Costly Material Components: Why? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Costly Material Components: Why? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
GreyGriffin
02-22-05, 07:53 PM As if being a wizard weren't expensive enough. What with scribing costs, virtually mandatory item creation, and relative dependence on charge-based magic items to perform their party role consistently, Wizards and Sorcerors expend vast quantities of gold to simply fuel some of their spells.

Spells like Stoneskin can drain resources deceptively quickly. Spells like Symbol can drain a wizard of several adventures' worth of resources. What's more, this money has to be invested in specific components that may or may not come into play. If I spend 5,000 gp on Symbol components, and no chance or opportunity comes up to cast that specific Symbol, then that's 5,000 gp wasted.

What I would like to see is spells with expensive material components be enhanced by those components. Stoneskin cast on the cheap, for instance, might last 1 round/level. Symbols cast without components might fade within 1 hour or 1 day per level. Identify may have a casting time of 8 hours without a crushed pearl. Spells like Sepia Snake Sigil, Leomund's Trap, Continual Flame, and others might have their lingering durations much reduced. Powerful spells, such as True Seeing, might gain efficacy as more expensive components are used, but lose effectiveness if less expensive or no components are expended. (For instance, its current cure-all, illusion-proof status may require a 1000 gp investment, while spending nothing may only provide a chance to save against illusions that haven't been interacted with.)

Simply by reducing necessary shopping time, without introducing such unbelievable concepts such as "spell component gold pools" (where a spellcaster nonspecifically sinks money into his expensive spell components, and just happens to have the right ones!), I think that often-overlooked and inconvenient to cast spells can become more used and more rewarding.

Any ideas on how to do this? Any opposing viewpoints? I'm open to comments.
Seeker95
02-22-05, 08:58 PM First, you're assuming that item creation is a given.
Second, you're assuming it is the wizard that must pay the material component costs.
Neither of these assumptions is necessarily true.

That said, I think what you are suggesting would work well with a spell-point system, but not so well with the default slot-leel-number_per_day system. The expensive component requirements are int here for the explicit purpose of making these spells less frequent.

Stone skin is a good example. If it were cheap, who *wouldn't* use it all the time?

Wizards should choose and use their spells wisely. (All spellcasters should.)
isaac anthony
02-22-05, 11:54 PM good points, all around.

i think it comes down to the group you play with. the guys i have now just have to be bullied around a bit, but i get the job done. they keep moaning about how i get the most treasure, but i keep bringing up the fact that it costs me a LOT of cash to learn spells. i also point out that they would be whistling a different tune if it cost them money to learn new feats and skills. so that's the price they gotta pay if they want me around to identify, and blow **** up...
Meta_FR_DM
02-23-05, 12:03 AM Seems like you are taking a ‘if I have it in my spell books then by golly I ought to be able to cast it just about anytime without limits’ approach to spell casting.

Kinda looks like you’re forgetting about issues of play balance too. Like Seeker said some spells need costly components to moderate there use.

I don’t think pointing out how the rules for spell component acquisition helps support an idea to get rid of or modify components, because if they seem unrealistic to you then the simplest answer is to insist that mages pay for costly components and take downtime to get them. And really, who doesn’t do this anyway?

You know Monte Cook does something similar to what you say you want to see, with how he has spells work in his Arcana Unearthed setting. Basically you can choose to cast certain spells as weak, strong and stronger versions with his rules and the spell descriptions detail what the different effects are. Exactly how much you can get out of those sorts o’ spells depending on your feats, how high a level you are and (I think) the material components you use. Someone please help me here.

And I agree that being a Wiz or Sorc is muy expensivo, but hey the rules for character wealth assume (and safely so, without unsightly arses visible) characters will spend money to replace sundered weapons, ruined gear and yes, buy spell components.

Spendin money on that stuff is part of the game, but unless the Dungeon Master isn’t keeping track of things an average Wiz’s treasure should keep pace with casting expenses.

And before I go I think Magic of Faerūn has some rules on using gems in magic items and spells to tweak save DCs.

And there you go.

Dave –who misses Hunter S. Thomspon lots- M.
Art_Tillary
02-23-05, 08:24 AM Have to agree with Seeker95 and Meta_FR_DM.

yes it is a balance issue. simple ways to deal with it.

Magic users and clerics get cash for spell components, scribeing scrolls and such before the loot is split. Just like fighters get armor and weapons replaced before loot is split. It is supposed to be a cooperative adventure.

Of course I've been a fan of big treasures that are easy to come by followed by the DM hitting players for all sorts of fees and such. net effect is to follow the wealth guide lines, but easy come, easy go.

AT
Vatras
02-23-05, 08:41 AM The costs for certain spells were made to make them used not at every orc crossing the casters path (its a game concept, found in the PHB).

There is no law forcing you to scribe scrolls or create items (my players do neither, excepting certain scrolls for emergency use). As someone has pointed out, it is also not written, that the caster has to pay himself (in my group the players have assigned a part of their loot to a common pool, out of which they finance things like True Resurrection).
If there are enemy spellcasters in your game, there should also be enough components to take from them, unless they always have had just enough to cast what they already have :)

All that said and done, you can always use your own homerules about spellcasting or ideas from books like Unearthed Arcana or d20 books. In an old campaign of mine we did not use material components at all (it turned out that my players prefered the component system after all).
Luminous Crayon
02-23-05, 02:08 PM good points, all around.

i think it comes down to the group you play with. the guys i have now just have to be bullied around a bit, but i get the job done. they keep moaning about how i get the most treasure, but i keep bringing up the fact that it costs me a LOT of cash to learn spells. i also point out that they would be whistling a different tune if it cost them money to learn new feats and skills. so that's the price they gotta pay if they want me around to identify, and blow **** up...Absolutely. I'm a big fan of playing wizards. In most of the game I've played in, the rest of the group has been quick to recognize the benefits of well-funded wizards, and have been glad to contribute some of their cash to fund spellbook expansion, material component acquisition, and the like.

Not only do they get a return on their investment in the form of item identification, at-cost item crafting (when I can spare the time and XP-- it's only fair), and keeping the party rogue up to date with a wand of ray of frost (UMD + sneak attack = ranged touch attack for impressive damage), they are also wise enough to realize that the better-funded the wizard, the more efficient he'll be at bailing the muscleheads out of the trouble they inevitably get themselves into.
Ogre4Hire
02-23-05, 02:17 PM Notice, too, that spells with High-Cost Material Componants tend to be a lot better than other spells of that level. Stoneskin is a good example of this, as it provides DR 10/Adamantine for a very long duration, as opposed to Fireshield, which causes you to take half damage from fire or cold and deal the other type of damage to attackers and only lasts a short time.
Ra-Tiel
02-23-05, 03:08 PM Hello.

In the FR group I'm currently playing with our wizard player talked the dm in ignoring material components. We haven't hit level 8 yet, so that far it didn't break anything, but...

...after that session I said down and took a look at the spell lists from the PHb, the PGtF and CA and guess what? Only 68 from those 300+ arcane spells had an "M" listed in the list, indicating a non-standard material component. Consider that there are 9 relevant spell levels (I don't count cantrips here) then you get a whopping 7 or 8 spells per spell level that are that costly.

Interpret that as thou willst.

In my opinion, material components are an important aspect of game balance.

I've not shown that list my FR dm yet, but I'll do the next time we play.

_Ra-Tiel.
SphericalTime
02-23-05, 05:56 PM ...after that session I said down and took a look at the spell lists from the PHb, the PGtF and CA and guess what? Only 68 from those 300+ arcane spells had an "M" listed in the list, indicating a non-standard material component. Consider that there are 9 relevant spell levels (I don't count cantrips here) then you get a whopping 7 or 8 spells per spell level that are that costly.Further than that, only 2 or 3 per level have a real cost to them. Most, like fireball, require things like bat guano, which doesn't cost much.

The end result is that you have a few spells that are really, really cool, but cost a lot of money to cast.

But you shouldn't be talking to me, in my games, the expense of material components goes up.
taltamir
02-23-05, 06:38 PM If you want to be a caster in D&D and not get bent over.... be a cleric.
RaspK FOG
02-23-05, 10:49 PM Further than that, only 2 or 3 per level have a real cost to them. Most, like fireball, require things like bat guano, which doesn't cost much.I think you got confused; Ra-Tiel said that there are 68 spells with a "M" sign on the spell lists found before the individual spell descriptions, which means the spell has a special, even costly material component (one without neglible cost, at least).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GreyGriffin 02-22-05, 07:53 PM	As if being a wizard weren't expensive enough. What with scribing costs, virtually mandatory item creation, and relative dependence on charge-based magic items to perform their party role consistently, Wizards and Sorcerors expend vast quantities of gold to simply fuel some of their spells. Spells like Stoneskin can drain resources deceptively quickly. Spells like Symbol can drain a wizard of several adventures' worth of resources. What's more, this money has to be invested in specific components that may or may not come into play. If I spend 5,000 gp on Symbol components, and no chance or opportunity comes up to cast that specific Symbol, then that's 5,000 gp wasted. What I would like to see is spells with expensive material components be enhanced by those components. Stoneskin cast on the cheap, for instance, might last 1 round/level. Symbols cast without components might fade within 1 hour or 1 day per level. Identify may have a casting time of 8 hours without a crushed pearl. Spells like Sepia Snake Sigil, Leomund's Trap, Continual Flame, and others might have their lingering durations much reduced. Powerful spells, such as True Seeing, might gain efficacy as more expensive components are used, but lose effectiveness if less expensive or no components are expended. (For instance, its current cure-all, illusion-proof status may require a 1000 gp investment, while spending nothing may only provide a chance to save against illusions that haven't been interacted with.) Simply by reducing necessary shopping time, without introducing such unbelievable concepts such as "spell component gold pools" (where a spellcaster nonspecifically sinks money into his expensive spell components, and just happens to have the right ones!), I think that often-overlooked and inconvenient to cast spells can become more used and more rewarding. Any ideas on how to do this? Any opposing viewpoints? I'm open to comments.
Seeker95 02-22-05, 08:58 PM	First, you're assuming that item creation is a given. Second, you're assuming it is the wizard that must pay the material component costs. Neither of these assumptions is necessarily true. That said, I think what you are suggesting would work well with a spell-point system, but not so well with the default slot-leel-number_per_day system. The expensive component requirements are int here for the explicit purpose of making these spells less frequent. Stone skin is a good example. If it were cheap, who wouldn't use it all the time? Wizards should choose and use their spells wisely. (All spellcasters should.)
isaac anthony 02-22-05, 11:54 PM	good points, all around. i think it comes down to the group you play with. the guys i have now just have to be bullied around a bit, but i get the job done. they keep moaning about how i get the most treasure, but i keep bringing up the fact that it costs me a LOT of cash to learn spells. i also point out that they would be whistling a different tune if it cost them money to learn new feats and skills. so that's the price they gotta pay if they want me around to identify, and blow **** up...
Meta_FR_DM 02-23-05, 12:03 AM	Seems like you are taking a ‘if I have it in my spell books then by golly I ought to be able to cast it just about anytime without limits’ approach to spell casting. Kinda looks like you’re forgetting about issues of play balance too. Like Seeker said some spells need costly components to moderate there use. I don’t think pointing out how the rules for spell component acquisition helps support an idea to get rid of or modify components, because if they seem unrealistic to you then the simplest answer is to insist that mages pay for costly components and take downtime to get them. And really, who doesn’t do this anyway? You know Monte Cook does something similar to what you say you want to see, with how he has spells work in his Arcana Unearthed setting. Basically you can choose to cast certain spells as weak, strong and stronger versions with his rules and the spell descriptions detail what the different effects are. Exactly how much you can get out of those sorts o’ spells depending on your feats, how high a level you are and (I think) the material components you use. Someone please help me here. And I agree that being a Wiz or Sorc is muy expensivo, but hey the rules for character wealth assume (and safely so, without unsightly arses visible) characters will spend money to replace sundered weapons, ruined gear and yes, buy spell components. Spendin money on that stuff is part of the game, but unless the Dungeon Master isn’t keeping track of things an average Wiz’s treasure should keep pace with casting expenses. And before I go I think Magic of Faerūn has some rules on using gems in magic items and spells to tweak save DCs. And there you go. Dave –who misses Hunter S. Thomspon lots- M.
Art_Tillary 02-23-05, 08:24 AM	Have to agree with Seeker95 and Meta_FR_DM. yes it is a balance issue. simple ways to deal with it. Magic users and clerics get cash for spell components, scribeing scrolls and such before the loot is split. Just like fighters get armor and weapons replaced before loot is split. It is supposed to be a cooperative adventure. Of course I've been a fan of big treasures that are easy to come by followed by the DM hitting players for all sorts of fees and such. net effect is to follow the wealth guide lines, but easy come, easy go. AT
Vatras 02-23-05, 08:41 AM	The costs for certain spells were made to make them used not at every orc crossing the casters path (its a game concept, found in the PHB). There is no law forcing you to scribe scrolls or create items (my players do neither, excepting certain scrolls for emergency use). As someone has pointed out, it is also not written, that the caster has to pay himself (in my group the players have assigned a part of their loot to a common pool, out of which they finance things like True Resurrection). If there are enemy spellcasters in your game, there should also be enough components to take from them, unless they always have had just enough to cast what they already have :) All that said and done, you can always use your own homerules about spellcasting or ideas from books like Unearthed Arcana or d20 books. In an old campaign of mine we did not use material components at all (it turned out that my players prefered the component system after all).
Luminous Crayon 02-23-05, 02:08 PM	good points, all around. i think it comes down to the group you play with. the guys i have now just have to be bullied around a bit, but i get the job done. they keep moaning about how i get the most treasure, but i keep bringing up the fact that it costs me a LOT of cash to learn spells. i also point out that they would be whistling a different tune if it cost them money to learn new feats and skills. so that's the price they gotta pay if they want me around to identify, and blow **** up...Absolutely. I'm a big fan of playing wizards. In most of the game I've played in, the rest of the group has been quick to recognize the benefits of well-funded wizards, and have been glad to contribute some of their cash to fund spellbook expansion, material component acquisition, and the like. Not only do they get a return on their investment in the form of item identification, at-cost item crafting (when I can spare the time and XP-- it's only fair), and keeping the party rogue up to date with a wand of ray of frost (UMD + sneak attack = ranged touch attack for impressive damage), they are also wise enough to realize that the better-funded the wizard, the more efficient he'll be at bailing the muscleheads out of the trouble they inevitably get themselves into.
Ogre4Hire 02-23-05, 02:17 PM	Notice, too, that spells with High-Cost Material Componants tend to be a lot better than other spells of that level. Stoneskin is a good example of this, as it provides DR 10/Adamantine for a very long duration, as opposed to Fireshield, which causes you to take half damage from fire or cold and deal the other type of damage to attackers and only lasts a short time.
Ra-Tiel 02-23-05, 03:08 PM	Hello. In the FR group I'm currently playing with our wizard player talked the dm in ignoring material components. We haven't hit level 8 yet, so that far it didn't break anything, but... ...after that session I said down and took a look at the spell lists from the PHb, the PGtF and CA and guess what? Only 68 from those 300+ arcane spells had an "M" listed in the list, indicating a non-standard material component. Consider that there are 9 relevant spell levels (I don't count cantrips here) then you get a whopping 7 or 8 spells per spell level that are that costly. Interpret that as thou willst. In my opinion, material components are an important aspect of game balance. I've not shown that list my FR dm yet, but I'll do the next time we play. _Ra-Tiel.
SphericalTime 02-23-05, 05:56 PM	...after that session I said down and took a look at the spell lists from the PHb, the PGtF and CA and guess what? Only 68 from those 300+ arcane spells had an "M" listed in the list, indicating a non-standard material component. Consider that there are 9 relevant spell levels (I don't count cantrips here) then you get a whopping 7 or 8 spells per spell level that are that costly.Further than that, only 2 or 3 per level have a real cost to them. Most, like fireball, require things like bat guano, which doesn't cost much. The end result is that you have a few spells that are really, really cool, but cost a lot of money to cast. But you shouldn't be talking to me, in my games, the expense of material components goes up.
taltamir 02-23-05, 06:38 PM	If you want to be a caster in D&D and not get bent over.... be a cleric.
RaspK FOG 02-23-05, 10:49 PM	Further than that, only 2 or 3 per level have a real cost to them. Most, like fireball, require things like bat guano, which doesn't cost much.I think you got confused; Ra-Tiel said that there are 68 spells with a "M" sign on the spell lists found before the individual spell descriptions, which means the spell has a special, even costly material component (one without neglible cost, at least).