Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hbarsquared" data-source="post: 5915970" data-attributes="member: 4550">This thread has grown to encompass many concepts, all of which I find interesting!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />First, I do not think Mike's throwaway comment means that rituals are core, or even in the game at all, at this point.  Not only are they working on ideas for future modules to be released after Core, but many of these ideas can be scrapped.I would, however, like to see Rituals in the game in some form: I'd be happy with either Core or Module.The secondary conversation going on here seems to be combat spells vs. utility spells vs. rituals vs. spellcasting times.  I cannot even begin to visualize a final solution, but I think some of the concepts the majority of us may have can be listed as such:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizards should have viable combat spells.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizards should also have "utility spells" or "easy rituals" that can also be cast in the combat arena.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizards should also have "utility spells" or "hard rituals" that have longer caster times/rarer components that have more prominent effects outside the combat arena.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There should be some aspect of strategizing: there is an opportunity cost associated with choosing either knock or magic missile.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">But, the wizard should never feel like they are making a poor decision by replacing a combat related spell with a utility one.</li> </ul>Here's an idea, redefining some of our terminology.Rituals is the catch-all for all non attack or damage related spells.  These would lump the 4e utility spells along with 4e rituals and the rituals from the recent Dragon article.  Perhaps they increase with power depending on casting time or components, I don't know.  But the heart of it would be to have some available at a shorter, combat-friendly, caster time.  Others could have a 10min, 3hr, or 7day casting time.  But everything would be under the umbrella called "rituals."Wizards can add as many of these rituals as they want into their spellbook (scrolls can be found as treasure, there's a cost to inscribing them, minimum level, etc...)Wizards then have Vancian limitations on the spells they memorize, as Mike mentioned in <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120514" target="_blank">this article,</a> but perhaps something like this:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cap on the total number of spells you can prepare. (per the article.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cap on the maximum number of attack spells you can prepare of each level.</li> </ul>This way, designers can balance classes and power level with this number of combat related attack spells in mind.  But the wizard can memorize all "rituals," if they want.  At the same time, a wizard has "ritual slots" for spells and so can memorize these utility related spells without feeling they have to sacrifice an attack power.I think 4e made progress toward this: separate pools for combat spells and utility spells.  Combining them into a single pool makes it difficult for a wizard to feel like they're contributing if they just memorize the utility spells.  But possibly combining them back into one pool, but setting a maximum number of attack spells, can make rituals/utility spells a viable choice and still create a knock vs. magic missile choice, if the wizard wants.</blockquote>

Verification