Why all the ritual hate?

[wedgeski]

Love 'em. I dish out ritual components all the time, as well as custom rituals designed for plot-related purposes. You can have great fun deciding on the various levels of success for rituals which have very specific meaning to your ongoing campaign.

I don't agree with much of the criticism levelled here, but I will say I think they're too expensive. That is the only thing I think I've been required to "fix"... how? By allowing those with the relevant skills to 'farm' ritual components from likely sites (such as gathering residuum from dormant teleportation portals).

 

[Garthanos]

Its patently obvious with resurrection but squint a little and apply the same theory to all rituals. They can be seen as insurance policies.

Take most of the arguments against rituals.... replace the word ritual with "Insurance" or "Insurance Policy" and see if that makes you blink... See insurace is something you dont want to have to rely on .. you hope the situation doesnt come up and if things are all going as planned... you dont need it... but if you need it well you really need it.

The person good at opening locks subtly is out of action --> whether it is through some sublime warlock at will ( a cool skinning of the thievery skill) or the party rogue or the guy who spent a feat to have the skill training or whatever... is out of the picture.

If I dont need subtle I blast it down with an at-will .. whether that is a magic missile or an axe or an eldritch blast.. for this reason I do assume knock is subtle (even if it takes time - some doors are not very amenable to axes either) and may be just painting funny runes on the surface of the door and whispering open in an ancient dialect and the door going click...

You can lock a door behind you if you knock it.. without ahem knocking it down.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would say that my issues are only related to the expenses and the time required for rituals. I don't want them to be used easily in combat, but something like Knock really doesn't need multiple minutes to work.

I wouldn't mind a skill challenge, multiple rounds-requiring approach to casting rituals during combat. Even if there might be a few ones that could be "game enders". If the party has to spend 5-10 rounds to keep the Wizard safe for him to get them all away with Teleport or destroy an enemy with Polymorph ritual, that's okay. It is obvious the Wizard couldn't have done it without the protection of his comrades.

A "Vancian" approach to some rituals might be nice. Prepare a ritual (requring the full casting time), and then have it prepared until after an extended rest. At any time, you can start a skill challenge to unleash it within a few rounds. (This could also be something that would be possible without any reworking of the system. Just make this available as a feat.)

 

[Garthanos]

That is the only thing I think I've been required to "fix"... how? By allowing those with the relevant skills to 'farm' ritual components from likely sites (such as gathering residuum from dormant teleportation portals).

Yup, ritual components seem something well gather-able and that process can be made as interesting as you want it to be. Just as easily as it can be an I throw money at it.

 

[xechnao]

I wouldn't mind a skill challenge, multiple rounds-requiring approach to casting rituals during combat. Even if there might be a few ones that could be "game enders". If the party has to spend 5-10 rounds to keep the Wizard safe for him to get them all away with Teleport or destroy an enemy with Polymorph ritual, that's okay. It is obvious the Wizard couldn't have done it without the protection of his comrades.

This would be a problem because the wizard player would not participate in combat. And even if he did, the ritual, would not matter gameplay wise (as a meaningful choice). For rituals, to be meaningful choices, you have to insert them as interactive parts of the whole game design structure.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The ones that don't get it for free. Because now we're back to a feat tax to keep up with the ritual casters if you expand their power.

Also, by that argument, anyone can take thievery, so the fact that knock is kind of weak is moot.

I wouldn't call a feat that grants the use of such dynamic rituals a tax.

The system as written puts a gear tax on rituals. They get so expensive it comes down to choosing to use them or get gear upgrades that can be used on a somewhat more permanent basis.

Yes, anyone that would like to train in thievery can do so if they wish. My players enjoy being able to select whatever skills they want without having to play a class they don't want or play an actual feat tax to get it.

 

[Garthanos]

I wouldn't call a feat that grants the use of such dynamic rituals a tax.

right call it a must have awesome why on earth arent you a ritualist feat...

My players enjoy being able to select whatever skills they want without having to play a class they don't want or play an actual feat tax to get it.

Gets back to the old bit either classes carry some flavor about what they are good at (hence a skill set to select from for instance)

Even the limited number of skills you can have create an economy of value for them... even if they have free initial selection of skills. (something I approve of by the way sounds like a good way to say yes.).

 

[wedgeski]

Rituals need to have an affect on the game. This is a philosophical change more than anything. 4e's main way of doing anything is via encounters (mostly combat encounters) and rituals are inherently isolated from encounters, so you don't ever need to use a ritual for anything, so anything you invest in a ritual is pointless unless your DM makes a special exception just for you.

I have a wizard in my group whose player would laugh out loud if she heard you say that.

Was I making an exception when Object Reading a portal showed the creatures that had recently used it, allowing the party to judge who they were up against on the other side?

Or when a Comprehend Language allowed the caster to read a long-lost dialect of minotaur and give the party vital clues to the history of the dungeon they were in?

These were rolled, as RAW. Paid for, as RAW.

 

[ExploderWizard]

right call it a must have awesome why on earth arent you a ritualist feat...

Despite the awesome I still only have 2 ritual casters out of 7 players so it doesn't seem to qualify as "must have".

Gets back to the old bit either classes carry some flavor about what they are good at (hence a skill set to select from for instance)

Since all classes are equally as good at fighting I thought it was unfair to artificially restrict non-combat skill selection.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I wouldn't call a feat that grants the use of such dynamic rituals a tax.

It becomes one when you buff up rituals to approach the level of powers and skills. One feat to grant you a bunch of utility powers? Sign me up!

Except what if your concept was not a spell caster? 4th edition makes a concerted effort to make the normal guys on par with the casters... which obviously doesn't sit well with the old school wizard supremacists, who are grousing that their *extra* abilities aren't good enough.

And I'm sorry, the martial practices things I've seen just come off silly (and not needing a feat to learn), and are still more limited in comparison to what's been accepted as the scope of magic.

The system as written puts a gear tax on rituals. They get so expensive it comes down to choosing to use them or get gear upgrades that can be used on a somewhat more permanent basis.

The price isn't bad spread over the 5 members of the party. The wizard shouldnt be paying for all of it himself. and again, its having an EXTRA set of utility powers, with a gold cost. No one is twisting your arm to access your third tier of abilities. They're there if you need them.