Wizards, ritual casting and spellbooks

[visitor]

Hi:

I assumed wizards casting a ritual spell do not need to have that spell prepared, but can cast it unprepared from their spellbook. But re-reading PHB p. 114:

Ritual Casting:
You can cast a wizard spell as a ritual if that spell has the ritual tag and you have the spell in your spellbook. You don't need to have the spell prepared.


This reads like you do NOT need your spellbook in hand to cast ritual spells, but have access to your rituals even with your spellbook safely tucked away back home. Fluff-wise, it doesn't seem to make "sense", but...what do you think? Is this correct? Old news to everyone already?

[RickAllison]

I think it can make sense in that a wizard, who has spent their lives studying to understand magic from the ground up, needs to have the rituals diagrammed out to study and learn from it, but that they can keep it around much easier. The techniques necessary for remembering how to cast the way they do are the same needed to cast the rituals. This is opposed to either the Ritual Caster feat or the Book of Ancient Secrets, which supply knowledge of use for spells unlike what is normal for the user. The wizard with Ritual Caster would have just as much difficulty casting non-wizard spells because those don't follow the knowledge s/he has assembled through constant use.

"Don't you need the diagrams to cast this spell?"
"I have had to memorize the 437 Anchors of Abjuration and the endless effects of their combinations in order to maximize my knowledge on the subject. How hard do you think it is to apply that for a basic Alarm?"
"Well..."
"Do you need to consult your manuals of war to remember how to properly sharpen your blade? No, you remember it because that is part of using it. Memorizing this is part of using it. Now go check the perimeter! Remember that any creatures inside of it when cast will not trigger it. See me again in ten minutes."

[visitor]

Thanks!

Though with that line of thinking, unless you consider ritual spells much simpler than regular spells, why have a limit to prepared spells anyway? The trained mind of the Wizard knows Detect Magic as well as his csntrips, but not Magic Missle? For shame! 😁

I suppose it doesn't really matter unless the DM is the type who keeps track of spellbooks, where they are, how you keep them safe, etc.

Just a little nuance I missed

[RickAllison]

Thanks!

Though with that line of thinking, unless you consider ritual spells much simpler than regular spells, why have a limit to prepared spells anyway? The trained mind of the Wizard knows Detect Magic as well as his csntrips, but not Magic Missle? For shame! 😁

I suppose it doesn't really matter unless the DM is the type who keeps track of spellbooks, where they are, how you keep them safe, etc.

Just a little nuance I missed

Rituals are a very methodical process, tapping into the most latent magic around you to change the world with no effort. It is like performing a proof for a mathematician, a drawn-out process that takes time but can always be accessed and checked because you know it is a question of when rather than if. That is not the same as casting a spell. Casting a spell is about breaking through the fabric of the Weave with your own power and forcing your will onto the world. It is less akin to a proof and more like a timed test with no partial credit. You do not have the luxury of monitoring the Weave's ripples to check your work, either you successfully cast it or you wasted your magic, and 5e does not have a mechanism to allow you to waste that magic by screwing up. Non-rituals must be prepared by a wizard because it is then that they are refreshing the exact formulas for flawlessly producing these effects. This is increased by experience (more levels=more spells prepared) and natural intelligence (more Int=more spells prepared), but they can only reliably hold so many formulas in their mind at once.

A more accurate model might be providing an option to prepare more spells, but each spell has a chance of failure that increases with each further spell prepared. But that is more bookkeeping, doesn't contribute much, and would just leave a player complaining. Instead, we get a nice, simple system that says you can hold so many spells in your head at a time. But rituals are always fine because you can always check your work against the Weave.

Disclaimer: This is not backed up by any official materials. This is how I headcanon the rules so it makes sense thematically and consistently with the rest of the system. Presumably a similar thing goes on for Druids and Clerics, but I haven't given that as much thought because I love wizards.

[Addaran]

Personally, i'd rule it the other way around.

IMO, rituals are more complex then just casting the spell. If a wizard want to ritually cast a spell he hasn't prepared, he'll need his book to do so.
I know it's not RAW, but i think it's what was intended.

[Coffee_Dragon]

"Don't you need the diagrams to cast this spell?"
"I have had to memorize the 437 Anchors of Abjuration and the endless effects of their combinations in order to maximize my knowledge on the subject. How hard do you think it is to apply that for a basic Alarm?"
"Well..."
"Do you need to consult your manuals of war to remember how to properly sharpen your blade? No, you remember it because that is part of using it. Memorizing this is part of using it. Now go check the perimeter! Remember that any creatures inside of it when cast will not trigger it. See me again in ten minutes."

"You don't even have your book around, do you?"

"If you MUST KNOW, it was stolen by a tome-eater troll six months ago. But since my ritual casting has continued unimpeded since, the troll must not have eaten it yet, and maybe it never will. Now, leave me to my ritualings!"

*begins ritualings*

*crickets*

"DAMMIT"

[Millstone85]

Fluff-wise, it doesn't seem to make "sense"Not a lick of it.

Do note that the warlock's Book of Shadows, which is clearly a magic book and not just a book on magic, must explicitly be "on your person" for cantrips or "in hand" for rituals.

Meanwhile, a wizard's spellbook, which can be as mundane as "a loose collection of notes scrounged together after you lost your previous spellbook in a mishap", could empower you from afar? I don't think so.


*begins ritualings*

*crickets*

"DAMMIT""Just kidding. I made several backup copies of my spellbook, that I then hid all over the country. So, eeny meeny miny moe, I am now magically linked to the one in the north east."

*restarts ritualing*

[RSP]

I'd go with RAI: the book is required in hand for a ritual to be cast.

Also, just because it was mentioned, Druids and Clerics need to have a Ritual prepared in order to cast it as a ritual, which isn't the case for the Wizard.

[Solunaris]

Although it's not explicitly stated in the ritual section, preparing your spells requires memorizing the complex gestures and arcane thingy-ma-jigs to cast the spell which are all contained within the Spell Book. I'd assume that you need the Spell Book to cast a ritual spell because you don't have those bits memorized at the time.

At least, that seems to be the RAI. By RAW I think you've got the long and the short of it.

[coredump]

Are your wizards traipsing around the countryside *without* their spell books? What happens when they want to change their spells? Do they *always* get to travel back home every long rest?

[Falcon X]

I'm with RickAllison. Rituals and memorized spells are used in two different ways and it's okay to think of them that way. That the book has different verbiage from the Warlock's book is evidence towards this intent.

Rituals: Flavorwise, these are born out of the idea of shamanic or arcane rituals where you do a series of actions, largely repetitive, and you get a desired effect. The process for each ritual is able to be memorized. Indeed, tribal shamans have been doing it based on oral tradition for thousands of years (real life)

Prepared Spells: These are born out of Vancian magic (https://theevilgm.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/a-brief-history-of-vancian-magic/). By nature, spells are memorized individually and sort of placed in a holding area in your brain. When you use the spell, it is erased from your brain, and thus must be re-memorized.

Ritual spells aren't memorized, so there is no process for them to be expelled from the memory. Of course, this is classic Vancian magic. It's heavily modified by the time we get to 5e. Still, the core flavor is similar.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Ritual spells aren't memorized, so there is no process for them to be expelled from the memory.

And yet they are, if your (last copy of your) spellbook is eaten in a remote location. Would you consider ruling that they aren't, even in this situation?

[RickAllison]

And yet they are, if your (last copy of your) spellbook is eaten in a remote location. Would you consider ruling that they aren't, even in this situation?

I certainly would say they aren't expelled. Either a wizard has a second spellbook already or (if he was foolish) that gets to be one of the few things he will get to remember for his next text. Considering that destruction of a wizard's sole spellbook is pretty universally a bad move by a DM because it effectively neutalizes so many class features (read: all spells learned once a new set is prepared), then I would feel comfortable allowing for bypassing the rule.

[coredump]

And yet they are, if your (last copy of your) spellbook is eaten in a remote location. Would you consider ruling that they aren't, even in this situation?

IME, wizards always have their spellbook nearby. But if I ruled you didn't need your spellbook on hand for rituals, it would follow that the wizard does periodically still study his spells when he is back home. So rituals would still work for a bit, but would eventually start forgetting key pieces of the process. (lets say.... good for about a month)

Otherwise you can cast a ritual at 11:45, at noon a thief breaks into your home 100 miles away and walks out with your spell book, and at 12:15 you can't cast another ritual.

[visitor]

I certainly would say they aren't expelled. Either a wizard has a second spellbook already or (if he was foolish) that gets to be one of the few things he will get to remember for his next text. Considering that destruction of a wizard's sole spellbook is pretty universally a bad move by a DM because it effectively neutalizes so many class features (read: all spells learned once a new set is prepared), then I would feel comfortable allowing for bypassing the rule.

But you are allowing it by assuming the wizard has a backup. The point is, what if that backup is destroyed?

I hate to take away a nice little perk of wizard -only spellcasting, but it does lead to interesting questions. Like if your last spellbook is stolen, is it still "yours" to cast rituals? Or only until it is destroyed?

It hasn't mattered yet in my games (short and no need to swap spells so far) but I do vaguely remember rules being introduced (only played OD&D and AD&D back when) for your stuff to make saves when hit with a fireball or dragons breath. So your potions and scrolls would go up in flames along with your underwear.

Coredump: I like your solution

[BW022]

I don't see it as a major issue.

Whether the wizard needs his spellbook handy isn't likely to affect the game. Wizards typically have their spellbooks with them as they need them to prepare different spells and most players would probably be fine ruling that you need your spellbook while casting the ritual. . Unless the DM is one to deliberately target wizards and steal, destroy, etc. their spellbooks... this isn't an issue. If you do... then the wizard has more serious problems and they are typically in serious trouble anyway.

[RickAllison]

But you are allowing it by assuming the wizard has a backup. The point is, what if that backup is destroyed?

I hate to take away a nice little perk of wizard -only spellcasting, but it does lead to interesting questions. Like if your last spellbook is stolen, is it still "yours" to cast rituals? Or only until it is destroyed?

It hasn't mattered yet in my games (short and no need to swap spells so far) but I do vaguely remember rules being introduced (only played OD&D and AD&D back when) for your stuff to make saves when hit with a fireball or dragons breath. So your potions and scrolls would go up in flames along with your underwear.

Coredump: I like your solution

The problem is that destroying a character's only spellbook doesn't just remove a little perk like this. Every spell you have learned so far is now gone and has to be re-found to copy the formulas again. You not only can't prepare spells to adjust at all for a while, but you can't really do so for a long, long time because doing so means all those spells that you specifically chose now are beyond your reach. While I think a wizard who didn't makes copies of his book is an idiot, it may not be possible due to finances and destroying it is more akin to destroying great-weapon wielding fighter's arms and giving him a one-time-use magic item that gives him arms back so long as he never wields a different weapon and it is also only a longsword.

There is a reason why by 5e, the rules have been changed so only non-attended items are vulnerable to destruction. A player who is up for it may enjoy an arc of being depowered so severely, but most would not enjoy the DM deciding that it would be more "fun" to lose the majority of what it means to be a wizard. A Rogue would not enjoy losing Expertise and Cunning Action, a Paladin would not be a fan of losing Lay on Hands, and a Moon Druid would not enjoy being unable to Wild Shape.

I don't think they address what happens if a spellbook is destroyed under these circumstances because such circumstances should never happen.

[JellyPooga]

This reads like you do NOT need your spellbook in hand to cast ritual spells, but have access to your rituals even with your spellbook safely tucked away back home. Fluff-wise, it doesn't seem to make "sense", but...what do you think? Is this correct? Old news to everyone already?

For me it makes perfect sense. Spells in a Wizards spellbook are his "Spells Known". That he can only prepare a certain number of them to cast "at will" using his spell slots is, as has been mentioned, just representative of the amount of detailed information he can retain to focus that energy in that way. It doesn't mean he's forgotten his other spells; he can still "work the process" of them, it just takes time. I very much liked the analogy of a maths exam vs. solving a proof that RickAllison gave; I think that's a fairly accurate analogy.

I also think that a Wizards spellbook isn't dependent on it's physical existence...OK, that sound a bit weird, let me explain.
- The Wizard has learned all the spells in his book; either by going up levels or scribing them there from scrolls, other books etc.
- If the book is destroyed, he can no longer prepare the minutiae required to cast them from his spell slots, but he hasn't forgotten those spells.
- Should he take the time (and expense) to create another spellbook, he has the option of refilling the new book with all the spells that used to be in his old one, as if he had a scroll of those spells; he already knows the spells, he just needs to work out the nitty-gritty details and write it all down again.
- In the meantime, he can still cast the spells he had prepared before his old book was destroyed and he can still cast any of his ritual "Spells Known" (i.e. any ritual spell that was in his old book) as a ritual.

A Wizard doesn't somehow just forget the spells he knows because his spellbook is destroyed; that's daft. That's like saying that a Physics Professor will forget all his knowledge of physics because someone burned his textbooks. Sure, some of the finer details might be beyond him (can't prepare new spells) until he gets a new textbook or takes the time to fathom them out and write them down (buys/creates a new spellbook), but he can still teach a class (still proficient in Arcana, still familiar with the function of any of his "spells known"), he can still ace any exam one of his students might take (cast the spells he has prepared) and he can still prove lengthy equations in his field (cast a ritual spell).

Wizards are the smart-guys of D&D. They don't just forget stuff for no reason.

[SilverStud]

For me it makes perfect sense. Spells in a Wizards spellbook are his "Spells Known". That he can only prepare a certain number of them to cast "at will" using his spell slots is, as has been mentioned, just representative of the amount of detailed information he can retain to focus that energy in that way. It doesn't mean he's forgotten his other spells; he can still "work the process" of them, it just takes time. I very much liked the analogy of a maths exam vs. solving a proof that RickAllison gave; I think that's a fairly accurate analogy.

I also think that a Wizards spellbook isn't dependent on it's physical existence...OK, that sound a bit weird, let me explain.
- The Wizard has learned all the spells in his book; either by going up levels or scribing them there from scrolls, other books etc.
- If the book is destroyed, he can no longer prepare the minutiae required to cast them from his spell slots, but he hasn't forgotten those spells.
- Should he take the time (and expense) to create another spellbook, he has the option of refilling the new book with all the spells that used to be in his old one, as if he had a scroll of those spells; he already knows the spells, he just needs to work out the nitty-gritty details and write it all down again.
- In the meantime, he can still cast the spells he had prepared before his old book was destroyed and he can still cast any of his ritual "Spells Known" (i.e. any ritual spell that was in his old book) as a ritual.

A Wizard doesn't somehow just forget the spells he knows because his spellbook is destroyed; that's daft. That's like saying that a Physics Professor will forget all his knowledge of physics because someone burned his textbooks. Sure, some of the finer details might be beyond him (can't prepare new spells) until he gets a new textbook or takes the time to fathom them out and write them down (buys/creates a new spellbook), but he can still teach a class (still proficient in Arcana, still familiar with the function of any of his "spells known"), he can still ace any exam one of his students might take (cast the spells he has prepared) and he can still prove lengthy equations in his field (cast a ritual spell).

Wizards are the smart-guys of D&D. They don't just forget stuff for no reason.

It seems pretty rational to me. Sometimes RAW implications get really silly, really fast. Yay 5e design philosophy (and its focus on DM rulings)!

I would add that if they are rewriting their spellbook from memory, I would certainly let them get all their old spells back. However, I would increase the time required for each spell he doesn't have "prepared," since he's having to do some figuring out of small details.

[visitor]

The sidebar about spellbooks is actually much harsher...you can only recreate/rescribe spells you have prepared into your new book.

But allowing the other spells for more time and money seems a fair deal

[Millstone85]

Should he take the time (and expense) to create another spellbook, he has the option of refilling the new book with all the spells that used to be in his old one, as if he had a scroll of those spells; he already knows the spells, he just needs to work out the nitty-gritty details and write it all down again.
Yay 5e design philosophy (and its focus on DM rulings)!Just to be clear, this would be a house rule, not an interpretation. The RAW is clearly against it.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal.

Edit: Ninja'd because I am really slow.

[JellyPooga]

The sidebar about spellbooks is actually much harsher...you can only recreate/rescribe spells you have prepared into your new book.

Just to be clear, this would be a house rule, not an interpretation. The RAW is clearly against it.

Oh yeah, totally. I should have mentioned it, really, but the RAW just seems a bit daft to me, as well as being mechanically crippling/unfair to a Wizard that does lose his spellbook.