Curious on thoughts of a chapter restricting these rituals,

jpariury said:
So, if the goal is to ditch skills that duplicate other standard skills and things, why not ditch Spell Parry (resist magic), Arcane Armor (wear some, you hippie!), Spirit Lock (get a Paste), Render (Strengthen Yo Stuff!), Enhance Wand (get another wand!), and Item Recall (go find it!)?
Click to expand...

Spell Parry is one of the few "build duplicating" rituals that I like. It doesn't add build, so much as it adds flexibility to a build ability. You still end up spending a build ability when you use a spell parry. In many ways, I kind of wish that it was the template for lots of other rituals.

-MS
 
Last edited:
On careful thought, if I were to run a campaign where I removed rituals, I would probably actually leave rituals in the game, but only allow spellcrafting (no outright casting). That means that all rituals would be only a weekend long at most. I think that limits the impact of rituals on the game pretty fiercely. Sure, it leaves build duplicating rituals in game, but somebody effectively "spent" build that weekend in order to duplicate.

-MS
 
mikestrauss said:
Spell Parry is one of the few "build duplicating" rituals that I like. It doesn't add build, so much as it adds flexibility to a build ability. You still end up spending a build ability when you use a spell parry. In many ways, I kind of wish that it was the template for lots of other rituals.
Click to expand...
In principle, external to this discussion, I agree. "Use your build differently" has a lot of merit, imo. But for the sake of this discussion, it doesn't seem to fit the theme of the OP: if you want to do X, buy the X skill.
 
jpariury said:
Not everyone can buy Celestial spells either, though.
Click to expand...

Everyone but one race. Its more inclusive than exclusive, unlike Resist Magic, which is one race (and kin if you can happen to convince the Plot team, which is rare).
 
Sure, but if you want Resist magic, play that race, just like if you want to cast life, play a caster. (I'm assuming that's the intent of the proposal)

If we're approaching it from a raw "does this ability exactly duplicate other build" concept, we would want to keep Bane Gift, since that has no direct correlation, right?
 
It does have a correlation. It's High Magic. Which anyone can get (even fighters).
 
Since this has been brought up by JP, I'm going to go case by case here and explain my reasoning. It's not just as simple as a build replication removal, it's closer to power bloat via magic item being cut out. It's a move to make ritual magic do something different besides a straight power increase. Also, I'm not a zealot, I can recognize that it's gradated, some rituals are more extreme than others. Also this isn't meant to be a hardline stance but rather a set of decisions made thematically.

Channel Spell - I'm on the fence with this one, and wouldn't be too averse to having it added back in. It gives a different delivery method for a spell, which I like. Except that it effectively gives the wielder an additional spell. If I could make a change instead of just a ban, I'd change it. As it stands it adds more power as well as the interesting delivery method.
Damage Aura - If I could keep the 0+ only level I'd be okay with it. I'm more or less okay with auras. Yes, they're something that you can do with spells, but I haven't encountered auras causing damage bloat.
Monster Slayer - Oh how I want to like you. I'd want to like you if you were at 1/2 the efficacy and you could not have more than one Monster Slayer on a given item. Without a major re-write though... you're abusive.
Race Reaver - See your Monster Slayer cousin.
Enchant - Pretty self explanatory. I'm much more at ease with you and could be talked into letting you into the club. A spell now for a spell later. I can kind of get behind that. Your older brother however:
Expanded Enchantment - A spell now for a spell every day later. No sir, I wouldn't want it in a campaign.
Greater Wand - Pure number pushing.
Master Construct - -___-
Spirit Link - This is more thematic for what I have in my head than anything else. In or out, I don't mind either. Its removal means that making something that can't be taken is more of a difficult decision, because it's on you for the duration. Should you perm, you take this with you.
Spirit Store - Not much use for it without Master Construct. Removal for that reason only.
Store Ability - Just like Enchant, I'm more at ease with you than Expanded Enchantment.
Cloak - I could possibly be talked into letting you into the party.
Bane - My number one culprit for effect pong. It should be special for someone to double bounce something in my opinion. You're outa here for this game.
Elemental Burst - It's the every day thing that gets me.
Elemental Aura - I want you at the table, but I also understand that having to use actual spells for those encounters can make things really interesting.
Earth/Chaos Aura - See Elemental Aura.

Spell Parry - This does not replicate Resist Magic. You cannot resist magic for your friend within weapon distance of you. ;) That said, this is one of my favorite rituals from a constructive point. It takes something you can do, and allows you to do it differently, while still costing you that thing you do when you use it. Every spell you parry is an Eviscerate you can't.
Spirit Lock - Especially with Spirit Lock there are repercussions and choices as to why you would use it. I'm in favor of this above and beyond:
Item Recall - This does something cool that doesn't really cause power bloat. I find it very inoffensive.
Enhance Wand - Takes multiple wands and mooshes them together. Doesn't change how much your wands do for damage, so, eh... I'm cool with it.
Render - Eh, it's something that many rituals add "for free" to an item.
 
MaxIrons said:
Channel Spell - I'm on the fence with this one, and wouldn't be too averse to having it added back in. It gives a different delivery method for a spell, which I like. Except that it effectively gives the wielder an additional spell. If I could make a change instead of just a ban, I'd change it. As it stands it adds more power as well as the interesting delivery method.
Click to expand...

Concept, and bear with me here (this could turn into another post entirely), since we like "using skills to do things differently", what if Channel was changed to a level 1-9, and it let you channel one of your spells you had memorized through a weapon blow? So you memorized 4 lifes and had 4 channel 9ths, you could spellstrike them all, etc. I would like Channel better that way, IMO.

/end off topic.
 
If there's not really an overriding theme to the elimination other than "Ben has a reason to not like it", I definitely can't argue for or against any particular inclusion or exclusion. :)

I guess the only other question is whether or not your intention to disallow the rituals means also disallowing the high magic versions of the same.
 
There is a theme, but I'm also not being a hardliner about said theme. Each and every point you or someone else has made is something that I have considered, ether during the list creation or after someone has brought it us, with an eye on the general theme of rituals not duplicating build abilities. However, each ritual has other merits and drawbacks besides just this that need to be looked at as well. Your Arcane Armor example is prime for this, as there are a lot of external factors besides just build replication. That's why there are some that are a hard no or yes, but most fall somewhere in between. If I was ever to get a campaign like this off the ground (which is unlikely from a logistical standpoint as I don't think that Alliance Seattle or Alliance Oregon could bear an additional campaign), an assembled plot team, alongside the owner, would sit down and hash this list a LOT more, and some rituals would likely change position from included to excluded or vice-versa.

And Norm, I'm with you there, but working within the system as is, we couldn't change a ritual, only include/exclude it. A form of Channel spell that allowed you to cast a spell from memory via that delivery would be kind of awesome though. I'd love to see the idea explored in another thread though.
 
Sure, but at the same point in which you're limiting so severely the rituals in the game, you're welcome to open up LCO rituals: "Harness", which does what Norman outline, and I'm pretty sure you're welcome to simply have all DAs > +0 autoflaw (no result) or even backlash.
 
Which are things I'd be interested in talking to folks about adding, should this ever become closer to reality. But if I allow DA at all, someone can bring their restricted +3 DA to the game, as I can only auto-flaw the casting. It's the toughest of the cases as far as what I can and can't do. If I understand it correctly, having an LCO ritual which only confers the Magic carrier would be skirting what is acceptable to do by charter so hard that I wouldn't want to do that either. So restrict it from the chapter, and write the monster database appropriately instead. *shrugs*
 
You don't have to allow restricted magic items into your game.

If you went the LCO damage aura route, the old DA ritual was less power gamey than the current one. I think someone made a +2 sword once, but most player made damage auras were +1 as you needed additional scrolls for extra damage. The only +3 I ever say was spirt linked to an NPC king and we all joked about perming him for that +3 sword since we would never see another +3 again.
 
That's actually not true. The entire reason such items are "Restricted" is that chapters can accept or not accept them on a case by case basis. If your campaign has a posted policy saying that the only DA items that will be accepted are +0, nobody can claim they're being treated unfairly. You would absolutely be within your rights as the campaign director to do that.
 
Huh.

I love being wrong! :D I thought you had to do it for the whole ritual or not at all!
 
Edit: So you can allow only items that meet certain requirements or no restricted items at all?
Dan Nickname Beshers said:
That's actually not true. The entire reason such items are "Restricted" is that chapters can accept or not accept them on a case by case basis. If your campaign has a posted policy saying that the only DA items that will be accepted are +0, nobody can claim they're being treated unfairly. You would absolutely be within your rights as the campaign director to do that.
Click to expand...
 
Restricted means it CAN travel to all chapters. That does not mean that the chapter HAS to accept the item. Technically they can deny all magic items not from that chapter. This is similar to denying players above a level cap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top