Spell Component Pouches .... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Spell Component Pouches .... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
viceregal
07-05-07, 07:07 AM Is a spell component pouch considered to be worn (thus sunderable/disarmable), well secured (thus needing a grapple+pin to snatch/disarm), or .... ?

eg Fighter vs Wizard - the fighter wants to take the spell component pouch (and thus largely the wizard) out of play - what are his options?

Is there table varation on this?

Along the same lines how much use have people had with Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, and Improved Trip and how well do they scale with levels in your experience?
ezreal2001
07-05-07, 08:54 AM Is a spell component pouch considered to be worn (thus sunderable/disarmable), well secured (thus needing a grapple+pin to snatch/disarm), or .... ?

eg Fighter vs Wizard - the fighter wants to take the spell component pouch (and thus largely the wizard) out of play - what are his options?

Is there table varation on this?

Along the same lines how much use have people had with Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, and Improved Trip and how well do they scale with levels in your experience?

Well given the lengthy or should I say intermidible debates on this as a tactic the consensus appeared to be that pouches are considered to be worn and thus sunderable/disarmable because of ease by which casters can access the pouches contents.

I would also point out the detractors of this tactic also released/remembered shortly into the intial debates that their characters were immune to this vile act because they never left home without festooning themselves with so may spell component pouches that they looked not so much like a purveyor of eldridge might but some demented cross between a tinker and a christmas tree.
copper_wyrmling
07-05-07, 09:45 AM I would also point out the detractors of this tactic also released/remembered shortly into the intial debates that their characters were immune to this vile act because they never left home without festooning themselves with so may spell component pouches that they looked not so much like a purveyor of eldridge might but some demented cross between a tinker and a christmas tree.

Excuse me! Azrien only has one spell component pouch, and some pretty feathers and gemstones in her hair, and a makeup kit in her pocket, and some dried squid and gum in her belt pouch (for snacking on). She can zap people for 24d6 damage, or -15ish to Strength, perfectly well without any components at all anyway. Someone who sunders her pretty flaming-skulls-embroidered spell component pouch will attract her ire, but not significantly remove her ability to retaliate ;)

Seriously, I suspect there will be table variation, and with some judges the table variation will depend on whether it's the PCs or the NPCs using this tactic. I don't think it's specified anywhere.
MatteBlack
07-05-07, 10:43 AM I have heard of this tactic being written into NPC tactics in some mods. Assuming this is true, it should at least be allowable in the regions those mods were approved in.

I would say that if you intend on using this tactic, you may want to warn your casters to bring spares.

Lee
Cardinal Teplin
07-05-07, 10:56 AM Seriously, I suspect there will be table variation, and with some judges the table variation will depend on whether it's the PCs or the NPCs using this tactic. I don't think it's specified anywhere.

There is certainly table variation.

I prefer to assume that spell component pouches are, if not well-secured, at least not clearly visible, if only because it serves the original purpose of spell component pouches - to allow people not to have to worry about exactly where all their spell components were and how long it takes to retreive them.

I also assume that what applies to spell components also applies to healing potions, alchemist's fire, tanglefoot bags, weapon capsule retainers, etc.

Sundering a spell component pouch destroys the pouch. The spell components themselves fall to the ground where they can be accessed by the wizard without hinderence merely by crouching down. Stops the wizard moving of course, but that's about as far as it goes.

I'm not a big fan of the tactic, if only because it's one of those things that, for structural reasons, PCs can do to NPCs, but not vice versa. I've seen at least one mod where the principal bad guy has five spell component pouches, 12 holy symbols, and eight backup weapons. That's a sensible precaution if sundering is so easy, but I'd rather mod writers didn't have to put that kind of thing into every mod.
Banor
07-05-07, 12:54 PM There is certainly table variation.

I prefer to assume that spell component pouches are, if not well-secured, at least not clearly visible, if only because it serves the original purpose of spell component pouches - to allow people not to have to worry about exactly where all their spell components were and how long it takes to retreive them.

I also assume that what applies to spell components also applies to healing potions, alchemist's fire, tanglefoot bags, weapon capsule retainers, etc.

Sundering a spell component pouch destroys the pouch. The spell components themselves fall to the ground where they can be accessed by the wizard without hinderence merely by crouching down. Stops the wizard moving of course, but that's about as far as it goes.

I'm not a big fan of the tactic, if only because it's one of those things that, for structural reasons, PCs can do to NPCs, but not vice versa. I've seen at least one mod where the principal bad guy has five spell component pouches, 12 holy symbols, and eight backup weapons. That's a sensible precaution if sundering is so easy, but I'd rather mod writers didn't have to put that kind of thing into every mod.

I'm pretty sure that after swingning my greatsword at your pesky leather bag, all the materials in it will be unusable, either blown in the air, simply broken or their bottle broken and mixed with other substances (you arent carrying all that guano loose in your pouch arent you ?)
MatteBlack
07-05-07, 01:00 PM I prefer to assume that spell component pouches are, if not well-secured, at least not clearly visible, if only because it serves the original purpose of spell component pouches - to allow people not to have to worry about exactly where all their spell components were and how long it takes to retreive them.

Armor is well secured and can be sundered and knowing where it is hidden would be fairly simple to discern once a spell is cast. Requiring a spot check could be a reasonale requirement in order to sunder a component pouch but, it would be a pretty easy one unless the caster was skilled in sleight of hand.

Are you certain that was their original purpose in the game? My assumption was that it was to clean up the rules to prevent casting through a casters components by creating an official and targetable game item presumably by theft. I understand some spells require an expense to make them balanced but, if they didn't want casting limited by components, why include the negligible cost ones in the rules?
gomeztoo
07-06-07, 04:37 AM So, the best thing to do is NOT to have a spell component pouch, but instead have all your components in various pockets and purses.
The main reason for a spell component pouch is:
"A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch."
You don't NEED it, as long as you can account for all of your components.
Cardinal Teplin
07-06-07, 08:59 AM I'm pretty sure that after swingning my greatsword at your pesky leather bag, all the materials in it will be unusable, either blown in the air, simply broken or their bottle broken and mixed with other substances (you arent carrying all that guano loose in your pouch arent you ?)

You might think that, but it's not in the rules.

If the wizard can get the single component he needs out of the components for 40+different spells out of a pouch, in a usable form, without an action, I see no reason why it would be any more difficult picking them up off the floor. Sure if you're in the Dread swamp then they might sink, and if you're flying it's more of a problem. Heavy rain, storm winds, obscuring mist, etc. etc.

And yes, there are other precautions you can take. My wizard got through most of mod using his bacon sandwich to cast 'grease' spells, and I have on occasion told the GM I'm getting three or four different pouches and dividing my spell components between them.

My basic problem is that, in writing a mod, I don't want to have to add 'make sure all spellcasters have multiple spell component pouches' to the already very long list of things to do.
ShinAkuma2
07-06-07, 12:29 PM If the wizard can get the single component he needs out of the components for 40+different spells out of a pouch, in a usable form, without an action, I see no reason why it would be any more difficult picking them up off the floor.

It's not more difficult, per se, but now it's a move action that provokes AoOs.
solbergb
07-06-07, 02:18 PM The comp pouch makes it a free action.

My ruling is that it is well secured but obvious and sunderable, and if sundered the stuff is mixed up/scattered so it isn't clear even a move action to pick off the ground will get it done, but I'd likely allow some kind of reactive spot check mechanic to see the bit you need if asked.

Most casters have a fair number of non-material comp spells, so it is usually more effective for them to blast away with those. Most of my own casters don't have spares, although I've got one exception to that rule because a lot of his spells need comps or foci and spells are all he does. Some of my casters have key components (usually foci, especially for those with eschew materials) in clothing (move action) or done as part of jewelry (free action - it's as acessible as a divine focus for both use and sundering).

The reason you don't see the tactic very often from NPC's is usually if the caster is in reach, just trying to kill him or readying to interrupt spells is a better tactic. But there are times when the caster is so well protected that stripping his offense by stripping components is the right choice. The one enconter I can think of where doing that was decisive in LG, our APL4 party decided to fight an untiered CR13 NPC and managed to trap him in a silence field, prone from sculpted grease with all divine foci and comp pouches sundered by fighters. He still almost killed us all - he had a dangerous SU ability to fall back on and he took a lot of killing. But I've had party members do it a few times to NPC's and it's hard to say what would have happened without that tactic, since their material comp spells weren't used and none of us really knew what they could do.
gomeztoo
07-06-07, 04:41 PM The comp pouch makes it a free action.

Please point out where it says so.
People keep saying that bit I can't find it anywhere in the rules. The only thing a component pouch does is make sure the DM knows that you have all the components you need.
CdrcJsn
07-06-07, 05:10 PM Please point out where it says so.

I believe it's in the PHB in that table where it shows you what type of action is required for various things.

PG 141 under free actions
Cardinal Teplin
07-09-07, 02:08 PM No, the PHB p. 141 has:

'Prepare spell components to cast a spell'

as a free action that does not provoke. No mention of a pouch.

The only objection I have to using pockets is that, in a medieval milieu that uses pouches, they really shouldn't have been invented yet. But AD&D is not medieval, and clearly has pockets in other contexts, so that's not really a consideration.

Looking at the entry for spell component pouches, there is no mention anywhere of it being easy to access. The cost seems simply to reflect to cost of gathering a collection of spell components.

"Spell Component Pouch: This small watertight leather belt pouch has many compartments. A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except those that have a specific cost, divines focuses and focuses that wouldn't fit into a pouch (such as the natural pool a druid needs to look into to cast scrying)."

So there you have it. If you're worried someone will sunder your pouch, empty it into your pockets.
Mattastrophic
07-10-07, 08:14 PM So there you have it. If you're worried someone will sunder your pouch, empty it into your pockets.

That's a good idea. I personally can't stand the "sunder the spell pouch" tactic, as all it does is "pwn noobs" who aren't carrying multiples.

I can't wait...

DM: "I sunder your spell component pouch..."
Me: "Okay. I cast Glitterdust on him."
DM: "Wait, I just sundered your pouch!"
Me: "It was empty; the materials are in my pockets!"

-Matt

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
viceregal 07-05-07, 07:07 AM	Is a spell component pouch considered to be worn (thus sunderable/disarmable), well secured (thus needing a grapple+pin to snatch/disarm), or .... ? eg Fighter vs Wizard - the fighter wants to take the spell component pouch (and thus largely the wizard) out of play - what are his options? Is there table varation on this? Along the same lines how much use have people had with Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, and Improved Trip and how well do they scale with levels in your experience?
ezreal2001 07-05-07, 08:54 AM	Is a spell component pouch considered to be worn (thus sunderable/disarmable), well secured (thus needing a grapple+pin to snatch/disarm), or .... ? eg Fighter vs Wizard - the fighter wants to take the spell component pouch (and thus largely the wizard) out of play - what are his options? Is there table varation on this? Along the same lines how much use have people had with Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, and Improved Trip and how well do they scale with levels in your experience? Well given the lengthy or should I say intermidible debates on this as a tactic the consensus appeared to be that pouches are considered to be worn and thus sunderable/disarmable because of ease by which casters can access the pouches contents. I would also point out the detractors of this tactic also released/remembered shortly into the intial debates that their characters were immune to this vile act because they never left home without festooning themselves with so may spell component pouches that they looked not so much like a purveyor of eldridge might but some demented cross between a tinker and a christmas tree.
copper_wyrmling 07-05-07, 09:45 AM	I would also point out the detractors of this tactic also released/remembered shortly into the intial debates that their characters were immune to this vile act because they never left home without festooning themselves with so may spell component pouches that they looked not so much like a purveyor of eldridge might but some demented cross between a tinker and a christmas tree. Excuse me! Azrien only has one spell component pouch, and some pretty feathers and gemstones in her hair, and a makeup kit in her pocket, and some dried squid and gum in her belt pouch (for snacking on). She can zap people for 24d6 damage, or -15ish to Strength, perfectly well without any components at all anyway. Someone who sunders her pretty flaming-skulls-embroidered spell component pouch will attract her ire, but not significantly remove her ability to retaliate ;) Seriously, I suspect there will be table variation, and with some judges the table variation will depend on whether it's the PCs or the NPCs using this tactic. I don't think it's specified anywhere.
MatteBlack 07-05-07, 10:43 AM	I have heard of this tactic being written into NPC tactics in some mods. Assuming this is true, it should at least be allowable in the regions those mods were approved in. I would say that if you intend on using this tactic, you may want to warn your casters to bring spares. Lee
Cardinal Teplin 07-05-07, 10:56 AM	Seriously, I suspect there will be table variation, and with some judges the table variation will depend on whether it's the PCs or the NPCs using this tactic. I don't think it's specified anywhere. There is certainly table variation. I prefer to assume that spell component pouches are, if not well-secured, at least not clearly visible, if only because it serves the original purpose of spell component pouches - to allow people not to have to worry about exactly where all their spell components were and how long it takes to retreive them. I also assume that what applies to spell components also applies to healing potions, alchemist's fire, tanglefoot bags, weapon capsule retainers, etc. Sundering a spell component pouch destroys the pouch. The spell components themselves fall to the ground where they can be accessed by the wizard without hinderence merely by crouching down. Stops the wizard moving of course, but that's about as far as it goes. I'm not a big fan of the tactic, if only because it's one of those things that, for structural reasons, PCs can do to NPCs, but not vice versa. I've seen at least one mod where the principal bad guy has five spell component pouches, 12 holy symbols, and eight backup weapons. That's a sensible precaution if sundering is so easy, but I'd rather mod writers didn't have to put that kind of thing into every mod.
Banor 07-05-07, 12:54 PM	There is certainly table variation. I prefer to assume that spell component pouches are, if not well-secured, at least not clearly visible, if only because it serves the original purpose of spell component pouches - to allow people not to have to worry about exactly where all their spell components were and how long it takes to retreive them. I also assume that what applies to spell components also applies to healing potions, alchemist's fire, tanglefoot bags, weapon capsule retainers, etc. Sundering a spell component pouch destroys the pouch. The spell components themselves fall to the ground where they can be accessed by the wizard without hinderence merely by crouching down. Stops the wizard moving of course, but that's about as far as it goes. I'm not a big fan of the tactic, if only because it's one of those things that, for structural reasons, PCs can do to NPCs, but not vice versa. I've seen at least one mod where the principal bad guy has five spell component pouches, 12 holy symbols, and eight backup weapons. That's a sensible precaution if sundering is so easy, but I'd rather mod writers didn't have to put that kind of thing into every mod. I'm pretty sure that after swingning my greatsword at your pesky leather bag, all the materials in it will be unusable, either blown in the air, simply broken or their bottle broken and mixed with other substances (you arent carrying all that guano loose in your pouch arent you ?)
MatteBlack 07-05-07, 01:00 PM	I prefer to assume that spell component pouches are, if not well-secured, at least not clearly visible, if only because it serves the original purpose of spell component pouches - to allow people not to have to worry about exactly where all their spell components were and how long it takes to retreive them. Armor is well secured and can be sundered and knowing where it is hidden would be fairly simple to discern once a spell is cast. Requiring a spot check could be a reasonale requirement in order to sunder a component pouch but, it would be a pretty easy one unless the caster was skilled in sleight of hand. Are you certain that was their original purpose in the game? My assumption was that it was to clean up the rules to prevent casting through a casters components by creating an official and targetable game item presumably by theft. I understand some spells require an expense to make them balanced but, if they didn't want casting limited by components, why include the negligible cost ones in the rules?
gomeztoo 07-06-07, 04:37 AM	So, the best thing to do is NOT to have a spell component pouch, but instead have all your components in various pockets and purses. The main reason for a spell component pouch is: "A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch." You don't NEED it, as long as you can account for all of your components.
Cardinal Teplin 07-06-07, 08:59 AM	I'm pretty sure that after swingning my greatsword at your pesky leather bag, all the materials in it will be unusable, either blown in the air, simply broken or their bottle broken and mixed with other substances (you arent carrying all that guano loose in your pouch arent you ?) You might think that, but it's not in the rules. If the wizard can get the single component he needs out of the components for 40+different spells out of a pouch, in a usable form, without an action, I see no reason why it would be any more difficult picking them up off the floor. Sure if you're in the Dread swamp then they might sink, and if you're flying it's more of a problem. Heavy rain, storm winds, obscuring mist, etc. etc. And yes, there are other precautions you can take. My wizard got through most of mod using his bacon sandwich to cast 'grease' spells, and I have on occasion told the GM I'm getting three or four different pouches and dividing my spell components between them. My basic problem is that, in writing a mod, I don't want to have to add 'make sure all spellcasters have multiple spell component pouches' to the already very long list of things to do.
ShinAkuma2 07-06-07, 12:29 PM	If the wizard can get the single component he needs out of the components for 40+different spells out of a pouch, in a usable form, without an action, I see no reason why it would be any more difficult picking them up off the floor. It's not more difficult, per se, but now it's a move action that provokes AoOs.
solbergb 07-06-07, 02:18 PM	The comp pouch makes it a free action. My ruling is that it is well secured but obvious and sunderable, and if sundered the stuff is mixed up/scattered so it isn't clear even a move action to pick off the ground will get it done, but I'd likely allow some kind of reactive spot check mechanic to see the bit you need if asked. Most casters have a fair number of non-material comp spells, so it is usually more effective for them to blast away with those. Most of my own casters don't have spares, although I've got one exception to that rule because a lot of his spells need comps or foci and spells are all he does. Some of my casters have key components (usually foci, especially for those with eschew materials) in clothing (move action) or done as part of jewelry (free action - it's as acessible as a divine focus for both use and sundering). The reason you don't see the tactic very often from NPC's is usually if the caster is in reach, just trying to kill him or readying to interrupt spells is a better tactic. But there are times when the caster is so well protected that stripping his offense by stripping components is the right choice. The one enconter I can think of where doing that was decisive in LG, our APL4 party decided to fight an untiered CR13 NPC and managed to trap him in a silence field, prone from sculpted grease with all divine foci and comp pouches sundered by fighters. He still almost killed us all - he had a dangerous SU ability to fall back on and he took a lot of killing. But I've had party members do it a few times to NPC's and it's hard to say what would have happened without that tactic, since their material comp spells weren't used and none of us really knew what they could do.
gomeztoo 07-06-07, 04:41 PM	The comp pouch makes it a free action. Please point out where it says so. People keep saying that bit I can't find it anywhere in the rules. The only thing a component pouch does is make sure the DM knows that you have all the components you need.
CdrcJsn 07-06-07, 05:10 PM	Please point out where it says so. I believe it's in the PHB in that table where it shows you what type of action is required for various things. PG 141 under free actions
Cardinal Teplin 07-09-07, 02:08 PM	No, the PHB p. 141 has: 'Prepare spell components to cast a spell' as a free action that does not provoke. No mention of a pouch. The only objection I have to using pockets is that, in a medieval milieu that uses pouches, they really shouldn't have been invented yet. But AD&D is not medieval, and clearly has pockets in other contexts, so that's not really a consideration. Looking at the entry for spell component pouches, there is no mention anywhere of it being easy to access. The cost seems simply to reflect to cost of gathering a collection of spell components. "Spell Component Pouch: This small watertight leather belt pouch has many compartments. A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except those that have a specific cost, divines focuses and focuses that wouldn't fit into a pouch (such as the natural pool a druid needs to look into to cast scrying)." So there you have it. If you're worried someone will sunder your pouch, empty it into your pockets.
Mattastrophic 07-10-07, 08:14 PM	So there you have it. If you're worried someone will sunder your pouch, empty it into your pockets. That's a good idea. I personally can't stand the "sunder the spell pouch" tactic, as all it does is "pwn noobs" who aren't carrying multiples. I can't wait... DM: "I sunder your spell component pouch..." Me: "Okay. I cast Glitterdust on him." DM: "Wait, I just sundered your pouch!" Me: "It was empty; the materials are in my pockets!" -Matt