Ritual Caster: Let the buyer beware

[Rukelnikov]

If a player is an Assassin Rogue, you add stealth elements. If a player is a Horizon Walker Ranger, you add planar travel elements. If a player takes Ritual Caster, you add Rituals.

It's that simple. I think telling players to "be cautious" is the wrong message. We should be telling DM's to throw caution to the wind.

I am strictly against this kind of DMing. If I take, for example, Comprehend Languages as a ritual, it's because I don't want language barriers to be a problem, not because I want them to.

This has many ramifications, the most important one being that players may start to avoid taking specific problem solving solutions because they realize those problems only pop up BECAUSE they took the solution.

If having pick locks means now more doors are closed, did it really help me opening doors?

EDIT: To expand a bit on this, going back to the Comprehend Languages example, if there's an NPC the DM wanted us to meet, he was going to be able to communicate with the party, if now the NPC speaks an obscure language to make CL "relevant", the situation didn't improve, we can still comunicate with him, as a matter of fact the groups capabilities have actually been diminished, since in a non CL scenario it's likely all or most of the party would be able to speak with said NPC and now only one can.

That's why I don't believe in altering the world to accommodate player features being a good thing, your features end up lowering the party's capabilities instead of expanding them.

[micahaphone]

I think it's still good to alter your game somewhat to your players, even if you hate the feeling of catering to their specialties or coddling your players. For example, my party doesn't contain a rogue. They still occasionally run into traps and locked chests, I just make it happen less often than if one of them was a rogue.

My wizard player has on occasion found a spell scroll in a treasure chest, and 1 out of the 4 cities has had a shop where scrolls could be bought.

Similarly, I nudge loot away from useless things - if only 1 member of the party uses a sword, I'm not going to put 3 magic swords into various loot piles, even if that's what the dice rolled.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think it's still good to alter your game somewhat to your players, even if you hate the feeling of catering to their specialties or coddling your players. For example, my party doesn't contain a rogue. They still occasionally run into traps and locked chests, I just make it happen less often than if one of them was a rogue.

My wizard player has on occasion found a spell scroll in a treasure chest, and 1 out of the 4 cities has had a shop where scrolls could be bought.

Similarly, I nudge loot away from useless things - if only 1 member of the party uses a sword, I'm not going to put 3 magic swords into various loot piles, even if that's what the dice rolled.

It's a good habit to get into, no doubt. I started off not really being able to gauge what players want particularly well, to setting them up for success by catering to their skills (which, in my case, tended to make their abilities into plot gimmicks), to defining situations with at least a few different approaches I can think of and letting the party organically use whatever tools they've got to overcome what I throw at them.

Which is itself not necessarily the best method either, it's just mine; I've got a "Combat as Sport" player that's not especially bright and often feels diminished because I've let cleverness be the deciding factor in my obstacles instead of easily read situations that simply require an obvious dice roll.

And I've run hundreds of sessions to get this far. If your DM is fairly new, you can't count on them just knowing this. There's not a single pointer in the whole DMG to solving this issue. You MUST speak up if you want things to get any better.

[MaxWilson]

Similarly, I nudge loot away from useless things - if only 1 member of the party uses a sword, I'm not going to put 3 magic swords into various loot piles, even if that's what the dice rolled.

I totally would, but I also go out of my way to make sure nothing is useless. E.g. at worst you could sell those extra two swords for gold, which can be turned into XP offscreen between adventures. Or you could give them to your hirelings, or use them as bribes for greedy monsters, or save them for when you research Steal Enchantment and get to move the enchantment to a different type of weapon.

And then something completely different would probably happen, like the wizard building a dinosaur golem and using all three of the swords for its teeth. Things never work out the way the DM expects.

[Chaosmancer]

I am strictly against this kind of DMing. If I take, for example, Comprehend Languages as a ritual, it's because I don't want language barriers to be a problem, not because I want them to.

This has many ramifications, the most important one being that players may start to avoid taking specific problem solving solutions because they realize those problems only pop up BECAUSE they took the solution.

If having pick locks means now more doors are closed, did it really help me opening doors?

EDIT: To expand a bit on this, going back to the Comprehend Languages example, if there's an NPC the DM wanted us to meet, he was going to be able to communicate with the party, if now the NPC speaks an obscure language to make CL "relevant", the situation didn't improve, we can still comunicate with him, as a matter of fact the groups capabilities have actually been diminished, since in a non CL scenario it's likely all or most of the party would be able to speak with said NPC and now only one can.

That's why I don't believe in altering the world to accommodate player features being a good thing, your features end up lowering the party's capabilities instead of expanding them.

But, alternately, the group's capabilities are equally diminished if you gain an ability that never comes up.

If a warlock gets Witch Sight to see through illusions, and there is never another illusion in the game, then they wasted the slot as surely as if they had gained it and illusions were added only because they had the ability.

In fact, I would argue it is moreso, because in the scenario where the Warlock uses their ability, they don't know the DM added that feature only because they can see through illusions. Therefore, they feel vindicated taking the ability because it proved useful.

[Deathtongue]

But, alternately, the group's capabilities are equally diminished if you gain an ability that never comes up.

If a warlock gets Witch Sight to see through illusions, and there is never another illusion in the game, then they wasted the slot as surely as if they had gained it and illusions were added only because they had the ability.

How important do you think that 4th wall is? Imagine if a ranger took Fiends and Giants as their favored enemies when they were playing Tomb of Annihilation. Should the DM start fudging the random encounter table to have more Cyclops and Trolls in them to make it look like their ability was doing something? I'd actually be pretty miffed if I found out that the DM specifically crowded out the undead/beast/elemental wildlife in this adventure just so the ranger could feel their pick wasn't a waste.

[Chaosmancer]

How important do you think that 4th wall is? Imagine if a ranger took Fiends and Giants as their favored enemies when they were playing Tomb of Annihilation. Should the DM start fudging the random encounter table to have more Cyclops and Trolls in them to make it look like their ability was doing something? I'd actually be pretty miffed if I found out that the DM specifically crowded out the undead/beast/elemental wildlife in this adventure just so the ranger could feel their pick wasn't a waste.

You picked an AP specifically known for featuring undead and not featuring fiends (don't know if it features giants). Both the DM and the player would know that is coming and be able to discuss what the player wants to do.

How about if they were playing a homebrew sandbox with no set list of monster encounters? If the DM knows the ranger picked fiends, should they plan to add fiends or not?

According to the approach I was criticizing, the ranger made the game more dangerous by choosing fiends, because now fiends will show up. But, if instead they never show up, the ranger wasted their ability and could have picked undead that the game does feature. This is why the Ranger's favored enemy ability is constantly coming under fire, it leads to DMs having to decide which way the wish to swing on this.

Also, the 4th wall is an illusion in DnD. The 4th wall is the separation between audience and the characters in a story. Such as a comic book. In DnD though, the audience are the characters. Sure, the characters don't talk to the players, but since the characters are controlled by the players and don't do anything the players don't tell them to do, there is no 4th wall separation between character and player.

[Chronos]

I think that the best solution is, whenever there's an enemy wizard in the game, the DM should edit their spellbooks to add a few noncombat spells (including rituals) that would be appropriate for that enemy to have. And maybe a few that wouldn't be appropriate for them, too, because enemy wizards don't have complete control over what spells they find, either.

[MaxWilson]

You picked an AP specifically known for featuring undead and not featuring fiends (don't know if it features giants). Both the DM and the player would know that is coming and be able to discuss what the player wants to do.

How about if they were playing a homebrew sandbox with no set list of monster encounters? If the DM knows the ranger picked fiends, should they plan to add fiends or not?

In a homebrew sandbox, it's a sandbox, so of course the DM should just give the players whatever lives in the sandbox location they're currently in. If they go to Baator or the Citadel of Desolation, there are lots of fiends. If they go out of their way to make fiendish enemies, fiends will show up occasionally. Otherwise, fiends will show up rarely.

In a sandbox, the DM infers the players' desires not from what abilities are written on their character sheet but by what the PCs actually do in play. If the Ranger player picked fiends because he wants lots of fiends in the game, and if the other PCs want that too, then they'll show that by spending lots of time in Baator and chasing down fiend-related leads. If the player picked fiends because he finds fiends annoying, doesn't want to fall for their tricks, and doesn't want to deal with fiends, he will avoid Baator like the plague and avoid fiendish leads and plot hooks.

According to the approach I was criticizing, the ranger made the game more dangerous by choosing fiends, because now fiends will show up. But, if instead they never show up, the ranger wasted their ability and could have picked undead that the game does feature. This is why the Ranger's favored enemy ability is constantly coming under fire, it leads to DMs having to decide which way the wish to swing on this.

You said it was a sandbox, so it's the players' decisions that matter. If the ability is "wasted" it is by group consensus of the players, possibly including the Ranger player (depending on what he actually wanted). Even then of course it's not wasted entirely because there's always a chance of some fiends coming up occasionally no matter where you play, and the Ranger will have a good chance of recognizing them and being able to tell the group something about them.

"Oh no. It's Gelugon tracks. I never seen these before myself but my grandpappy used to tell me stories about them. We're in big trouble now, fellahs, and let me tell you why..."

If the party has an Enchanter who will have trouble with undead because they often can't be frightened/charmed, and the Ranger picked undead as a favored enemy to help the party stay away from those undead when/if they show up, stumbling across zero undead is probably their best case scenario. The ability may be "useless" but the player's goal isn't to use his abilities as often as possible--it's to not get killed by undead monsters.

TL;DR: in a sandbox, if players want something, it's up to them to seek it out. DM just runs the sandbox as designed.

[Tanarii]

Any players assuming they'll find ritual spell scrolls clearly hasn't read the DMG treasure tables.

Seriously though, spell scrolls are relatively rare and hard to come by unless the DM tailors magic items to the players.

[Pex]

How important do you think that 4th wall is? Imagine if a ranger took Fiends and Giants as their favored enemies when they were playing Tomb of Annihilation. Should the DM start fudging the random encounter table to have more Cyclops and Trolls in them to make it look like their ability was doing something? I'd actually be pretty miffed if I found out that the DM specifically crowded out the undead/beast/elemental wildlife in this adventure just so the ranger could feel their pick wasn't a waste.

If the DM knows for the campaign a player's character choice will be useless or near useless he should let the player know so he can choose something else.

[Silly Name]

If the party has an Enchanter who will have trouble with undead because they often can't be frightened/charmed, and the Ranger picked undead as a favored enemy to help the party stay away from those undead when/if they show up, stumbling across zero undead is probably their best case scenario. The ability may be "useless" but the player's goal isn't to use his abilities as often as possible--it's to not get killed by undead monsters.

I am inclined to believe the opposite: the Ranged who picks Undead as her favored enemy doesn't want to avoid undead monsters - she is expecting to face undead.
Likewise, a wizard who specialises in Enchantment is going to want to actually use those spells, rather than constantly face NPCs and monsters that are immune.

If the campaign has zero undead, the ranger will not feel successful: she will feel like she should have picked a different favored enemy.

The DM's job is to try to make the game fun and enjoyable to everyone. It's one thing to not particularly cater to one player's build choices, but it's another to never at least create the opportunity for those choices to come into play.

[Chaosmancer]

In a homebrew sandbox, it's a sandbox, so of course the DM should just give the players whatever lives in the sandbox location they're currently in. If they go to Baator or the Citadel of Desolation, there are lots of fiends. If they go out of their way to make fiendish enemies, fiends will show up occasionally. Otherwise, fiends will show up rarely.

In a sandbox, the DM infers the players' desires not from what abilities are written on their character sheet but by what the PCs actually do in play. If the Ranger player picked fiends because he wants lots of fiends in the game, and if the other PCs want that too, then they'll show that by spending lots of time in Baator and chasing down fiend-related leads. If the player picked fiends because he finds fiends annoying, doesn't want to fall for their tricks, and doesn't want to deal with fiends, he will avoid Baator like the plague and avoid fiendish leads and plot hooks.

I think that kind of misses the point. Baator is another plane of existence. It should never be easy to get to, and fighting there should be a harrowing ordeal.

You are essentially saying Rangers should never bother to take Fiends as their favored enemy, because unless they go to another plane of existence they won't encounter any. Which is fine, but if you don't tell the players that extra-planar threats only exist if you find portals, they might wonder why they never encounter any.

And, if your follow up response is that they don't need to go to another plane of existance, they just need to follow plot hooks to a demon summoning cult or something. I must ask you, did you create that demon summoning cult as the DM? Did you place the hook for the cult in a place the party could find it? Isn't that exactly what I meant by creating fiendish threats for the party to deal with because the Ranger took Fiends as a favored enemy?

After all, you can't follow plot lines that don't exist or fight monsters the DM doesn't place in the world, so we are right back to where we started with this.

You said it was a sandbox, so it's the players' decisions that matter. If the ability is "wasted" it is by group consensus of the players, possibly including the Ranger player (depending on what he actually wanted). Even then of course it's not wasted entirely because there's always a chance of some fiends coming up occasionally no matter where you play, and the Ranger will have a good chance of recognizing them and being able to tell the group something about them.

"Oh no. It's Gelugon tracks. I never seen these before myself but my grandpappy used to tell me stories about them. We're in big trouble now, fellahs, and let me tell you why..."

If the party has an Enchanter who will have trouble with undead because they often can't be frightened/charmed, and the Ranger picked undead as a favored enemy to help the party stay away from those undead when/if they show up, stumbling across zero undead is probably their best case scenario. The ability may be "useless" but the player's goal isn't to use his abilities as often as possible--it's to not get killed by undead monsters.

TL;DR: in a sandbox, if players want something, it's up to them to seek it out. DM just runs the sandbox as designed.

Sure, maybe the best case scenario is to never find any undead ever.

But if you took an ability to avoid them, and then they never show up to be avoided, we are again back where we started.

And remember, the point I was responding to originally was that if the DM changes the game because of the player's abilities (such as adding in ritual spells for the Ritual Caster to find) then the players have created more problems for themselves by taking abilities that create problems for them to solve that otherwise would have been easy to overcome. The example of taking Comprehend Languages only for an important NPC to suddenly speak a language the party doesn't know "wasting" the spell, because the DM would have just had the individual speak common if the party didn't have the spell.

The point is that adding or keeping things removed can both cause the same issue.

[Deathtongue]

You picked an AP specifically known for featuring undead and not featuring fiends (don't know if it features giants). Both the DM and the player would know that is coming and be able to discuss what the player wants to do.

I don't get this logic. Is the DM supposed to break the 4th wall and warn the Ranger ahead of time that their choices aren't going to matter much? What if, just knowing the adventure was going to feature a lot of jungle travel, they picked beasts and fey? Is the DM supposed to intervene and warn them then? Are they supposed to swap out late-game encounters with more beasts and hags?

Also, the 4th wall is an illusion in DnD. The 4th wall is the separation between audience and the characters in a story. Such as a comic book. In DnD though, the audience are the characters. Sure, the characters don't talk to the players, but since the characters are controlled by the players and don't do anything the players don't tell them to do, there is no 4th wall separation between character and player.

Don't kid yourselves. There is a 4th wall in D&D. Which do you think does more damage to players' sense of enjoyment and willing suspension of disbelief: a DM who quietly fudges the dice behind the scenes, or one who rolls the dice out in the open and then goes 'why don't we say that your ranger landed a critical hit on the BBEG, it's more fun that way' when said ranger rolls a 2.

[Nagog]

In your opinion, over a 10 level timeframe what would be the non player-screwing amount of rituals a DM needs to drop? Almost every INT-based NPC spellcaster has Detect Magic and the Archmage in the basic Monster Manual has Identify, so if you picked something like Comprehend Languages and Find Familiar, you'll be all-but-guaranteed to have at least three and likely even four if the game goes on long enough. Is that not enough? If so, how many rituals does the DM need to insert before they're not screwing over the players?

All ritual spells take 10+ minutes to cast as a ritual. Ergo, no combat use. There may be some utility uses, but spells like Phantom Steed can be amazing for utility if travel and steed maintenance is an issue. The ones you listed are nice. Water Breathing can add a whole new layer to a game in the right circumstance. Augery is a good Divination bit, with situational utility based on the DM. Drawmiji's Instant Summons can be used to great effect, but that doesn't become available until level 12.

All in all, Ritual Caster allows players to pick up out of combat utility spells. The spells they pick up are up to the DM, but I'd grant them the opportunity to pick up any ritual spell they'd like that follows the rules of the feat. I'm unsure why anybody would think this feat capable of breaking anything, particularly compared to other, more prevalent feats.

You picked an AP specifically known for featuring undead and not featuring fiends (don't know if it features giants). Both the DM and the player would know that is coming and be able to discuss what the player wants to do.

How about if they were playing a homebrew sandbox with no set list of monster encounters? If the DM knows the ranger picked fiends, should they plan to add fiends or not?

According to the approach I was criticizing, the ranger made the game more dangerous by choosing fiends, because now fiends will show up. But, if instead they never show up, the ranger wasted their ability and could have picked undead that the game does feature. This is why the Ranger's favored enemy ability is constantly coming under fire, it leads to DMs having to decide which way the wish to swing on this.

TBH, favored enemies is one of the greatest shortcomings of rangers, right alongside favored terrains. The updated versions of the class have moved away from such constraints, particularly the UA Class Varients Ranger.

Also, the 4th wall is an illusion in DnD. The 4th wall is the separation between audience and the characters in a story. Such as a comic book. In DnD though, the audience are the characters. Sure, the characters don't talk to the players, but since the characters are controlled by the players and don't do anything the players don't tell them to do, there is no 4th wall separation between character and player.

Except there is a 4th wall. It's called Metagaming, not the 4th wall, but it very much exists and is very capable of ruining the game. Personally I refuse to DM for players that I know metagame. It takes out all of the intrigue and character immersion for the whole party/campaign, and it's a very easy jump from metagaming to becoming a full-on murderhobo.

[HPisBS]

I think people have got their wires crossed a bit.

My impression is the OP was essentially saying "The DM may not make rituals acquirable regardless of what the PC does, so PCs should beware of taking that feat," but a lot of discussion seems to have revolved around what the PC needs to do to find those potentially nonexistent rituals.

I guess that means the popular assumption is that "The DM should make rituals available for a ritual caster to find, assuming the PC takes appropriate actions to find them."

- If the only real point of contention boils down to how much downtime searching or whatever the PC needs to do in order to get those rituals vs how many need to pop up in the main plot's rewards, then I'd say the OP has accidentally been answered lol. Perhaps even more emphatically than if everyone had just said "The DM should make rituals available somehow if a player takes ritual caster."

- If my impression of the general conversation is mistaken, and a significant portion are in fact saying that "The DM should never modify what appears in the game world based on the PCs in the game," then I'm gonna have to join the opposition lol. Yes, players should confer with the DM before making such setting-dependent choices. But DMs should also look to support their players, and thus their players' characters. DnD is a collaborative story and game. It suffers if either "side" doesn't want to play along.

- - Though, I've also gotta err more on the side of supporting the players. Plot-wise, there may not be any reason to include a scroll of Leomund's Tiny Hut, or a Cli Lyre in/around where the PCs need to be. Then again, game-wise, there's also little reason to include a GreatSword of Sharpness if none of the PCs are proficient with greatswords – even if you wanted lore to say a hero dismembered the (now-Ancient) black dragon with it 200 years ago or whatever. I say modify your story a bit to fit your game.

[Rukelnikov]

Too many post to respond to. As some of the examples that poped up, I have been DMing sandboxes exclusively for a long time, and as a player I mostly end up playing sandboxes too. The main thing of the sandboxes, for me at least, is to give the players control of the adventure, if I'm altering the world on a whim, then it didn't matter if the players chose to explore the Fiery Caverns or decided to go seek information about the long lost sages in the east, they are gonna fight *insert monster*, or leanr about *insert data, or happen upon *insert NPC* no matter what they chose. That's not what I consider a sandbox.

However, what I do consider is what the other creatures in the world do. So for instance if a ranger has favored enemy fiends, and in his background he was part of a crusade that demolished a fiendish keep, then a demonic warlord may start hunting all the members of said crusade. Then, depending on what the party is doing they may end up being found and have to fight against lots of fiends. Or not, maybe they learn about some of these happenings and jump plane, or lay low, or go confront the warlord, or just don't do anything about it, and eventually face the fiends.

I understand the point of "putting X in the world so Y feature becomes relevant", I just don't share it, I consider that an illusion of choice for the character, because no matter what I chose it will always "show up", and so I end up deciding what will happen in the adventure not because of the choices my character takes but because of the choices I as a player took. If I want to fight fiends, I should go somewhere with fiends,If I want to learn rituals I should go to a school of magic, try to buy them in a large city, request the knowledge from some mages, or try to plunder the libraries of old.

[Sigreid]

I tend to do sandbox, but I still tell the players some basic assumptions about the world. Things like:

. Are the wildernesses normally full of monsters or relativity safe if you're near a settlement?
. Are wizards fairly common, or as rare as an honest politician?
. Are apothecaries a thing? (can potions be bought?)
.Are there scholars or scholarly organizations that can be bargained with for secret lore?
. Do certain religions share their gifts more freely with worshipers than others?

That sort of thing.

You don't tell them things like the kingdom of Thuraki is ruled by a devil in disguise. That they have to figure out on their own.

[Deathtongue]

I understand the point of "putting X in the world so Y feature becomes relevant", I just don't share it, I consider that an illusion of choice for the character, because no matter what I chose it will always "show up", and so I end up deciding what will happen in the adventure not because of the choices my character takes but because of the choices I as a player took.

Also, not to sound too snippy, but if you think this is how games should be run you also need to consider the impact of your choices on the other players.

DM: Based on some input that I was not giving enough opportunities for ritual drops, I will be using more of the intelligence-based spellcasters from Volo's like the Hobgoblin Devastator and the Diviner and they will have more spells in their books, with many more rituals.
Sorcerer with Ritual Caster: Yay! Thank you!
Fighter and Barbarian with bad WIS saves: Gee, thanks a lot, Sorcerer.

[Sigreid]

Also, not to sound too snippy, but if you think this is how games should be run you also need to consider the impact of your choices on the other players.

DM: Based on some input that I was not giving enough opportunities for ritual drops, I will be using more of the intelligence-based spellcasters from Volo's like the Hobgoblin Devastator and the Diviner and they will have more spells in their books, with many more rituals.
Sorcerer with Ritual Caster: Yay! Thank you!
Fighter and Barbarian with bad WIS saves: Gee, thanks a lot, Sorcerer.

My response would be "Rituals are out there (assuming the world I was running did have them), it's up to you to figure out how to find them".

[MaxWilson]

I am inclined to believe the opposite: the Ranged who picks Undead as her favored enemy doesn't want to avoid undead monsters - she is expecting to face undead.

It's not a dichotomy. Both things happen, and they look the same in a character sheet. You can't tell from the sheet why the player took the ability.

If 5e had permanent level draining undead like AD&D you'd see a spike in players taking anti-undead abilities, but that wouldn't be a signal that they want to face more undead.

Sure, maybe the best case scenario is to never find any undead ever.

But if you took an ability to avoid them, and then they never show up to be avoided, we are again back where we started.

That would be true only if they never showed up anywhere in the universe, i.e. if undead don't exist. In that case yeah, definitely tell the players in advance. But if awful level-draining undead exist, and a PC with anti-undead abilities sticks purely to dragon hunting and illithid-slaying and drow-fighting while avoiding The Desolation of Ermor, that's perfectly fine.

In a sandbox, a DM has to provide a wide range of possible interesting adventure books for players. But he doesn't need to customize *anything* based on what is written in the character sheet. That's the players' privilege, via gameplay.

And remember, the point I was responding to originally was that if the DM changes the game because of the player's abilities (such as adding in ritual spells for the Ritual Caster to find) then the players have created more problems for themselves by taking abilities that create problems for them to solve that otherwise would have been easy to overcome. The example of taking Comprehend Languages only for an important NPC to suddenly speak a language the party doesn't know "wasting" the spell, because the DM would have just had the individual speak common if the party didn't have the spell.

The point is that adding or keeping things removed can both cause the same issue.

I don't think you've proven your point then.

However, what I do consider is what the other creatures in the world do. So for instance if a ranger has favored enemy fiends, and in his background he was part of a crusade that demolished a fiendish keep, then a demonic warlord may start hunting all the members of said crusade. Then, depending on what the party is doing they may end up being found and have to fight against lots of fiends. Or not, maybe they learn about some of these happenings and jump plane, or lay low, or go confront the warlord, or just don't do anything about it, and eventually face the fiends

This is a completely legitimate way for a player to signal that he wants more demonic crusades and demonic cults in the gameworld: write one up and propose it to the DM for inclusion in the sandbox. Is likely to make e.g. Comprehend Languages more relevant, without negating anyone's choices.

My response would be "Rituals are out there (assuming the world I was running did have them), it's up to you to figure out how to find them".

Ditto, plus I'd also hand them a copy of the spell research rules and say, "Or you can invent your own rituals."

[Deathtongue]

It's not a dichotomy. Both things happen, and they look the same in a character sheet. You can't tell from the sheet why the player took the ability.

That's how a feel a lot about my rituals. Some rituals I took for roleplaying potential or generic tactical advantage, like Unseen Servant and Find Familiar. Even if Find Familiar never helped me complete a quest, I'd still take it because I (and therefore my wizards) just love cats. Other rituals I took because they're designed to deal with an aggravating or even adventure-stopping situation, like Comprehend Languages or Tiny Hut. Unlike Find Familiar, I would feel relieved -- and not upset -- if everyone NPC I met spoke common. Never having to use Tiny Hut just means that we camped out in safe locations like inns and manors rather than the wilderness; I ain't complaining.

And some of them, they're in a grey area, like Detect Magic and Phantom Steed where I like the roleplaying potential but would be annoyed if they routinely became pivotal to plots. Having your own Phantom horse pet is cool, but if the adventure was designed around constantly riding the damn things for a speed bonus (like Tomb of Annihilation) I'd be more irritated than excited.

[MaxWilson]

For those who are interested in more explicit procedures for players/DM to discuss what they want to see in the game world, you could steal some from Microscope. Instead of creating a history, you're collaboratively creating a gameworld setting:

Step 3: Palette–Add or Ban
Ingredients

Next you take a step back and create your history’s Palette. The Palette is a list of things the players agree to reserve the right to include or, conversely, outright ban. It gets everyone on the same page about what belongs in the history and what doesn’t.

Make two columns, one for Yes and one for No:

1) Each player can add one thing, either a Yes or No. Add something to the Yes column if you think the other players would not expect it to be in the history, but you want to be able to include it.

[E.g. laser weapons, demon cults]

Add something to the No column if you think the other players would expect it to be in the history, but you don’t want it included.

[E.g. level-draining undead, spellcasting dragons, ubiquitous ritual magic]

Players can go in any order. You don’t have to add anything to the Palette if you don’t want to.

2) If every player did add something (either a Yes or No), repeat step 1: each player has the option to go again. If someone opted not to add something, stop: your Palette is done. In the end, no player will have added two things more than anyone else.

Feel free to discuss and negotiate. No one should be unhappy about what winds up added or banned on the Palette.

Š If something is in the Yes column, then during the rest of the game it’s okay to introduce it into the history even if it doesn’t seem like it fits. You’ve all agreed it belongs.

Š If something is in the No column, it’s never okay to bring into the game, no matter what. You’ve all agreed it’s not part of the history.

Even if something is in the Yes column, it doesn’t exist in the history until someone introduces it in play. Something might be in the Yes column, but never get used at all.

The Palette is not an exhaustive list of what will be in the history: it’s a list of exceptions. If something fts the setting (like wizards in a fantasy world), you probably don’t need to add it to the Yes column because the other players already expect it. Likewise if something seems really out of place (like wizards in a science fction history), you probably do not need to add it to the No column unless you think other players want to include it. When in doubt, discuss.

For a D&D game setting, I wouldn't end discussion after just one person opts not to add--keep going for as long as at least two people are still adding something every round.

After you've had a discussion like this, the DM no longer needs to rely on signals from players' character sheets to determine whether e.g. foreign languages will be in the game, and players have information on which to base their choices like which rituals to take.

[qube]

I understand the point of "putting X in the world so Y feature becomes relevant", I just don't share it, I consider that an illusion of choice for the character, because no matter what I chose it will always "show up", and so I end up deciding what will happen in the adventure not because of the choices my character takes but because of the choices I as a player took. If I want to fight fiends, I should go somewhere with fiends,If I want to learn rituals I should go to a school of magic, try to buy them in a large city, request the knowledge from some mages, or try to plunder the libraries of old.

To illustrate why I fundamently disagree with this reasoning.

no matter what I chose it will always "show up", and so I end up deciding what will happen in the adventure not because of the choices I decides my character takes but because of the choices I as a player took. If I want my character to fight fiends, I should attemp to make my character go somewhere with fiends,If I want my character to learn rituals I should attempt to get my character to find a school of magic, get my character to try to buy them in a large city, make my character request the knowledge from some mages, or make my character try to plunder the libraries of old.

... a character does not exist. It's always the player who's in charge of the decisions, and the DM who confirms them.
Who says there's an area with fiends for you to fight? who says there's a mage willing to teach you, or old librairies to plunder?

I've had players on my table, introverted & not experienced enough to take the wheel to decide "no, I need a better hallberd, we need to search for a magic halberd first". Heck, I've mastered, seen master, and played in quests, where there simply wasn't time to say "Well, you know. This end of the world thing sounds important and all, but first, I'm going to find myself a magical hallberd. Can you get back to me on thursday? And care to direct me to the nearest librairy where I can tsearch for legends on mystical hallberds? "

A character taking Ritual caster, or Polearm Mastery, or a favorite enemy tells me, as DM, that this player might like to encounter this. A DM that doesn't pick up on - or worse doesn't care - on what his players want, is a poor DM.

This doesnt mean that you need to cater to every whim the characters have ... but when the ranger, who's parent were killed by now-his-favorite-enemy orcs, gets attacked by random mooks - suddenly what was a random encounter can turn into an entire sub-quest, just because I changed their race to orcs.

That quest giver? It's actually easier for him to a player copy part of his spellbook, then pay up gold.

And that statue that guards the treasure? ... might wield a magic hallbert.


... or, you know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the PAM fighter would be equally happy with his 50th +2 sword while still on his non-magical halbert. Just because he cares more about the end of the world, then his own loot.

[Pex]

Also, not to sound too snippy, but if you think this is how games should be run you also need to consider the impact of your choices on the other players.

DM: Based on some input that I was not giving enough opportunities for ritual drops, I will be using more of the intelligence-based spellcasters from Volo's like the Hobgoblin Devastator and the Diviner and they will have more spells in their books, with many more rituals.
Sorcerer with Ritual Caster: Yay! Thank you!
Fighter and Barbarian with bad WIS saves: Gee, thanks a lot, Sorcerer.

But it's ok for the fighter and barbarian not to have to worry about Wis saves and the sorcerer must suffer never finding rituals?

Nothing in the gameworld exists without the DM's permission. There is no harm placing something a particular player will enjoy when in another instance a different player will enjoy. Everyone gets their moment to shine and their moment not to shine because it's someone else's turn. Then there are cases where everyone shines. Sometimes no one shines, but the victory will be sweet because of it. The party will face encounters of danger and wonder. That's the game. It doesn't matter if a particular instance of danger was because the DM is catering to a particular player build choice. The party was going to face some encounter of danger anyway, and the DM is doing his job providing for a little extra fun.

Some DMs like it when or require players provide backstories at character creation. Such backstories will be used as plot hooks and/or background flavor text for downtime or who a particular NPC is. An event happens the whole party must deal with precisely because one player chose to put something in his backstory. Everyone gets their turn to be the star of a backstory event.

Same thing.

[Deathtongue]

But it's ok for the fighter and barbarian not to have to worry about Wis saves and the sorcerer must suffer never finding rituals?

The default assumptions of the game already make WIS saves both common and oppressive. It's valid for the fighter and barbarian to not like how WIS saves will become even more common obstacles because the sorcerer with Ritual Caster asked for more in-game opportunities to copy rituals.

[qube]

The default assumptions of the game already make WIS saves both common and oppressive. It's valid for the fighter and barbarian to not like how WIS saves will become even more common obstacles because the sorcerer with Ritual Caster asked for more in-game opportunities to copy rituals.

indeed it is.

And thus, considering this is an actual problem in this hypotherical of yours, simply alter one of the other many encounters that also used will saves to something else.

And no this is not some infinite path: It's only infinite if you're a horrible DM and "solve" every actual problem by introducaing another actual problem.

[HPisBS]

The default assumptions of the game already make WIS saves both common and oppressive. It's valid for the fighter and barbarian to not like how WIS saves will become even more common obstacles because the sorcerer with Ritual Caster asked for more in-game opportunities to copy rituals.

Unless I'm mistaken, the default assumption this discussion boils down to is less "How often should the PCs' features pop up" than it is "Should players expect their features to reliably pop up at all?"

Some here are arguing that players should only expect their features to pop up if the appropriate actions are taken. I'd say that's perfectly reasonable, to an extent – so long as opportunities to take those actions are offered (though, depending on the players, it may need to be spelled out that that's part of what's being offered).

Others at least seem to be arguing that the game world is the game world, and the DM shouldn't add stuff to it just because players built their PCs (in part) around said stuff. This, I just don't see. Yes, it's a shared story, but it's also a shared game.

And even if we can't agree that making PC build choices relevant makes for a better game, I hope we can at least agree that Chekhov's Gun is a valid storytelling principle. ("If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there.") If a PC got a book of rituals to fill via Ritual Caster, then he should be able to find rituals to fill it with. Otherwise, don't let him put it in the story without warning him that he won't find any first. (Or demons if it's a Ranger's favored enemy, undead if it's a Cleric, etc)

[Chaosmancer]

I don't get this logic. Is the DM supposed to break the 4th wall and warn the Ranger ahead of time that their choices aren't going to matter much? What if, just knowing the adventure was going to feature a lot of jungle travel, they picked beasts and fey? Is the DM supposed to intervene and warn them then? Are they supposed to swap out late-game encounters with more beasts and hags?

You don't get what logic?

Someone said that changing the game to include challenges that the players built to face is wasting their resources, because the challenge only exists in response to the players choices, if they did not take the ability, they would not face the challenge. I countered by saying that allowing a player to take an ability that will never come into play is also wasting resources, but since they also do not get to use the ability in question it is a bigger waste.

So, yeah, maybe the DM should tell the ranger who picks fiends as their favored enemy in a campaign where there will be zero fiends, that there will be zero fiends. If people are concerned about wasting potential resources to the point that you do not choose an option for fear that the DM will create a challenge that utilizes that option, then it should be worse to pick an ability that will never come into play.

Don't kid yourselves. There is a 4th wall in D&D. Which do you think does more damage to players' sense of enjoyment and willing suspension of disbelief: a DM who quietly fudges the dice behind the scenes, or one who rolls the dice out in the open and then goes 'why don't we say that your ranger landed a critical hit on the BBEG, it's more fun that way' when said ranger rolls a 2.

What is with people this month and changing the definition of words?

I hate being that person, but definition of a 4th wall incoming

"The fourth wall is a performance convention in which an invisible, imagined wall separates actors from the audience. While the audience can see through this "wall", the convention assumes, the actors act as if they cannot."

In DnD there is nothing that separates the actors from the audience, because the actors are the audience.

Suspension of disbelief is an entirely separate thing. As is cheating by looking at the dice and deciding that they say something different than they do. As is writing infinity for your HP value, or anything else you'd like to subtly accuse people of.

You cannot break the divide between player and character, because no divide, in a meaningful sense, exists. The player directly controls the character, and the player is the audience the character is performing for. Therefore you cannot break the 4th wall. You can break suspension of disbelief, but not the 4th wall.

Except there is a 4th wall. It's called Metagaming, not the 4th wall, but it very much exists and is very capable of ruining the game. Personally I refuse to DM for players that I know metagame. It takes out all of the intrigue and character immersion for the whole party/campaign, and it's a very easy jump from metagaming to becoming a full-on murderhobo.

Metagaming is a different construct. It is the player causing the character to act on knowledge based upon the fact that the game is a game. That does not break the fourth wall, but it can break suspension of disbelief.

I know this is super hair-splittingly precise, but these terms have rather exact definitions because they come from cinema and literature, in which the audience has no control over the characters presenting the story. Games like DnD cannot have a fourth wall in the same sense, because you the player, who controls the character, is the audience.

The default assumptions of the game already make WIS saves both common and oppressive. It's valid for the fighter and barbarian to not like how WIS saves will become even more common obstacles because the sorcerer with Ritual Caster asked for more in-game opportunities to copy rituals.

But, you are increasing the wisdom saves for no reason.

Dumb ogres like shiny things right? If they plundered a caravan and saw a shiny gold scroll case, they would take it right? After killing the ogre the players find a scroll containing the spell Unseen Servant.

I have add a ritual to the game without increasing wisdom saves at all. In fact, I didn't even increase spellcasters.


Players are sent to an ancient ruin to combat a gnoll horde that has moved in. As they explore the temple complex they find bronze plates with the Find Familiar spell inscribed on them. Added a ritual, again, no increase in spellcasters for the barbarian and fighter to get upset about.


I mean, you can just act to make some players unhappy, but you don't need to, nothing says magical, written formula have to be carried by spellcasters who are actively trying to kill you.

[iTreeby]

The default assumptions of the game already make WIS saves both common and oppressive. It's valid for the fighter and barbarian to not like how WIS saves will become even more common obstacles because the sorcerer with Ritual Caster asked for more in-game opportunities to copy rituals.

The DM could just as easily have such enemies with appropriate loot target other saves or substitute later advesaries.