Spell Components [Archive] - Wizards Community

Spell Components [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
WraithXIII
07-05-03, 12:29 PM Do you make your players stick to the spell component rules when casting spells or not? I don't for most of them, except for spells that cost experience, otherwise they'd be casting wish everytime time they did something wrong or needed cash. How you other DM's tackle this issue?
Dan_the_Rathma_Man
07-06-03, 02:37 AM All the games that I have played in have only worried about the components that cost a good deal(100gp and up in the most recent) or are very rare.
GoodOlWillickers
07-06-03, 12:11 PM I don't do the XP costs, usually. I usually have them age the casters, because that's something that would actually make the character think twice about casting the spell. The XP cost is a good idea, but it just doesn't really work, since XP is gained so fast in 3e. I usually have spells with XP costs age the caster a number of years equal to the XP cost divided by 1,000. I also scale it up for long-lived humanoids, so that the humans don't get gypped.

Peace
-Will
Savras
07-06-03, 01:47 PM I always make 'em use 'em.
It adds flavour. Also, it makes 'em use Whatchmacallit Matirials (Eschew, wasn't it?) and only bother with "big" matirials.

Have fun!

Savras
Faraer
07-06-03, 02:11 PM Spell components are fun: they're part of the tools you use to describe spellcasting along with the V and S components. (That doesn't mean you need players to rigidly account for them, unless one is prone to abuse such liberties.)
FineasBoggs
07-06-03, 02:19 PM Do you realize that if you enforced the material componant you would spend all your time roleplaying buying and finding material componants. While going to the mage fair looking for componants can be interesting every once in a while, if thats all you did it would be one boring campaign.
Dan_the_Rathma_Man
07-06-03, 02:25 PM I think that the way to go with components is to have the casters "buy" them when they cast the spells so that the whole game is not going around trying to find a component to one of your spells.
Changing XP costs to aging is a interesting idea and would make a mage like me think twice about cast spells with what was a XP cost.
Druxus Rhym
07-08-03, 08:59 PM In the players handbook as i recall as long as you have the spell compoent pouch you only need to pay GP when it's has a costly spell compent and i ALWAYS use exp costs
Dan_the_Rathma_Man
07-08-03, 10:07 PM Originally posted by Druxus Rhym
In the players handbook as i recall as long as you have the spell compoent pouch you only need to pay GP when it's has a costly spell compent and i ALWAYS use exp costs

The book doesn't say that for the pouch, it says that they are assumed to have any component that doesn't hace a listed cost. I think that having spellcasters buy the pouch and then buy the costly components is the way to go because it hastens that part of the game, which doesn't have much of a role-playing aura to it.

Always nice to se another Thayen.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WraithXIII 07-05-03, 12:29 PM	Do you make your players stick to the spell component rules when casting spells or not? I don't for most of them, except for spells that cost experience, otherwise they'd be casting wish everytime time they did something wrong or needed cash. How you other DM's tackle this issue?
Dan_the_Rathma_Man 07-06-03, 02:37 AM	All the games that I have played in have only worried about the components that cost a good deal(100gp and up in the most recent) or are very rare.
GoodOlWillickers 07-06-03, 12:11 PM	I don't do the XP costs, usually. I usually have them age the casters, because that's something that would actually make the character think twice about casting the spell. The XP cost is a good idea, but it just doesn't really work, since XP is gained so fast in 3e. I usually have spells with XP costs age the caster a number of years equal to the XP cost divided by 1,000. I also scale it up for long-lived humanoids, so that the humans don't get gypped. Peace -Will
Savras 07-06-03, 01:47 PM	I always make 'em use 'em. It adds flavour. Also, it makes 'em use Whatchmacallit Matirials (Eschew, wasn't it?) and only bother with "big" matirials. Have fun! Savras
Faraer 07-06-03, 02:11 PM	Spell components are fun: they're part of the tools you use to describe spellcasting along with the V and S components. (That doesn't mean you need players to rigidly account for them, unless one is prone to abuse such liberties.)
FineasBoggs 07-06-03, 02:19 PM	Do you realize that if you enforced the material componant you would spend all your time roleplaying buying and finding material componants. While going to the mage fair looking for componants can be interesting every once in a while, if thats all you did it would be one boring campaign.
Dan_the_Rathma_Man 07-06-03, 02:25 PM	I think that the way to go with components is to have the casters "buy" them when they cast the spells so that the whole game is not going around trying to find a component to one of your spells. Changing XP costs to aging is a interesting idea and would make a mage like me think twice about cast spells with what was a XP cost.
Druxus Rhym 07-08-03, 08:59 PM	In the players handbook as i recall as long as you have the spell compoent pouch you only need to pay GP when it's has a costly spell compent and i ALWAYS use exp costs
Dan_the_Rathma_Man 07-08-03, 10:07 PM	Originally posted by Druxus Rhym In the players handbook as i recall as long as you have the spell compoent pouch you only need to pay GP when it's has a costly spell compent and i ALWAYS use exp costs The book doesn't say that for the pouch, it says that they are assumed to have any component that doesn't hace a listed cost. I think that having spellcasters buy the pouch and then buy the costly components is the way to go because it hastens that part of the game, which doesn't have much of a role-playing aura to it. Always nice to se another Thayen.