Talk:Rituals (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

	MisterSinister likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	This is a very positive bit of help for people who don't normally get abilities that interact with the plot. The only things I really dislike about this are the direct tie-in with the gold economy (which I think is a bit silly, especially under WBL expectations) and the fact that this thinks XP or material components actually matter by any stretch.

	Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	It's a decent stop-gap measure for utility abilities, giving all characters some selection of things they can do outside combat. If the classes are made right, with a nice selection of utility abilities, this just dilutes them. A lot of classes aren't made right, however.

Design Question

The rules are a bit sparse on acquisition, so this might be moot but I'm going to ask anyway. Right now it looks like when someone finds a ritual everyone in the party gets access to it (as long as they want to put it in their book anyway; it's also unclear if each person has to have their own book). Which looks like extremely open access to rituals once found/researched and like individuals in the party are largely interchangeable at ritual time, making the guy with charisma (or the ritual feats) the go-to ritual caster. I'm just curious if that was intentional, and if so why you elected to go with it instead of a "x learned/available at any given time (where x is likely a function of level)" or "you may only use rituals you meet the prereqs for (where prereqs are bab/skill/whatever based)". - Tarkisflux 21:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Added incentive for specific people to know specific rituals and punishments for others to use rituals from another's ritual book. This way, a party isn't completely and totally screwed if they lose a member and need a ritual, but on the other hand every person has a shtick that they excel at and has a moment of spotlight if their thing comes up. Thoughts? --Ghostwheel 10:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things seem off. If characters can't share ritual books and they lose a member, they have to take his book (if they have it) and copy it into theirs (time and resources) before they can use it. And while I think that's probably fine, I'm not sure its the full access you indicated you were looking for. If access is needed immediately, having to rewrite it first may mean serious interruptions in or even rewriting of plans, the a level of "being screwed" I'm not sure you're willing to accept. I'd probably just let people use other people's books, and lean on the copying rules so that the paranoid could keep extra copies in the party. Thatt also means they get to use ritual they find immediately, though I don't know if you want that in game or not.

The example for the preferred rituals doesn't match the rules for it. If you can have a number of preferred equal to your character level, then a level 10 character can just have 10 preferred rituals of whatever level. Your example references ritual levels though, as if you meant to say that you can prefer a number of rituals whose total level do not exceed your character level. I think the current rules text is probably better for what you want, since the +5 DC on a stat check where you burn materials cost on a failure is kinda painful and you probably want more ritual preferred than not in that setup.

I'm not seeing any incentive for specific people to use specific rituals though, just limits so people spread them around a bit and penalties for using rituals you don't prefer withing your own book. Did I miss something? - Tarkisflux 18:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ritual Suggestion(s)

• Programmed Amnesia from Complete Arcane. --Havvy 07:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Added as "Indoctrinate". --Ghostwheel 08:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Zero Level Rituals?

I'm suggesting this as a possiblity for the magically lazy or dabblers who just want a few tricks, like a theif learning prestidigitation to keep his hands from getting cold while he scales a tower, or really anyone who doesn't have the time or experience to do this. Give it a thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spazalicious Chaos (talk • contribs) at

It sounds like you haven't read this through. Any character can do rituals. A first-level character, if he finds a ritual instruction thingy, can do a first-level ritual. There is little-to-no-point in that. Beyond that, someone can always either hang or quicken a ritual (see the feats at the bottom) to do something on the fly. --Ghostwheel 07:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read this through, and I do get that. However, if this really is intended for use by everyone, then why not have zero levels for people who just want to learn one tiny trick that doesn't take all morning, like a bar tender learning a ray of frost ritual to keep his wares fresh and cool, or even minor cntrips that the PHB missed, like a repel mosquitos ritual or freshen water spell?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because no one makes rituals for things that trivial. None of said effects merit being put on this list, nor do just about any other basic cantrips. - TG Cid 22:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

For adventurers, maybe you are right, but I'm not talking about Joe Dragonslayer, I'm talking about John Doe who's major concern is both raking in an decent harvest and making sure it lasts all winter so he, his wife and his 2.5 kids don't die of starvation.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the PC's do constitute the majority of people that matter. And accounting for insignificant things that affect nameless, faceless people and not the PC's in something like this doesn't make much sense due to the simple fact that such a scenario will almost never conceivably occur in-game, since anything in-game practically has to involve the PC's (or their at least somewhat important NPC counterparts). - TG Cid 22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree Cid. I really like having little background things built into the rules that help determine how the world grows and functions, even if the PCs don't actually care about them, since then both PCs and DMs have a common starting point to make assumptions about the world. If there was a common chill ritual there's a much smaller need for root cellars and the like, and you get fewer/different types of basements in the world. You're right that they don't add anything for the PCs though, and as that's Ghostwheel's primary focus I suspect further conversation on the matter is rather moot. - Tarkisflux 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've talked this over with MS before, and we came to the conclusion that rituals aren't something that the common man could use. Take the above example with a barkeep who keeps his wares cool. Since rituals aren't meant to be long-term (greater than a day) effects, the cost would be exorbitant. We're not talking a few gold piece a day, but 50 gp--which is more than most people in the D&D world make in a year, or even maybe save up during their whole lifetimes. If a specific DM wants to lower the cost of all rituals to make them equal to caster level in gp, that's their deal, but under this system it doesn't make sense for "common folk" to use said rituals when they cost this much. --Ghostwheel 07:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten the cost thing. Yeah, that's fairly prohibitive. - Tarkisflux 21:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Cost

Currently cost scales with caster level instead of power level. This means that as characters gain cash moneys as they gain levels, they need to gain it linearly for their level appropriate rituals to cost a similar portion of their wealth at any given level. Since this is probably not the case, and people gain more moneys faster as they level, the cost of these might better scale more quickly as well. - Tarkisflux 02:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Would a better formula be effective caster level x ritual level x 50? What are the implications either way? What are the implications if CWBL does not exist? And what are the implications if CWBL doesn't exist AND the DM wants to use actual wealth as a way to tone down the amount of rituals that can be cast? --Ghostwheel 05:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The implications of doing it the way that it is currently is that rituals eventually become cheap and more common, assuming wealth grows faster than ritual cost (it does in every game I've ever played, but it's possible that this is not the case in some settings, maybe).

The implications of the alternate suggested costs should be fairly familiar since they can be directly compared to scroll costs (which should be familiar); you are just making rituals4 times as expensive as purchasing a scroll, and 8 times as expensive as making one. A couple of specific points should be made though. In conjunction with a system where people get free item upgrades based on level it just means that ritual users have 1/4th as many consumables as the scroll users have (who also get their stuff off faster, and don't waste it if they flub a 50/50ish check). Lacking that houserule it means that the ritual users are double screwed since their consumable stuff is more expensive than other peoples and they need to spend more on equipment to be viable so they have less to spend on them, and they need multiple charges in case they screw a couple up.

That assumes that scroll users are even available to play against ritual users in a game, which depends on campaign specifics. Lacking scroll users or characters who can cast a spell instead of ritual it in a campaign makes them less screwed, but only because it's the only available way to access the ability. Rituals are still a very pricey way to get things done, but if it's the only way it's just the price you pay. - Tarkisflux 07:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Iron Age Ice Cream and Fry Shop

Gourmet food for the discerning noble. --Ghostwheel 09:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)