New House Rule for Ritual spells

This is a place for G.M.s and GM wannabes to share ideas and their own methods of play. It is not a locked forum so be aware your players may be watching!

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

Goliath's House Rule for Ritual spells

Not bad GS, not bad! I might just use this (or something close)
2
29%
GS, you're a fool! BURN in the fires!
0
No votes
Not bad, but I don't see me using this in my games
3
43%
I'm one of the people you didn't want a response from
0
No votes
None of the above
2
29%
 
Total votes: 7

Goliath Strongarm
Hero
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2000 1:01 am
Location: AZ

New House Rule for Ritual spells

Unread post by Goliath Strongarm »

First, let me start with if your argument is "I don't see any reason to mess with any of the rules because the RAW are super awesome and completely perfect", or anything similar, I just don't want to hear it (or read it, as the case may be).

That being typed...



Rituals, as written, have a static save. Your save against a ritual version of a spell is always 16. He doesn't get his bonus to spell strength to modify this (in PF, this is made explicitly clear, where as it's not as clearly stated in RUE. They simply DON'T say that he gets his spell strength, like they do with spells).

For upper levels, this makes rituals extremely weak. By the time a wizard is 12th level, he has the same effective save (16), rituals take MUCH longer to cast, they are easier to disrupt. The only REAL advantage is if you have multiple participants being able to pool PPE.

But, is there a difference between making it a bunch of 12th level wizards and a bunch of 1st level wizards led by one 12th level wizard, besides the amount of PPE? Nope, none. Is there any more of a threat if there are 10000 cultists, or 1000 cultists or 2 cultists in that ritual? Nope, none. Just takes longer to stop, that's all. What about if the cultists are spell casters, versus being villagers that can barely read? What's the difference? The PPE.

Why? Why aren't there any modifiers for any of that? Shouldn't large groups of magic users, gathered together focusing their will to cast one mighty spell be something to be FEARED?

So, after discussing some stuff with a pal of mine the other night, and we bounced a few things back and forth, I ran some numbers. Here's my final idea..
************
Ritual Leader adds 1/2 Spell Strength Bonus (round up to nearest whole number)
Ritual members:
Any OCC that gets a spell strength bonus: +1/2 of current bonus (round down, minimum 1)
Any OCC that channels PPE NOT included above (spirit strikes, demon death blow, etc): +0.5 per person to spell strength
All other people: +0.25 to spell strength


After you add up your totals, any non-whole numbers don't count for spell strength, but the people can obviously still be included for purposes of PPE, and in case someone starts killing ritual members.

Depending on individual campaigns, GMs can put a "cap" on where the save goes, however, for that "earth shaking OMG we're here to save the world because these guys are casting a ritual to throw a volcano down on top of the Western Empire (or Chi-Town, or wherever)" campaign, where the "planet itself" or something similar, would have to resist, put some oomph behind the spell.


Let the commenting (and voting) begin.
*Edit was in the opening statement
Last edited by Goliath Strongarm on Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
--
GS
Galadriel in leather! Yayayayayayaya!
>>>----Therumancer--->

Well, hang on to your seats boys and girls, but I agree with GS-Veknironth

[Goliath baiting]Hey, according to my copy of Yin-Sloth Jungles, they came out in 1995. Didn't you get your copies?[/Golaith baiting]-MrNexx, regarding the OK books

People don't like it when searching through a website is a pain in the butt (even if it's a proctology website)-Uncle Servo
Giant2005
Knight
Posts: 3209
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:57 am

Re: New House Rule for Ritual spells

Unread post by Giant2005 »

These house rules aren't bad but for the most part, they aren't as good as the relevant Sorcerous Proficiencies (Ritual Specialist and Group Casting) in Through the Glass Darkly.
The Sorcerous Proficiencies however, don't do anything about Spell Strength - they only effect PPE cost, Range, Duration and Damage, so your rules fill that hole pretty well. I'd just rather see some rules amending the existing options to fill that need, instead of designing something that for the most part seems mutually exclusive.
User avatar
Damian Magecraft
Knight
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 1:01 am
Comment: Evil GM
Master of Magics
Defender of the Faith
Location: chillicothe, ohio; usa
Contact:

Re: New House Rule for Ritual spells

Unread post by Damian Magecraft »

not bad GS.
my own house Rules for this are a tad different.

House Rule:
Rituals add a +4 to spell strength
If more than one wizard is involved in a ritual casting the Highest spell Strength is the base and a + is added for each additional caster (max of +4).
DM is correct by the way. - Ninjabunny
It's a shoddy carpenter who blames his tools. - Killer Cyborg
Every group has one problem player. If you cannot spot the one in your group; look in the mirror.
It is not a good session until at least one player looks you in the eye and says "you sick twisted evil ****"
User avatar
Warshield73
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:23 am
Comment: "I will not be silenced. I will not submit. I will find the truth and shout it to the world. "
Location: Houston, TX

Re: New House Rule for Ritual spells

Unread post by Warshield73 »

Damian Magecraft wrote:not bad GS.
my own house Rules for this are a tad different.

House Rule:
Rituals add a +4 to spell strength
If more than one wizard is involved in a ritual casting the Highest spell Strength is the base and a + is added for each additional caster (max of +4).

I like what you're going for here GS, but my rules are closer to Damian's than yours. I like to minimize the big charts and keep it simple.
Northern Gun Chief of Robotics
Designer of NG-X40 Storm Hammer Power Armor & NG-HC1000 Dragonfly Hover Chopper
Big game hunter, explorer extra ordinaire and expert on the Aegis Buffalo
Ultimate Insider for WB 32: Lemuria, WB 33: Northern Gun 1, WB 34: Northern Gun 2
Showdown Backer Robotech RPG Tactics
Benefactor Insider Rifts Bestiary: Vol 1, Rifts Bestiary: Vol 2
smashed
Wanderer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: New House Rule for Ritual spells

Unread post by smashed »

I'm not a big fan of non-casters to add any spell strength bonus to a ritual.

Here are my house rules somewhat a mix between yours and Damians.
Rituals are +4 spell strength.
The leader of the ritual adds their spell strength.
Each additional caster can add their spell strength, but this maxes out at the average caster level of the additional members.
User avatar
Damian Magecraft
Knight
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 1:01 am
Comment: Evil GM
Master of Magics
Defender of the Faith
Location: chillicothe, ohio; usa
Contact:

Re: New House Rule for Ritual spells

Unread post by Damian Magecraft »

Damian Magecraft wrote:not bad GS.
my own house Rules for this are a tad different.

House Rule:
Rituals add a +4 to spell strength
If more than one wizard is involved in a ritual casting the Highest spell Strength is the base and a + is added for each additional caster (max of +4).

here is a BTS variant I thought up a few years back.
I just may make this my new official House rule.
Rituals add a +4 spell strength.
Multiple casters:
Highest Spell Strength is the base.
+1 for every 2 casters (caster is defined as a being capable of utilizing spells on their own) past the first (max of a +6).
This "explains" mechanically why covens typically consist of 13 members.
DM is correct by the way. - Ninjabunny
It's a shoddy carpenter who blames his tools. - Killer Cyborg
Every group has one problem player. If you cannot spot the one in your group; look in the mirror.
It is not a good session until at least one player looks you in the eye and says "you sick twisted evil ****"
Locked

Return to “G.M.s Forum”