Converting spells to rituals

[Mad_Saulot]

My Wizard player asked if I could make the following spells into rituals: Disguise Self, Creation, Seeming, Mirage Arcane and Simulacrum.

The wizard is one of my more sensible players and I wouldnt expect him to ask for something OP but I just thought I'd run it by you guys see whats what, I dont use much home brew and am a core rules purist, with a bit of wobble room cos I dont want to be a core nazi.

Just to give you some context my group are Mountain Dwarf Totem Barbarian, Tiefling Old-One Warlock, Forest Gnome Monk of the open palm, and Moon Elf Wizard Illusionist (theyre all level 5 atm)

The Dragon Cult have resurected Tiamat who has taken the Throne-City of Unther (Forgotten Realms), my players are currently on a mission to save a Dragon Sage from a bunch of pirates.

The Cult are collecting all the sages who specialise in Dragons and taking them to see Tiamat.

[dejarnjc]

They would all be a pretty powerful boost to your one individual player if you allowed them to be cast as a ritual with the exception of simulacrum since that at least has a hefty gold cost.

Disguise self with no cost (other than a 10 min casting time) overlaps heavily onto one of the warlock's most popular invocations, mask of many faces.
Creation: a player whom could cast this spell every 10 minutes is only limited by their creativity in what they can build. Sure there is a duration but up to 24 hours is still pretty strong, particularly when you can cast the spell every 10 minutes. Also this effectively gives your player an extra level 5 slot to use however he or she wants.
Seeming Not a huge boost since the duration is already 8 hours for the spell but it does effectively give your player an extra 5th level slot which is pretty big.
Mirage Arcane the area of effect is a 1 mile square I believe... the effects are tangible changes even though it's an "illusion". The duration is like 10 days. Being able to cast this every 20 minutes or so would let you shape the entire country side into whatever manner you wished. Hilariously broken for any clever player that wants to abuse it.
Simulacrum the least powerful boost IMO because of the gold cost and the casting time. It's not likely you'll be doing much else on whatever day you cast simulacrum so having it as a ritual is kinda moot.


You're obviously free to do whatever you want but if you're going to give the wizard such a powerful boost then I'd suggest you do something similar for the other players.

[Brotherbock]

I think you could let him do that, with a few limitations. Maybe the ritual is so exhausting it can only be done 1/long rest, or the area of effect/duration is reduced, that sort of thing. Or it's painful--turns out that Disguise Self as a ritual is a painful process, causing 1hp/min damage and Con saves to keep people from noticing that you're in pain.

[Doug Lampert]

I think you could let him do that, with a few limitations. Maybe the ritual is so exhausting it can only be done 1/long rest, or the area of effect/duration is reduced, that sort of thing. Or it's painful--turns out that Disguise Self as a ritual is a painful process, causing 1hp/min damage and Con saves to keep people from noticing that you're in pain.

Thing is, the game INCLUDES a mechanism to limit casting of spells that are problematical when cast an unlimited number of times.

It's called, using a slot.

What's the reason to reinvent the wheel here to allow these spells to be rituals if it is NOT to allow them to be cast a nearly unlimited number of times per day, that's the entire point of making a spell a ritual, is to say "if you've got time, you can cast this with no real limits and no real cost."

If a ritual casting needs a limit other than time and component cost, then it probably shouldn't be a ritual, that's how 5ed rituals work.

[lordshadowisle]

No to both Disguise Self and Seeming as rituals. If there is no need to both expend a spell slot or to prepare the spell, the wizard essentially gains disguise kit proficiency once he has acquired either spell in his spellbook.

Alternatively, you could say Yes to both spells being rituals, but change the ritual component to a disguise kit :smallwink:.

[Throne12]

My Wizard player asked if I could make the following spells into rituals: Disguise Self, Creation, Seeming, Mirage Arcane and Simulacrum.

The wizard is one of my more sensible players and I wouldnt expect him to ask for something OP but I just thought I'd run it by you guys see whats what, I dont use much home brew and am a core rules purist, with a bit of wobble room cos I dont want to be a core nazi.

Just to give you some context my group are Mountain Dwarf Totem Barbarian, Tiefling Old-One Warlock, Forest Gnome Monk of the open palm, and Moon Elf Wizard Illusionist (theyre all level 5 atm)

The Dragon Cult have resurected Tiamat who has taken the Throne-City of Unther (Forgotten Realms), my players are currently on a mission to save a Dragon Sage from a bunch of pirates.

The Cult are collecting all the sages who specialise in Dragons and taking them to see Tiamat.

No to all.

[Brotherbock]

Thing is, the game INCLUDES a mechanism to limit casting of spells that are problematical when cast an unlimited number of times.

It's called, using a slot.

What's the reason to reinvent the wheel here to allow these spells to be rituals if it is NOT to allow them to be cast a nearly unlimited number of times per day, that's the entire point of making a spell a ritual, is to say "if you've got time, you can cast this with no real limits and no real cost."

If a ritual casting needs a limit other than time and component cost, then it probably shouldn't be a ritual, that's how 5ed rituals work.

Sure, you can choose to play exactly by the rules of all the books as written. There is nothing wrong with that. Or you can decide to change rules, add rules, and remove rules as your group sees fit. As people have been doing since the game has been in existence :)

I don't consider it 'reinventing the wheel' to come up with a different mechanic that a group might enjoy using. To me, the game isn't all about numbers.

Yes, the spells that have been designated as rituals are ones which the designers and playtesters have determined can be cast with no cost provided you take the extra time, and that these spells cast in this way aren't unbalanced. That is no reason for a group, if they wish, to not add a mechanic that allows other spells to be cast without one particular cost, but with a different cost.

People have been doing this since 1st Ed. AD&D when they said "Hey...what if my cleric worshipped a war god? Could I use a sword in that case?" One reply to that question was to say "Why reinvent the wheel? Clerics have been balanced out by the designers to use certain weapons only, those are the rules of AD&D." Another reply is to say "Sure, let's figure out what it'll cost, to keep things balanced.

If you don't want to change rules, more power to you, keep on keeping on. But there are plenty of good reasons to change them if you want :)

[MilkmanDanimal]

Simulacrum is effectively a clone with half your hit points, and it lasts until it's dispelled or destroyed. It's an incredibly useful spell, and there's a reason it requires a seventh-level slot. No way at all am I giving that one out effectively for free; it requires expenditure of a pretty significant resource, and it should stay that way.

Honestly, I think the ritual list as it stands is fine, and I really don't think Wizards need even more flexibility. If the Wizard wants to cast Disguise Self, that's what spell slots are for. I'd vote no on every single one of those.

[Provo]

You said yourself that the Wizard is sensible. It really shouldn’t be a problem then. If the player starts using the rituals excessively, give him ranks of exhaustion.

I would probably say no to seeming though. Reasons below:

Seeming: This spell has a powerful affect on the whole party, can easily solve many encounters, and would be tempting to use between every encounter. This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to require some resource expenditure.

Alter self: Does not have the same problem as seeming, because it only affects the caster. He still needs to be creative to solve encounters with it (rather than enabling a whole group to pass encounters entirely)... Yes, warlocks have a similar ability, but this is significantly weaker than the warlock version, as they can do it in one round (not 10 minutes). You can judge if it will upset the warlock.

Creation Cool spell, but people often struggle to make good use of it. No direct combat application unless you have a lot of prep time. Seems like a great candidate for ritual casting. Just remember to give exhaustion if the player goes overboard.

Mirage arcane potentially very powerful with repeated casts, so remember exhaustion or make it take a long time to ritual cast. Duration of ten days, means that it is not a resource drain for most of the duration anyway...

Simulacrum The slot is not the real cost of this spell as has already been stated. It’s hard to imagine a situation where the wizard can make a simulacrum, but can’t get a long rest immediately afterward.

[Toofey]

Everyone handwaving the simulacrum because of the casting time is ignoring the power up to the Simulacrum because they then would have their 7th level spell slot intact. That's at least one of your 3 most powerful slots.

[Contrast]

Everyone handwaving the simulacrum because of the casting time is ignoring the power up to the Simulacrum because they then would have their 7th level spell slot intact. That's at least one of your 3 most powerful slots.

It also drops the infinite Simulacrum issue from Level 17 to Level 13 if you haven't already houseruled that away. They would only be limited by money and wouldn't you know it they asked for Disguise Self/Seeming and Creation/Mirage Arcane as well which (particularly when combined with the 14th level illusion ability) would allow them to create and sell large amounts of counterfeit precious materials without it being attributable to them...

My initial thought is no mostly because I don't see any particularly compelling reason to make wizards more powerful/flexible (one of the best things about being a ritual is that you don't have to prepare it any more which drastically increases your ability to utility cast). They're already both of those things. Have they presented a rationale beyond 'I want to cast these spells more but aren't prepared to actually prepare or cast them if I'm otherwise restricted'? Part of having meaningful decisions is those decisions having consequences. If they can present a compelling reason fair enough but I'm not seeing one at the moment. Some of those spells I already feel are pretty powerful and def wouldn't allow for ritual casting.

Maybe just give them a bit of downtime/time to kill while travelling and missions which aren't best dealt with by murdering to the face so he doesn't feel the need to prepare his optimised combat list of spells every day and starts to feel like he has more leeway to prepare other stuff.

[Pex]

I think you could let him do that, with a few limitations. Maybe the ritual is so exhausting it can only be done 1/long rest, or the area of effect/duration is reduced, that sort of thing. Or it's painful--turns out that Disguise Self as a ritual is a painful process, causing 1hp/min damage and Con saves to keep people from noticing that you're in pain.

If you would make it annoying to use you're better off just saying no you can't do that. Don't punish a player for doing what you're allowing him to do.

[Brotherbock]

If you would make it annoying to use you're better off just saying no you can't do that. Don't punish a player for doing what you're allowing him to do.

I don't get what you mean. Punishing? The player asks "Hey, can I do this thing the written rules don't allow?" I say "Sure, but there's this restriction."

How is that in any way a punishment? I am not allowing "the spell to be cast" and then punishing the casting by imposing limitations. I am allowing "the spell to be cast with limitations." You might as well ask why the rules allow wizards to cast spells, and then punish them by only allowing a certain number per rest. Or why anyone is allowed to make melee attacks, but punished by being restricted to a certain number per round.

I would be giving the player an option to do something useful, but setting limitations on the usefulness. That's not 'punishment'. The player can make the choice to do it, or not do it. And the player might decide that the limitation is acceptable in some situations, not acceptable in others.

[Contrast]

Snip

He means this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328767-More-realistic-D-amp-D-Economy/page4&p=17613518#post17613518).

[MilkmanDanimal]

Also, if you would allow this, why wouldn't you allow it for every spell? I mean, the Evil Wizard up on the hilltop performing a ritual is a pretty standard fantasy trope, and a casting time of 10 minutes plus an action for Meteor Swarm makes just as much sense as allowing Simulacrum or Mirage Arcane. I mean, even sticking to 7th level spells, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Plane Shift, Regenerate, Resurrection . . . a bunch of those spells could easily be rituals.

[Provo]

Also, if you would allow this, why wouldn't you allow it for every spell? I mean, the Evil Wizard up on the hilltop performing a ritual is a pretty standard fantasy trope, and a casting time of 10 minutes plus an action for Meteor Swarm makes just as much sense as allowing Simulacrum or Mirage Arcane. I mean, even sticking to 7th level spells, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Plane Shift, Regenerate, Resurrection . . . a bunch of those spells could easily be rituals.

This argument doesn’t make much sense. “If you allow it for this why not for everything?” Doesn’t address why these spells are problematic. That same argument could be applied to several spells that are already rituals (Leomunds tiny hut?, detect magic?)

The “Wizard ritual casting on a hilltop” trope is not a point against this... if it is an common trope, why not enable players to live out that trope in the most iconic fantasy game?

Pointing out that several other spells could be contenders is also not that relevant. The Wizard did not ask for those spells. Even if he did, you didn’t necessarily show that those would be a bad idea. If all the players end up having more fun because of it, then it is very definitely a good choice.

[Vogie]

Would you consider giving them a Renewable Wand of any of those spells? You're effectively doing the same thing.

Disguise Self is probably fine, as it has an 10 minute duration... so by casting it, you can only really use it once... unless you want to disguise yourself as a very specific person who is ritually casting "disguise self". Giving them this as a ritual is akin to giving them a hat of disguise, which isn't particularly powerful.

The others... not so much. They are quite powerful, and rightfully limited by spell slots. Even the monetary costs would drop to effectively zero in RAW 5e, as you will quickly run out of other things to spend money on.


That same argument could be applied to several spells that are already rituals (Leomunds tiny hut?, detect magic?)

That's incredibly disingenuous. All of the spells that are already rituals are on those utility spells that almost exclusively aren't used during combat. Sure, you may want to talk to a dog during a bar fight, but that'd be the exception rather than the rule.

[Rusvul]

To take a more 3.5e approach (which may or may not be something your group likes), you could impose an alternate cost in the form of expensive material components. I wouldn't let my players cast Disguise Self as a ritual for free, but if they sunk some gold and downtime into researching a variant of the spell that could be cast as a ritual with an expenditure of diamond or silver dust. I'd rule that after you adapt the spell for ritual casting, it costs diamond dust equal to the cost to create a scroll of a spell of that level (as per XGTE): 25 gp of diamond dust for a first level spell, 250 for a second, etc.

This way, instead of it being "like ritual casting but with spells that need slots," it's "like scrolls but more time-consuming in the moment and with less prep-work."

[Brotherbock]

He means this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328767-More-realistic-D-amp-D-Economy/page4&p=17613518#post17613518).

I guess I'd just say that it's arbitrary to pull out half of the proposed new mechanics, call that half 'bad' in isolation, and then label the other half of the mechanics as 'punishment'.

Man, look at those terrible Warlock magic mechanics. Regaining all spell slots with just a short rest? Not needing to prep spells? Bonus incantations to boost their spells? Waaaay overpowered. And to top it all off, you then want to punish the Warlock by severely limiting their spell slots? Sheesh.

:smallamused:

[Pex]

I guess I'd just say that it's arbitrary to pull out half of the proposed new mechanics, call that half 'bad' in isolation, and then label the other half of the mechanics as 'punishment'.

Man, look at those terrible Warlock magic mechanics. Regaining all spell slots with just a short rest? Not needing to prep spells? Bonus incantations to boost their spells? Waaaay overpowered. And to top it all off, you then want to punish the Warlock by severely limiting their spell slots? Sheesh.

:smallamused:

I call any restriction of taking damage being punished.

[Brotherbock]

I call any restriction of taking damage being punished.

Hey, if you want to think of things in that limited sort of way, feel free.

Several editions ago, a friend of mine homebrewed a class that allowed characters to temporarily pump stats (via various potions/aka drugs), in return for various downsides, including one bigger pump that came with a crash after X number of rounds that included an HP loss. It was always a risk to use that feature, but it was handy sometimes, and he used it sometimes. Another homebrew spellcaster used their own blood for blood magic, meaning they had to cut themselves to use their magic. It was a downside, that came with an upside.

Do you also consider the opponent's advantage to attack rolls against the barbarian to be 'punishment' for using Reckless Attack? If not, why are you drawing an arbitrary line between damage being punishment but being easier to hit not being punishment?

It's fine to make arbitrary stipulations, but that's all it is.

[Unoriginal]

Making a Simulacrum with a ritual means that a Simulacrum of yourself has one more spell slot than it would normal have (since you don't use one to create the Simulacrum).

It is a power boost.

[BreaktheStatue]

Just be prepared for your other players to start asking for stuff too - especially your warlock, since you'll be giving the wizard Mask of Many Faces for free.

[Pex]

Hey, if you want to think of things in that limited sort of way, feel free.

Several editions ago, a friend of mine homebrewed a class that allowed characters to temporarily pump stats (via various potions/aka drugs), in return for various downsides, including one bigger pump that came with a crash after X number of rounds that included an HP loss. It was always a risk to use that feature, but it was handy sometimes, and he used it sometimes. Another homebrew spellcaster used their own blood for blood magic, meaning they had to cut themselves to use their magic. It was a downside, that came with an upside.

Do you also consider the opponent's advantage to attack rolls against the barbarian to be 'punishment' for using Reckless Attack? If not, why are you drawing an arbitrary line between damage being punishment but being easier to hit not being punishment?

It's fine to make arbitrary stipulations, but that's all it is.

Yes I do, which is why I used Reckless Attack sparingly for my barbarian and was incentive to take Shield Master so I can attack with advantage without using Reckless Attack. I also think Overchannel is punishing Evokers and at the very least should have let the loophole of free maximizing Cantrips stand.

[olskool]

While some players don't seem to think so, Rituals are a very powerful tool in 5e. They had such an impact on our game that we instituted an Arcana Skill Check to even cast a Ritual. I'd strongly recommend you consider some sort of "House Rule" before you start making other spells Rituals too.

Our House Rule for Ritual Casting:

1) The Ritual casting requires all of the material components that a normal casting needs.

2) The Ritual casting requires that the Caster have and be able to read their Spellbook during the Ritual. This will also require a light source as Darkvision doesn't allow you to see well enough to read a book.

3) The Caster must make an ARCANA Skill check with all of the bonuses they would have for casting a "Slotted Spell." The DC for this Skill test is based on the Caster's relative surroundings. The following DCs are commonly used.
- Caster is in a quiet and comparatively safe place (like a private room) = DC 5
- Caster is in a fairly safe place with distractions (like a campsite in the wilderness) = DC 10
- Caster is in a relatively unsafe place (like a dungeon where monsters might hear the Ritual) = DC 15

4) If the Skill Test is failed, the Caster must Save versus their Casting Attribute (INT, WIS, or CHA) to compose themselves and try that SPECIFIC RITUAL again before they take a Short Rest. The Skill DC increases by 5 with a failed roll but successful Save. This will NOT affect other Rituals that are cast, only the failed one. This will reset with a Short or Long Rest.

[olskool]

We had considered adding in other spells as Rituals with the following Rules Additions but have never "pulled the trigger" on testing them during play.

1) Making a Ritual cost 50gp (25gp for Casting Savants) per Spell Level being cast.

2) Allowing the Caster to expend their HIT DICE to cast non-ritual spells as rituals.

If anyone has ever tried these, I'd be interested in how things turned out.

[Pex]

We had considered adding in other spells as Rituals with the following Rules Additions but have never "pulled the trigger" on testing them during play.

1) Making a Ritual cost 50gp (25gp for Casting Savants) per Spell Level being cast.

2) Allowing the Caster to expend their HIT DICE to cast non-ritual spells as rituals.

If anyone has ever tried these, I'd be interested in how things turned out.

What do you mean by Casting Savants? Is it any relation to whether the spellcaster can cast Rituals or not normally via class feature or feat?

How many HD does it cost? If it's just one per ritual that's fine. If it's more than one, such as one HD per spell level, that might be too high a cost. I accept it's a privilege you're generously allowing, but if it's too prohibitive no one would do it you might as well not allow it at all. If it's one HD per Ritual you're doing per Long Rest that might be ok. One HD for the first Ritual, 2 HD for the second, 3 HD for the third etc. That's still expensive, but you can likely get in two Rituals a day comfortably which is two more than you'd normally get so it's a fair trade. If you allow other party members to contribute HD expenditure that would help. If that's too much limit it to those who can cast Rituals.

I recommend allowing other party members to contribute, because while I don't object to the spending of HD it does mean spending a means for the caster to heal himself which can drain the party's general healing sources when the spellcaster needs the healing. Spreading the HD cost around mitigates the healing resource drain.

[Brotherbock]

Yes I do, which is why I used Reckless Attack sparingly for my barbarian and was incentive to take Shield Master so I can attack with advantage without using Reckless Attack. I also think Overchannel is punishing Evokers and at the very least should have let the loophole of free maximizing Cantrips stand.

Well, at least you're consistent, which is good :) Again, to be clear I'm not saying "you're wrong", I'm just kind of shrugging at the difference you're pointing to between legitimate and illegitimate restrictions on abilities. There seems to be no place to actually draw that line, other than 'what you like' and 'what you don't like'. Having drawbacks to abilities is standard, and some great characters and classes and races in fantasy have made use of drawbacks as balance, and as something frankly just interesting. One of the reasons that people who don't like elves don't like them is that in so many systems, elves just get handed a ton of cool abilities with seemingly no drawbacks. I've had people tell me exactly that to explain their dislike.

I mean, spell components are a drawback. Usage limitations (per l/s rest) are a drawback. Distance limitations are a drawback. Spell durations, ranges, and casting times are drawbacks. The Reckless Attack opp advantage is a drawback. Taking damage from an ability is a drawback. Not being able to exclude friends from area affect spells is a drawback. Required weapon proficiencies are drawbacks. Lower HD for different classes are drawbacks.

I see no way, other than just pure individual preference, to sort those into 'punishments' and 'acceptable drawbacks'.

So, yeah--my suggestion of a ritual Disguise Self that came with damage to the caster is what you would call a punishment, and what I would simply call a drawback to the new spell ability. Ok :)

[Vogie]

2) Allowing the Caster to expend their HIT DICE to cast non-ritual spells as rituals.


That's really interesting... a nice Life Tap-esque mechanic.

In your original conception, do you actually roll the hit die (You can only ritualize a spell of this slot or lower), or just forsake that die as a resource?

[olskool]

What do you mean by Casting Savants? Is it any relation to whether the spellcaster can cast Rituals or not normally via class feature or feat?

How many HD does it cost? If it's just one per ritual that's fine. If it's more than one, such as one HD per spell level, that might be too high a cost. I accept it's a privilege you're generously allowing, but if it's too prohibitive no one would do it you might as well not allow it at all. If it's one HD per Ritual you're doing per Long Rest that might be ok. One HD for the first Ritual, 2 HD for the second, 3 HD for the third etc. That's still expensive, but you can likely get in two Rituals a day comfortably which is two more than you'd normally get so it's a fair trade. If you allow other party members to contribute HD expenditure that would help. If that's too much limit it to those who can cast Rituals.

I recommend allowing other party members to contribute because while I don't object to the spending of HD it does mean spending a means for the caster to heal himself which can drain the party's general healing sources when the spellcaster needs the healing. Spreading the HD cost around mitigates the healing resource drain.

Casting Savant refers to the Wizard's ability to acquire Spells at a reduced cost in their area of Specialization (picked at Level 2). This is discussed under the Wizard Class in the PHB.

The Hit Die cost we discussed (this has NEVER been acted on) is ONE DIE for 1/2 the Caster's Level (rounding down) in Spell Levels just like the Arcane Recovery class ability allows. For the record, we "house rule" that Arcane Recovery requires the expenditure of a Hit Die too. Casters are already one of the most powerful Classes in the game so we imposed this minor limit on them.
The expenditure of HD would only be for newly-created Ritual spells made from non-ritual spells. PLEASE NOTE! We did NOT include this as an added rule/feature in our home brewed rules suggestions below.

After discussing this with my fellow DM, we arrived at the following house rule additions. To make a non-ritual spell into a ritual one we would have imposed the following restrictions.

1) The new Ritual will follow ALL of the rules for Rituals (including our house rules above).
2) Creating the new Ritual would require the Caster to be a Savant of that magic type (evocation, enchantment, etc...).
3) It would cost 50gp per Level of the Spell in research costs to convert it to a Ritual.
4) The "inventor" MUST be able to cast the Spell in question to convert it to a Ritual.
5) No Spells requiring CONCENTRATION can be Rituals.
6) The Spell in question should as a general rule have a longer than standard duration like Mage Armor or Nondetection.
7) Characters with just the Ritual Casting FEAT CANNOT create new Rituals as they are not really PROFICIENT ENOUGH to actually create a new Ritual like the actual Caster Classes can.

These would be some of the rules we'd apply to the creation of a new Ritual from a Spell. REMEMBER, This is only our speculated take on how to do it as we have NEVER even tried to introduce a new Ritual to either of our games.

[Pex]

Well, at least you're consistent, which is good :) Again, to be clear I'm not saying "you're wrong", I'm just kind of shrugging at the difference you're pointing to between legitimate and illegitimate restrictions on abilities. There seems to be no place to actually draw that line, other than 'what you like' and 'what you don't like'. Having drawbacks to abilities is standard, and some great characters and classes and races in fantasy have made use of drawbacks as balance, and as something frankly just interesting. One of the reasons that people who don't like elves don't like them is that in so many systems, elves just get handed a ton of cool abilities with seemingly no drawbacks. I've had people tell me exactly that to explain their dislike.

I mean, spell components are a drawback. Usage limitations (per l/s rest) are a drawback. Distance limitations are a drawback. Spell durations, ranges, and casting times are drawbacks. The Reckless Attack opp advantage is a drawback. Taking damage from an ability is a drawback. Not being able to exclude friends from area affect spells is a drawback. Required weapon proficiencies are drawbacks. Lower HD for different classes are drawbacks.

I see no way, other than just pure individual preference, to sort those into 'punishments' and 'acceptable drawbacks'.

So, yeah--my suggestion of a ritual Disguise Self that came with damage to the caster is what you would call a punishment, and what I would simply call a drawback to the new spell ability. Ok :)

Punishing a player means to cause the character to be worse off for doing the Thing than if he hadn't done the Thing at all. Spending a resource allotment is not punishing because that's what the allotment is for, and it's fine to place the restriction on the number of resource allotments given. For personal taste I may quibble that number is too low or expensive, depending on how it's used, for the Thing in some hypothetical, but it's not "punishing". Losing hit points, suffering asymmetrical penalties, etc. makes the character easier to kill. I wouldn't mind Reckless Attack if the advantage to hit the barbarian was only from the opponent the barbarian attacked. That would be a fair trade. Having it be all attacks against him from anyone is asymmetrical; hence it's "punishing".