Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8096957" data-attributes="member: 6802951">No, it cannot be ignored.There have been attempts to debunk it, pointing to the Ritual Caster feat, and they have been, frankly, dishonest.For one, they ignore the Metamagic Adept feat.For two (and this is the really important part): They are lying about what Ritual Caster actually does. Ritual Caster does not let you substitute for a wizard who has been adding ritual spells into their spellbook as they level. Ritual caster gives you two, 1st level rituals. That is it. You don't get additional ones as you level. The only way that you can add to it is by finding scrolls or spellbooks and copying spells into you book, at a cost of time and money.  - This should sound a little familiar to you, since it is exactly like what the wizard does, except the wizard does it better. (Since they can actually scribe and cast from spell slots rather than just rituals.) When comparing the wizard and sorceror, the wizard's ability to scribe additional spells isn't generally brought up, because it is DM fiat and so cannot be assumed. So, to clarify for those people making the claim that a sorceror with the Ritual Caster feat is a fair comparison to a wizard without it:Are you talking about comparing a sorceror with two 1st level rituals in their book to an nth-level wizard?Or are you comparing a sorceror with an extensive collection of rituals through additional spells with a wizard that has also had access to lots of additional spells?Pick. Your. Hill. New players don't tend to perform an intricate cost/benefit analysis of classes, or have the knowledge about the game that allows them to do so. In the majority of games by new groups (often using official adventure paths), there is simply not going to be the downtime required to abuse this option, even if the players were able to find some telegraphing of future encounters.I fully accept that your particular game, because of its several unusual factors, may suffer from this rule, and so it would be better not to use it in that case.It is the rather hyperbolic insistence that it will break D&D as a whole that I find objectionable.</blockquote>

Verification