I think I am going to implement a houserule on the number of times a spell component pouch can be used until it's empty and needs to be filled again. I know it says components are only consumed if the spell says so but there are certain components that will get used up because of sheer use. Example: Pinch of salt, talc, rose petals wither, etc.....
I think I might allow a person to get 2 full days of casting before the pouches need to be refilled. I don't really see the point in making a single 25gp one time payment, if there is going to be a spell component pouch then I want to actually make it into something that has rules instead of something you write down once and forget.
Prepare for all of your caster characters to use arcane foci instead, then. I know I would never want to bother with such minutia.
"How many rose petals do I have left? Fifteen? Is that enough to strangle myself with?"
Novacat wrote:
To me, it seems to be too much administrative work. "How many days has it been since I bought the pouch?", "Damn, I cannot fill my spellcomponent pouch in this dungeon. We need to go back, otherwise I cannot contribute properly".
If you find players that agree with you that this should be something the game should be about, have fun with it. In my opinion, this is outdated, boring and old-fashioned. It gets old quickly.
I believe that if one tracks arrows, one should have to track spell components. If arrows are hand waved, so to should be spell components.
25gp for only two days does seem expensive, though.
AquaticSpaceChicken wrote:
As a DM this is unecessary for me. There are some tasks that are assumed to be completed by classes, druids and spell casters gathering components, ensuring they have the necessary ingredients, warriors , paladins maintaining their armor, sharpening weapons, oiling leather, excercising and practicing, etc.
This is something that IMO classes do automatically. I dont want to bog my game down with this stuff.
Spell components really seems like a missed opportunity for innovation with this edition - instead being the traditional micromanagement and bean-counting, components should have provided some sort of benefit to casting spells, thus giving the player more investment in it.
Do it. I wouldn't, but that shouldn't stop you.
It really is just a Low Level Tax. At low levels, 25 gold/2 days might be a lot. Depending on how much gold you give out, that might be the wizard's entire share of the treasure. But as the characters gain levels and subsequently find bigger and bigger treasures, it quickly becomes negligible. Expect your players to stockpile component pouches, especially if you frequently have them on long quests with no access to shops.
In addition, I would question the time limit. At level 1, you can cast 2 spells/day. So at level 1, a component pouch only holds enough for 4 spells. At level 20, you can cast 22 spells/day. So...the same pouch now holds enough for 44 spells?
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I've tried these things:
trackign spell components
tracking arrows
tracking sling stones
tracking torches
Really, it doesn't add to the fun, but can be used for STORY ELEMENTS. I think you'd be better off making some notes in your GM screen to tell players something like "you're getting low on such and such" and make it part of the ADVENTURE instead. What I mean is, "Gandalf, you've got to head into town to pick up some new spell components and while you're there discussing the merits of the red stork feather compared to the blue goose feather with a local witch, she also talks about....."
"Samwise, since you were in town re-stocking the torches for everyone, you got a look at the surroundings. It appears that one of the valley's waterfalls is a bit darker than the others. You might ask the dwarf what that means."
"Robin, you realize that your arrows are running low. You're not sure if you simply haven't been replacing them or if they've been stolen. Some of them are also seriously overused and don't fly very true anymore. There are two fletchers in town. They seem to badmouth anyone who doesn't go to them and instead goes to the other guy. What would you like to do?"
jh
I agree there seems to be a blatant double-standard between casters and archers, and that spell components (as implemented) are as lame as ever.
I use something similar to the spell focus option for my campaigns (though they're essential for all casting, not just M component spells), so it's not really a problem for us.
If I was going to muck around with components, I'd do something like the OP and base it on days of casting rather than individual castings to keep the book-keeping down.
Though I'd probably scale the component cost with spell level. A pouch capable of producing first level spell effects for a day might only be 1gp. A pouch capable of producing ninth level spell effects for a day might be 100gp (I have no experience with the high-level economics of 5E, so I don't actually have a hard suggestion for numbers). Casters can only cast spells up to the level they have components for.
Getting higher level spell components may require visiting larger cities, magic academies, wizardly patrons and so on. I'd also allow background checks to forage for spell components while exploring or during downtime.
I'd go with a flat 1lb of weight per casting day regardless of spell level.
I understand the concern but it's honestly not worth the effort and 25g is way to steep. Consider what the components are , spiderwebs, moss, bat poop, sesame seeds. Coppers for a bucketfull if that. That's why they are no cost. High level spells no cost components are also so cheap as to be free. Dirt, mud, iron fillings. A very few might be hard to find but only if you don't know where to look. If you do know where to look you fill a barrel and move on.
Alot of the stuff you can find with no effort while walking.
If you want to track it I'd suggest something more equivalent to arrows. 20 uses in the pouch recover 1/2 post combat. 1g to refill. If you have the time you make your own ammo.
Keeps it comparable to other ammo users even though the caster has better bullets.
And leaves room for the tension of running low and working out alternatives on the fly in the event of a long series of engagements .
What do you hope to accomplish by doing this, other than ensuring no one ever uses a component pouch instead of an arcane focus?
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
The thing is, most components in the spell component pouch are easily acquired (sand, guano, flower petals, crushed rocks, leaves, etc), with perhaps a single day or a few hours of downtime.
Were I to implement component tracking in my game I would allow the following:
- Downtime: You can spend 1hr of downtime to gather 2gp of spell components. During a long rest, you can gather up to 4gp of spell components instead of standing watch (only 6hrs is required for actual sleep, the other 2hrs can be for minor, insignificant tasks, such as maintaining equipment).
- Spell components: Each spellcasting day, you expend 2gp worth of spell components casting your various spells. Once per week, 5gp of spell components become spoiled and must be replaced.
- Spell Focus: This system encourages the use of a spell focus. As such, I would require such items to be properly maintained (strings, feathers and other decorative objects replaced, foci polished, instruments tuned, etc). This requires 1hr of downtime per day to maintain its use as a focus. If exposed to extreme conditions (water, driving rain, snow, etc). Maintenance costs would be 5sp/adventuring day in miscellaneous oils, polishes, etc, and require 1hr of downtime to perform (as above). Artisans tools are not required for this work.
- Weapons/Armor: Weapons and armor would require proper maintenance also. This would require 5sp/adventuring day in oils, polish, rivets, and other miscellaneous material costs, 1hr of downtime, and require the use of an appropriate artisans tools (smiths tools, woodworking tools, etc).
- Ammunition: You can spend 1hr of downtime manufacturing arrows, bolts, or collecting properly sized and balanced stones as ammunition. Manufacturing arrows or bolts requires fletchers/wood-working tools. You pay half the material cost and manufacture 10 arrows/bolts per hour. You can collect 10 sling stones in 1hr of searching, at no cost.
I would not track individual components, and would simply handwaive the spellcaster having Xgp worth of components in their pouch, and track the value of their component pouch instead. If you want a more granular method - have spellcasters lose 1sp worth of components/spell focus value for every spell they cast which requires a material component, in addition to the 5gp worth of spoiled components/week.
I houserule that clothes need replaced every so often. So, the noble paladin in his fine clothes needs to visit his tailor at least once a month (in-game) for replacement clothes. "That'll be 15 gold, sir". "Here you are, my good man."
I kid, I kid 
.
We've never paid any attention whatsoever to clothes, components, or other mundane adventuring supplies. Just like Hercules and Iolaus (from that TV show), our PCs travel the land, week-after-week, helping those less fortunate. Maybe they should help themselves for a change, get a job, a horse (why are they always walking on that show), at least some new threads (same exact outfits every week -- what do they do on laundry day I wonder ).
Edit: I meant to mention, wouldn't component costs (like the pouch) be assumed under lifestyle expenses (page 157)?
You realize that most of those minor material components (the ones that have no cost) aren't consumed during casting anymore, right? Material components are only consumed if it specifically says so in the components line, and most of the components that don't have a cost aren't consumed. So your house rule won't have much of an effect at all, unless you're going to change the rules on what's consumed when a spell is cast, in which case you're just deliberately nerfing spellcasters.
BecDeCorbin wrote:
JC999 wrote:
I don't mind a simplified system for tracking components, but 2 days seems really short. Most of the dungeons I design take more than 2 days to clear; if my casters had to leave every two days to restock they'd never finish one.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Yeah. I was thinking something along the lines of components lasting a tenday. So, every ten days the pouch would need to be refilled providing the wizard was actively casting spells over that time. You could even have two types of pouches. One that holds a tenday's worth and another that doubles that.
This way it minimizes the beancounting duties and is easier to track. Personally, I'd keep the cost well below that of an arcane focus as to incentivize or make it more cost effective to have a pouch versus say a wand. And, as others have suggested, you could have a player use their PC's downtime to search for components thus refilling a certain number of days. Each hour of downtime spent looking for components refills 1 day or some such.
I plan to remove spell components.
JRutterbush wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
I think players need to get something out of any added book keeping. Adding this adds a detriment, book keeping and...no benefit to them.
I'm saying this not in some sort of magical 'you should' way, I'm saying I think that's how human psychology goes and to give no benefit will grate against it. Ie, it will reduce fun.
Emirikol wrote:
Let's all play, "Boring Tracking of Inconsequential Flavour Items for the Benefit of an Anal-Retentive DM"!
Yay! 
Thank_Dog wrote:
tiballagher wrote:
JC999 wrote:
I am in the boat of liking spell components pouch for flavor reasons. I am already paying five times the cost of a staff arcane Focus for this flavor. Talk to your players if they think it is fun to roleplay gathering/buying components, that's great go for it. If not you are just adding something that is not fun to the game. The comparison to arrows is kind of a specious argument. 1 gold for 20 arrows where you can always reclaim half of the number you shoot in any combat is inconsiquential compared to 25g every 2 days.
Put another one on the pile for likes the flavor but sees this change as a needless bit of book keeping.
I don't mind tracking this stuff and paying out for it on costly components from powerful spells but if I have to choose between tracking the small stuff or just using a spell focus and not dealing with nit picky BS then I'll go focus every time.
I like the tracking of components. I feel it adds to the flavor of playing a Wizard. I also made it a rule that the component pouch only holds 4 components. So, a Wizard will need multiple pouches and track what he puts in each one.
However, none of the components ever get used or go bad. So once you get the components, you have them forever.
I'm curious what others think, so I'll put it out there again: Wouldn't the cost of Adventuring Gear (listed on page 150) fall under Lifestyle Expenses (page 157)?
I personally consider ammunition to fall under the weapon list (but that's just me). But what about mundane adventuring supplies like backpacks, clothes, rope, even component pouches?
I'd say that maintenance and upkeep of such mundane stuff fall under the 'downtime activites' described on page 187. Also, that section immediately follows a mention of 'lifestyle expenses'
Edit to add: Also, the gudelines on the next page for 'self-sufficiency' could reflect a spellcaster searching for spell components between adventures I think.
= = =
What do you think?
DrDragonlance wrote:
Aww! Now I know why I kept seeing rose petals flying everywhere . . . somebody sliced open my component pouch. Damn! . . . Bat quano.
Or am I just seeing things? That looks like an open slash to me.
I like the idea of a caster having the pouch on him the way a fighter needs his sword to perform sword attacks but i'm not keen on micromanagement. I do like the idea of tracking special components that give extra benefit, however. Powerful consumable magic items for all classes is a fun and wide-open concept.
Kalani wrote:
I admit, I missed that word. I sometimes have moments where certain words disappear from the page, or transposition of letters in a word, or sometimes words in a sentence. Its rather frustrating (I actually think I have undiagnosed dyslexia, especially in light of the fact my mother had it as a child). It usually shows up when I read allowd, or when I try to parse a scientific jargon word (especially a medical term). It is most probably the reason why I was a terrible speller when I was in early elementary, despite having a grade 9+ reading level (I have been reading medical textbooks, and scientific texts since I was 6 or 7yo).
For example, I was convinced that the AnKYLOsaurus was an AnKLYOsaurus when I was younger
Then for a decade I was convinced that the fictional city of PalANTHas was actually called PalTHANas.
I still see these words with transposed letters from time to time, but have since learnt how they are spelt and have not since repeated my mistakes.
I've considered more abstract rules for spell components, such as rolling a d20 every time you cast a spell. And when you fail a check you've exhausted the compontent pounch and might not be able to cast that spell again or might suffer a penalty.
But the pouch refills each time you rest in a town or other place you can resuply.
So you're not tracking individual components but the pouch isn't endless
Let's see, codifying it for 5e... each time you cast a spell using material components you roll a d20. If you roll a "1" you're pouch is running low. After that the DC increases to 10, like a death saving throw. After 3 failures the pouch is exhausted. A natural 20 might cancel a failure.
When the pouch is exhausted you cannot add your proficiency bonus to any spells with material components.
I don't see the point of this.
First, anyone can purchase a holy symbol (5gp), arcane focus (crystal 10gp), or druid focus (totem or mistletoe, 1gp) and not need any material components which don't have a gold value. (p 203, Material) I would expect most player to do so, if you even hinted at this rule. The materials are for flavor-text and to give the game a feel.
Second, the lifestyle rules already assume that during times of the week/month when you aren't adventuring that you are restocking your component pouch. Unless they go weeks at a time without resting for a few days in some habitation (or wilderness area where they can foriage)... then there is no reason to think they couldn't replace these things as part of monthly life style costs.
Third, there is no reason to think that the components cost 25gp. It is the pouch which costs 25gp. Presumably it is small, intricate, has lots of little pockets, easily reachable, water tight, etc. Notice that the component pouch does not scale in cost based on your level or spells known. A warlock knowing one spell, a wizard with six in their spellbook, and a cleric which knows 15+2 spells to start with all pay the same 25gp. Nor does gaining additional spells known or levels of spells cause the price to increase. There is also no reason to think than any of the material components listed in any spell (which do not have a cost) would be of any significant cost to find. A firefly, sumac leaf, pinch of sulfur, bird feather, pinch of salt, frog's eye, etc. are not 25 gold every two days.
Forth, there is no reason to think your meta-gaming of how often spells are cast is remotely accurate. At 12.5 gp per day any player is going to debate it. If I travel six days on a horse and only cast a couple of spells which don't require components... is my pouch still empty? Meanwhile, I can cast the same spell a dozen times per day and it runs out at the same rate? Nor is there any reason to think that the entire pouch just runs out -- rather than just one spells components. If I have never cast a spell during that time, why would its components runn out? If I've only cast darkness over the past few days and you tell me I'm out of coal and you tell me I'm out of coal... I'll prepare darkvision in place of darkness... unless you are telling me that my dried carrot was used at the same rate as my coal? Sorry, any accurate tracking would have to consider the number of times I cast each spell before that component run out.
Fifth, as a player, I'd recent the heck out of you for making me track this stuff. I now have to look up every spell to see if it has a component and which ones -- so I can argue back to you that I've only used five pinches of sand, two spider's legs, and one frog's eye over the past two days and I'm not paying 25 gold.
Sixth, I'll just force you to roleplay me going out and getting sand, spider's legs, and frog's eyes. I'll stop the game and the other players can spend ten minutes as I describe how I go to the lake and get a bucket of sand, how I hire two street urchines for 1sp each to bring me back 50 dead spiders, and how I my owl familiar spends an hour at the pond hunting for frogs. I'll then write down 1000 pinches of sand, 400 spiders legs, and 26 frog eyes. You are either going to have to tell me to my face this isn't possible (in which case the disbelief is on your silly rule, not that components are free) or you'll get tired of this and meta-game that folks can collect vast numbers of components themselves for little or no cost.
The pouch is 25gp. The components in it has no real cost. They are mundane things which someone can collect on their own given some time or for a few silvers in any settlement of reasonable size. Making players roleplay mundane things is pointless and silly.
In our games, as soon as we arrive in town, one of the players just says "I'm off to the stores to resupply. Anyone need anything?" We assume that players can subtract a few gold for their rations, arrows, tending shoes on their horses, getting new boots, repairing holes in their tents, etc. as needed. The DM might describe the process if it was of note or something happened during it. This is Dungeons and Dragons... we roleplay high fantasy... not someone getting sand of the shore, paying kids to hunting spiders in an attic, or how my owl silently waits along the pond listening to frogs and catching them.
An old houserule from back in the days before the multipurpose component pouch:
You have X gp worth of undefined spell components. Casting a spell costs 1 sp/ level, unless the spell requires components that are exceedingly rare, or have a specific gp cost noted.
Simply decide how much of the base cost is for the pouch, and how much for components. Say 15gp for pouch, 10gp for parts (100 spell-level's worth). That's your pool and restock fee.
Personally, I'd not fuss with it unless you are wanting to get extra gritty, or need a way to funnel off the wizard's gold. Now me, I'd bring it up in a hard survival / lost your gear scenario: What components can you scrounge to cast your known/prepared spells?
In addition, I believe the OP is missing an important detail concerning material components. Spells do not consume material components unless it says so specifically in their description. Any component which is not specifically stated as being consumed, acts more like an arcane focus than it does as a consumable component.
This applies equally to spells with non-expensive material components, although that may simply be due to the way the game handwaives such components.
BW0222 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
IMO, if you're going to force a caster to purchase/find new spell components every couple of days, it's only fair to force the fighter to repair/replace his weapon and armor every couple of days, too. And if they can't, well, things break.
Novacat wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
If one were hell bent on applying a house rule on this for some reason then Joe the Rat's seems pretty reasonable.
Mayhaps with some degree of being able to partially refill it for free based off arcana or survival rolls.
Still seems like if you're gonna go there might as well start tracking how many days someone's gone without grooming before they start taking a charisma penalty to interactions. After all if you're not paying attention to that you'll eventually look very literally like the murder hobo you are.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I really like spell components for flavour reasons, and to make magic mysterious and, well magical again, rather than just Harry Potter-style fireworks and movie SFX.
That said, I assume that most of preparing spells during long rests is finding and preparing the components. Since spells are no longer memorised and forgotten in a true vancian sense, I instead rule that spell preparation is the various grinding, sorting, chanting over and blessing of common components needed for the spells you plan to cast that day. Essentially you are performing most of the ritual version in advance, so that it can be finished off quickly in the heat of battle.
I do plan on enforcing the priced and consumed component rules, so if my players want to be raising the dead they are going to have to track down suitable diamonds to buy or steal! (although now that I think about I might replace the various gem components with something just as expensive but more grim...)
I do see component pouches as having an advantage of foci, in that they give you an extra hand free. It is also much easier to disarm someone using a focus.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I've always rather liked the idea of ammunition style spell component pouches. Add's a little depth to the spellcasting process if the wizard has spent time in character gathering the necessities...perhaps a few skill rolls during downtime 
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
animeus wrote:
JC999 wrote:
I may even go back their being "copy spell failure" to bring a little 2nd edition back to the game.
How do we have a discussion without feedback? Even if we're not trying to reach a decision (a common objective), there's still gonna be an exchange of ideas in any discussion. So, if I give you an idea, and you give me an idea, are we not in effect feeding on each other? Feedback, a return of (or reaction to) ideas and/or information.
Discuss .
Having now finished the PHB... and getting ready to play a Sorcerer this weekend...
I'm of the general opinion that the fluff of the Sorcerer class doesn't make much sense to require components. I don't get how they have this raw magic (whether from wild magic or draconic heritage), but somehow intuitively figure out how to cast a spell THE EXACT SAME WAY as a Wizard who spent time learning about magic theory, proper items to channel raw magic through, etc. A focus makes sense for Sorcerers ("Johnny went and had a wild surge again... durn near took out half th' village! Gotta finda way to help 'im channel that stuff!"), but material components just don't.
It maintains the mechanical requirement (as a focus is an option for any arcane caster), doesn't invalidate the necessity for expensive components ("Magic can't do that on its own; you need something to channel it through, and in this case it's gotta be a gem that costs several hundred gold!"), but keeps the "flavor" of the Sorcerer alive.
Likewise, I would personally think divine casters (Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Clerics) all have a power source different than magic; a holy symbol or something signifying connection with nature ought to be enough.
The more I think about it, I think Wizards are about the only ones who ought to require actual material components.
The_Jester wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
That's just it - people have different tastes.
Objectively speaking, this is a bad rule. If Xun's group enjoys it, then they should play with it, regardless of whether it's good or bad.
While such an idea in any group I play in would lead to no one playing a spell caster (or an open revolt, possibly with pitchforks and torches), I can see how it could add some flavor.
Though I might recommend a different approach than "you have X days worth", simply because there's no way to have that fairly track the actual spellcasting amounts. A week traveling on horseback is probably going to burn through fewer spells than a single long day in a dungeon crawl. Perhaps a nice midpoint between tracking every damn item and the blanket x days’ worth might be to track spell levels cast. Say a pouch carries X spell levels worth of components. If for example you have a 30 spell level pouch, you then have 30 1st level spells, or 15 2nd, or 10 3rd, ect ect ect...
I do kind of what to address a point that was brought up though, the "well I make the archers track ammo". This is almost but not really the same thing. I can certainly see the similarities, but I think from a game balance and mechanics standpoint they aren't actually the same.
Consider, a melee character effectively has no limit on the number of attacks they can make. A Fighter with a greatsword has a pool of ∞ attacks, even though realistically swinging a several pound length of sharpened metal around would eventually exhaust even the stoutest warrior. And there is no difference between said Fighter's 1st swing in terms of accuracy and damage vs his 20th, save for the randomness of dice, even though both should be realistically becoming worse as he gets tired. But then again, who honestly wants to try realistically tracking that kind of thing? No one, we ignore that aspect, passing over realism for the sake of keeping the rules manageable. And more to the point, it's generally seen as a fair trade off, in that being a melee character tends to put one in the most dangerous locations on the battlefield.
Now a ranged character, be it bow or crossbow or more exotic fair, is somewhat in the same boat as the melee. No one tracks just how many times your archer can actually draw his bow, which is actually not an inconsiderable physical feat. We only track ammo (or some of us do). But game play wise, this is a fair trade off, in that ranged weapons do have several advantages over melee, such as not having to run right up to the monster to attack it, the ability to fight a flying opponent, the ability to stay out of range of a melee opponent, ect. Plus it's harder to hand wave someone shooting a hundred arrows over the course of a long battle when he's only got a single quiver to store them in. But mostly its a fair game balance kind of thing, and tracking arrows (or bolts or bullets) is fairly easy. Make an attack, reduce ammo count by one. Very little extra time involved.
A spell caster now can do a lot of damage with the right spells, no doubt about that. For raw damage, for utility, they can easily be at the top of the pack. Which is why they already have a limit on their spell casting in the form of spells per day, and this version of the game is very stingy with the high level spell slots as it is. Adding another limit on their casting in terms of what is effectively spell ammo...well honestly at that point, if I was a caster, I'd be asking to get the potential to cast more spells per day, or ask that the Fighter and Ranger have a limit on how many times they can swing a sword or draw a bow. Having two different things putting a limit on my classe's core feature could easily feel pretty unfair, and besides, the components are a flavor element that can be hand waved far easier than the archer's ammo.
Or to sum it for those who don’t want to read all that…
Melee get infinite attacks, but have to be right next to the baddie, and can be screwed by bad terrain or flight
Ranged weapon user don't have the same issues as melee, but have only as many attacks as they have ammo on hand...though with enough ammo on hand, they could effectively have unlimited attacks
Spell casters have a hard set limit on spells per day
Food for thought anyway, just keep in mind that you may be mucking with the game balance imposing this rule.
I honestly hate the concept of material components, except when they are used for magical rituals. Throwing obscure objects into a cauldron or a circle makes sense to me, but in the middle of combat, trying to take a heap of stinking bat poop out of a bag just doesn't do it for me.
TehSchwann wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
BW0222 wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
In our 3.5 homebrew, magic was sorta like the Force (at least as it appeared in the original movies). Magic-users were able to 'sense, control, and alter' arcane energy, much like Jedi. In effect, arcane spellcasting was Charisma based, ratther than Intelligence based.
Since magic was 'sense, control, and alter' (rather than 'study and learn' like traditional D&D wizardry), I decided it made little sense for magic-users to fumble through a component pouch looking for bat guano. So, I reflavored the traditional spell component pouch:
Design Note: This is the spell component pouch (as described on page 130 of the Player’s Handbook) flavored for magic-users in this setting. Since arcane magic is based on “sense and control” rather than “study and learn” I think its more appropriate. Nothing destroys that feel quicker than having a magician worry about bat poop and sulfur when casting a fireball.
animeus wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
animeus wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
BW0222 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to use my treasure in ways that support my character's personal goals. For the first time in over a decade, the rules support this, instead of forcing me to invest the large majority of my fortune in upgrading magic items.
In another argument, why is there the assumption that treasure will be falling from the sky in the same way it was in previous editions? As you say, there isn't a requirement of magic items to be buying anymore.
Maybe 25g is worth a lot more than it used to be worth. And if it's really going to be an inconsequential cost, then why bring it up?
Edit to add- And 25g should be worth a lot more than it used to! Finally, finally, the base rules allow for commerce to make sense!
Consider the "Lifestyle Expenses" on pg 157. You're telling me that it costs nearly the same gold per week just to BE a Wizard as it does to live a "wealthy" (4gp per day) lifestyle? That's crazy to me!
At that point, why even have money in the game? It clearly doesn't add anything to your gameplay and it's value is pointless, as you can afford to buy anything and everything you see (unless you want to go through the book and edit every price on every item or service).
TehSchwann wrote:
I like to keep track also, however its much more difficult now since there is not per sell component ammount listed. Couple this with at will cantrips and you are left with a puzzle. How many times can you cast the same spell before you run out of what it takes to cast that spell in a given component pouch? I like that they made it possible to hand wave components if you choose to, but they should have made it a little easier if you do like to track them.
a couple of ideas I have toyed arround with are
a flat number of times you can cast a spell based on how many of its casting the bag will hold based on spell slots. So 15 slots of casting for a specific spell. This means that you can cast a level 1 spell a total of 15 times of you can pump up the spell to a level 5 version 3 times or you can mix and match.
a set ammount of castings plus a chance of running out per spell slot used to cast the spell ... with 10 levels of casting in the bag so after you cast the first ten spell levels worth of the spell you would then cast and figure out your chance of running out and then roll after you cast the spell ... ie if you cast a first level spell and bump it up to a level 4 slot you would have a 5% chance cumlative per spell slot so a 20% chance of running out.
TehSchwann wrote:
Actually that's not my position at all.
My argument is that it's a bad rule because it only seems to apply to the Wizard, and that it would only truly be a fair rule if it also applied to the other classes, as I give example of above.
But fair or not, it's still bad because of those same reasons.
It's a fine rule, if the DM/Players want more realism it's fine. However, if the PC's are just going to default to Foci, or the rule change then forces the removal of foci just to use, then it doesn't seem worth it. Especially because at some point magic foci will be probably be added.
I would like to point out that I have only played three games so far of 4e (and even then that is with a group of new players, so I have no previous experience with earlier editions, neither do I have any hatred toward any particular class, and I am yet to find any balance issues). We are going to start our first 5e game this weekend, to test the water, and see how everyone feels about the new rule set. So, I'm hoping that my opinion is very unbiased and that it will, hopefully, be treated as such.
Now, having read everything everyone has said above, I'm actually very fond of the idea that Wizard's should have to track their material components. But, of course, not in a way that proves non-beneficial to the players and their having fun. To me, it seems simply logical and more realistic, based on what I've read in the 5e Player's Handbook, that a Wizard should have to use and track components. However, I would keep it very simple.
For example (this is only a concept), if an Archer buys 20 arrows for 1gp, and gets to reclaim half of them, they should end up with 38 useable arrows. With that in mind, I would be very tempted to suggest that a Wizard, with a component pouch, could get at least 38 uses (that is, one use per spell) out of their component pouch before spending 1gp to have the components topped up. Nothing too fanciful. I certainly wouldn't have every character roleplay their entire process of gaining these resources.
It is probably easier and more beneficial for the majority of tables to assume that all of the above costs (including those for archers) are included in the daily living fees (assuming you're in a town) and, perhaps, during down-time (when resting) used efficiently to scavange resources. You can then top up arrows, material components, and service and maintain armour and weapons automatically. You simply use your imagination to very quickly tell yourself what the characters have been doing during those rest hours/down-time.
In addition, a Wizard with a component pouch, over a staff of foci, has an additional free hand which, as I understand it, could be very useful.
As always, each to their own. And, if the majority at my table were to rule against it then I'd just pretend in my head that it's all assumed ...
Shiroiken wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Arbitrary_Aardvark wrote:
Arbitrary_Aardvark wrote:
Someone has already mentioned this, but it bears repeating: the 25gp cost for a spell component pouch is the cost of the pouch itself, not the materials it may contain. Nowhere in the description of the item does it mention the components themselves being included in the purchase. It's just the pouch; a finely crafted watertight one with cunningly designed compartments for all your spellcasting needs, true, but still just the pouch.
I like the idea of spell components needing to be replenished, however my players would not so I wont use it. If i did though i would just stick with 20 spells for a GP, and keep it simple. I have house ruled in the usage of heal kits for any non magical heals due to short/long rests. again i made the kits hold 20 uses and 1 use is expended per HD healed. the players like this rule.
I can't wait for the first time a Rogue (Thief) runs up to a spellcaster, uses his Fast Hands ability to steal the caster's Component Pouch or Focus, and then runs back again. The look on the player's face will be priceless.
if you want to track spell components, just make the 25gp "use up" components at 1gp per level spell cast. simple and quick. low levels get quite a few uses out of a full pouch, and higher levels not so much. would also allow groups who defeat a magic user to gain as part of the treasure a half used pouch....or less...
Don't forget that wizards already have a sizeable money-sink: their spell books. Scribing new spells into it is rather costly.