Ritual Magic should not be class-restricted

Maybe I've just been watching too much Supernatural lately, but why does it take a spellcaster to do a ritual version of a spell? Shouldn't it be just like baking? Mix your ingredients appropriately, put in the oven (chant specific things) for x minutes, and presto! Spell. As long as you carefully and correctly followed the instructions, it should work. Right?

The spellcasters are the ones who don't have to take the long road for a spell effect. That's what makes them special over everyone else in regards to magic.
i wouldnt mind having ritual casting available as a feat, and certain classes can get it as a class feature
Even in 4e, I felt that classes should be more successful with certain rituals like druids with nature rituals, clerics with cure disease.  They would basically need to introduce the skill roll to ritual magic with specific classes getting limited class-specific effects on a failed roll.  I doubt they will bring back the ritual caster feat but what they might do is bring in feats that allow you to cast a limited set of rituals related in some way such as divinations, nature rituals, creation rituals etc.
Within reason.
Its one of those things that if everyone can have it, why should anyone take it. I like the idea of a Fighter or Rogue being able to learn a couple of Rituals. Perhaps making it a feat like Arcane Dabbler. Instead of 2 minor spells, it could be something like "You have a spellbook and can learn up to 4(maybe) Ritual spells of 1st and/or 2nd level." It goes along with the minor multiclassing that seems to come from the Specialties.
What I would not like is everyone and anyone can learn any and all Rituals regardless of class. It takes away from what makes some classes stand out.
I love supernatural, but the rituals are one of the hokiest parts of the show.  I wouldn't suggest that as a good example, lol.  

That said, a Feat for Ritual Casting makes sense for me and could be included in certain Classes (like Wizard and Warlock, for example).  What Orkbard said applies to my own feelings on the matter.  I wouldn't want anyone and everyone able to do it, but something to suggest Time spent and Knowledge gained would be appropriate.
Design numerous spells as rituals only (as opposed to current approach which makes them all rituals plus castable).  In some cases (such as flight, below) there may still be castable versions which are significantly weaker than the earler edition version - and perhaps even more 4E like...

Feat/ Specialty for each of Arcane, Divine and Primal rituals.

Remove Familiar from Magic User  - add ritual caster to Magic User.
Remove Sanctified Weapon from Acolyte - add ritual caster to Acolyte

Divide rituals up into two or three subcatagories - essentially at-will, daily and permanent effect.

"at-will" rituals can be cast whenever the ritual caster wants to take the time to cast the ritual.  These will not 'break the game' when cast repeatedly - however they will typically have focuses and other costs - and may take a long time to cast.  The only real drawback to spamming such rituals would be annoying the DM.  I would prefer to see Detect Magic taken out of it's current At-will slot and placed here (still 'at-will' - but no longer easily spammmable).  Other examples: Comprehend Languages, Find Familiar, Spider climb (with AD&D restrictions), Tenser's Floating Disc, Unseen Servent, etc.

"Daily" rituals have a more immediate effect on what is going on  -  for balance reasons you don't want them to be spammed, but at the same time their direct effects do not persist beyond that day (being able to speak with the dead is a temporary effect even if the knowledge gained persists).  These rituals will typically carry a direct cost to the wizard such as burning a spell slot, weakening him, or costing him hit points or hit dice.  The goal is to leave these 'at-will' - but with a cost that is part of the daily economy; leaving it up to the wizard to decide whether or not he wants to pay it.    Some of these will be relatively quick to cast  - around 1 minute for a ritual such as extended fight, some will take a longer time - maybe fifteen minutes for teleportation.   Other examples:  Protection from Evil 10', Wizard Lock.  Note- some (like flight) will also exist as a very short duration castable spell.  If you want to fly for a couple of rounds, you use the spell.  If you want to fly for a long time, you use the ritual.


"Permanent" rituals are those which have a persistent effect which lasts beyond a day.  If magic item crafting were in the game, that would fall into this category.  Spells such as Move Earth which permanently affect the terrain would be in this category.  Portals and Teleport Circles would be in this category, even Make Whole.  These spells have a persistent cost either in money or magic to go with their persisent effect.


Oh - and final note:  Restore the 'spells knowable by level' concept to D&D; and rituals count against that list the same as do normal spells.   So if you can know 12 L3 spells, you can know (example) 4 rituals and 8 castable spells. Force real choices about which spells the player wants to learn. The actual numbers should be decreased to reflect the typical INT score of a wizard however.   The maxed out 20 Int wizard of today should line up with the 18Int wizard of AD&D1st, shifting all table values accordingly so that a 16 Int wizard has a max of 9 per level. 

Carl
My idea of a ritual is a spell with a long casting time.  I even view standard action spells as rituals where a big part of it is done at spell preparation time in the morning and the trigger is just released at a later time.  In my opinion and aesthetic taste only.
Design numerous spells as rituals only (as opposed to current approach which makes them all rituals plus castable).  In some cases (such as flight, below) there may still be castable versions which are significantly weaker than the earler edition version - and perhaps even more 4E like...
I Agree

Feat/ Specialty for each of Arcane, Divine and Primal rituals.
You mean one for each ritual category or one for a single ritual?

Remove Familiar from Magic User  - add ritual caster to Magic User.
Remove Sanctified Weapon from Acolyte - add ritual caster to Acolyte
I Second this too
Divide rituals up into two or three subcatagories - essentially at-will, daily and permanent effect.

*snip for brevity*
I do not agree with the idea of bringing back the number of spells known.
Carl



On the subject of rituals, i like the idea of linking them to a specific feat for each category (with some classes having them for free); that way the possible combinations are limitless!
Some ideas: a warrior sworn to bane with arcane rituals and the necromancer specialty;
A holy assassin thief with divine rituals
and so on..
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
If you were to do this I would like to see chances of failure brought into the fold on rituals for none standard classes, after all a ritual is basically a recipe for magic and if you got 10 people to follow a recipe to make bread, they would all come out different. I don't like assuming just because they have the time and the money they get the ancient art of magic right.
If you were to do this I would like to see chances of failure brought into the fold on rituals for none standard classes, after all a ritual is basically a recipe for magic and if you got 10 people to follow a recipe to make bread, they would all come out different. I don't like assuming just because they have the time and the money they get the ancient art of magic right.



I would rather see something more like 'you can try a ritual without taking the feat, but it might blow up in your face; if you have the feat, then you know what you're doing'.

The bread analogy works if we're talking about 10 random people.  If you've spent resources on it, then you're not a random person, you're a professional baker and the odds of screwing up a simple loaf of bread are infinitesimal.

(and magic isn't ancient in every campaign world)
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm in favor of making the game playable with whatever mix of characters the players want to play. I also like being able to do that without the DM having to do a ton of extra work making the game playable for whatever odd ball mix of classes the players want to do.

I totally agree that ANY class should be able to take a feat to get the ability to cast rituals. The casting classes could then either get the feat for free or incorporate it in class features.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

There may have to be a division between casters and non-casters, where spells and rituals designate the power of the effect the caster wants, versus transfering it to a scroll, prayer book or item for non-casters to use. That way you don't have non-casters knowing how to cast very powerful rituals by just choosing a feat. It also incorporates a layman practictioner that is often associated with churches or guilds, i.e. magic for the common person.

However, if a caster uses a scroll, then it should have a limit, or count against the spells per day used. What you don't want is a million scrolls, wands and other items laying around in a caster's arsenal to further extend their power with no limits. At least that is my preference and my current problem with rituals in the present form. I never see gold limits as prohibitive, and if they are enforced then non-casters are further restricted from purchasing magic items.

Spells known is another method based on the casters primary ability to limit how many rituals may be cast, or more importantly the level or power of the ritual that may be cast. This extends needing a high ability score for non-casters to even understand how to use a ritual or scroll.

There will need to be rules for scrolls, and crafting before everything can be put on the table to determine what may work best.      

Rather than a feat, I'd like to see a Ritual Caster background that gives non-casters the ability to use rituals. It would also bring back Spellcraft as a skill; you can use Rituals of a level up to your Spellcraft rank.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

Rather than a feat, I'd like to see a Ritual Caster background that gives non-casters the ability to use rituals. It would also bring back Spellcraft as a skill; you can use Rituals of a level up to your Spellcraft rank.

Well, 4e in theory at least, solved this problem. There IS a feat, but OTOH rituals are tied to skills. They simply needed to provide a scaling concept for each ritual and demand a higher DC check for more powerful effects (this isn't uncommon for 4e rituals, but is far from universal). DDN's backgrounds could be used for ritual casting, but I think I'd want to see a feat as well. It gets pretty restrictive when you have 5 different things you can only get by taking a background or a specialty. That's ok if you REALLY don't want certain things ever combined, but it sucks when I want to be a ritual casting noble and I have to pick which background I get to use.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I second that I want ritual casting as an option for some classes.    Bards, swordmages, and paladins, for example, might not have rituals by default, but I'd like them to be able to get rituals as a feat.  
For martial characters, my preference is to have martial practices, perhaps with an explicitly magical component to avoid the complaints about realism.   So, instead of creating martial flight "leaping off raindrops", style it as surfing on an unstable flying surfboard.   Those surfboards wouldnt be expensive (for an adventurer) because the skill and strength and con needed to ride them would keep the common man from relying on them.   Essentially, if we want to allow a martial batman,then let's give him some toys. 
I'd be ok if it was costly to learn a ritual.  Like 1 feat gets you 1 ritual.  I disliked 4e's approach.  It was too easy.  But I don't want to shut the door completely to non-casters.  But working magic if your not a magic using class should be costly.
I like Salla's idea the most. But I agree in general that any character should be able to learn rituals in some way or another. Since this is ideally a modular game, it could have a whole host of ways to get rituals.

That said, 4e gave ritual casting to some classes for free, to represent their innate affinity for magic. I see no harm in some classes having a head start in those kinds of things. I'd like for the designers to remember martial practices and give rogues and fighters a head start in that stuff in kind. 
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
I like Salla's idea the most. But I agree in general that any character should be able to learn rituals in some way or another. Since this is ideally a modular game, it could have a whole host of ways to get rituals.

That said, 4e gave ritual casting to some classes for free, to represent their innate affinity for magic. I see no harm in some classes having a head start in those kinds of things. I'd like for the designers to remember martial practices and give rogues and fighters a head start in that stuff in kind. 

I think the problem with Martial Practice was that there was no real way to justify why that wasn't just skill use. It was a conceptual design space that was already occupied by skills. The result was confusion. Did you use Bluff to disguise yourself, or was it necessary to have the disguise practice?

I think maybe a possible answer would be to have skill masteries that let you do things like disguises, but also have the same approach to rituals. So you could acquire narrow types of rituals with say a feat, but you could also acquire a similarly scoped skill mastery.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I love supernatural, but the rituals are one of the hokiest parts of the show.  I wouldn't suggest that as a good example, lol.  

That said, a Feat for Ritual Casting makes sense for me and could be included in certain Classes (like Wizard and Warlock, for example).  What Orkbard said applies to my own feelings on the matter.  I wouldn't want anyone and everyone able to do it, but something to suggest Time spent and Knowledge gained would be appropriate.


I like the rituals.  Especially when they fudge on the ingredients.  The spongebob placemat, turned "spongebob side down" and used as an altar cloth still makes me bust out laughing.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I like Salla's idea the most. But I agree in general that any character should be able to learn rituals in some way or another.


I'm in this camp as well, and I feel that the fluff of D&D actually supports this well.  In D&D, you don't have to be special to be an arcane spellcaster.  Unlike Harry Potter or the Dresden Files, you don't need to have a magical lineage to cast spells.  It's just a matter of a magical education and its application.  Another one of my favorite game systems, BtVS, handles this extremely well: you make Occult skill checks to perform rituals.  D20 Modern's Urban Arcana did this too with their rules for incantaions.

On a personal note: I've always thought that ritual magic is the kind of magic that feels the most magical.  What I mean by this is that the need for circles, candles, incense, ritual chants/dances, and the ability to be interrupted by distruction or disturbance of the ritual components (with varied and often disastrous consequences) just feels the most like magic to me.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I think rituals are OK but I don't like how they are in the playtest. I'd like to see them either do things that are totally different from other spells or I'd like them to be strictly the province of casters with those spells as a way to dodge their mem slots.


I don't like the gold cost. It's lame. Make them cost time or gold but not both.

I think the essential requirement of rituals in general is the ability to follow detailed written instructions precisely for a substantial period of time. This is not a class-related attribute. Yes, characters of some classes MUST be able to do it (thus, some classes can use rituals automatically), but there is no class such that it's safe to say characters CANNOT do it.

So, everyone should be able to get access to rituals. Independently of class if their class doesn't get it automatically.

However, it does not follow that everyone should get access to ALL rituals.

Not many rituals should be class-restricted. Power-source-restricted would be more common.  For example, some higher-level arcane rituals might require that the ritualist manipulate arcane-energy flows directly, so would be restricted to characters of arcane classes.

And I think most rituals should involve attribute or skill tests. Perhaps certain classes, or characters with certain other characteristics such as other attributes/skills, get bonuses on some of these tests.

Now... notice that I have not used the word "cast", in any form, up until this sentence. This is not an accident. Detailed written instructions that need to be followed precisely for a substantial period of time are not restricted to magic. Safely harvesting and treating some poisonous plants to remove or destroy the toxins and make them edible - no magic. Baking bread - no magic. Playing a particular song on a musical instrument is complex enough that it has its own written languages (I know of three that are commonly used in the US) just for the instructions on what notes to play when and for how long - leaving out how to play those notes on your instrument - but still no magic.

So there definitely can be martial rituals, rituals based on dexterity, etc. Rituals that your wizard either won't have access to or won't be very good at, because while he's great at following directions he's not very good at doing what these directions say and/or not really familiar with what the result ought to be.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
You know what else is like baking a cake? Everything. If you follow the instructions, practice, and have a inclination towards what you are attempting, you will succeed. However, like cooking, some things are harder than other things and D&D measures this difficulty and aptitude for it in the form of classes and levels. Any character can cast rituals, level up in the Wizard class.
You know what else is like baking a cake? Everything. If you follow the instructions, practice, and have a inclination towards what you are attempting, you will succeed. However, like cooking, some things are harder than other things and D&D measures this difficulty and aptitude for it in the form of classes and levels. Any character can cast rituals, level up in the Wizard class.


And what does the Wizard class have to do with baking a cake or making a sword?
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Maybe I've just been watching too much Supernatural lately, but why does it take a spellcaster to do a ritual version of a spell? Shouldn't it be just like baking? Mix your ingredients appropriately, put in the oven (chant specific things) for x minutes, and presto! Spell. As long as you carefully and correctly followed the instructions, it should work. Right?

The spellcasters are the ones who don't have to take the long road for a spell effect. That's what makes them special over everyone else in regards to magic.



It all depends on whether or not you view magic as something inherent or something that anyone can learn.  Many DMs(myself included) view magic as something only a special few can learn.  A very few have the innate ability to use magic (sorcerers), the rest have the ability to be taught magic.  Similar to how the Wheel of Time does the One Power.  Everyone else couldn't light a candle with magic even after 50 years of teaching.

That said, I usually assume that the PCs have the ability to learn magic, excepting specific campaigns that say otherwise or character backgrounds that suggest otherwise.
I think you underestimate the degree to which the unskilled can screw up baking.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Harry Potter's a good example, but I'd rather use The Hollows series by Kim Harrison as an example.  In her books, witches are their own species, and they are innately gifted with magic (in a different manner than the D&D sorcerer).  Warlocks are humans who have learned to cast spells.  Anyone can do it, so long as they have the right texts and the time to get it right.  After all, all it takes is a dim-witted person who's just smart enough to get an easy ritual learned to damn the world by summoning a demon.  What?  You didn't think summoning a demon would be hard, did you?  Controlling them--that's the hard part.

I like that idea.  I like that anyone can use a ritual, if they take the time to learn how to do it (by taking the feat), but that some classes can do it as part of their regular skill set (because they are already spellcasters).
I think any character should be able to learn/use Rituals. Wizards, and other arcane gifted classes can use spells as Rituals just fine with nothing required of them, which makes it special IMO. A feat (Ritual Caster) was a good idea as it provided more incentive for classes like the Fighter and Rogue to go out with the wizard to pick up reagents and strange bits of animals because perhaps they needed them too.

No.


It's not like baking.  It's like gymanstics.  Or art.  You can provide any schnook a "recipe" for a great painting, or tell them, at length, with diagrams, how to perform a backflip...but if they simply don't have the required native talent or musculature, it will not happen.  Just so, a wizard is someone who has worked out those mental muscles for years, or decades, in order to perform ritual and combat magics.  Some yutz of a fighter who spent all those years in Sir Oaf's Sword Swinging School does not have that skill.

Maybe I've just been watching too much Supernatural lately, but why does it take a spellcaster to do a ritual version of a spell? Shouldn't it be just like baking? Mix your ingredients appropriately, put in the oven (chant specific things) for x minutes, and presto! Spell. As long as you carefully and correctly followed the instructions, it should work. Right?

The spellcasters are the ones who don't have to take the long road for a spell effect. That's what makes them special over everyone else in regards to magic.



That's all we need - a bunch of untrained dabblers trying to be a wizard.  In my opinion, if you want to cast magick like a wizard, be a wizard.  Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, and other martial characters have no business casting spells.  I have never been a big fan of multiclassing characters either.  Again, this is just my opinion.

Rituals should require people to have an ability to cast spells.  Otherwise, it might be argued that a spellbook is nothing more than a magickal cookbook.


No.


It's not like baking.  It's like gymanstics.  Or art.  You can provide any schnook a "recipe" for a great painting, or tell them, at length, with diagrams, how to perform a backflip...but if they simply don't have the required native talent or musculature, it will not happen.  Just so, a wizard is someone who has worked out those mental muscles for years, or decades, in order to perform ritual and combat magics.  Some yutz of a fighter who spent all those years in Sir Oaf's Sword Swinging School does not have that skill.




If he takes the feat/background/whatever resource it is, then by definition, he DOES have that skill.  That's kind of the point of taking that feat/background/whatever resource.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
It's not like baking.  It's like gymanstics.  Or art.  You can provide any schnook a "recipe" for a great painting, or tell them, at length, with diagrams, how to perform a backflip...but if they simply don't have the required native talent or musculature, it will not happen.  Just so, a wizard is someone who has worked out those mental muscles for years, or decades, in order to perform ritual and combat magics.  Some yutz of a fighter who spent all those years in Sir Oaf's Sword Swinging School does not have that skill.


Again, I see we have a difference in viewpoint.  For me, the Fighter is not some "yutz .. who spent years in Sir Oaf's Sword Swinging School."

For me, the Fighter is either trained in an academy or via private tutor in the art of combat.  A military academy is not going to allow people to just sit there and swing swords all day; they will have other classes, especially in things like military history, military protocol, and so on.  Even privately-taught Fighters need to have some intelligence to learn how to fight well.

Rituals are designed very much to be the "Duncan Hines Cake Mix" magic.  Follow the directions, and something happens.  It's even in the name: ritual.  It's the same every time.  And Fighters would have intelligence enough to be able to follow directions.

Combat magic as used by, say, the wizard, is a different ball of wax, and I would say that the wizard already has an advantage of the pure ritual caster, because the wizard can cast those spells on the fly, many times without reagents.  He's so skilled at magic that he can bypass the ritual process in order to produce the desired effect nearly instantaneously.

He also has access to spells that do not have ritual versions.  A ritual caster would never have access to those spells, no matter how hard he tried.


No.


It's not like baking.  It's like gymanstics.  Or art.  You can provide any schnook a "recipe" for a great painting, or tell them, at length, with diagrams, how to perform a backflip...but if they simply don't have the required native talent or musculature, it will not happen.  Just so, a wizard is someone who has worked out those mental muscles for years, or decades, in order to perform ritual and combat magics.  Some yutz of a fighter who spent all those years in Sir Oaf's Sword Swinging School does not have that skill.




If he takes the feat/background/whatever resource it is, then by definition, he DOES have that skill.  That's kind of the point of taking that feat/background/whatever resource.



If that's the sort of game you run, sure.  That sort of game is not required, though.  If I and my group don't want to play that sort of game, then it simply doesn't work like that.

No.


It's not like baking.  It's like gymanstics.  Or art.  You can provide any schnook a "recipe" for a great painting, or tell them, at length, with diagrams, how to perform a backflip...but if they simply don't have the required native talent or musculature, it will not happen.  Just so, a wizard is someone who has worked out those mental muscles for years, or decades, in order to perform ritual and combat magics.  Some yutz of a fighter who spent all those years in Sir Oaf's Sword Swinging School does not have that skill.




If he takes the feat/background/whatever resource it is, then by definition, he DOES have that skill.  That's kind of the point of taking that feat/background/whatever resource.



If that's the sort of game you run, sure.  That sort of game is not required, though.  If I and my group don't want to play that sort of game, then it simply doesn't work like that.



Then you say 'fighters can't take the Ritual Casting feat/background/whatever' at your table.  The base game needs to be as open and inclusive as possible; let individual tables decide their preferences.  That way, you get what you want, and I get what I want, and everybody is happy.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


Then you say 'fighters can't take the Ritual Casting feat/background/whatever' at your table.  The base game needs to be as open and inclusive as possible; let individual tables decide their preferences.  That way, you get what you want, and I get what I want, and everybody is happy.



I agree.  I'm just saying that it shouldn't be assumed that if you take the feat, you automatically have what it takes to be a wizard.  That decision will be made by the DM.  I have no issue with that being the default and my version being the module, though.  Just so long as both options are presented.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />I agree.  I'm just saying that it shouldn't be assumed that if you take the feat, you automatically have what it takes to be a wizard. 



If I take a feat that has the rules text: "You can use Ritual Magic" doesn't that kind of mean my character can use Ritual Magic?  That's the entire purpose of taking the feat.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />I agree.  I'm just saying that it shouldn't be assumed that if you take the feat, you automatically have what it takes to be a wizard. 



If I take a feat that has the rules text: "You can use Ritual Magic" doesn't that kind of mean my character can use Ritual Magic?  That's the entire purpose of taking the feat.



It doesn't inherently mean that in a world where only a very few are born with the ability to learn magic, that you are one of those few.  It only inherently means that in a game where no such limitation exists, you can take the feat and use ritual magic.  If the DM puts in limits, you shouldn't assume that taking the feat will automatically get you around the limit.
In a game where fighters can take a feat which makes them able to cast magic, and wizards can take a feat which makes them as adept with a blade as a fighter...
...well, such a game effectively has no class.
Maybe I've just been watching too much Supernatural lately, but why does it take a spellcaster to do a ritual version of a spell? Shouldn't it be just like baking? Mix your ingredients appropriately, put in the oven (chant specific things) for x minutes, and presto! Spell. As long as you carefully and correctly followed the instructions, it should work. Right?

The spellcasters are the ones who don't have to take the long road for a spell effect. That's what makes them special over everyone else in regards to magic.



It all depends on whether or not you view magic as something inherent or something that anyone can learn.  Many DMs(myself included) view magic as something only a special few can learn.  A very few have the innate ability to use magic (sorcerers), the rest have the ability to be taught magic.  Similar to how the Wheel of Time does the One Power.  Everyone else couldn't light a candle with magic even after 50 years of teaching.

That said, I usually assume that the PCs have the ability to learn magic, excepting specific campaigns that say otherwise or character backgrounds that suggest otherwise.


Actually, the game assumes that everyone can learn magic because wizards don't need special lineages or to be born under mystical signs.  And the reason most people can barely learn to light a candle with magic in D&D has (at least in 3e, and I believe in AD&D 2e as well) been about their Int score.  Average people are assumed to have a 10 (thus being average).  This means (in 3e, I can't look up AD&D 2e because I no longer have the books) they can only learn to cast level 0 spells and nothing better.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.



Then you say 'fighters can't take the Ritual Casting feat/background/whatever' at your table.  The base game needs to be as open and inclusive as possible; let individual tables decide their preferences.  That way, you get what you want, and I get what I want, and everybody is happy.



I agree.  I'm just saying that it shouldn't be assumed that if you take the feat, you automatically have what it takes to be a wizard.  That decision will be made by the DM.  I have no issue with that being the default and my version being the module, though.  Just so long as both options are presented.


I have to admit, I don't really like it taking up a feat.  A single skill, some kind of occult or arcane knowledge skill, really should cover it.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


No.


It's not like baking.  It's like gymanstics.  Or art.  You can provide any schnook a "recipe" for a great painting, or tell them, at length, with diagrams, how to perform a backflip...but if they simply don't have the required native talent or musculature, it will not happen.  Just so, a wizard is someone who has worked out those mental muscles for years, or decades, in order to perform ritual and combat magics.  Some yutz of a fighter who spent all those years in Sir Oaf's Sword Swinging School does not have that skill.




If he takes the feat/background/whatever resource it is, then by definition, he DOES have that skill.  That's kind of the point of taking that feat/background/whatever resource.



I kind of like background or other significant choice. It is one of the problems I have had with the feat system, it is too poof I know something new at level up for me.  There sometimes is, but not always a real sense of progression to the feat.  a fighter fighting learning improved stabby is fine, a fighter doing nothing book/ritual related going "well I got a feat this level, cool ritual caster" seems lame.  there is no real context of time/training and certain things like picking up a whole new bag of tricks just does not seem to fit with that.  The wizard spent 8 years learning to be a mage which might include the feat, you learned it last night while you were out drinking..

This isn't the only example, but it does grate on me.  Don't get me wrong, players/DMS can make it work with role-playing but I'd prefer when the fluff/rules match.