Why does ritual casting exist again? Should it?

[Trask]

Disclaimer: Its not uncommon here or elsewhere in the online D&Dsphere to hear people complain about the "versatility gap" between casters and martials, and while that is related to what I want to talk about, this thread is not necessarily about how to fix that comprehensively nor am I interested in debating if such a gap even exists, which some think it does not. Suffice it to say that many (not all) people do think that linear fighters/quadratic wizards is still very much in play in D&D 5e and that's good enough for me and for this thread.

Ritual Casting. A feature that allows certain classes to cast spells with the Ritual tag without expending a spell slot if they take 10 minutes to do so. I understand the impetus behind this feature, it makes certain utility spell choices more attractive to use and prepare where they might be rarely picked on account of them being too niche for use in regular play. But with all the hindsight we have accrued in D&D 5e, I really question whether this is a good feature or not, if it's even needed or even fair for the classes that have it to do so. After all, the Wizard, the Cleric, and the Druid are arguably the most powerful and versatile classes in the game even without this. So why do they have it, a feature that allows them the benefit of certain utility spells on a practically unlimited basis?

If we accept that there is a divide in versatility between so-called "casters" and "martials" then it makes zero sense from a balance standpoint for these classes to have this feature, it makes little sense for ritual casting to exist at all.

Now I get the counter-argument here; the game is not a competition, the ritual spells tend to be ones that help everyone anyways and taking away ritual casting only hurts parties and not individual characters. Naturally these are fair points, and I wouldn't blame anyone for shrugging their shoulders and leaving things as-is. But for my part as someone who plays in a group that regularly grumbles about the martial caster divide and how martials have far less features that help them outside combat, I see little reason to not remove the ritual casting feature entirely.

In theory, the divide between casters and martials rests on a principle of resource management, casters can do what they do a limited number of times per long rest, whereas martial characters have the high "physical" scores to perform various feats of athletics and acrobatics all day, and (theoretically) more hit points to just be more brave in general. Cantrips and ritual casting have violated this unspoken principle, and while Cantrips are far too integral to the balance of the game to simply rip out or limit the use of, ritual casting feels a lot more vestigial and unnecessary, being available to only 3 classes total and through a feat. Classes like the Totem Barbarian who get to cast spells as a ritual with their class features should still be able to do so, and I think it would also be fair to keep the Ritual Caster feat, allowing any class to gain the benefit of ritual spells, but removing it as a free feature for the classes that really don't need it to keep their position as the most versatile in the game.

Please feel free to throw your opinion in on ritual casting, if there's a good counterargument or a better way, I'd like to hear them.

Note on house ruling: I know that to some it is considered poor form to "take away" class features, and in general I think that's decent advice, but there are always exceptions. Sometimes its just the most reasonable thing to do when a problem is considered, and the axiom that one should only add and never take away limits the ability of those with a head for house-ruling to make any meaningful changes to the game.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

You seem to be asking for counterarguments to the statement "Ritual Casting is too powerful and adds to the divide between martial and caster."

But I'm not seeing that argument made. Just the statement that There is a Divide and then an assumption that this balances one way or another.

Could you articulate the actual issue with Ritual Casting? I honestly don't see it. Looking at the entire list of ritual spells. They are all utility. They are all things to help a group succeed or defend an area.

Combine that with the fact that literally anyone can do them and I just don't see the issue. My Last ritual caster was taking the feat on a Rune Knight Fighter. He didn't suddenly feel more useful to the party or impactful. He was just part of the party and provided additional utility.

As for your Topic Title question. Ritual Casting is representing that in most fantasy settings, spellcasters can use magic pretty regularly without issue. With only significant expenditures causing limitation or exhaustion. Ritual, along with Cantrips, represent the magic that a character can always draw on, allowing them to continue to be useful after spell slots are gone, or be useful without having to dip into that.

It's meant to stop the 1 minute day. It's meant to counter the issues back in the day where, Oops, the level 1 Wizard cast their magic missile, guess they're useless now.

So yes, it should exist. Because in a white room, Caster seem stronger than non-casters. Because we can just set up the perfect scenario with no context. But in a real game I've never found Casters to be "Stronger" than non casters when it comes to party usefulness, gameplay ability or impact. But I have seen casters in older editions be weaker than non-casters because resource management means they can only contribute a little bit.

[Amnestic]

Yes, it's a good feature. Even if it widens the martial/caster divide it existing is a net boon to the game in letting niche spells still see use. I believe it should exist. That said I disagree with it being within certain caster's domain. Though I doubt you could do so in 5e without a comprehensive spell list revision, I'd rather see each class -magical or mundane - get a certain set (or optional list to choose from) of rituals that they can do.

[kingcheesepants]

You forgot Artificers, Bards, and Warlocks with a book of ancient secrets. To be honest you haven't really convinced me that the problem you're trying to solve even exists and I don't see how getting rid of ritual casting would help your perceived issue. I suppose it would make familiars a little less useful and players would be without detect magic most of the time and things like water breathing would only get cast when the players knew they were going underwater. And some fun flavorful or useful (but replicable through mundane means) spells such as unseen servant, alarm, floating disk, tiny hut. Would never be used or picked again. Which seems like a shame. But overall aside from some additional inconveniences that the entire party would be suffering the martial caster divide would be entirely the same.

[OldTrees1]

Some magecraft does not readily fit into vancian casting. Ritual casting is one of many ways to address that.

For example, Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide (an Arcane Trickster) is able to see magic auras as they scan ahead for traps (magical or mundane). The tourists appreciate the traps being detected and disarmed. The tourists would be a bit annoyed if the tours were limited to 5 minutes because Dun ran out of Detect Magic spell slots.

Yes, it is true that rogues do not get passive Detect Magic, however casting Detect Magic as a ritual is the closest 5E gets to modeling rogues like Dun. However Arcane Tricksters don't normally get ritual casting. So yes, ritual casting has a purpose even if it is an imperfect answer for that purpose.

[diplomancer]

I'd say the one ritual spell that comes to my mind that is "selfish" (meaning the caster is the primary beneficiary, and not the party/game as a whole) is Find Familiar... which, considering it's looong casting time and its flavor probably got the ritual tag more for flavor's sake than for balance. But if that's the direction you want to go, I'd say it makes more sense to consider it on a spell-by-spell basis and just take out the Ritual tag from the spell, instead of removing the feature completely.

[Lokishade]

I have this character concept: A scolar who stumbled upon a sacred text, written in Celestian and coded in Thieves' Cant. Upon deciphering it, the scolar realizes it contains powerful prayers to [insert your god here]. Ultra secret stuff, here.

One such prayer is the Pledge of the Champion. Upon reciting it, the scholar finds himself imbued with [insert your god here]'s powers, becoming a Zealot Barbarian.

Since he gained his powers from a book, it makes sense to give him the Ritual Caster (Cleric) feat, otherwise, the book is just RP fluff. And it's a better alternative than to try and convince your DM to let you start the campaign with a game breaking artifact.

From a mechanical perspective, Ritual Casting may never be compelling to you. And truth be told, not that much for me either. But I believe ritual casting is a powerful RP element. If anything, I believe ritual casting should be expanded more.

There should be benefits from including more people in rituals. There should be items that enhance (or even permit) such rituals. There should be a conductor with magical knowledge (a spellcaster with ritual casting features or the holder of the Ritual Casting feat) to conduct such rituals. Non magical people could be included/required.

It has the potential to make the Elves more magical without making them all spellcaster gestalts. Likewise, it could make the Dwarves believably create legendary weapons while sterotypically shunning spellcasters. The Rogue could gain actual intel on how best to disrupt the ritual that this nasty cult is performing.

If magic is just "I cast X", that's cool. That definitely has its place. But DnD is also about weaving stories through the mechanics of the game. And ritual casting as a concept has the potential to make magic more than just "the DM said so".

[Carlobrand]

Mostly I'm getting sour grapes out of this. You're begin by declaring it's bad, then give a list of reasons why it's not bad. Your primary reason for not wanting it is that members of your group, and apparently you, grumble at the thought of spells that are utterly useless in combat but help the group as a whole between combats, because you'd like to be able to be more useful between combats.

And, your solution to this supposed problem is to deprive spellcasters and the party as a whole of these spells, since the reason ritual spells exist in the first place is that spellcasters weren't taking those spells because they had a finite number of spell slots and became largely useless once those slots were spent.

This isn't about play balance; it's about jealousy. Nobody's going to give up on being a fighter because some other guy can magically give you a nice comfy campsite. Conversely, you will sorely miss having a detect poison or an identify handy. I guess you could have the party sit and do nothing for a day while the wizard renews his spells and prepares his identify, like we used to, but that seems like a bit of a bite-your-nose-to-spite-your-face solution.

That's really the dilemma here. Rituals exist so the party as a whole can do things (like detect poison) that would otherwise not get done (because it means one less combat spell) or would oblige the entire party to spend a day accomplishing nothing while the spellcaster rested and prepared the spell (like identify). Seems extreme to me to suggest inconveniencing the entire party because the fighter is suffering from a case of sour grapes.

Wouldn't it be better to find ways to make the martials more useful between combats?

[Sillybird99]

Generally I agreed with you, until I started thinking about it in a practical way.

My resulting thoughts on the matter:

If you take ritual casting away from the full casters, someone will still likely have/want to do the utility spells. This means either:
1. Martials spending an ASI for the feat (which makes them worse at being martials widening the gap)
2. Casters preparing the utilities and being less helpful to the martials (having to rely on cantrips)
3. Casters not preparing the utilities (meaning many problems go unsolved or become more deadly, which is less fun for everyone)
4. Casters choosing to spend the ASI (which is still leaving the control and power of the matter in their hands)

Ultimately, I think a good way to fix this would to make short rests 10 minutes. Then everytime a caster did a ritual, the martials could regain their cool stuff.

[Myth27]

I let martial people do ritual casting. I feel it’s easily justifiable in game it’s like slowly reading a set of instructions. I feel it makes the game more balanced

[Sillybird99]

I let martial people do ritual casting. I feel it’s easily justifiable in game it’s like slowly reading a set of instructions. I feel it makes the game more balanced

Sure it makes things more balanced. Things are more balanced the more everyone is doing the same stuff. Is that more fun though? Only one person has to ritual cast detect magic on the dragon's hoard. So now a lot of people are feeling unspecial.

[Composer99]

As far as I can see, most of the spells that most strongly create a martial/caster divide in 5e aren't ritual spells - spells such as teleport, plane shift, force cage, earthquake, control weather, wall of stone, simulacrum, and of course wish (among others).

If anything, the ability of martials to learn ritual casting narrows the divide.

If I wanted to tinker with casters' access to ritual casting, I'd probably just make all ritual casting work the way it does with the feat - so clerics and druids can't change up their ritual access whenever they want, and everyone gets to spend money on ritual spells.

If I were going to take away anything, it would be wish (changing it from a spell on someone's spell list, capable of being cast once a day every day, to something you can only get from genies, rings of wishes, that sort of thing).

Some spells, like plane shift, control weather, and even something like resurrection feel like they could be rituals, but I think you'd have to revamp how ritual casting works to make them fit.

[Chronic]

I think the martial/spellcasters divide is very much a thing, but ritual spellcasting is okay outside of a few spells, and most of them are on the wizard list. Very few of them really step on the domain of martial or even skill monkeys, and it gives spellcasters utility without breaking the game. In my opinion the problem lies more in the massive variety of spells and the poorly designed spell lists of some classes. I, for my part have taken some drastic decisions in the games that i run. Some spells do not exist, some are modified (level, or applicability for example), and what could be the more controversial decision: wizard are a no no. They are simply massively unbalanced, way more than other spellcasters IMO, so I took the decision to remove then and made many smaller adjustment to other classes, martials and spellcasters, complemented by an overhaul of skills. It's probably not perfect but it has shown promising results.

[dafrca]

I can't speak for all people or even all tables, but I have never seen ritual casting being a problem. Overall I think there are other issues that help cause the martial/spellcasters divide but I would not change ritual casting thinking I was going to impact the issue at all. :smallsmile:

[Pex]

Because they lowered the number of spell slots spellcasters get compared to previous editions, both as a base value and no more bonus slots for a high ability score. However, spellcasters still need/want to cast utility spells but to use spell slots will significantly hurt their combat effectiveness. Players can choose to use the spell slot if they want, but now the option is there to conserve their slots. However one feels about D&D magic, spellcasters are still entitled to be effective in combat and be efficient in their use of spell slots.

[strangebloke]

In my table I let players start with an 18 and have a free extra feat at first level. Fighters can max their main stat, the only stat they need, by 4th level, and by 10th level they'll have gained a full four ASIs that can't go to either dexterity or strength.

...And I have never seen a martial take Ritual Caster. Period. I don't think the issue here is that ritual caster is weak exactly, I just think that the sort of thing you do with this feat is unappealing for most players and they'd rather just do... anything else. When you build Hailey Stormcrown, legend of the battlefield, you don't want to be casting alarm twenty times around the campsite, or cranking through a pile of loot with Identify. You'd much rather grab magic initiate and have Booming Blade, or skill expert and be a master of insight, or Alert and always be first to the fray.

This IMO falls under the category of a wide range of support abilities that the party could use (in theory) but basically nobody ever builds their character around because its seen as annoying busy work. See also: resurrection magic, teleport, bards who burn out because they 'feel like they are not contributing anything.'

[Carlobrand]

... I, for my part have taken some drastic decisions in the games that i run. Some spells do not exist, some are modified (level, or applicability for example), and what could be the more controversial decision: wizard are a no no. They are simply massively unbalanced ...

Well, I disagree about the unbalanced bit, but everyone's got their own ideas on the subject.

Putting that aside, I'm currently playing a non-D&D game that will remain nameless, that features very little magic. It's mostly swords and muzzle loaders. Very little magic means we've got very little magic available to us - and our opponents have very little magic available to them, and there's very little magic inherent to the world: no dragons, no storm giants, no threats that you might wish you had a wizard for. I miss playing a wizard, but it's a lot of fun.

If you've banned wizards AND balanced the setting so that the party can succeed without wizard-level magic, I don't see a problem there. Elegant solution.

[Christew]

Alternative question: Why don't non-spellcasters have better out-of-combat abilities?

[Kane0]

Give everyone ritual casting up to 3rd level, 6th level if they have proficiency in arcana (for wizard rituals), religion (for cleric rituals) or nature (druid rituals) and 9th if they have expertise.

Then you can drip feed the party scrolls and such for them to write into their ritual books. Gives a good use to background features too, especially those such as the Sage's researcher.

[kingcheesepants]

As far as I can see, most of the spells that most strongly create a martial/caster divide in 5e aren't ritual spells - spells such as teleport, plane shift, force cage, earthquake, control weather, wall of stone, simulacrum, and of course wish (among others).

If anything, the ability of martials to learn ritual casting narrows the divide.


This is exactly right. If a martial caster divide exists (and having both DMd and played many games I honestly don't feel like it does for the most part) it exists in spells that completely remove obstacles or instantly solve a huge problem just by casting the spell. Being able to bring down the enemy fortress by casting earthquake or instantly warn the general by casting sending or completely bypass a social encounter by casting suggestion or finding out all the information you need by casting arcane eye or scrying or just win combat by having a simulacrum and forcecage. I still feel like there isn't actually a divide because there are lots of ways to still make these things a challenge even with the spells and to allow the non caster characters to meaningfully participate but I digress, we're supposed to be talking about rituals.

The only rituals I can think of that might be considered problematic in this way are tiny hut and water breathing. Which solve the problems of making a safe campsite and going underwater respectively. But honestly tiny hut is barely better than just making a camp and setting a watch like normal. It can protect you from a surprise attack or bad weather more than a regular camp can but the weather might still be bad when the hut is finished and the enemy can easily set up an ambush or just dispell the hut if they have a caster. And water breathing simply allows underwater adventures to happen. Sure you can give the whole team a magic item that does the same thing but that seems slightly more problematic than just having a spell and if the spell wasn't a ritual the caster would have to spend a slot just so they can start the adventure and is that really what you want?

All the other rituals are basically providing benefits that are too niche or minor to really bother preparing or spending a spell slot on and mostly serve to provide convenience for the whole team or just a fun magic flavor thing so that the casters can feel more like casters. For example they have a magic disc instead of a cart or they have a cool magic alarm instead of a bell tied to some string or they can write their secret messages in a magic code instead of a regular code. Making them spend more resources on these minor benefits would mean that either they aren't gonna use them (and thus they lose their cool magical flair) or that they'll be less effective as a team member because they're spending slots on making a floating disc or whatever.

[Chad.e.clark]

My frustration is with Sorcerers, non-Tome Warlocks, half- and third-casters getting access to spells that could be cast as rituals, but having to waste a spell slot on them. Having to cut into spell slots mean those spells rarely get selected by those classes, so they may as well not be on the list.

I think having a few "ritual-only" slots (maybe Proficiency Bonus # per long rest), which would be seperate from spell slots or pact magic slots, could go a long way towards encouraging more diverse characters.

Keep current ritual caster classes the same.

Full, non-ritual casters get full Proficiency Bonus # "ritual slots" per long rest.

Half-casters get half # of Proficiency Bonus rounded up "ritual slots".

Third-casters get half # Proficiency Bonus rounded down "ritual slots".

Maybe have non-casting classes have the ability to learn a single 1st level ritual spell, which can be replaced with another 1st level ritual on level up with a successful Arcana check. Once per long rest, they can expend their single "ritual slot" with an Arcana Check (DC 13 or something) determining whether the ritual succeeds or their one slot for the day is wasted.

Keep Ritual Caster feat and Tomelocks the same.

Nothing taken away from current classes abilities, adds in options for classes that cant ritual cast without a feat tax. Gives non-casters a chance to expand their wheelhouse, however so slightly.

[Bobthewizard]

I don't think rituals are the problem. It's a team game. If I'm playing a fighter, I want the wizard to be casting find familiar, detect magic, identify, water breathing, phantom steed, tiny hut, telepathic bond. It makes my character better.

It's not like I'm stuck just playing fighters. I'll play a wizard in another game and it will be my turn to cast those spells then.

Like others have said, spell casters are powerful because of other spells that aren't rituals. If I were worried about balance, I'd change suggestion, hypnotic pattern, fear, polymorph, wall of force, mass suggestion, force cage, simulacrum, maze and wish before I messed with rituals.

The only rituals I would consider changing is taking find familiar and tiny hut off the ritual list. They are still good enough spells to use a spell slot on. None of the others, except maybe detect magic, would likely even get prepared if they weren't rituals.

[Chronic]

Well, I disagree about the unbalanced bit, but everyone's got their own ideas on the subject.

Putting that aside, I'm currently playing a non-D&D game that will remain nameless, that features very little magic. It's mostly swords and muzzle loaders. Very little magic means we've got very little magic available to us - and our opponents have very little magic available to them, and there's very little magic inherent to the world: no dragons, no storm giants, no threats that you might wish you had a wizard for. I miss playing a wizard, but it's a lot of fun.

If you've banned wizards AND balanced the setting so that the party can succeed without wizard-level magic, I don't see a problem there. Elegant solution.

I just want to give a complement of information on my point of view about wizards.
Thing is, wizard level magic isn't really the problem, the problem is having so much possibilities on a single spell list, which can change each day. Think of clerics and druid, and even bards, they have access to level 9 spells, but their list is much more tailored toward their specialty. And sorcerers are generalist but their maximum spell know put a limit on it. I'm sure wizard could be balanced somehow, but I've realized that since they don't truly occupy a niche, they can be cut out and you don't really deprive the players of a type gameplay. Full casting exist, magic is still pretty much as powerful (only a handful of spells such as silulacrum which is a pain to balance have been removed, and others have been added), while providing a much more balanced experience.

[Foolwise]

What if you limit the number of schools of magic a wizard could cast? Would they still be viable having access to just two or three schools?

[Bobthewizard]

What if you limit the number of schools of magic a wizard could cast? Would they still be viable having access to just two or three schools?

There have been entire threads on proposing this. I think once you go through the spell lists and look at what each school has, the answer is no, since the schools are not balanced at all. I think you would get all of your wizards playing the ones that get access to abjuration.

I think the flexibility of the current rules lets you make whatever kind of wizard you want. You can min/max and only take the best spells, or you can trade a few of those out to make a theme and still have a decent character. It gives the player flexibility in creating a character they want to play. Placing limits on that, when it really is just a few spells that break the game, takes away the players' agency to create a character they want. Outside of forums, I rarely find people who min/max their wizards. Most players I know usually try for some sort of theme.

I like that you can mix schools and spells lists to make something unique and interesting as a wizard, much more so than you can with a bard or sorcerer, except maybe the new Tasha's sorcerers - they are pretty awesome.

[heavyfuel]

If we accept that there is a divide in versatility between so-called "casters" and "martials" then it makes zero sense from a balance standpoint for these classes to have this feature, it makes little sense for ritual casting to exist at all.

Or, you know, you could just buff martials.

Casters aren't overpowered in 5e. If anything, casters in 5e are extremely balanced compared to 2e and 3e. The issue isn't that casters are too versatile in 5e, it's that martials lack a similar level of versatility.

Nerfing casters to the point that they have the same amout of versatility as martials doesn't solve the problem, you now just have both groups sucking instead.

Don't nerf casters. Buff martials.

[strangebloke]

Or, you know, you could just buff martials.

Casters aren't overpowered in 5e. If anything, casters in 5e are extremely balanced compared to 2e and 3e. The issue isn't that casters are too versatile in 5e, it's that martials lack a similar level of versatility.

Nerfing casters to the point that they have the same amout of versatility as martials doesn't solve the problem, you now just have both groups sucking instead.

Don't nerf casters. Buff martials.

I'm fine buffing martials and nerfing casters.

but ritual casting is boring utility stuff that nobody envies. It's just not that important, most of these spells are effectively ribbons.

[sithlordnergal]

I'll be honest, removing Ritual Casting from 5e would only accomplish 1 thing and 1 thing only, spells with the Ritual tag would be ignored. The only Ritual spell I can think of that a caster would take is Tiny Hut, because it lets you create a safe space to take a long rest.

Outside of that though? No-one is gonna bother with Detect Magic, Identify, Augury, ect. because none of those spells are useful enough to bother with. I mean, what does Detect Magic do? It lets you sense magic and learn the school of magic. Great, that's nice to have, but why waste a spell slot on something I can accomplish with common sense and an Arcana check?

Ritual spells as a whole aren't all that powerful, and higher level spells tend to have almost no Ritual spells. So while they can add versatility, their versatility is so limited and small that having it makes no difference in the Martial/Caster divide.

[Pex]

I'll be honest, removing Ritual Casting from 5e would only accomplish 1 thing and 1 thing only, spells with the Ritual tag would be ignored. The only Ritual spell I can think of that a caster would take is Tiny Hut, because it lets you create a safe space to take a long rest.

Outside of that though? No-one is gonna bother with Detect Magic, Identify, Augury, ect. because none of those spells are useful enough to bother with. I mean, what does Detect Magic do? It lets you sense magic and learn the school of magic. Great, that's nice to have, but why waste a spell slot on something I can accomplish with common sense and an Arcana check?

Ritual spells as a whole aren't all that powerful, and higher level spells tend to have almost no Ritual spells. So while they can add versatility, their versatility is so limited and small that having it makes no difference in the Martial/Caster divide.

Some (many) DMs don't just tell players what magic items do despite the rules. They need Identify. Detect Magic is needed to know which items in the loot are magic items.

[Sigreid]

How about as long as the table allows feats, having rituals and ritual casting allows fighters, rogues, monks and anyone else (though with their increased feat picks fighters and rogues have an easier time taking it) to have some of the cool magical utility that people complain that they don't have.

[Tanarii]

Rather than rip out the feature right off the bat, maybe go through the list of ritual spells and see which ones you think are worst offenders you'd prefer to see cost a slot? If it's most of them, sure, just rip out the feature. If it's just a few offenders, remove the tag from just those few.

For example Find Familiar and Leomunds Tiny Hut might be good choices, whereas you might not care about Purify Food and Drink or Detect Poison and Disease.

You probably don't want to touch a Warlock's Book of Ancient Secrets, either way.

[sithlordnergal]

Some (many) DMs don't just tell players what magic items do despite the rules. They need Identify. Detect Magic is needed to know which items in the loot are magic items.

I mean, even with a DM like that, its not worth it to have those spells prepared unless you are using downtime to identify treasure. Heck, one of my DMs doesn't tell you which items are magical, nor does he tell us what the items do. We generally didn't bother figuring out which items were magical until the end of the adventure and we were some place safe. After which we hired someone else to cast Identify since we didn't have anyone who could cast it for the longest time.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm fine buffing martials and nerfing casters.

but ritual casting is boring utility stuff that nobody envies. It's just not that important, most of these spells are effectively ribbons.

I take it that your DM doesn't throw and 'speak friend and enter' dungeon entrance style puzzles at the party? What about local forest animals one could quiz about the upcoming ambush if you could speak with them? Helpful Auguries? Under- or across-water objects worthy of acquiring? hazards where tripping in a swamp could ruin your rations unless someone can purify them?

This is very puzzling to me, because my understanding regarding the martial-caster divide was that the primary complaint was that casters had access to all sorts of utility options. Combat options are all nice and good and all, but doing lots of damage is something that most martials are perfectly capable of doing.


I mean, even with a DM like that, its not worth it to have those spells prepared unless you are using downtime to identify treasure. Heck, one of my DMs doesn't tell you which items are magical, nor does he tell us what the items do. We generally didn't bother figuring out which items were magical until the end of the adventure and we were some place safe. After which we hired someone else to cast Identify since we didn't have anyone who could cast it for the longest time.

I think if you have the ability to drag out any treasure that might be magical, then take your merry sweet time identifying it (through mundane means, ritual spells, paying someone else, or heck using the spells not as rituals because spell slots are cheap during downtime), then a lot of things aren't necessary, interesting, or challenging. The benefit of ritual casting of Detect Magic and Identify is going to be when you have to sift through the enemy gear, decide which to drag back (because you can't carry it all), and don't want to spend your sleep/shield/magic missile slots on the project. In that regard it works well as intended (outside of, as Pex mentions, there already being a mundane way of doing so).


My frustration is with Sorcerers, non-Tome Warlocks, half- and third-casters getting access to spells that could be cast as rituals, but having to waste a spell slot on them. Having to cut into spell slots mean those spells rarely get selected by those classes, so they may as well not be on the list.

I think having a few "ritual-only" slots (maybe Proficiency Bonus # per long rest), which would be seperate from spell slots or pact magic slots, could go a long way towards encouraging more diverse characters.

Keep current ritual caster classes the same.

Full, non-ritual casters get full Proficiency Bonus # "ritual slots" per long rest.

Half-casters get half # of Proficiency Bonus rounded up "ritual slots".

Third-casters get half # Proficiency Bonus rounded down "ritual slots".

Maybe have non-casting classes have the ability to learn a single 1st level ritual spell, which can be replaced with another 1st level ritual on level up with a successful Arcana check. Once per long rest, they can expend their single "ritual slot" with an Arcana Check (DC 13 or something) determining whether the ritual succeeds or their one slot for the day is wasted.

Keep Ritual Caster feat and Tomelocks the same.

Nothing taken away from current classes abilities, adds in options for classes that cant ritual cast without a feat tax. Gives non-casters a chance to expand their wheelhouse, however so slightly.

I feel like the whole ritual caster thing wasn't wholly thought through. At least not unless making it systematically better for wizards (/tomelocks, where it is part of their schtick) was intentional. Pretty much everyone else needs to have the spell among their spells known (for bards, sorcs, etc.), or memorized that day (clerics and druids, etc.), and that's a hefty limitation. Heap onto that that only wizards can regularly just find wizard spellbooks to copy from (meaning even tomelocks and those taking the ritual caster feat are more likely to benefit from wizard spells) and it seems very much like the system was developed with them in mind.

[sithlordnergal]

I think if you have the ability to drag out any treasure that might be magical, then take your merry sweet time identifying it (through mundane means, ritual spells, paying someone else, or heck using the spells not as rituals because spell slots are cheap during downtime), then a lot of things aren't necessary, interesting, or challenging. The benefit of ritual casting of Detect Magic and Identify is going to be when you have to sift through the enemy gear, decide which to drag back (because you can't carry it all), and don't want to spend your sleep/shield/magic missile slots on the project. In that regard it works well as intended (outside of, as Pex mentions, there already being a mundane way of doing so).


Oh yeah, they're Ritual spells specifically for that reason, because they could be useful to quickly identify a thing. I wasn't saying they're useless spells, they're quite handy for that situation. And making them Ritual spells allows them to be used in that way. The post I responded to was a response to another post of mine, where I was talking about how few players would use Detect Magic or Identify if they were no longer Ritual Spells. Consider it, would you prepare Detect Magic and Identify if you were going into a dungeon that you wouldn't have time to rest in? How many times would you use those spells if they weren't Ritual spells?

[Sorinth]

Frankly I'd probably go the complete opposite and make it possible for every spell to be cast ritually and then balance the spellslots, casting time of the ritual, the spell effect, cost, etc... with that rule in place.

[Composer99]

This is very puzzling to me, because my understanding regarding the martial-caster divide was that the primary complaint was that casters had access to all sorts of utility options. Combat options are all nice and good and all, but doing lots of damage is something that most martials are perfectly capable of doing.


I think an issue here is that if you don't have ritual caster built in as a class feature, you have to trade away either an ASI that directly impacts your combat effectiveness or a feat that does the same in order to get it.

If you value combat effectiveness to a sufficient extent, or discount utility effectiveness to a sufficient extent, that trade-off might be a no-sell, even when you have as many ASIs as a rogue or fighter.

strangebloke's players clearly discount utility effectiveness to the point where they're not willing to spend ASIs on ritual caster utility or attunement slots (even though those are malleable on a short-rest basis!) on utility items.

What's more, the mechanical robustness of the 5e combat pillar, relative to the exploration and interaction pillars, likely makes emphasising combat effectiveness feel better than emphasising utility effectiveness. So if you're already likely to discount utility effectiveness, as strangebloke's players clearly are, that difference in robustness only reinforces the value of combat effectiveness versus utility effectiveness.

[Spiritchaser]

I let martial people do ritual casting. I feel it’s easily justifiable in game it’s like slowly reading a set of instructions. I feel it makes the game more balanced

I’ve never tried this, but always wondered what it would be like if I made rituals equally (more or less) available to any class. Let the rituals be learned or discovered as treasures and worry less about what class the ritual was supposed to be from and more about which ones I wanted in my campaign.

Some day I’ll give it a shot.