Eschew Materials [Archive] - Wizards Community

Eschew Materials [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ecalsneerg
08-03-07, 09:42 AM This feat says you can cast arcane spells without material components of a cost which doesn't matter. My question is whether focuses count as material components for this feat?
Puca
08-03-07, 09:58 AM No. They have a whole separate entry in the spell description. They just arent components, and the feat deals only with them.
Ecalsneerg
08-03-07, 10:01 AM Are there any feats which mean you don't need cheap focuses? I just don't see the point of carrying a spell component pouch if you have Eschew Materials.
zelf_gale
08-03-07, 10:16 AM I can't think of any feat that allows you to ignore the need for a focus. I also can't think of any focus that doesn't have a listed cost.

In general, you don't need a spell component pouch if you have Eschew Materials, since that is stocked with material components that don't have a listed cost. You will need a belt pouch though to hold all your material components with listed costs.
Ecalsneerg
08-03-07, 10:20 AM I can't think of any feat that allows you to ignore the need for a focus. I also can't think of any focus that doesn't have a listed cost.

In general, you don't need a spell component pouch if you have Eschew Materials, since that is stocked with material components that don't have a listed cost. You will need a belt pouch though to hold all your material components with listed costs.

Mage Armour, just for starters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mageArmor.htm)
Puca
08-03-07, 11:02 AM Mage Armor merely requires a strip of cured leather.

Generally, somewhere in my character description, there will be a reference like "a number of odd implements hang from his belt, including a strip of hard, cured leather."

When I cast the spell, I may describe my character as, "gripping the leather thong at my belt..."

Doing things like this should be sufficient to meet the requirements for many of the foci, with or without a spell-component pouch. (Ive never gotten a complaint anyway.)
Thane26425
08-03-07, 12:01 PM I've been debating this in my campaigns too. In earlier editions, virtually all spells had components. Many of those in 3.5 no longer do, just a few holdouts like Fireball. even then, most components are just fluff. I have been thinking about doing away with most components altogether, except for ritual types spells that take longer than a single round to cast, particularly those that can take 10 minutes or more. There are a few other exceptions, but in the main, components just wouldn't be needed.
Puca
08-03-07, 12:11 PM Because they have so little game impact, it wouldnt hurt much Id expect.
They only thing youd lose is some opportunities in describing the act of casting.
High Octane
08-03-07, 12:32 PM Considering how the feat isn't by any means powerful and costs a full feat, I would allow cheap focuses to be excluded by it as well.

I mean without that aspect, the feat loses 75% of it's already lacking pull. The point of it is in case some jackass takes you prisoner, you can still cast your spells after your spell component pouch has been removed. The only other tangible benefit is that without material focus the DC of identifying one of your spells being cast goes up (I cant remember where I saw that, but it was only by 2)

So without the focuses being part of what could be excluded, the first part of the feat's usefulness drops since you would still need the focus for your spells. And also another use of the feat is lost as well, that is a wizard or sorcerer hiding himself as a non-spellcaster by dressing otherwise, hiding his spellbook, and not having a spell component pouch.

The truth is, since you are not expected to pay or keep track of material components, there is no tangible difference between a material component and a focus component.

So unless you lose the focuses, why even take the feat since you will have to carry your damn spell component pouch anyway?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ecalsneerg 08-03-07, 09:42 AM	This feat says you can cast arcane spells without material components of a cost which doesn't matter. My question is whether focuses count as material components for this feat?
Puca 08-03-07, 09:58 AM	No. They have a whole separate entry in the spell description. They just arent components, and the feat deals only with them.
Ecalsneerg 08-03-07, 10:01 AM	Are there any feats which mean you don't need cheap focuses? I just don't see the point of carrying a spell component pouch if you have Eschew Materials.
zelf_gale 08-03-07, 10:16 AM	I can't think of any feat that allows you to ignore the need for a focus. I also can't think of any focus that doesn't have a listed cost. In general, you don't need a spell component pouch if you have Eschew Materials, since that is stocked with material components that don't have a listed cost. You will need a belt pouch though to hold all your material components with listed costs.
Ecalsneerg 08-03-07, 10:20 AM	I can't think of any feat that allows you to ignore the need for a focus. I also can't think of any focus that doesn't have a listed cost. In general, you don't need a spell component pouch if you have Eschew Materials, since that is stocked with material components that don't have a listed cost. You will need a belt pouch though to hold all your material components with listed costs. Mage Armour, just for starters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mageArmor.htm)
Puca 08-03-07, 11:02 AM	Mage Armor merely requires a strip of cured leather. Generally, somewhere in my character description, there will be a reference like "a number of odd implements hang from his belt, including a strip of hard, cured leather." When I cast the spell, I may describe my character as, "gripping the leather thong at my belt..." Doing things like this should be sufficient to meet the requirements for many of the foci, with or without a spell-component pouch. (Ive never gotten a complaint anyway.)
Thane26425 08-03-07, 12:01 PM	I've been debating this in my campaigns too. In earlier editions, virtually all spells had components. Many of those in 3.5 no longer do, just a few holdouts like Fireball. even then, most components are just fluff. I have been thinking about doing away with most components altogether, except for ritual types spells that take longer than a single round to cast, particularly those that can take 10 minutes or more. There are a few other exceptions, but in the main, components just wouldn't be needed.
Puca 08-03-07, 12:11 PM	Because they have so little game impact, it wouldnt hurt much Id expect. They only thing youd lose is some opportunities in describing the act of casting.
High Octane 08-03-07, 12:32 PM	Considering how the feat isn't by any means powerful and costs a full feat, I would allow cheap focuses to be excluded by it as well. I mean without that aspect, the feat loses 75% of it's already lacking pull. The point of it is in case some jackass takes you prisoner, you can still cast your spells after your spell component pouch has been removed. The only other tangible benefit is that without material focus the DC of identifying one of your spells being cast goes up (I cant remember where I saw that, but it was only by 2) So without the focuses being part of what could be excluded, the first part of the feat's usefulness drops since you would still need the focus for your spells. And also another use of the feat is lost as well, that is a wizard or sorcerer hiding himself as a non-spellcaster by dressing otherwise, hiding his spellbook, and not having a spell component pouch. The truth is, since you are not expected to pay or keep track of material components, there is no tangible difference between a material component and a focus component. So unless you lose the focuses, why even take the feat since you will have to carry your damn spell component pouch anyway?