Community

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:51PM, FluxPoint wrote:

Well, yes sir, you are correct. But I didn't see the small word change until this packet. It changed from 11312Classes to 121712Classes. Either way, it changes the nature of my evoker if played according to the Rituals description in the latest packet (which matches the 1217 version but not 1113).

Ah.

Well, I agree with mexrage. The change was a good one. -- The unfortunate fact that your evoker was a casualty of the change is a bummer, though. I don't think it woud be at all imbaalancing to continue playing as you've been.

The rules for rituals contridict each other.  This has not changed in the current packet, it is exactly as it was in the Dec packet.


In the How to Play document, it says that  "The advantage of casting a spell as a ritual is that you do not have to prepare the spell ahead of time."


However, in the Classes document, it clearly says that only a scholarly wizard, you can cast spells as rituals without preparing them ahead of time.  Otherwise, you must have the spell prepared to cast it as a ritual.


For example (Wizard): "You can cast any spell you have prepared as a ritual, provided that the spell has a ritual version."  (Clerics have the exact same text).

Generally, I assume that the classes document (being more recently and heavily edited) is the correct rules.  But in this case, it is not clear what the benefit is intended to be.  I have always assumed that casting a ritual in this way does not expend a spell slot, however it does not state this and a strict reading of the precise words used (they call using a ritual 'casting a spell' and they state that casting a spell costs a slot) implies that it still uses a slot which makes rituals pointless.

Altogether, it appears to be a case of sloppy editing and hopefully they will clarify in the next packet.



But none of this changed in the January packet.

Carl

Rituals are poorly realised in the current packet.  I am in favour of non-caster classes gaiing access to them but not all of them with just one feat.  I'd be in favour of bundling them up in related packets which could be based on class or related themes e.g. you could have a seer feat that gives access to certain cleric and wizard divnations, another that grants access to plant/nature related rituals, another that grants access to animal related spells, exploration spells, summoning, and teleportation etc.  You get the idea. 

4e had a few themed bundles like this e.g. for the Vistani.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 2:09AM, FallingIcicle wrote:

Academic wizards still get to use rituals that haven't prepared (as long as the spell is in their spellbook).

That said, this is a stupid change that ruins most of the point of rituals. It's just like the packet before it that took away at-will cantrips and only gave them in limited fashion, based on your tradition. Thankfully, they reversed themselves on that one. Now we need to convince them to undo this ritual casting change.

Actually  - I like the change.  It just needs to give a reason to use a ritual.

I don't dislike giving everyone the ability to cast them if they know them, without using a slot.


But if they do that, do we need to give Scholarly Wizards a new perk?    


If rituals didn't cost a slot - it would fix the problem.


The academic wizard gets a big boost (although some will argue they don't need a boost outside of combat) and the other classes have a reason to prepare those ritual spells. 


As for other classes using them:  This ought to be a feat.  There should be a feat to learn a single ritual spell (just as there is a feat to learn a maneuver).  In fact -there ought to also be a feat to learn a Skill Trick.  And maybe even a feat to learn a specific Channel Divinity (1x per day, of course).

 

Carl