In our campaign, I am the group's resident Identifier and general utility caster. I enjoy the role, but one of the bigger annoyances as the group identifier is that Arcane Trickster does not gain the ability to use rituals when they gain their spellcasting.
I've made due with using spell slots, but I want to take the Ritual Caster feat at level 10. I want to know what this means for the Ritual spells I already know. (Identify, Illusory Script)
I figure a few options may happen:
- I can now cast these spells as a ritual version, nothing extra required.
- I can copy the spells I know into my spellbook using the Ritual Caster feat rules. (PHB pg 169, 2 hours and 50 gp per spell level)
- I can not cast the spells I know as rituals because they are not written in my spellbook, nor can I copy them in my spellbook because I did not come across the spell in a written form.
I would like to obviously be able to cast them as rituals, and I figure I can talk with the DM about the second option. Still I would like to know how these features interact with each other.
To cast a spell as a ritual, a spellcaster must have a feature that grants the ability to do so. The cleric and the druid, for example, have such a feature. The caster must also have the spell prepared or on his or her list of spells known, unless the character's ritual feature specifies otherwise, as the wizard's does.
2) Ritual caster feat:
You have learned a number of spells that you can cast as rituals. These spells are written in a ritual book, which you must have in hand while casting one of them.
So, the feature that grants you ritual casting is the feat, ritual caster. Ritual caster specifies that the spells you can cast as rituals are the ones in the ritual book you acquire as part of the feat or those thereafter acquired by writing them in as per the feat instructions. Because ritual caster does not specify that you may also cast from your list of prepared spells, I do not believe this is applicable. Your DM may or may not allow you some way of transferring the ritual spells you know - perhaps a friendly magician in town, that kind of thing, but that's up to them. But RAW, you won't be able to just use them right way unless you have a written version available to you.
I would require the spells to be added to the ritual book first. I would just let you write the spells you know as rituals following the normal spellbook rules id you have proficiency in arcana (XGtE describes rules for scribing a scroll of a known spell).
A DM that doesn't allow you to find a way to transfer your current ritual spells into your ritual book after you take Ritual Caster would be kind of a dick DM. Or a DM bound unfairly by Adventurer's League. That's an interesting and sensible use of the feat that falls completely within line for a character like the one you describe, and furthermore you're giving up an ASI or a combat monster feat to take it. I like it.
RAW/AL, unfortunately JCAUDM seems like he's nailed it. There's no especial mechanic for a Trickster to transfer spells to their ritual book without writing them down first, which would technically require you to either find or create a scroll version of your existing ritual spells. You'd have to pay for scribing those spells twice, which makes no bloody sense but eh. RAW. What can you do?
A DM that doesn't allow you to find a way to transfer your current ritual spells into your ritual book after you take Ritual Caster would be kind of a dick DM. Or a DM bound unfairly by Adventurer's League. That's an interesting and sensible use of the feat that falls completely within line for a character like the one you describe, and furthermore you're giving up an ASI or a combat monster feat to take it. I like it.
RAW/AL, unfortunately JCAUDM seems like he's nailed it. There's no especial mechanic for a Trickster to transfer spells to their ritual book without writing them down first, which would technically require you to either find or create a scroll version of your existing ritual spells. You'd have to pay for scribing those spells twice, which makes no bloody sense but eh. RAW. What can you do?
As a DM, I would charge you the GP cost to copy them in, but otherwise I’d allow it. Especially if your character sought advice from a Wizard, or a Pact of the Tome Warlock. I might make a fun little side adventure out of it though if your party didn’t include one of those, or at least a series of social encounters or something. Something small to delay it a few sessions and build up the anticipation and the sense of accomplishment.
There is no reason to assume that you would not be able to scribe your currently known ritual spells into a newly acquired ritual book. You do not have to have a written version already on-hand because you already know the spell.
The process of scribing a spell from one book to another is for spells that you do not personally already know. It is the process of deciphering another spellcaster's unique notation, and then scribing that information in your own unique notation. The time/gold cost associated with that is from experimenting with the spell until you understand it. You've already done that part. Got an Ink Pen? Go to town.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There is no reason to assume that you would not be able to scribe your currently known ritual spells into a newly acquired ritual book. You do not have to have a written version already on-hand because you already know the spell.
The process of scribing a spell from one book to another is for spells that you do not personally already know. It is the process of deciphering another spellcaster's unique notation, and then scribing that information in your own unique notation. The time/gold cost associated with that is from experimenting with the spell until you understand it. You've already done that part. Got an Ink Pen? Go to town.
Spellbooks do mention requiring a special ink though, so I dont think it will be that easy. Charging half the gold cost or something would be a house rule. So by RAW, I think they at least need to pay the normal gold and time cost to write it down.
The process of scribing a spell from one book to another is for spells that you do not personally already know. It is the process of deciphering another spellcaster's unique notation, and then scribing that information in your own unique notation. The time/gold cost associated with that is from experimenting with the spell until you understand it. You've already done that part. Got an Ink Pen? Go to town.
Not completely true. It still costs a wizard money to copy their own spellbook. It's just much cheaper - 10 gold per spell level compared to the normal 50.
The process of scribing a spell from one book to another is for spells that you do not personally already know. It is the process of deciphering another spellcaster's unique notation, and then scribing that information in your own unique notation. The time/gold cost associated with that is from experimenting with the spell until you understand it. You've already done that part. Got an Ink Pen? Go to town.
Not completely true. It still costs a wizard money to copy their own spellbook. It's just much cheaper - 10 gold per spell level compared to the normal 50.
You're right about that; forgot they already detailed a cost specifically for scribing what you already know. The main thing is that the OP doesn't need another copy of the spell, or to pay full price for scribing a known ritual.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Was actually looking to see what people have been talking about with this sort of thing. As far as I'm aware RAW you'd need to first scribe the spell onto a scroll and then add it to your book. That being said, I find that hilariously nonsensical. Not necessarily in your occasion since arcane tricksters can't ritual cast, you're kinda snookered there but even considering things like a cleric getting the cleric ritual book. They know how to cast the spell, they know how to cast it as a ritual, but they'd still need to spend way more money and time to scribe it into a scroll first to then put it into their ritual book.
Honestly it's one of those ones where you gotta talk to your DM about.
There is no reason to assume that you would not be able to scribe your currently known ritual spells into a newly acquired ritual book.
You mean apart from the rules that say you can't. :-)
The feat is very clear. "If you come across a spell in written form, such as a magical spell scroll or a wizard's spellbook, you might be able to add it to your ritual book. "
Arcane Trickster Rogues don't write down their spells. They can't learn spells from scrolls or spellbooks. They are not a ritual caster, so they don't even know how to cast their known spells as a ritual.
As a GM, whether or not I let the arcane trickster rogue scribe their known spells would probably depend on how much pizza they bought.
I have a level 8 arcane trickster w/ritual casting if I have a spell in my ritual casting book that I also have a spell slot for. can I just use a spell slot? as I have Gentle Repose for ritual casing. I'm wondering why I couldn't just use a spell slot for it in combat/ take an action to cast.
I'm assuming of course the reason is that wizards are required to prepare there spells at the start of the day and thief's just know a limited number and that's it. I'm just wondering if the ritual casting makes it possible or if its just a mechanics limitation that is intended to keep someone like me from gaming the system.
And I freely admit that my character is paying a wizard to develop a spell slot storage ring that you can bank unused spell slots to boost my spell casting past my level limitation.
You do indeed need to have a spell prepared or known in order to use slots to cast it. The arcane trickster spellcasting feature tells you "For example, if you know the 1st-level spell charm person and have a 1st-level and a 2nd-level spell slot available, you can cast charm person using either slot."
Spells in your book are not available to cast with slots according to the rules.
Reading through both the spellcasting feature of the Arcane Trickster and the Ritual Caster feat I think it would be possible to use your spell slots to cast spells you learned from the Ritual Caster feat so long as you chose the Wizard spell list when taking the feat. While I think it is allowed RAW whether that is intended or not, or if it would fly at the table you play at, is another matter entirely.
Here is the reasoning for why I believe this is allowed RAW:
The Arcane Trickster spellcasting feature states in the spell slot section: "The Arcane Trickster Spellcasting table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher." (emphasis mine) - From this the only requirement for using your spell slots to cast spells, assuming your not multi-classed, is that the spells be on the Wizard spell list and that you know them.
The Ritual Caster feat states: "You have learned a number of spells that you can cast as rituals." (emphasis mine) - The spells acquired from this feat are known spells, not prepared spells, similar to the Magic Initiate feat. This distinction is supported by the SAC here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA019 where it explains that a druid cannot ritually cast spells learned from the Magic Initiate feat because their ritual casting trait requires that they prepare the spell, and the Magic Initiate feat spells are known but not prepared. Also when "can" is used in a rule it means the player has the option of doing something, when something is required the word "must" is typically used. For example to use a spell as an opportunity attack as allowed by the Warcaster feat the player must only target the creature that provoked the opportunity attack. Also when you learn a spell with the ritual tag you know how to cast it regularly and as a ritual, you don't have to learn the same spell twice to gain access to these two different methods of casting, this is addressed in the SAC here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA148
That is how I read the text of these rules at least, as I mentioned earlier your DM may rule differently.
Edit: As for the homebrew magic item, that is on your DM to balance. But I would recommend being honest and transparent with your DM about what your goals are to help ensure that everyone at the table is having fun.
Ah, nah. The feat makes it pretty clear that you’ve book-learned them, you don’t hold them in your mind. They’re never called either prepared or known. Point on that: you explicitly do not learn or know new spells that you add to your ritual book, you can simply add them to your ritual book. Additionally, you need to hold the ritual book to cast those spells. That is a specific restriction that wizards don’t even have.
RAW, you would have to be able to create a scroll and then copy that scroll into your ritual book. A DM might decide you can just do it, but there's no in-game reason why a caster which has no ability to cast something as a ritual before taking the feat would just know how to cast his or her known spells as a ritual. But, if you have met the requirements to create a scroll, and since a scroll you created would meet the requirements of "encountering a written version of the spell", I would say you've met the requirements to put the spell into your ritual book.
Honestly, and I'm sure people are gonna shout at me for this, I'd say they still need to find the spells in the wild one way or another. The point of the Ritual Caster feat is to give a character limited access to ritual spells, not given them the equivalent of a the full "ritual casting" spellcasting feature. We can argue hypothetical Watsonian arguments for or against until we're blue in the face and they'd be equally valid because the actual in-world mechanics of how magic works are very vague and nebulous, but the feat clearly is not intended to allow say a sorcerer or warlock to suddenly be able to cast every ritual spell they know as a ritual.
Of course, this is all fairly academic now since for 1D&D they've held firm to any caster being able to ritual cast.
I agree that it's academic, but I like having good reasons before I say "no" to my players. I think if someone has invested in Arcana proficiency (not guaranteed if their character can't ritual cast) then they have gone out of their way to be a character that understands the arcane. This also means they are able to create a spell scroll and "encounter" their written spell. If they invest the amount of time and material cost to do all this (1 obscure proficiency, one feat, time and material components for a scroll, time and material components for entering spell into the book) then I think they've met both the RAW and story costs for ritual casting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello, I had a rules question about my level 9 Arcane Trickster Rogue in my friend's campaign.
Ander Mallard
https://ddb.ac/characters/1412089/5VkD6d
In our campaign, I am the group's resident Identifier and general utility caster. I enjoy the role, but one of the bigger annoyances as the group identifier is that Arcane Trickster does not gain the ability to use rituals when they gain their spellcasting.
I've made due with using spell slots, but I want to take the Ritual Caster feat at level 10. I want to know what this means for the Ritual spells I already know. (Identify, Illusory Script)
I figure a few options may happen:
- I can now cast these spells as a ritual version, nothing extra required.
- I can copy the spells I know into my spellbook using the Ritual Caster feat rules. (PHB pg 169, 2 hours and 50 gp per spell level)
- I can not cast the spells I know as rituals because they are not written in my spellbook, nor can I copy them in my spellbook because I did not come across the spell in a written form.
I would like to obviously be able to cast them as rituals, and I figure I can talk with the DM about the second option. Still I would like to know how these features interact with each other.
Thank you
So, I think it resolves like this.
1) rules of casting rituals (link):
2) Ritual caster feat:
So, the feature that grants you ritual casting is the feat, ritual caster. Ritual caster specifies that the spells you can cast as rituals are the ones in the ritual book you acquire as part of the feat or those thereafter acquired by writing them in as per the feat instructions. Because ritual caster does not specify that you may also cast from your list of prepared spells, I do not believe this is applicable. Your DM may or may not allow you some way of transferring the ritual spells you know - perhaps a friendly magician in town, that kind of thing, but that's up to them. But RAW, you won't be able to just use them right way unless you have a written version available to you.
I would require the spells to be added to the ritual book first. I would just let you write the spells you know as rituals following the normal spellbook rules id you have proficiency in arcana (XGtE describes rules for scribing a scroll of a known spell).
Take feat.
choose the ritual spells you already know for the Feat.
Use Trickster ability to swap spells at level up to take an enchantment or illusion spell in there place.
A DM that doesn't allow you to find a way to transfer your current ritual spells into your ritual book after you take Ritual Caster would be kind of a dick DM. Or a DM bound unfairly by Adventurer's League. That's an interesting and sensible use of the feat that falls completely within line for a character like the one you describe, and furthermore you're giving up an ASI or a combat monster feat to take it. I like it.
RAW/AL, unfortunately JCAUDM seems like he's nailed it. There's no especial mechanic for a Trickster to transfer spells to their ritual book without writing them down first, which would technically require you to either find or create a scroll version of your existing ritual spells. You'd have to pay for scribing those spells twice, which makes no bloody sense but eh. RAW. What can you do?
Please do not contact or message me.
As a DM, I would charge you the GP cost to copy them in, but otherwise I’d allow it. Especially if your character sought advice from a Wizard, or a Pact of the Tome Warlock. I might make a fun little side adventure out of it though if your party didn’t include one of those, or at least a series of social encounters or something. Something small to delay it a few sessions and build up the anticipation and the sense of accomplishment.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is no reason to assume that you would not be able to scribe your currently known ritual spells into a newly acquired ritual book. You do not have to have a written version already on-hand because you already know the spell.
The process of scribing a spell from one book to another is for spells that you do not personally already know. It is the process of deciphering another spellcaster's unique notation, and then scribing that information in your own unique notation. The time/gold cost associated with that is from experimenting with the spell until you understand it. You've already done that part. Got an Ink Pen? Go to town.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Spellbooks do mention requiring a special ink though, so I dont think it will be that easy. Charging half the gold cost or something would be a house rule. So by RAW, I think they at least need to pay the normal gold and time cost to write it down.
Not completely true. It still costs a wizard money to copy their own spellbook. It's just much cheaper - 10 gold per spell level compared to the normal 50.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You're right about that; forgot they already detailed a cost specifically for scribing what you already know. The main thing is that the OP doesn't need another copy of the spell, or to pay full price for scribing a known ritual.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Was actually looking to see what people have been talking about with this sort of thing. As far as I'm aware RAW you'd need to first scribe the spell onto a scroll and then add it to your book. That being said, I find that hilariously nonsensical. Not necessarily in your occasion since arcane tricksters can't ritual cast, you're kinda snookered there but even considering things like a cleric getting the cleric ritual book. They know how to cast the spell, they know how to cast it as a ritual, but they'd still need to spend way more money and time to scribe it into a scroll first to then put it into their ritual book.
Honestly it's one of those ones where you gotta talk to your DM about.
You mean apart from the rules that say you can't. :-)
The feat is very clear. "If you come across a spell in written form, such as a magical spell scroll or a wizard's spellbook, you might be able to add it to your ritual book. "
Arcane Trickster Rogues don't write down their spells. They can't learn spells from scrolls or spellbooks. They are not a ritual caster, so they don't even know how to cast their known spells as a ritual.
As a GM, whether or not I let the arcane trickster rogue scribe their known spells would probably depend on how much pizza they bought.
I have a level 8 arcane trickster w/ritual casting if I have a spell in my ritual casting book that I also have a spell slot for. can I just use a spell slot? as I have Gentle Repose for ritual casing. I'm wondering why I couldn't just use a spell slot for it in combat/ take an action to cast.
I'm assuming of course the reason is that wizards are required to prepare there spells at the start of the day and thief's just know a limited number and that's it. I'm just wondering if the ritual casting makes it possible or if its just a mechanics limitation that is intended to keep someone like me from gaming the system.
And I freely admit that my character is paying a wizard to develop a spell slot storage ring that you can bank unused spell slots to boost my spell casting past my level limitation.
Thoughts?
You do indeed need to have a spell prepared or known in order to use slots to cast it. The arcane trickster spellcasting feature tells you "For example, if you know the 1st-level spell charm person and have a 1st-level and a 2nd-level spell slot available, you can cast charm person using either slot."
Spells in your book are not available to cast with slots according to the rules.
Reading through both the spellcasting feature of the Arcane Trickster and the Ritual Caster feat I think it would be possible to use your spell slots to cast spells you learned from the Ritual Caster feat so long as you chose the Wizard spell list when taking the feat. While I think it is allowed RAW whether that is intended or not, or if it would fly at the table you play at, is another matter entirely.
Here is the reasoning for why I believe this is allowed RAW:
The Arcane Trickster spellcasting feature states in the spell slot section: "The Arcane Trickster Spellcasting table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher." (emphasis mine) - From this the only requirement for using your spell slots to cast spells, assuming your not multi-classed, is that the spells be on the Wizard spell list and that you know them.
The Ritual Caster feat states: "You have learned a number of spells that you can cast as rituals." (emphasis mine) - The spells acquired from this feat are known spells, not prepared spells, similar to the Magic Initiate feat. This distinction is supported by the SAC here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA019 where it explains that a druid cannot ritually cast spells learned from the Magic Initiate feat because their ritual casting trait requires that they prepare the spell, and the Magic Initiate feat spells are known but not prepared. Also when "can" is used in a rule it means the player has the option of doing something, when something is required the word "must" is typically used. For example to use a spell as an opportunity attack as allowed by the Warcaster feat the player must only target the creature that provoked the opportunity attack. Also when you learn a spell with the ritual tag you know how to cast it regularly and as a ritual, you don't have to learn the same spell twice to gain access to these two different methods of casting, this is addressed in the SAC here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA148
That is how I read the text of these rules at least, as I mentioned earlier your DM may rule differently.
Edit: As for the homebrew magic item, that is on your DM to balance. But I would recommend being honest and transparent with your DM about what your goals are to help ensure that everyone at the table is having fun.
Ah, nah. The feat makes it pretty clear that you’ve book-learned them, you don’t hold them in your mind. They’re never called either prepared or known. Point on that: you explicitly do not learn or know new spells that you add to your ritual book, you can simply add them to your ritual book. Additionally, you need to hold the ritual book to cast those spells. That is a specific restriction that wizards don’t even have.
RAW, you would have to be able to create a scroll and then copy that scroll into your ritual book. A DM might decide you can just do it, but there's no in-game reason why a caster which has no ability to cast something as a ritual before taking the feat would just know how to cast his or her known spells as a ritual. But, if you have met the requirements to create a scroll, and since a scroll you created would meet the requirements of "encountering a written version of the spell", I would say you've met the requirements to put the spell into your ritual book.
Honestly, and I'm sure people are gonna shout at me for this, I'd say they still need to find the spells in the wild one way or another. The point of the Ritual Caster feat is to give a character limited access to ritual spells, not given them the equivalent of a the full "ritual casting" spellcasting feature. We can argue hypothetical Watsonian arguments for or against until we're blue in the face and they'd be equally valid because the actual in-world mechanics of how magic works are very vague and nebulous, but the feat clearly is not intended to allow say a sorcerer or warlock to suddenly be able to cast every ritual spell they know as a ritual.
Of course, this is all fairly academic now since for 1D&D they've held firm to any caster being able to ritual cast.
I agree that it's academic, but I like having good reasons before I say "no" to my players. I think if someone has invested in Arcana proficiency (not guaranteed if their character can't ritual cast) then they have gone out of their way to be a character that understands the arcane. This also means they are able to create a spell scroll and "encounter" their written spell. If they invest the amount of time and material cost to do all this (1 obscure proficiency, one feat, time and material components for a scroll, time and material components for entering spell into the book) then I think they've met both the RAW and story costs for ritual casting.