What do Rituals add to the game?


General Discussion

151 to 168 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neutral_Lich wrote:

i would completely agree with you if we actually had any plan on plays testing rituals and necromancy but unless i'm wrong they have no plan to do so and that is why i disagree

unless you are suggesting i wait until they have already print the book in which case i most definitely disagree with you

I actually kinda want to latch onto something here. Ignoring the Necromancy bit though...

I kinda agree. I admit I gave up after a failed run of Mirrored Moon but I'm looking back on my time playing and thinking "When could we have used a Ritual?" and coming back with..., very limited times.

I'm not saying Paizo didn't have a plan to test Rituals but Doomsday Dawn doesn't seem to have a good set up to allow the use of them anyway. So I'm unsure just how much feedback they'll get before going to the printer.

And how likely they'd be willing to change an entire thing afterward is.., well not impossible but very low I would think.

As of now, at least to me, Rituals seem like an after thought of "Oh no where do we put these spells that are somehow too problematic to give casters outright but also too useful to hide behind Rare or removed from the game?".

They aren't bad they're just kinda... meh. And we can only really see what happens as people actually start playing with them in homebrew or when more get printed. By then it might be too late to fix any issues.


I mean, how much testing do Rituals need, given that the rules aren't very different from the "Occult Rituals" rules for PF1?

As far as I can tell the difference is mostly "Rituals always take at least 8 hours to perform" versus "Casting an occult ritual requires at least 10 minutes per ritual level and sometimes as long as 1 hour per ritual level."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like minions should not be massive action economy enhancers, since that encourages people to stack minions and makes game turns take forever.

I mean, I'm going to veto your "Summon hundreds of lantern archons" build in PF1 not because it's evil or disrupts party dynamics, but because it makes every turn take (at least) twice as long. I respect this as a theorycraft exercise but if you actually bring this to a table you're actively disrespecting other people's time.

If people want to have minions who act independently, they should be limited to 1 (to allow for animal companions, eidolons, and phantoms.)

But I'm generally opposed to the idea that everybody gets one character except for this one person who is playing 5 or 6 at once.

Actually, I really hate the current minion rules. It's immersion breaking to realize that your highly trained animal companion is has brain damage compared to all the other members of his species:

Mike the Ranger commands Fang (his wolf AC): "Go get him Fang". Fang takes 2 move actions to close and stops, done for the turn. Next turn, Mike has to tell Fang again "Bite him Fang!".
vs.
A normal wolf - 2 actions closing, and another available to bite the enemy first round, and will continue to attack the enemy at 3 actions per round...

Fang is clearly mentally impaired. You could justify the minion tag for summoned monsters - "you have to keep focusing your will on them to make them obey..." (although they already need concentration) but for animal companions, henchmen, etc, it's just terrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pad300 wrote:
Actually, I really hate the current minion rules. It's immersion breaking to realize that your highly trained animal companion is has brain damage compared to all the other members of his species:

I have to agree. The minion rules are terrible. I agree that someone with a pack of critters getting a lot of extra actions during their turn is a real problem, but there has to be a better solution than this. Animal companions and familiars are seriously crippled, and they cut into their master's ability to do other things. Summoning is now an absolutely terrible option. And there is the nonsensical idea of creatures just standing around unless explicitly commanded every six seconds. I don't know what the solution is, but the playtest minion rule certainly isn't it.


pad300 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like minions should not be massive action economy enhancers, since that encourages people to stack minions and makes game turns take forever.

I mean, I'm going to veto your "Summon hundreds of lantern archons" build in PF1 not because it's evil or disrupts party dynamics, but because it makes every turn take (at least) twice as long. I respect this as a theorycraft exercise but if you actually bring this to a table you're actively disrespecting other people's time.

If people want to have minions who act independently, they should be limited to 1 (to allow for animal companions, eidolons, and phantoms.)

But I'm generally opposed to the idea that everybody gets one character except for this one person who is playing 5 or 6 at once.

Actually, I really hate the current minion rules. It's immersion breaking to realize that your highly trained animal companion is has brain damage compared to all the other members of his species:

Mike the Ranger commands Fang (his wolf AC): "Go get him Fang". Fang takes 2 move actions to close and stops, done for the turn. Next turn, Mike has to tell Fang again "Bite him Fang!".

As a reminder: "If you have the Hunt Target action, your animal companion will assault your target even without your orders. During an encounter, even if you don’t use the Command an Animal action, your animal companion can still use 1 action that round on your turn to Stride towards or Strike one of your hunted targets."


As above for the ranger, and the animal order druid’s companion also gets 1 action if it isn’t commanded. I’m not saying that an alternative solution for command isn’t possible but action economy must be considered when you have in many respects a 2nd character, even if it is a bit weaker than you.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Especially as your companion shouldn't be so much worse that they will be unlikely to hit compared with your -10 attack. Or that you'd rather take a -10 hit instead of a work together benefit like bleeding or extra damage.


Malk_Content wrote:
Especially as your companion shouldn't be so much worse that they will be unlikely to hit compared with your -10 attack. Or that you'd rather take a -10 hit instead of a work together benefit like bleeding or extra damage.

I'm pretty sure that literally never happens. No way is your companion going to have lower to-hit than your -10 attack unless something in their stats just got really jacked up.

And -10 attack being better than work together is just silly. -10 attacks frankly suck (Now if you have a -6 attack from Hunt Target and Agile weapon that might be different, but still questionable), and work together benefits are actually good.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Edge93 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Especially as your companion shouldn't be so much worse that they will be unlikely to hit compared with your -10 attack. Or that you'd rather take a -10 hit instead of a work together benefit like bleeding or extra damage.

I'm pretty sure that literally never happens. No way is your companion going to have lower to-hit than your -10 attack unless something in their stats just got really jacked up.

And -10 attack being better than work together is just silly. -10 attacks frankly suck (Now if you have a -6 attack from Hunt Target and Agile weapon that might be different, but still questionable), and work together benefits are actually good.

My point was in agreement with you. Animal Companions are great because what they can do with your actions are generally better than the action you yourself could have taken.


Malk_Content wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Especially as your companion shouldn't be so much worse that they will be unlikely to hit compared with your -10 attack. Or that you'd rather take a -10 hit instead of a work together benefit like bleeding or extra damage.

I'm pretty sure that literally never happens. No way is your companion going to have lower to-hit than your -10 attack unless something in their stats just got really jacked up.

And -10 attack being better than work together is just silly. -10 attacks frankly suck (Now if you have a -6 attack from Hunt Target and Agile weapon that might be different, but still questionable), and work together benefits are actually good.

My point was in agreement with you. Animal Companions are great because what they can do with your actions are generally better than the action you yourself could have taken.

Ahh, my bad. I misunderstood your phrasing. Sorry, this forum has conditioned me to sometimes read things as probably-negative, it seems. XP


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, how much testing do Rituals need, given that the rules aren't very different from the "Occult Rituals" rules for PF1?

As far as I can tell the difference is mostly "Rituals always take at least 8 hours to perform" versus "Casting an occult ritual requires at least 10 minutes per ritual level and sometimes as long as 1 hour per ritual level."

Unsure as I've never used the Occult Rituals. Because basically everyone goes on about how Occult anything seems to break the game.

I'm also just not sure what to test. Balance? Forcing skill feat picks? Kicking the martial that wants to actually do something into the corner cause the rogue is better? Having a Rogue be actually better at it than Wizard? No summoning tag on some spells? etc etc.

I'm sure we could think of things to test or at least give feed back on but with the speed of the playtest, the internal pace of the story, and how long it takes to use rituals; I don't think we'll be able to really sink our teeth into them until after the book sees print.

And I don't think they'll change anything about Rituals unless it gets to like Crane levels of abuse. But they've also not touched other things before so who knows. We'll only see if it becomes a problem after print is the issue I'm getting at.


MerlinCross wrote:
Unsure as I've never used the Occult Rituals. Because basically everyone goes on about how Occult anything seems to break the game.

I don't really understand this perspective. I've played in and ran a bunch of campaigns, with a lot of Occult classes, and I've played them all myself and I never noticed any problems. I mean, the Occultist is complicated and the Kineticist is hard to wrap your head around, and even though the Occultist is a strong gish it's outdamaged by the cookie-cutter shocking grasp magus, and the Kineticist is outdamaged by a blaster sorcerer.

Plus, Paizo has used Occult Rituals in Adventure Paths before (Strange Aeons had them) so I figure they're comfortable with how they work.


* Doomsday Dawn Spoilers *

I'm back on the "Rituals are for NPCs" think I put in early in this thread. My example would be the two major rituals we actually have in Doomsday Dawn: the villain plan in Mirrored Moon and all of When Stars Go Dark. Both these seem typical of how rituals are intended in PF2 - time consuming, expensive, and incredibly dangerous and hard to pull off.

In Mirrored Moon, the entire plot is about preventing a ritual that takes a colossal 2 months to pull of. It is *intended* to fail, the consequences of success would be horrifying. Failure works as a reward; once the PCs have foiled the ritual, they can find out what the mcguffin was.

In When Stars Go Dark, the ritual centers around the PCs. It HAS to succeed, or there is no adventure. In fact, the ritual IS the adventure.

Neither of these can ever be covered by any set of rules. They are too idiosyncratic, too tailored to a specific situation. And this, I feel, is the best way rituals can work. The long ritual that works exactly as the scenario needs it to. No more no less. No rules needed. If the PCs want to make such a ritual, consult with the GM, and the GM may make an adventure for you to enjoy.

The other kind of ritual is when the alternative would be a spell tax. If the adventure is set underwater, its unfair to demand that a spellcaster give up one spell slot per character just to make the adventure possible to play. Not to mention preparing these would take a full day for a prepared caster, and likely be impossible for a spontaneous caster. But having rituals take entire days to complete in this circumstance would break most plots, as would demanding the PCs have the right proficiencies. A GM would generally introduce some helpful item or NPC to take this load. Rituals do work inn this situation, but only as one of many storytelling tools.If this is solved with a ritual, it should be measured in minutes, not days.

The ritual as it exists now is neither of these two. It is a strange mix of mcguffin and utility. Consider Raise Dead and Atonement. Both fix characters that have suffered misfortune. But having these be elements IN the game, means game time at the table need to be spent on them, game time where the character cannot participate (raise dead) or is severely handicapped (atonement). And how are these situations improved by having a mini-game involving cost, feats, and lots of die rolls? These are situations that should be resolved through a quick montage (the church arranges a ritual/an angel intervenes) and a cost (accept this quest/pay this fine) and problem is solved.

I understand there are groups who might enjoy this kind of game, but I don't, and I don't think it would ever happen in Pathfinder Society. These are tasks that are character driven and thus cannot be written in advance. I would not mind these rules being in the game, but I do not want them in the core book. These pages can be spent much better on other things.


Another problem with having rules for rituals that have a monetary cost, is that this money needs to exist in the game world. A recurring plot hole in PF1 is the reanimator that has a flock of undead minions, but is otherwise broke. Each Hit Dice of undead created costs 50 gp; apparently the reanimator just spent his last dime animating his last undead. What of the PCs arrived 2 days early, would the reanimator have fewer undead and a whole bunch of precious onyx?

Demon summoning is even worse since it has a limited duration. Imagine the PCs scouting the lair of an evil cult and realizing they have a bunch of summoned demons. Well, summon demon costs money, and lasts only a few days. The PCs can wait the cult out until the demons simply disappear. This puts pressure on the GM; the cult must do something proactive to force the player's hand. This is cool, but outside the scope of almost every adventure ever written. Better to handwave it; the evil ritual climaxes just as the PCs invade and the staged fight happens as written.

So, to avoid all this, we remove the money cost on rituals. Suddenly, the PCs can use these rituals to get free cannon fodder. I just can't see a balanced situation here.

The solution in the playtest is to put an ancestry restriction on summon rituals, but this makes them NPC only - but why bother to have rules for NPC only activities that do not take place in an encounter? Again, handwave it.

Customer Service Representative

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts.

I wanted to remove more content here for the argumentative language, personal attacks, and vulgar language. I chose not to due to the conversation which followed and how this led to the appropriate decision to move the intervening discussion to another thread and adjust the tone and scope of the conversation.

Always respect your fellow posters, and do not allow your tone to became heated or resort to profanity or vulgar speech.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Unsure as I've never used the Occult Rituals. Because basically everyone goes on about how Occult anything seems to break the game.

I don't really understand this perspective. I've played in and ran a bunch of campaigns, with a lot of Occult classes, and I've played them all myself and I never noticed any problems. I mean, the Occultist is complicated and the Kineticist is hard to wrap your head around, and even though the Occultist is a strong gish it's outdamaged by the cookie-cutter shocking grasp magus, and the Kineticist is outdamaged by a blaster sorcerer.

Plus, Paizo has used Occult Rituals in Adventure Paths before (Strange Aeons had them) so I figure they're comfortable with how they work.

Shrug. It's just something I hear to the point it seems to be community given. Like CLW spam. Or Rogue being unplaybable. Or everyone should roll wizards.

I believe most the issue might be with Psychics and the entire block gets blamed.


MerlinCross wrote:

Shrug. It's just something I hear to the point it seems to be community given. Like CLW spam. Or Rogue being unplaybable. Or everyone should roll wizards.

I believe most the issue might be with Psychics and the entire block gets blamed.

Is it just the thought and emotion components instead of verbal and somatic so you can cast in full plate without proficiency assuming you never care about winning initiative or making attack rolls thing?

Since I've found it's pretty easy to shut down psychic casting (they take a -10 to concentration checks, and most spells aren't possible if you're under an emotion effect- like shaken), that I need to make a point to avoid doing so.


I am sharing this testimony to partners who are suffering in their relationships because there is a lasting solution. My husband left me and our Children for another woman for 6 years. I tried to be strong just for my children but I couldn't control the pains that torment my heart. I was hurt and confused. I needed help so i researched on the internet and found a site where i saw that Dr. Salem a great spell caster that can help get lovers back with natural zodiac sign spell. I contacted him and he did a special prayer and spells for me. To my surprise, after 48 hours, my husband returned home. That's how we met again and there was a lot of love, joy and peace in the family. You can also contact Dr. Salem from any part of the world a powerful spell caster for solutions on your contact below.
Email: (salemmanifestloverspell@gmail.com or salemmanifestloverspell@outlook.com)
WhatsApp +234 805 397 4975

151 to 168 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What do Rituals add to the game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion