In 3.5E and earlier editions of D&D, many spells had spell components. Fireball required bat guano and so forth. There were some ways of getting around this. Eschew Materials made it such that you weren't required to have material components that cost a gp or less. However it wouldn't work for Animate Dead, Resurrection, and the like which required substantial gp to afford the material components to cast the spell.
So my question is multi-tiered.
1. Should basic spell components exist? (spider web for Web spell, etc.)
2. Should expensive material components exist? (Gem dust for Resurrection, etc.)
3. Should material foci exist? (fleece for permanent image, etc.)
Should Spell Components Exist?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
- Knight
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am
Should Spell Components Exist?
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
Game On,Dungeonomicon wrote: Material components are a joke. I'm not saying that they are metaphorically a joke in that they don't act as a consistent or adequate limiting factor to spellcasting, I mean that they are actually a joke. Material components are supposed to be "ha ha" funny. The fact that even after having this brought to your attention, you still aren't laughing, indicates that this is a failed attempt at humor. Most material components are based on technological gags, when you cast scrying you are literally supposed to grab yourself a "specially treated" mirror, some wire, and some lemons – which is to say that you make a TV set to watch your target on and then power it with an archaic battery. When you cast see invisibility you literally blow talc all over the place – which of course reveals invisible foes. Casting lightning bolt requires you to generate a static charge with an amber rod and some fur, tongues requires that you build a little Tower of Babel, and of course fireball requires that you whip up some actual gunpowder. Get it? You're making the effects MacGuyver style and then claiming that it's "magic" after the fact. Are you laughing yet?
Of course not, because that joke is incredibly lame and there's no way for it to hold your attention for several months of a continuous campaign.
fbmf
-
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
- Knight
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am
Oh I'm aware of the Dungeonomicon, but it doesn't actually answer the questions I asked 
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
-
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
- Knight
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am
Actually no it does not. It speaks of material components being a joke in their implementation but doesn't address the base idea of having spell components nor does it address components or foci with significant costs whether this is a 3e spell or a 4e ritual. So again I invite you all to actually answer the topics questions.
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
No. The resource cost for your spell is the spell slot. Beyond that it's a pain in the ass to keep track of.Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:Actually no it does not. It speaks of material components being a joke in their implementation but doesn't address the base idea of having spell components nor does it address components or foci with significant costs whether this is a 3e spell or a 4e ritual. So again I invite you all to actually answer the topics questions.
If you were playing a game in the era of cap and ball weapons would you have your players keep track of their powder, balls, and percussion caps separately? The correct answer to that, by the way, is no. There's no reason to make players keep track of three different ammunition components for the same weapon.
Spell components present the same problem only moreso, because they're so diverse. I, as a player, neither know nor care how much bat shit my wizard has on his person. But I do want to be able to throw fireballs until I run out of spell slots.
-
CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
I'm cool with foci in D&D, as long as they make sense. I'm cool with costly material components, as long as the costs are reasonable and the components make sense. It's also good to allow for substitutions, and provide multiple options. If there is a run on diamond dust, start using powdered adamantium.
In D&D, cheap-as-free material components should be a minor storytelling device at the most. A wizard should be able to macgyver them in any situation with a minimum of effort. If you want to cast acid arrow and don't have the rhubarb leaf and adder's stomach, just substitute any old kind of acid. If you're naked and adrift in the Astral sea, get bulimic in your hand. It's gross, but it'll work. The dart focus, on the other hand, is absolutely retarded and should go away forever.
Characters that don't prepare their spells shouldn't have to deal with cheap-as-free components at all.
In D&D, cheap-as-free material components should be a minor storytelling device at the most. A wizard should be able to macgyver them in any situation with a minimum of effort. If you want to cast acid arrow and don't have the rhubarb leaf and adder's stomach, just substitute any old kind of acid. If you're naked and adrift in the Astral sea, get bulimic in your hand. It's gross, but it'll work. The dart focus, on the other hand, is absolutely retarded and should go away forever.
Characters that don't prepare their spells shouldn't have to deal with cheap-as-free components at all.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
DISCLAIMER: I do not know, nor do I want to know, anything about 4e.
As flavor, I'll admit that I haven't been reading a lot of fantasy literature recently, but (off the top of my head) I don't recall spell components in the source material. I've seen it for potion (and other magic item but especially potion) making, but not for casting spells.
2. In Tome, mortal money is a non issue after level 10 or so, and therefore expensive material components don't "act as a consistent or limiting factor to spellcasting." So why bother?
In non-Tome, I suppose you could but be warned it causes some weird shit to happen.
3. Other than holy symbols for divine casters, I pretty much feel the same way about focus that I do about components.
Game On,
fbmf
1. Yes it does. It says they are a "failed attempt at humor" that doesn't "act as a consistent or limiting factor to spellcasting." So as a rule, it is a dismal failure.Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:Actually no it does not. It speaks of material components being a joke in their implementation but doesn't address the base idea of having spell components
As flavor, I'll admit that I haven't been reading a lot of fantasy literature recently, but (off the top of my head) I don't recall spell components in the source material. I've seen it for potion (and other magic item but especially potion) making, but not for casting spells.
2. In Tome, mortal money is a non issue after level 10 or so, and therefore expensive material components don't "act as a consistent or limiting factor to spellcasting." So why bother?
In non-Tome, I suppose you could but be warned it causes some weird shit to happen.
If you are determined to use expensive material components, why not just drop the aforementioned joke and have gold be the expensive component every time? If you need 250 GP worth of onyx, just mark off 250 GP, assume you have that in onyx, and call that shit a day.Revised Necromancers Handbook wrote: The really funny thing fact: I’m not even sure how you’re supposed to get these onyx gems into the eye sockets or mouths of the creatures you are animating. Onyx isn’t all that valuable, and 50 GP is a whole pound of gold: really a decently high hit die creature should require the placement of an Onyx bigger than its actual head inside its eye socket/mouth. That may require uses of Shrink Item if your DM is actually using material components as written.
3. Other than holy symbols for divine casters, I pretty much feel the same way about focus that I do about components.
Game On,
fbmf
Last edited by fbmf on Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
crasskris
- Journeyman
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:44 pm
- Location: Some hotel somewhere in Germany
Material components are an exercise in book-keeping. Which, by and large, is bad.
On the other hand, there is a large and thriving market for games concentrating on and glorifying book-keeping, so I suppose there's an audience for everything.
I usually don't mind material components if they are optional. Adding a tiny bonus to a spell, allowing to influence the audiovisual effects of a spell, or being one of many possible restrictions to enable spellcasting caters to the accountant types, may add flavor and, most importantly, doesn't get into the way.
On the other hand, there is a large and thriving market for games concentrating on and glorifying book-keeping, so I suppose there's an audience for everything.
I usually don't mind material components if they are optional. Adding a tiny bonus to a spell, allowing to influence the audiovisual effects of a spell, or being one of many possible restrictions to enable spellcasting caters to the accountant types, may add flavor and, most importantly, doesn't get into the way.
It does. The AD&D of Gygax always had a little of that "don't take youself too seriously" that you see in games like Parinoia. One could see it in the artwork of the original AD&D books. (Like the fighter in fear being held up by the wizard because of the sight of a rust monster.) That went out in 2E. Therefore if you want a serious game spell components should go also.Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:Oh I'm aware of the Dungeonomicon, but it doesn't actually answer the questions I asked
No one took them seriously because you were supposed to, by definition, laugh your ass off at the wizard because of them.
Magic item components / potion components on the other hand were deadly serious by many players I knew. I feel for the poor monster that was on someone's shopping list.
Last edited by tzor on Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
TheFlatline
- Prince
- Posts: 2606
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm
-
ModelCitizen
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am
The people who like gimmick components like bat poop for Fireball seem to be in the minority. 3.5 added the Spell Component Pouch item and nobody seemed to get outraged over it, so I think the playerbase has voted "no" to gimmick components.
4e tags a gold cost onto every ritual to punish you for using rituals. It's a shit system that has no place in any game ever. There's a ritual in PHBII that lets you go without food for a day, and costs as much gold as enough iron rations to last you a fucking year. Not printing non-combat spells at all would be boring but still preferable; printing a bunch of non-combat spells and then deliberately making them all traps is just dishonest. (The problem is tagging a gold cost onto every single ritual regardless of what it does. The gold costs are alright for things the game actually should punish you for having to use like Cure Disease or Raise Dead, or straightforward economy interactions like Enchant Magic Item.)
E: Are we even talking about 4e rituals? I can't tell. If not disregard this.
4e tags a gold cost onto every ritual to punish you for using rituals. It's a shit system that has no place in any game ever. There's a ritual in PHBII that lets you go without food for a day, and costs as much gold as enough iron rations to last you a fucking year. Not printing non-combat spells at all would be boring but still preferable; printing a bunch of non-combat spells and then deliberately making them all traps is just dishonest. (The problem is tagging a gold cost onto every single ritual regardless of what it does. The gold costs are alright for things the game actually should punish you for having to use like Cure Disease or Raise Dead, or straightforward economy interactions like Enchant Magic Item.)
E: Are we even talking about 4e rituals? I can't tell. If not disregard this.
Last edited by ModelCitizen on Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:59 am, edited 3 times in total.
I don't think the Dungeonomicon's correct there. We see them as a joke, but real medieval people basically believed in sympathetic magic like that. Hell, people thought mice were born spontaneously from garbage piles, disease was caused by sin, and thunder and lightning have different names because they had nothing to do with each other (really, lightning "cracks", it doesn't thunder).
In the 18th century, the idea that disease germinated from invisible seeds was a medieval suspicion that science and medicine had long abandoned. It was like saying you could grow a lightning bolt from a small spark of static, or that the tides are influenced by the phase of the moon. Turns out germ theory's good for disease and tides, but not lightning: but who knew? Medieval folk thought it all true (they just thought sin was the seed of disease).
Anyhoo.
1: spell components should generally only exist if you can game with them. Phoenix feathers are an adventure all of their own. Possibly also if it makes an interesting read for flavour in the rules and game world, so Wizards keep spiders in their pockets and are always trying to catch flies, and madmen with spiders in their beard could be trouble.
2: expensive components are good if you routinely give out those components as treasure. So a party without a Wizard gets a diamond to sell for profit, and the party with a Wizard gets a diamond to use for more Stoneskins. Back when such treasure might be either an XP source /or/ a spell component, that could be an interesting choice to be made.
3: foci are less interesting, unless they're uniquely adventurous to find. So if you want to cast a particular spell you have to have already found and defeated some particular monster. Because quests are good.
In the 18th century, the idea that disease germinated from invisible seeds was a medieval suspicion that science and medicine had long abandoned. It was like saying you could grow a lightning bolt from a small spark of static, or that the tides are influenced by the phase of the moon. Turns out germ theory's good for disease and tides, but not lightning: but who knew? Medieval folk thought it all true (they just thought sin was the seed of disease).
Anyhoo.
1: spell components should generally only exist if you can game with them. Phoenix feathers are an adventure all of their own. Possibly also if it makes an interesting read for flavour in the rules and game world, so Wizards keep spiders in their pockets and are always trying to catch flies, and madmen with spiders in their beard could be trouble.
2: expensive components are good if you routinely give out those components as treasure. So a party without a Wizard gets a diamond to sell for profit, and the party with a Wizard gets a diamond to use for more Stoneskins. Back when such treasure might be either an XP source /or/ a spell component, that could be an interesting choice to be made.
3: foci are less interesting, unless they're uniquely adventurous to find. So if you want to cast a particular spell you have to have already found and defeated some particular monster. Because quests are good.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
In even the 3.0 PHB, you could buy a "Spell Component Pouch," which was basically the Eschew Materials feat for 5g. Then there's the feat Eschew Materials itself, which is a feat tax for what most groups do anyway.
Or, you can just play a Cleric or Druid, because material components are almost entirely an arcane concern. You can even reflavour your cleric or druid as a wizard. Clerics just need their holy symbol for most of their spells.
So, in short, they're a bad joke that most groups don't use and are frankly ridiculously easy to circumvent.
Moreover, however, components with a specific cost have pretty much no reason to be specified things. When you make a potion of speed, it doesn't say that you need 45 liters of hedgehog blood, or 45g worth of motor oil, it just says "you spend (Caster Level x Spell Level x 25)/2 gold on important components," and you do that, or circumvent it, and move on with your life. If it's desire for spells to have specific components, then just say that casting a spell costs 12g per (CLxSpell Level), and let people who care fill in the blanks.
Most of the source material that requires specific components is talking about alchemy or potion making (and even then, the ingredients aren't necessarily specific, but symbolic). Other wise, it's usually focus items (Harry Potter's wand, Harry Dresden's hockey stick, etc.).
So, no, material components basically shouldn't exist except for recipe magic like alchemy or potion making. If you want casting to cost money, then just make it a general "you spend this much based on spell and caster level" to connect it to magic item creation.
I'm totally in favour of focus items, though. The fighter has his sword, give the wizard a staff that actually does something for their shtick.
I also like the idea of monster part magic improvement. The idea that, sure, you can cast a fireball just fine. But if you go and hack out a red dragon's pineal gland, you can cast a maximized fireball!
Or, you can just play a Cleric or Druid, because material components are almost entirely an arcane concern. You can even reflavour your cleric or druid as a wizard. Clerics just need their holy symbol for most of their spells.
So, in short, they're a bad joke that most groups don't use and are frankly ridiculously easy to circumvent.
Moreover, however, components with a specific cost have pretty much no reason to be specified things. When you make a potion of speed, it doesn't say that you need 45 liters of hedgehog blood, or 45g worth of motor oil, it just says "you spend (Caster Level x Spell Level x 25)/2 gold on important components," and you do that, or circumvent it, and move on with your life. If it's desire for spells to have specific components, then just say that casting a spell costs 12g per (CLxSpell Level), and let people who care fill in the blanks.
Most of the source material that requires specific components is talking about alchemy or potion making (and even then, the ingredients aren't necessarily specific, but symbolic). Other wise, it's usually focus items (Harry Potter's wand, Harry Dresden's hockey stick, etc.).
So, no, material components basically shouldn't exist except for recipe magic like alchemy or potion making. If you want casting to cost money, then just make it a general "you spend this much based on spell and caster level" to connect it to magic item creation.
I'm totally in favour of focus items, though. The fighter has his sword, give the wizard a staff that actually does something for their shtick.
I also like the idea of monster part magic improvement. The idea that, sure, you can cast a fireball just fine. But if you go and hack out a red dragon's pineal gland, you can cast a maximized fireball!
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
-
echoVanguard
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:35 pm
Our system actually does use material components, but they're additive rather than limiting - a spell can be cast normally (in other words, with no components) or it can be cast with a specific material component, which fundamentally changes the outcome of the spell. For example, a Create Cloud spell cast in the standard manner creates a cloud of choking haze, which is difficult to see through and causes discomfort when breathed (but no actual harm). However, casting a Create Cloud spell with its Material Component at hand (a bottle of volatile chemicals) causes the created cloud to be deadly when inhaled, dealing a potentially lethal amount of poison damage. Material components are typically sizable (fist-sized or so), fragile (can't stuff 30 of them in a bag), perishable (must be used within a week or two), and tracked in discrete amounts in inventory - many are also meaningfully expensive. High-level spellcasters can also "master" specific spells, allowing them to get the more powerful effect without actually having the component (although this raises the resource cost of the spell).
echo
echo
-
Swordslinger
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm
The primary thing with material components is that they present a way to take away the wizard's ability to cast certain spells when he gets captured, they also present a way for an enemy to cripple him by sundering the spell component pouch (though smart players figure out you can carry more).
Though really anything you can do with material components, you can do with an implement. It's actually a lot easier to go the harry potter route and have some spells require wands than to worry about how much bat guano a wizard has on hand at the time.
Though really anything you can do with material components, you can do with an implement. It's actually a lot easier to go the harry potter route and have some spells require wands than to worry about how much bat guano a wizard has on hand at the time.