Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
Seriously? We had regular "why rituals suck" threads on this very forum, it's the equivalent of 3E's perennial debates about monks, and 5E's about its skill system. It's heavily controversial, is the point.

While a lot of players like the general idea of having codified non-combat encounters, I've never seen anyone who wasn't a hardcore 4E fan actually like 4E's implementation (and a lot of hardcore 4E fans dislike that part of the game, and it was widely mocked in the LFR public campaign). Of course, this is exactly why both of 4E's successors (5E and PF2) haven't reused anything resembling 4E's ritual system, except reusing its name for something that works completely differently.

Anyway, the forum search button is right there, so feel free to look for some old threads here at GITP
I wouldn't exactly call myself a big fan of any edition of D&D, but part of the reason I feel that 4e is the least bad edition is because of the Rituals system. Oh, it could use some tweaks here and there, sure; most everything has room for improvement (like the available skills for the fighter and how many they can select as trained!). However, one of the reasons I bounced off of 5e was because it absolutely gutted the number of spells that could be cast as rituals. It's like a Rogue hit the concept with Bloodbath. And it was an Adroit Explorer, so after the concept of rituals finally saved that off, it got hit with it again.