What do you think is wrong with rituals?

[AbdulAlhazred]

My biggest beef with rituals is not gold, but casting time. It's just too damn long in most cases, without any way to reduce it within the rules.

The idea was to encourage PCs to solve problems by mundane means rather than rituals.
However, that's counterproductive. It forces the other PCs to idle around in-game and do nothing while the Wizard casts. That's not fun. Just let the guy in robes mumble a few words and the game can continue.

What does anyone care if the characters "stand around" for 5 minutes? Or 24 hours for that matter? Its not like the PLAYERS are standing around doing nothing. It just gives the DM the justification to say "nah, you don't have time to do that" if he wants, otherwise the casting time is essentially meaningless. It is a plot device, nothing else.

As far as combining rituals into a single book, just allow it. I mean the justification can easily be "you unbind the 4 books and bind the pages with stuff on them into one book." Charge them 5gp for materials if you want, or make them spend 5 gp to have some guy that knows how to bind books do it.

Components coming from monsters or being gathered should be no problem either. The DM allows the wizard a skill challenge to acquire some components. Its an encounter, it can have a treasure parcel, the treasure parcel can be components and they can be fluffed as gathered or harvested or whatever you feel like. None of this even requires a house rule.

 

[unan oranis]

I groove the rituals as-is; with one exception.

There are several rituals that radically alter the game-world they exist in... I only allow certain ones and basicly heavily tailor them to fit my homebrew campaign.

I suppose it's a bit of a simulationist issue - but seriously if there are such things as teleportation portals connecting cities and important places - that is going to look really funny just "showing up" whenever your players discover them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I groove the rituals as-is; with one exception.

There are several rituals that radically alter the game-world they exist in... I only allow certain ones and basicly heavily tailor them to fit my homebrew campaign.

I suppose it's a bit of a simulationist issue - but seriously if there are such things as teleportation portals connecting cities and important places - that is going to look really funny just "showing up" whenever your players discover them.

Lost magic? There's a pretty fair expense involved too. Security issues are non-trivial as well. Considering how expensive it is just to teleport, even with a known circle to arrive at, it is pretty doubtful it would have a big impact on normal society. It isn't a super expensive ritual (Linked Portal) but still 130 gp is non-trivial to ordinary folks (probably a year's wages for a peasant). Admittedly it's probably cheap enough for long distances, but then again in a PoL style setting there are probably not a lot of places to go that still have circles.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Spells in D&D always used to be expensive even if you just copy them into your book.

I also think casters should have rituals that are class specific and don´t cost too much like bard ones.

Also I believe requring arcana or religion for nature rituals seems like an unnecessary restriction.

As others have said, 10 minutes are a bit much for some rituals, as the cost is sometimes too high.

I also believe ritual components should have been spelled out for each specific ritual. I always liked material components, because sometimes finding sulfur and bat guano allowed you to guess what is coming.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Spells in D&D always used to be expensive even if you just copy them into your book.

Actually, that was more a 3e thing. In 1e and 2e, there were a variety of ways to get spells into your book, that included casting a spell to copy a spell you didn't understand, bribing an NPC wizard to let you access his bookis or 'teach' you a spell or expending a scroll. But, if you understood a spell and had access to a spellbook, there was no special expense - PC wizards often just traded spells casually. It was in 3e that wizard spells got quite expensive to transcribe.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, that was more a 3e thing. In 1e and 2e, there were a variety of ways to get spells into your book, that included casting a spell to copy a spell you didn't understand, bribing an NPC wizard to let you access his bookis or 'teach' you a spell or expending a scroll. But, if you understood a spell and had access to a spellbook, there was no special expense - PC wizards often just traded spells casually. It was in 3e that wizard spells got quite expensive to transcribe.

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[FireLance]

I think the basic problem with rituals, at least for me, is that they are mostly specific solutions to specific problems, and they operate in pretty much the same space as the more flexible and open-ended skill challenge framework because they are both ways for the party to deal with problems outside of combat.

And given that skill challenges tend to involve more players than most rituals, as a DM, given the choice between a problem that can be solved by a ritual and one that can be solved by a skill challenge, I would tend to go for the latter (or a problem that can be solved by either) simply to get more player participation and to ensure that there are multiple ways of overcoming it. Conversely, as a player, if a problem could be solved by either a skill challenge or a ritual, I would try the skill challenge first simply because it is likely to consume less resources. As a result, rituals tend to be used only on the rare occasions when other attempts to overcome a problem have failed, or when the ritual is the only way to overcome a problem in the first place (an adventure design danger in itself since it could lead to a bottleneck).

I personally think that rituals ought to integrate better into the skill challenge framework, by perhaps becoming as flexible as skills, and having approximately the same effect: contributing successes (perhaps more than one if the ritual is particularly appropriate) to an ongoing skill challenge, for example.

Alternatively, mastering a ritual could provide a small side benefit: perhaps mastering the knock ritual allows a character to make an Arcana check in place of a Thievery check to open locks, and mastering the raise dead ritual allows a character to negate an ally's failed death save once per encounter as an immediate reaction.

 

[Alasomorph]

Basic problem is most players forget they are there.

Make the Character builder print them by default. That's a start.

 

[Ryujin]

I think the basic problem with rituals, at least for me, is that they are mostly specific solutions to specific problems, and they operate in pretty much the same space as the more flexible and open-ended skill challenge framework because they are both ways for the party to deal with problems outside of combat.

And given that skill challenges tend to involve more players than most rituals, as a DM, given the choice between a problem that can be solved by a ritual and one that can be solved by a skill challenge, I would tend to go for the latter (or a problem that can be solved by either) simply to get more player participation and to ensure that there are multiple ways of overcoming it. Conversely, as a player, if a problem could be solved by either a skill challenge or a ritual, I would try the skill challenge first simply because it is likely to consume less resources. As a result, rituals tend to be used only on the rare occasions when other attempts to overcome a problem have failed, or when the ritual is the only way to overcome a problem in the first place (an adventure design danger in itself since it could lead to a bottleneck).

I personally think that rituals ought to integrate better into the skill challenge framework, by perhaps becoming as flexible as skills, and having approximately the same effect: contributing successes (perhaps more than one if the ritual is particularly appropriate) to an ongoing skill challenge, for example.

Alternatively, mastering a ritual could provide a small side benefit: perhaps mastering the knock ritual allows a character to make an Arcana check in place of a Thievery check to open locks, and mastering the raise dead ritual allows a character to negate an ally's failed death save once per encounter as an immediate reaction.

Fitting rituals into the Skill Challenge framework is generally quite simple. Some, like Glib Limerick, simply give you double rolls on a specific skill. Others could be considered an automatic success in a Skill Challenge, perhaps like using Tenser's Lift when climbing is required. Different situation; different number of automatic successes. They don't necessarily guarantee success at a Challenge though.

 

[tyrlaan]

I think tying ritual casting to gold was definitely a mistake. Not necessarily because that makes them too expensive (although in some cases that can be a problem). But a) because players are simply loathe to spend gold without good reason, so they may be initially unwilling to give rituals a shot, and b) because ritual casting = gold just seems so... unimaginative.

I'd counter (a) by saying that it's not inherently spending gold without good reason. This varies wildly based on the ritual and the circumstance. There are plenty rituals that are easily worth the money and not a waste - case in point would be Object Reading, though I suppose YMMV.

I'd counter (b) by pointing out that ritual casting equates to gold but does not equal gold. When you perform a ritual, your expending alchemical reagents, mystic salves, rare herbs, residuum, or sanctified incense. Maybe that's splitting hairs to you, but it's a distinctive difference. Characters aren't placing gold coins on the ground, they're sprinkling residuum, burning incense, crushing herbs, or whatever. This seems like it has a lot of imaginative potential to me.