Wizard + ritual caster feat from the Wizard list of rituals...

[dehro]

Does he get anything out of it other than 2 extra spells?
Are the Wizard's ritual caster ability and that of the feat identical?

[JackPhoenix]

No. That is, he doesn't even get two extra spells from it: the spells you'll get from ritual caster aren't spells inscribed in your spellbook, and can only be used as a ritual. The wizard can has to copy them to his regular spellbook first before he can use them as normal.

[Galithar]

It would be almost a complete waste for a wizard to do this, for the reason stated above. It's usually going to be relatively easy, and way cheaper (opportunity cast a feat) to just find the ritual "naturally". Also if they just pick up, for example, ritual caster Cleric, they actually expand the list of spells they can potentially cast instead of just getting two 'free' rituals off the list they already have.

[Icaruscalls]

If you took Magic Initiate (Wizard) you'd learn one extra wizard spell (including rituals) that you could put into your spellbook and you'd learn two extra cantrips.
A more useful option if you need to learn a Critical spell and you can't find it naturally in game.

[CTurbo]

If you took Magic Initiate (Wizard) you'd learn one extra wizard spell (including rituals) that you could put into your spellbook and you'd learn two extra cantrips.
A more useful option if you need to learn a Critical spell and you can't find it naturally in game.

You're thinking about Magic Initiate which is a decent feat for Wizards. Ritual Caster however is a waste for Wizards as they are already Ritual Casters.

[Galithar]

You're thinking about Magic Initiate which is a decent feat for Wizards. Ritual Caster however is a waste for Wizards as they are already Ritual Casters.

Well... Their post literally said they were giving an alternative of magic initiate, just read the first line where they say magic initiate :P

[Chronos]

The one case where it might be any benefit would be for a multiclassed wizard, because the feat only cares about total levels, whereas it's debatable whether the wizard feature depends on wizard level or total casting level. If it depends on wizard level, then a Wizard 1/Cleric X or whatever would only have access to 1st-level wizard rituals, but the feat could give access to high-level rituals.

It's still probably a waste, especially considering that a large proportion of rituals are 1st-level anyway.

[CTurbo]

Well... Their post literally said they were giving an alternative of magic initiate, just read the first line where they say magic initiate :P


I never claimed to know how to read! hahaha


oops

[Dark Schneider]

It is like getting Weapon Master with a Fighter.

[ItsTheWorden]

There is advantage. The wizard can keep ritual spells separate. Without the feat, ritual spells take up precious prepared spell slots. When the wizard prepares spells they don’t have to worry about any ritual spells giving them access to more options.

[Lord Vukodlak]

There is advantage. The wizard can keep ritual spells separate. Without the feat, ritual spells take up precious prepared spell slots.
No they don't not for wizards, if its in your book you need never prepare it to cast as a ritual.


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.

[OverLordOcelot]

It's a really bad deal. You get two first level spells as ritual-only, and if you're multi-classed then you can get rituals based on your character level instead of wizard level. Other casters who take ritual casting of their own spells at least avoid having to use prepared slots for rituals, but wizards already get that as part of their standard ritual casting.

[jdizzlean]

The Mod LIfe Crisis: Not even a wizard can defeat Thread Necromancy