, but can be very powerful if the caster is willing to take the risk." The thing is, mathematically speaking, ritual magic seems like it would rarely be successful for spells that are considerably above what the caster can otherwise cast, if he has the skills.
For example, a 5th level Smart Hero spellcaster can get a Knowledge (arcane lore) of +20 with the right mix of profession, feats and talents (and might be able squeeze out a little more if he wanted to concentrate on rituals). The best he can have in a magic skill is level + 3, or +8 total. Thus his ritual skill is 12 points higher than his magic skill. But, becuase the DC for rituals is 10 points higher, that works out to a +2 advantage. Plus, in order to succeed, he must make ten successful rolls without failing consecutively.
It seems that in order for rituals to be worthwhile to anyone but non-spellcasters, base chance for success on a roll needs to be better than 50%; at 50%, the chances of succeeding on 10 rolls without consecutive failures is not good. For the above spellcaster, without assistance or other factors, his 50% chance falls on level 10 spells. So, to have a decent chance of success he would have to go lower, perhaps as low as 7. If he used normal spellcasting, he can cast a level 7 spell in two rounds with a 80% chance of success.
Maybe I have Mage: The Ascension on the brain, where rituals are used to cast larger or more potent effects, like wards, that are impractical to cast as a quick spell. The quote from the book, above, seems to support this line of thought, but the mechanics do not.
I am looking for clarification so I don't "ding" ME for something I may have wrong; I could be reading something improperly or have somehow missed some critical bit of info, or not understand the intent.
