• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

What spells should have had the ritual tag, but don't?

Li Shenron

Adventurer
Underpowered spells.

Really, the true benefit of casting a spell as a ritual is that it doesn't cost a slot. So this should be the case for spells that make you feel expending a slot is a bit too high a price.

Spells that are rarely useful would rather need something different, for example not require to be prepared (which is actually the case for wizards' rituals, but not for others). But if they are very useful on that rare occasion when you need them, why should they not cost a slot?
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Mage Armor is worth a half-feat.

And it is definitely for combat thus inappropriate for a ritual.
It’s not a spell cast in combat, so I don’t see any problem with ritualizing it.

And it’s not at all worth a half feat by itself. That’s bonkers. It’s equivalent to less than an armor proficiency, and nearly everyone agrees that the armor proficiency feats are practically worthless.
 

Yaarel

Explorer
It’s not a spell cast in combat, so I don’t see any problem with ritualizing it.

And it’s not at all worth a half feat by itself. That’s bonkers. It’s equivalent to less than an armor proficiency, and nearly everyone agrees that the armor proficiency feats are practically worthless.
Mage Armor is powerful because it equals chain armor AC 13, but at the same time allows an unlimited +5 Dexterity bonus.

Light armor by itself is officially worth half of a feat, and Mage Armor is even better than light armor.

Even at the most generous evaluation, Mage Armor is worth half of a feat. It is what it is.

Mage Armor cannot be ritualized for free.




With regard to the armor feats. It seems to me all three armor proficiencies − light, medium, and heavy, are worth a single feat, meaning each is worth about a third of feat. (It should be worth more theoretically, but passive feats are always worth less than damage-dealing feats.) So where light armor is worth a third of a feat, Mage Armor is better, worth half of feat.
 
Last edited:

Cap'n Kobold

Explorer
What would happen if we made 60% of the spell list ritual. Which I think we could. Access to ritual spell casting is a feat away for any character. What does that do to the balance of the game?​Part of me really wants to try this out.
It would increase the power of ritual casters quite considerably. Their spell slots are set up so that they have to last them through a day of adventuring including both combat encounters and non-combat challenges.
The classes are balanced around the basis of those limited resources, and that often a caster character won't have the slots available to resolve a situation using a spell, so the other characters get a chance on the spotlight. - In most situations a Fighter can't compete with Fireball, a Rogue can't compete with Knock etc. The game is designed that a lot of the time the casters are down to cantrips and the other characters are able to shine.

By lessening or removing the need to burn spell slots for the utility spells used in non-combat encounters, you increase the spell slots available to the casters over the course of a day, particularly in combat. This increases the relative power over casters by a considerable degree.

So ultimately, it will depend upon your game. If you're averaging the assumed 6 encounters/long rest and find that the casters aren't able to shine, then maybe this change would be worth it to bring them up to the in- and out of-combat performance of the martial characters. If you have considerably more encounters per log rest, this may even be required.
If you have less than 6 encounters/long rest, then you are likely already favouring spellcasters, and should be wary of increasing their power over the rest of the party to such a degree.

In my opinion saying everyone can do this by taking the feat is not a valid balancing factor.
 

Fenris-77

Explorer
It might not seem so unbalanced in a low magic setting where characters with the right mix of Arcana and/or the feat or whatever can cast as rituals, especially if the time on the rituals is extended somewhat so as to make spam a little harder. My initial thought was half casters and lower, so no casting normally over lvl 5, and then stuff over 5 that makes the list gets to be a ritual. It would let you keep some of the magic in the game and available to players without the need for full caster PCs or NPCs. Give ritual spells a DC and a consequence for failure and it sounds interesting. To me anyway, but I've always liked lower magic settings.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
Anytthing that can't be cast in combat.
Just to confirm, what's the criteria? Is this "really anything too long to cast in combat", or are you including ones that you normally wouldn't cast in combat, like Knock or Sending, but could.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
My first thought is the opposite:

Anything where a caster can easily replace a skilled mundane character absolutely shouldn't have the ritual tag. Knock, Invisibility, all of those spells that just make other character's specialties less relevant are adding a huge amount of flexibility to casters to do without slots and stepping on others toes. It doesn't need to invalidate another character - sometimes you wouldn't what Knock for the loud noise - just often make their skills and feature less relevant.

Then I would start looking at spells that merely having them known/prepared instead of something else is enough of an opportunity cost to allow "reasonably unlimited" amount of casting. Unlimited there varies by utility - Rope Trick or Detect Magic (already rituals, just used for example) have a limited amount of usability so have a low bar, while a healing spell could be used over and over and probably wouldn't be made a ritual.

Note that anything on the Wizard list has next to no opportunity cost this was because it does not need to be prepared for them. How that gets resolved is a knotty problem - does anything on the wizard list have a higher bart because there's less opportunity cost, whihc hurts others that share that spell list, or do wizards get a big increase in their utility? I'd personally lean the latter, but I'd still keep it in mind.

Of interest are spells with expensive consumed material components. Those have a greater opportunity cost to use already. Raise Dead has a low usage rate and material costs so it sounds like a good ritual. But what are the effects on playstyle of making Raise Dead more accessible? *shrug*
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
It’s not a spell cast in combat, so I don’t see any problem with ritualizing it.
Might as well just define a wizard's AC as 13+Dex then. Because, if mage armor were a ritual, that's exactly what it would be. And that's probably a major reason it is not a ritual. It's too dominating a strategy at that level. Making it a spell you can't have as a ritual imposes a balancing and necessary trade-off.
 

Gadget

Explorer
Anything that summons should definitely NOT be a ritual. This includes the find steed spells and planar ally, because otherwise the party could have an infinite supply of disposable allies. I don't like that find familiar is a ritual for this very reason.
Since most of the spells you mention are either Concentration, or specifically limit you to one at time, I'm not seeing the problem. Granted the Planar Binding/Ally is the exception, without the concentration limit or one at a time restriction; so it is theoretically possible to sit there all day and bind or call up allies all day.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Might as well just define a wizard's AC as 13+Dex then. Because, if mage armor were a ritual, that's exactly what it would be. And that's probably a major reason it is not a ritual. It's too dominating a strategy at that level. Making it a spell you can't have as a ritual imposes a balancing and necessary trade-off.
Again, wizards aren’t the only ones with that spell. The trade off isn’t necessary, as well. Letting casters have decent armor that can be dispelled is fine. Making it a ritual spell means that any ritual caster can have it, which is exactly what I’m aiming for.
[MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] I’m unconvinced. Those feats are among the least worthwhile feats in the game. They should have been folded into other feats, with no loss to the other feat.

the fact that they wildly overvalued those feats isn’t going to impact how I view a new option.
 

Mistwell

Hero
Unfortunately, the Ritual Caster feat sucks.
It's one of the better feats in the game, because of the type of ritual caster (which is the better type which most actual casters do not get). There are no "must have" feats in this game.
 

77IM

Explorer!!!
Might as well just define a wizard's AC as 13+Dex then. Because, if mage armor were a ritual, that's exactly what it would be. And that's probably a major reason it is not a ritual. It's too dominating a strategy at that level. Making it a spell you can't have as a ritual imposes a balancing and necessary trade-off.
This is why I wish the rituals had varying requirements. For example:
- Mage armor could have a material component that costs 2,000 gp (a mithril amulet of a shield studded with small diamonds) so it's slightly more expensive than plate armor. In other words, once you're able to afford such a component, you probably aren't that worried about 1st-level slots any more anyway.
- Cure wounds could consume a material component that costs 50 gp (a drop of quicksilver) so you're better off with a potion of healing. It can't be cast at higher levels (there's no point; just cast it repeatedly at 1st level).
- Knock could increase the casting time by 1 hour. Honestly, if you have an hour to sit there and pick at a lock, you don't exactly need to have Expertise in thieves' tools to get past it. Heck you could just take it apart to get through.
 

Quartz

Explorer
Just to confirm, what's the criteria?
Exactly what I wrote.

or are you including ones that you normally wouldn't cast in combat, like Knock or Sending, but could.

No, you could cast those in combat, particulaly the latter to summon reinforcements. That said, I'm open to adding other spells.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
This is why I wish the rituals had varying requirements. For example:
- Mage armor could have a material component that costs 2,000 gp (a mithril amulet of a shield studded with small diamonds) so it's slightly more expensive than plate armor. In other words, once you're able to afford such a component, you probably aren't that worried about 1st-level slots any more anyway.
Thats a bonkers cost for 13+Dex Armor. Absolutely out of wack with the rest of the game. Even half that would be nonsensical. Just say no, if your goal is to say no.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
Exactly what I wrote.
Technically any spell could be cast in combat, so you said nothing.

Sorry, I thought you were adding something to the conversation and was tring to understand. Instead you were suggesting the null set in an obscure way just to waste people's time.

Unless you were suggesting something, in which case it's clear I didn't understand what "Spells you can't cast in combat" entails, so your snarky response that doesn't help clarify is just hostile and not helpful for the discussion as a whole. "You don't understand and ask what I mean, but I'm not going to share any explanation or information except 'I mean what I mean'."

What a waste.
 

Quartz

Explorer
Technically any spell could be cast in combat, so you said nothing.
There are many spells that can't be cast in combat or are irrelevant to combat. Any spell that takes a long time to cast, for instance.
 

Yaarel

Explorer
@Yaarel I’m unconvinced. Those feats are among the least worthwhile feats in the game. They should have been folded into other feats, with no loss to the other feat.

the fact that they wildly overvalued those feats isn’t going to impact how I view a new option.
Especially because of the gaming design of bounded accuracy, both the attack roll bonuses to hit and the AC bonuses to avoid being hit, are unusually valuable in 5e compared to previous editions.

Officially, in order to wear chain armor with proficiency, one must invest in two half-feats, light and medium. Two.

Even if a chain shirt was considered light armor (as in 3e), it would still be best light armor possible. Again, towards a half feat.

• Mage Armor AC 13 + 5 Dexterity = Full Plate Armor AC 18

Because Dexterity Fighters are already at an advantage over Strength Fighters, Fighters and other classes already tend to dump Strength and improve Dexterity. So, the high Dexterity is already in place. There is no special investment. Lots of Dexterity Fighter optimizers would love to have Mage Armor for free.

Mage Armor = Plate Armor

AC 18

This 18 remains balanced, but bounded accuracy requires caution concerning AC.

The benefits of investing in Strength also become uncertain.



In the 4e clone thread, a Fighting Style swaps the proficiencies of both medium armor and heavy armor to gain Mage Armor. (This is intended for Eldritch Knight at level 1.) If one argues giving up two is too much, and only needs to lose heavy armor to gain Mage Armor, we are still in the ballpark of a half-feat.



I feel,

• the value of light armor plus a shield is about equal to medium armor plus heavy armor
• the value of a half-feat is roughly four skills.

I estimate,

• light armor (4) + shield (2) ≈ medium armor (3) + heavy armor (3)



Note, the shield would be worth 4-ish in terms of AC, but the opportunity cost of occupying the offhand mitigates it.



With these numbers in mind, proficiency with all armors (4 + 3 + 3) would total 10 points, thus be an appealing feat, compared to a standard feat (8).
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Especially because of the gaming design of bounded accuracy, both the attack roll bonuses to hit and the AC bonuses to avoid being hit, are unusually valuable in 5e compared to previous editions.

Officially, in order to wear chain armor with proficiency, one must invest in two half-feats, light and medium. Two.

Even if a chain shirt was considered light armor (as in 3e), it would still be best light armor possible. Again, towards a half feat.

• Mage Armor AC 13 + 5 Dexterity = Full Plate Armor AC 18

Because Dexterity Fighters are already at an advantage over Strength Fighters, Fighters and other classes already tend to dump Strength and improve Dexterity. So, the high Dexterity is already in place. There is no special investment. Lots of Dexterity Fighter optimizers would love to have Mage Armor for free.

Mage Armor = Plate Armor

AC 18

This 18 remains balanced, but bounded accuracy requires caution concerning AC.

The benefits of investing in Strength also become uncertain.
Officially, those feats are wildly overvalued. By far. They’re garbage feats.

Mage Armor teaching AC 18 requires 20 Dex. By the level at which a character would have that, they can also have +1 Studded Leather, reaching the same AC, which only loses 1 AC while fighting beholders.

So, no, Mage Armor isn’t equal to Plate.

Further, by the time a Dex character has a 20 Dex, the Strength guy probably has their Plate.

Lastly, you’re mixing comparisons ina way that obfuscates the truth.

If wearing medium armor requires two feats for you, you aren’t playing a class that can have Mage Armor without taking a specific subclass or a feat. Fighters, Clerics, Druids, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, all have medium armor. Everyone but wizards and sorcerers get at least light armor.

So, for half the classes, Mage Armor is a couple extra AC, at most. If they wanna be a Dex character.

For 4 other classes, it’s the same as a +1 to AC.

For Wizards, it’s 1 less spell slot used per day. For Sorcerers, it’s the ability to take a feat in order to burn 1 first level spell slot per day.

For warlocks, it saves them an Invocation.

Don't oversell it.
 

Advertisement

Top