Rituals: adding the tag to new spells?

[eversilentone]

Rituals are powerful because of their potential for casting anytime (depending on how you access ritual casting - not all ritual casters are equal of course). But there are some spells that just scream ritual to me that aren't. For example, Animate Dead and Raise Dead both feel really fitting to me.

How broken do you think it would be to add the ritual tag to further spells? In the case of Animate Dead I know that this could enable you to have a massive army in perpetuity which is problematic, so were I DMing I'd probably say that you can animate as a ritual but you need to use slots to reassert control, although the fact that rituals can't be upcast does heavily limit it already so perhaps that's not needed. In the case of Raise Dead... how many times are you going to be raising a dead companion in one day?! It's already got a long casting time and a hefty material component, does it need to take up a spell-known and/or spell slot to balance it?

Are there other spells that might be suitable? I reckon Mage Armour is another fair candidate, for example.

[Snivlem]

What is the problem with these spells you are trying to fix?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Wizards don't need a power boost.

[eversilentone]

What is the problem with these spells you are trying to fix?

It's not even that there's a problem per se, just that it feels as though the ritual mechanic hasn't been used as widely as it could - and I've no doubt that's to try and keep power balanced - but there are some spells where I wonder if for flavour it's appropriate.


Wizards don't need a power boost.

Absolutely, but it's potentially a boost for anyone who takes the Ritual Caster feat, as well as Clerics, Druids and Pact of the Tome Warlocks. In fact, I think there are probably more non-Wizard spells that might be better suited to gaining the ritual tag than not.

[Unoriginal]

Clerics, Druids, Warlocks of the Tome and people with the Ritual Caster Feat don't need a power boost.

Making spells like Mage Armor Rituals would just lead to people walking around with Mage Armor on all day.

[Snivlem]

It's not even that there's a problem per se, just that it feels as though the ritual mechanic hasn't been used as widely as it could - and I've no doubt that's to try and keep power balanced - but there are some spells where I wonder if for flavour it's appropriate.

I think you are right there is balance reason for the choices that they've made. I don't think casters need a boost and all of the spells yopu mentioned are already strong spells that are being used without them having the ritual tag, so they don't need a boost either. The point about the ritual caster feat is fine, but I still think your suggested changes would do more harm than good. There's lots of people who find it unreasonable that tiny hut is a ritual spell, for instance, and all of your suggested spell would fall in the same category.

If you really want to expand the ritual tag, I would look for spells that both 1) are fitting (flavour), 2) don't see much use as non-ritual spells.

[eversilentone]

Clerics, Druids, Warlocks of the Tome and people with the Ritual Caster Feat don't need a power boost.

Making spells like Mage Armor Rituals would just lead to people walking around with Mage Armor on all day.

What would be the problem with people walking around in Mage Armour all day? People walk around in armour all day... a ritual casting time is not dissimilar to the amount of time to don armour. I absolutely appreciate it's a power bump, but I guess I'm not sure how problematic that is. Of course it depends on the time keeping during play; I think a lot of people like treat the duration as that of a full adventuring day regardless of the 8 hour duration - that's not RAW, but I suspect it's fairly common, and we're talking about houserules as modifying spells isn't RAW...

As for who does or doesn't need a power boost - I really, genuinely, can't see how making Raise Dead a ritual is fundamentally changing the power level of a given class, except in increasing versatility for those who don't normally have access to it. I mean, I guess it is a power boost for existing casters insofar as it saves a slot and spell known, but the circumstances when you would cast if are pretty niche and it isn't going to help you recover from a party wipe, and still has a huge GP cost attached to it. And the DM controls who gains access to ritual spells through scrolls. If you don't want your Ritual Caster Barbarian to be able to Raise Dead, don't give her access to any Raise Dead scrolls.


I think you are right there is balance reason for the choices that they've made. I don't think casters need a boost and all of the spells yopu mentioned are already strong spells that are being used without them having the ritual tag, so they don't need a boost either. The point about the ritual caster feat is fine, but I still think your suggested changes would do more harm than good. There's lots of people who find it unreasonable that tiny hut is a ritual spell, for instance, and all of your suggested spell would fall in the same category.

If you really want to expand the ritual tag, I would look for spells that both 1) are fitting (flavour), 2) don't see much use as non-ritual spells.

I think your last point is probably on the money; for me it's about fluff and flavour rather than power, and there are lots of spells that just "aren't worth a slot" on a daily basis, but are kinda cool and could do with more use. I guess it's part of the 5e system that rituals are a bit of an added extra rather than a real part of the casting experience (hence why not all casters get access to ritual casting). I suppose also the lack of cooperative spellcasting in the system is possibly part of my thought process; I can imagine multiple people participating in a ritual casting even if the magic is focused through one caster.

I wonder as well if there might be a difference if some spells were ritual-only? Not even quite sure where I'm going with that, mechanically, but just something that occurred to me.

I think everyone is right that you'd need to take great care not to just hand new toys to people who have plenty, I just like the roleplaying and flavour concept of ritual spellcasting rather than trivially tossing out a fireball with the snap of your fingers. All the World Ending Spells of Doom™ are rituals, right?!

[Unoriginal]

Spells are powerful, but can only be used a limited number of time a day. That's how things are balanced.

Giving 24h Magic Armor is a problem because it gives casters higher AC with no cost. Which diminish Martials, because their high AC comes with a cost.

As for your "all World Ending Spells of Doom(TM) are rituals, right?" question, the answer is no.

There are World Ending Rituals of Doom(TM), but they're not spells.

I'm writing a guide/list on the non-spell rituals in the various books.

[Regitnui]

I wouldn't make more spells rituals for players right now. However, I'm not opposed to NPCs or monsters getting ritual-tagged spells as a sort of "only cast once" designation. Like mage armor would be ritual in the stat block to say it's cast out of combat, and if the players dispel it, the monster can't just recast it next turn.

[eversilentone]

Spells are powerful, but can only be used a limited number of time a day. That's how things are balanced.

Giving 24h Magic Armor is a problem because it gives casters higher AC with no cost. Which diminish Martials, because their high AC comes with a cost.

Is it only Rogue that is limited to light armour with no alternative (i.e. Unarmoured Defense)? It would definitely be harsher on them, that's fair. I guess I was extrapolating presumed power from Draconic Sorcerer who not only gets free Mage Armour but increased HP to boot. I know that's a sub-class feature but they get it at level 1 - if it was game-breaking I'd imagine they got it later on. But I do take your point.


As for your "all World Ending Spells of Doom(TM) are rituals, right?" question, the answer is no.

There are World Ending Rituals of Doom(TM), but they're not spells.

I'm writing a guide/list on the non-spell rituals in the various books.

I look forward to reading this! And perhaps you're right, perhaps not all rituals are spells per se, at least not as something referenced by class.


I wouldn't make more spells rituals for players right now. However, I'm not opposed to NPCs or monsters getting ritual-tagged spells as a sort of "only cast once" designation. Like mage armor would be ritual in the stat block to say it's cast out of combat, and if the players dispel it, the monster can't just recast it next turn.

Aye, absolutely the sort of thing I mean. It's not about free spells for days for me, so it's guarding against that. But perhaps this is it; maybe it doesn't need to be PCs who are doing it. But I do wonder if it might increase use of some spells that are otherwise very niche which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aye, absolutely the sort of thing I mean. It's not about free spells for days for me, so it's guarding against that. But perhaps this is it; maybe it doesn't need to be PCs who are doing it. But I do wonder if it might increase use of some spells that are otherwise very niche which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Here's the thing--NPCs aren't limited to the printed spells. If someone has mage armor up at all times, just increase their AC. NPCs can do lots of things PCs can't (at least without permission). That's a fundamental part of 5e.

In my games there are lots of spells not printed. Most of them are either personal (meaning no one else has mastered them, since the caster isn't a wizard and can't write them down), dependent on relationships/rituals that aren't feasible for adventurers, or are kinda pointless for adventurers (one to keep a plow going strait. Only works on plows, though. Another to align the grain in wood while you're carving it. Has to be sung continually, and really just keeps the knife from slipping. Etc.)

[Asmotherion]

First of all, World Balance Wise, Ritual Magic means your World will probably end up in the High Magic kind. Except if it is a secret knowlage known by a select few, but let's not complicate things for now. More magic, and easyer access to High Magic (Non-comiting spell slots to produce non-cantrip effects), means more though for complex rules about the implications of how things are kept in balance, how do mages keep tags on each other? Why isn't the whole world Ruled by Necromancers raising an Undead Army, or turned to Ash by an evil High Level Evocer, if he could repetedly use Meteor Swarm? You may have the answear in "there exist powerful good Wizards too", which practically makes the world at least 90% focused on Magic and a Magocracy everywere, were good Mages are Kings to keep tabs on evil Mage Tyrants.

Seccond of all, mechanics. Some spells can easily become Rituals. Some are more game breaking, and others just don't make sence.

A cool spell to make as a Ritual would be Disguise Self. It fits the trope, you are disguised as an other person for one hour, as long as you use a 10 minutes ritual. The tax of taking 10 minutes to cast it (thus not having axess to it on demand, and it's utility being limited to disguising you) balances out well enough.

On the other hand, doing the same for Alter Self, a much more versalite version that can grant the same effect would be game-breaking and unbalanced, as it gives an unfair advantage over someone who would dedicate a spell slot to actually cast it. Alter Self not only gives you a disguise; It is not an Illusion, but the real thing (so there is no chance of being discovered), you can alter between forms as an action for the Duration, assuming an other disguise, and grants other benefits as well. Making it a Ritual is a bad move.

Finally, some options just don't make any sence. Adding the Ritual Tag to a Fireball for example would be a waste; If you had to perform a 10 minute ritual to cast a Fireball, I want to believe your target was either Willing (for whatever reason) to be incinerated to death, or an object, in which case, you would have packed more damage during the 10 minutes by casting firebolt every turn that this.

And last but not least, consider which spells are more lore-appropriate to be rituals. I can see a ritual that disguises you as an other person, and at higher levels, one that allows you to control the Winds and eventually the Weather itself (At least Lore-Wise).

I can imagin two special variations of the Bestow Curse Spell as Rituals, one you can learn as a 5th level spell, and one as a 9th level spell. Both are subject of secret lore and very potent Dark Magic; They might involve channeling the "touch" through a lock of hair, some blood and/or other possesion of the Target, and be spoken in the Dark Speech. You can give it as a special reward in an evil-PC campain, or a PC who dabs in the Dark Arts.

And then you have the spells that just should not exist as rituals, like the ones I mentioned in the previous sticky point (Alter Self, Fireball), but also things that are already rituals by themselves (and still require a spell slot), such as Simulacrum and practically most things with a casting time of more than an action, that is not already a Ritual.

[Regitnui]

In my games there are lots of spells not printed. Most of them are either personal (meaning no one else has mastered them, since the caster isn't a wizard and can't write them down), dependent on relationships/rituals that aren't feasible for adventurers, or are kinda pointless for adventurers (one to keep a plow going strait. Only works on plows, though. Another to align the grain in wood while you're carving it. Has to be sung continually, and really just keeps the knife from slipping. Etc.)

I do the same thing, taken from the industrial setting of the world I most often play in.

Would a "Ritual Caster" trait on a monster make too much of a change to the game, as in the case of a homunculus that could cast rope trick or alarm when set down for the night?

[JackPhoenix]

If it's about fluff and flavor and not casting spells for free... well, pretty much any spell with casting time longer than one action already is a ritual. Including Raise Dead and Animate Dead.

[Armored Walrus]

With regard to Raise Dead specifically. You're right, it already is, essentially, a ritual. So if your change is for flavor reasons, doesn't that spell already have the flavor you're looking for? Why take away the significant spell slot cost of casting it? As is, the cleric has to decide whether to use that slot during combat, or keep it in their back pocket in case of an after-combat need for it. Of course, they have 10 days to get the raise dead, done, so lots of chances to end a day with the slot free, but in some games, the pace might be quick enough that there's a real risk that not raising your friend today means events sweep you away from them and now they are lost forever. All that giving it the ritual tag would do is take off that (probably rare) resource pressure, making the decision to raise someone today a trivial one. If you don't care about that pressure, then you as the DM can give them plenty of story time to just get it done anyway.

I, too, would like to see more ritual spells, though. Maybe homebrew a few? I feel like the ones in the book have already been given consideration by the designers, and there's a reason they are or aren't rituals already. I might start by taking existing spells that look like they'd make good rituals, nerf them slightly, make them one level lower, and add the ritual tag to that.

[hymer]

Are there other spells that might be suitable?

Find Traps and Barkskin.

Edit: That was actually for technical rather than fluff reasons, but they could still make a lot of sense as rituals in a narrative sense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do the same thing, taken from the industrial setting of the world I most often play in.

Would a "Ritual Caster" trait on a monster make too much of a change to the game, as in the case of a homunculus that could cast rope trick or alarm when set down for the night?

That's just a magic item. A powerful one in the case of rope trick (because it almost guarantees a safe short rest without using any resources), and less so for alarm.

[Throne12]

Let's not fight about if making some spells rituals. But let's list which spells could be turn into rituals to find more play.

1st.
Disguise self, jump, mage armor, sleep,

2nd.
Cordon of arrows, darkvision, find traps, locate object, warding bond

3rd.
Beacon of hope, flame arrows, plant growth, Revivify,

4th.
Guardian of faith, mordenkainen's faithfull hounds,

5th.
Legend lore,

[Regitnui]

That's just a magic item. A powerful one in the case of rope trick (because it almost guarantees a safe short rest without using any resources), and less so for alarm.

An encounter where the players have to avoid or destroy constructs that cast alarm before the main bad guy can be alerted? Would a magic item be sufficient for that? It could be a trap, but I can see a use for "ritual caster" monsters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

An encounter where the players have to avoid or destroy constructs that cast alarm before the main bad guy can be alerted? Would a magic item be sufficient for that? It could be a trap, but I can see a use for "ritual caster" monsters.

You can just create monsters or objects that do those. You don't need a formal "ritual spell" or "spell-caster" to do any of that as the DM. That's the beauty of 5e. There's no expectation that the NPCs follow the same building requirements or limits (or features!) as PCs. The spell list in the PHB is used by monsters only out of parsimony, not out of rule.

[Talionis]

The ritual tag is a balance tag. Some spells are supposed to eat up resources. The Animate Dead spells are supposed to eat resources for sure.

I think some spells are "rituals", but not all rituals can be cast without a spell slot. So I agree you are showing some spells that are probably rituals, but I think the fluff is that though they are cast slowly they require magical energy to do and cannot be cast without the spell slot. In fact these spells can only be cast slow and be cast with a spell slot. That's how difficult these spells are.

If you want to house rule it you can, but Necromancers already are pretty powerful in 5E, far less powerful than in 3.5E, but almost every caster is a lot less powerful and everyone else is far closer to the same level.

I think you could look at spells and say that I want them to be cast at will in players down time, but be really careful that it can't be abused.

I had a player (Rogue) that wanted as a goal to live for ever so he wanted to be able to cast Clone as a Ritual. (He did take the Ritual Caster feat). I talked it over with my player, we set up a special quest and it was a magical tome he was found that granted him the secret to cast the spell as a ritual. We increased the cost by double to do so it had a little more cost. That worked. It was a spell that wasn't going to be cast in combat or for real combat reasons it was mostly for fluff. It didn't add action economy. It didn't change combat. It was safe, but it wasn't something that changed the world because he had the unique tome, necessary to work the spell as a ritual.

Necromancy spells don't seem safe, so I can't recommend the idea. Things should have costs and are balanced for a reason, and I tend not to want to have that much homebrew in my campaigns. My opinion, so feel free to embrace this if it helps change the world the way you want.

[rbstr]

Spells with the ritual tag are mostly limited to things that typically do not provide combat power when cast as a ritual. These spells do utility things.

So what the Ritual Tag really does is let you do something that's more exploration or social oriented without spending resources. And it should be kept limited to that usage.
Mage Armor is supposed to take resources since it keeps you from being a squishy wizard and would be used in combat if cast as a ritual. Don't make it a Ritual.
Raise-Dead-type Necromancy Spells are for attacking things with and would get combat use out of the ritual casting. Don't make it a Ritual.
Jump lets you jump really high but probably wouldn't get combat use out of the ritual casting. It could be a Ritual.
Arcane Lock could probably be one.

Heck, even Fireball could fit these guidelines OK. 10 minutes to set up a fireball for demolition purposes or whatever. But it's not persistent so it would be hard to use it for combat when as a ritual. And IMO that's the real key thing.

(Yeah, Find Familiar is a bit of combat power, and Silence could be used as part of a trap or whatever...but this is a general guideline)

[Galadhrim]

Nice list. Additions and subtractions I would make.


Let's not fight about if making some spells rituals. But let's list which spells could be turn into rituals to find more play.

1st.
Disguise self, jump, mage armor, sleep,

2nd.
Cordon of arrows, darkvision, find traps, locate object, warding bond, nystul's magic aura

3rd.
Beacon of hope, flame arrows, plant growth, Revivify, Glyph of warding

4th.
Guardian of faith, mordenkainen's faithfull hounds,

5th.
Legend lore,

I agree with what was said above that added rituals ought to be 1. spells that see very little use because no one ever prepares them 2. spells that assist in utility, especially in exploration, and out of combat problem solving. I would add 3. the spell ought to last at least 10 minutes or more. If it takes longer to cast than the effect lasts, that seems a little silly. I didn't see any spells I thought would fit a ritual that did not last that long

If you are using it in combat, it ought to cost you an action and a prepared slot. On this list, I did leave Cordon of Arrows just because I could see some kind of ranger/druid multiclass performing a ritual in a area he meant to protect from known invasion. That made sense.