Does Eschew Materials apply to cost-free focus as well, or just material components?
|
Right. In the RAW, it only applies to material components. However, if this came up in my campaign, you can bet that I would houserule it to include foci as well (excluding, of course, holy symbols and such for divine casters).
Then again, I've always assumed that any PC with a spell component pouch was spending his/her "off-screen" time gathering no-cost material components and foci. In all my years of gaming, I've only met one player who honestly enjoyed the bookkeeping and roleplaying of gathering each individual material component for his spells.
|
Right. In the RAW, it only applies to material components. However, if this came up in my campaign, you can bet that I would houserule it to include foci as well (excluding, of course, holy symbols and such for divine casters).
Then again, I've always assumed that any PC with a spell component pouch was spending his/her "off-screen" time gathering no-cost material components and foci. In all my years of gaming, I've only met one player who honestly enjoyed the bookkeeping and roleplaying of gathering each individual material component for his spells.
You know I didn't like the idea that you handwaved material components if you had a pouch and in the first game I ever DMed I made the player (newbie by the way) track her spell components. She actually loved it, because it helped her really get into roleplaying her spellcasting. She would say things like, "I pull out a pinch of lambs whool and cast sleep", or "I draw out a pestal and ruby and grind it to dust to cast..." etc. etc. I now prefer wizards actually track spell components because I've seen how it can encourage roleplaying.
On topic though I also allow eschew materials to negate foci as well as materials.
|
|
You know I didn't like the idea that you handwaved material components if you had a pouch and in the first game I ever DMed I made the player (newbie by the way) track her spell components. She actually loved it, because it helped her really get into roleplaying her spellcasting. She would say things like, "I pull out a pinch of lambs whool and cast sleep", or "I draw out a pestal and ruby and grind it to dust to cast..." etc. etc. I now prefer wizards actually track spell components because I've seen how it can encourage roleplaying.
To each his own, etc. I agree in some circumstances that it can be great (the guy I referred to above greatly enjoyed it).
There are some drawbacks, though. Let's call the guy in my example Bob. There were times when we really needed him to be able to cast fireball, and he hadn't prepared it because he didn't have any bat guano/sulfur. This wasn't something the DM enforced on him, it was self-imposed.
Also, how much do you need for each spell? A pinch? Once you say "I gather some bat guano", how many uses do you get out of it? Does it go bad eventually?
Long story short, it can get really granular (the subsystem, not the guano).
|
|
You know I didn't like the idea that you handwaved material components if you had a pouch and in the first game I ever DMed I made the player (newbie by the way) track her spell components. She actually loved it, because it helped her really get into roleplaying her spellcasting. She would say things like, "I pull out a pinch of lambs whool and cast sleep", or "I draw out a pestal and ruby and grind it to dust to cast..." etc. etc. I now prefer wizards actually track spell components because I've seen how it can encourage roleplaying.
To each his own, etc. I agree in some circumstances that it can be great (the guy I referred to above greatly enjoyed it).
There are some drawbacks, though. Let's call the guy in my example Bob. There were times when we really needed him to be able to cast fireball, and he hadn't prepared it because he didn't have any bat guano/sulfur. This wasn't something the DM enforced on him, it was self-imposed.
Also, how much do you need for each spell? A pinch? Once you say "I gather some bat guano", how many uses do you get out of it? Does it go bad eventually?
Long story short, it can get really granular (the subsystem, not the guano).
I wasn't that big an ass of it. I would usually just say a lump got you 5 uses etc. of whatever, and I wouldn't make them track things like sweat for ray of fatigue because your in combat, touch your finger to your forhead and viola material component.
But the reason I tracked it was specifically for the purpose you mentioned above, sometimes like arrows a mage should run out of spell components if they haven't been stocking up or if your going to places (say a dungeon delve or traveling by sea) where you can't refresh your materials how come it's fair for the ranger to run out of arrows, but the wizard just always has enough bat guano to cast fireball, even if he casts three a day. Anywho like you said to each his own. I just try not to be an ass on granularity, and the spellcasters have to put a little forthought into their spellpouches.
We always prefer to at least make a wink and a nod to material components. Casters, have to spend at least a few token gp when visiting town to keep the spell bags full, or be sure to loot the casters we come accross for the cheaper components. Most of us are solid with RP so nobody grumbles to much. The expensive stuff - 100gp plus, must be bought. Hence why we never had enough pearls to identify in 3.5. In the past I have thought it would be fun to keep track of all the little doodads and whatsits that it takes to cast, and then find other creative uses for some of it. But the reward to work ratio never seemed worth it.
Then again, I've always assumed that any PC with a spell component pouch was spending his/her "off-screen" time gathering no-cost material components and foci.
That is how the rules for spell component pouches work. However, the reason I ask, is because Sorcerers get Eschew Materials as a class feature (like Wizards and Scribe Scroll). And it seems silly that, even though I don't have to carry guano, pinches of wool, or whatnot, I still have to buy a component pouch (and carry the weight) just so I can have a bit of wire for message, and any other cheap-as-free focuses.
|
|
...how come it's fair for the ranger to run out of arrows, but the wizard just always has enough bat guano to cast fireball, even if he casts three a day. Anywho like you said to each his own.
Good point. Which is also why I assume that archers spend their off-screen time buying arrows and looting enemy quivers :) Besides, if a player decides that they do want to track every single arrow, it's not as intensive to track arrows as it is to track MCs.
That is, "20 arrows" as opposed to "guano, wool, wire, chalk, knucklebones, sand, glass, copper castings, silk scraps, jellybeans, etc"Of course, an arrow that's more than just a standard 20-per-gp arrow gets tracked individually, but standard arrows are easy enough to come by (or make, if you have Craft), that I usually don't bother with the bookkeeping.
However, my games usually ignore such nitty gritty things as counting arrows, cataloging spell components, writing down what kind of clothes a PC is wearing, and worrying about encumbrance (unless there's an obvious violation (i.e. carrying around a treasure chest), I usually just handwave it...I've also been known to give bags of holding out relatively early in the campaign for just this reason). So, take that for what you will.
[/threadjack]
It is a little unfair to sorcerers to undervalue a class feature by not enforcing the lack of the feature on other spellcasters.
It would be like making a houserule that says, "Any time you fail a reflex save, you take no damage instead of half damage."
Then you wonder why rogues are complaining that their Evasion class feature feels worthless.
One happy medium might be to have the wizard, cleric, etc., write down all the spells they know and give them 10 of every component that has a negligible cost. They write that by the spells, then tick off each use. Once they run out, they better find some, buy some, or memorize something else.
Sure will motivate them all to seriously consider Eschew Materials.
On the other hand, even if you don't track components, consider what happens in the age-old clich "you have been captured and they took all your stuff" scenario. Now the character with Eschew Materials can still cast most of his spells, and the other casters are mostly spell-less until they can restock components.
|
|
Then again, I've always assumed that any PC with a spell component pouch was spending his/her "off-screen" time gathering no-cost material components and foci.That is how the rules for spell component pouches work. However, the reason I ask, is because Sorcerers get Eschew Materials as a class feature (like Wizards and Scribe Scroll). And it seems silly that, even though I don't have to carry guano, pinches of wool, or whatnot, I still have to buy a component pouch (and carry the weight) just so I can have a bit of wire for message, and any other cheap-as-free focuses.
Ok... Either I always missed that...or you guys are seeing something that is not there..
Where does it say that Sorcerers don't use components?
I just read Sorcerer.. And did not see that... Can you point it out to me... Maybe I am just missing it.
I houserule sorcerers as having Eschew Materials and Spell Thematics.
With spell components, I assume that wizards keep a well-stocked components pouch on hand the same as I assume they have their spellbook. Both can be lost/confiscated and this is a real threat, but this also gives them a chance to improvise, the same as the fighter losing his weapons and armor, the thief losing his tools and so on.
It really depends on the campaign how useful this feat is or how debilitating not having it is. If you're doing a lot of traveling and running into bandits who keep grabbing your pouch, getting Eschew Materials is a lot more useful than if you're in some wizards university town where you can always get a new one with little bother.
Where does it say that Sorcerers don't use components?
Pathfinder Beta Sorcerers get Eschew Materials at first level. (Oddly enough, this applies even to spells they cast as other classes, in the case of multiclass sorcerers.)
|
|
Where does it say that Sorcerers don't use components?Pathfinder Beta Sorcerers get Eschew Materials at first level. (Oddly enough, this applies even to spells they cast as other classes, in the case of multiclass sorcerers.)
Doh!!! I should have notice what forum this was in!!!
Sorry about that..
I just once got in this argument with a player who insisted that sorcerers did not use spell components.. When I asked him to show me that is the PHB, he was very surprised that he was wrong..
Oh well...
Carry on!
I've ran once where the DM had me track my components, and it was fun to the same extent the rest of the game is for me playing a wizard. Of course I tend to enjoy most of the bookkeeping that goes with playing a spellchucker.
I'm considering just giving a spell component pouch a number of times it can be used before it needs replenished in my next campaign, but haven't quite settled on the idea or how many uses are in a spell component pouch yet.
I'm considering just giving a spell component pouch a number of times it can be used before it needs replenished in my next campaign, but haven't quite settled on the idea or how many uses are in a spell component pouch yet.
A rule of thumb for the game is that 50 items with a (-) weight add up to a pound. (This applies to coins explicitly, but also as a rule of thumb for potions, scrolls, and so on.)
A spell component pouch weights 2 lbs. Assuming that the pouch itself if a more complex, subdivided version of a Belt Pouch (which weighs 1/2 lb.), that means there are about 75 items of 'negligible mass' inside.
I don't like unnecessary bookkeeping. I'm into RPGs for the heroics, not because I want to hone my skills at keeping track of minutae - I can get more than enough of that at work.
So I won't track spell components. Or regular ammo. Or standard gear. Or whether this extra 2gp he has earned puts him over light encumbrance. Or how much someone has eaten and how often he will have to take a dump. I won't use the stool consistency chart, either. "Does this trail ration include nuts? Because my fighter's allergic to nuts" likely won't happen at my table, either.
If someone gets his kicks out of something like that, I'll gladly let him keep track of everthing, but I won't force anyone to do it, and forcing me to do it is a surefire way to get me out of the campaign (though asking me to leave is probably easier).
It is a little unfair to sorcerers to undervalue a class feature by not enforcing the lack of the feature on other spellcasters.
It would be like making a houserule that says, "Any time you fail a reflex save, you take no damage instead of half damage."
Yeah, exactly the same. Just like a skyscaraper is the same as a lean-to. They're both buildings. ;-P
Yeah, exactly the same. Just like a skyscaraper is the same as a lean-to. They're both buildings. ;-PIt is a little unfair to sorcerers to undervalue a class feature by not enforcing the lack of the feature on other spellcasters.
It would be like making a houserule that says, "Any time you fail a reflex save, you take no damage instead of half damage."
Sure, I get what you're saying. Evasion is a much more useful/powerful class feature than Eschew Materials.
Regardless, for the purpose of my example, the situation is the same. In both cases, we have a campaign (one real, one imaginary) that has a houserule that completely invalidates one class feature of a specific class.
It doesn't matter how powerful or useful those class features are, when their very existence is pointless because of another rule (house or not), then what might have been a class feature becomes a waste of ink on the page.
Further, the class that lost the feature doesn't seem to be getting any replacement feature, so effectively, they've lost some of their power or versatility, or both. It's an opportunity cost rather than a real one; they had the opportunity to have a class feature at this level but instead, they got wasted ink on the page and no discernable feature.
In that regard, the two class features I used in my example are very much the same.
To bridge both sides,
if one wants to play with the houserule giving Eschew Materials to everyone (effectively),
why not allow Sorcerors to choose an extra Feat from amongst their Bloodline Feats?
That maintains Sorcerors' "Class Ability Value", while restricting it to Bloodline-appropriate Feats.
I'd wait until the 2nd or 3rd Sorceror level before granting the extra Feat, to avoid level-dipping exploits.
I'd wait until the 2nd or 3rd Sorceror level before granting the extra Feat, to avoid level-dipping exploits.
Put it at 2nd level: It's a dead level for sorcerers anyway. (Caster level doubling isn't insignifigant, but otherwise all they get is an extra cantrip.)
Regardless, for the purpose of my example, the situation is the same. In both cases, we have a campaign (one real, one imaginary) that has a houserule that completely invalidates one class feature of a specific class.
It's not really a house rule: Handwaving components if you have the pouch is already the status quo in the rules.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Yeah, exactly the same. Just like a skyscaraper is the same as a lean-to. They're both buildings. ;-PIt is a little unfair to sorcerers to undervalue a class feature by not enforcing the lack of the feature on other spellcasters.
It would be like making a houserule that says, "Any time you fail a reflex save, you take no damage instead of half damage."
Sure, I get what you're saying. Evasion is a much more useful/powerful class feature than Eschew Materials.
Regardless, for the purpose of my example, the situation is the same. In both cases, we have a campaign (one real, one imaginary) that has a houserule that completely invalidates one class feature of a specific class.
It doesn't matter how powerful or useful those class features are, when their very existence is pointless because of another rule (house or not), then what might have been a class feature becomes a waste of ink on the page.
Further, the class that lost the feature doesn't seem to be getting any replacement feature, so effectively, they've lost some of their power or versatility, or both. It's an opportunity cost rather than a real one; they had the opportunity to have a class feature at this level but instead, they got wasted ink on the page and no discernable feature.
In that regard, the two class features I used in my example are very much the same.
Eh, what does it matter? Jagyr's group is perfectly happy gaming using the house rule, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Eh, what does it matter? Jagyr's group is perfectly happy gaming using the house rule, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Good point.
For me, I like the thought exercise of kicking around the rules, trying to understand if and how they are balanced within the game system, and trying to experiment with the rules to tweak them, change them, and assess the impact of those changes on the entire rule system, and ultimately evaluate the potential for destabilizing other rules.
It's a fun thought exercise and sometimes I get new ideas for houserules out of it, regardless of whehter I'm participating or simply reading through someone else's thought exercise.
Makes no difference to me whether Jagyr, or anyone else, takes anything away from this thread or any thread in which I engage.
But it does make a difference to me whether people contribute constructively to the thought experiment, chiming in with their own thoughts, ideas, and counterpoints - it makes the whole process much more engaging.
|
|
I see merit to both sides of this recent issue. As Larry Lichman points out, my group is perfectly fine with saying "having an SC pouch means you have your costless material components".
On the other side, even if it's nothing more than a "drop in the bucket" sort of problem, it is displeasing from a game design perspective to have one class's bonus feat invalidated like that. To compensate, if you houserule that wizards with SC pouches don't need to track MCs (which is already kind of implied in the rules), you might rule that Eschew Materials allows a caster to ignore components costing less than 50gp (that is, 49gp and under).
Although, then you run into another problem if you're using my games as an example: in my games, instead of requiring a caster to have a specific gem or costly material component, I allow them to simply spend gp when they cast the spell. As a good example, last session I had a cleric cast augury, which requires as a material component incense costing 25gp. Instead of not allowing the player to cast his spell because he hadn't written "incense" down on his character sheet, I simply had him subtract 25gp from his total. Yes, it's kind of dissociative, but we just play it as if he had spent it ahead of time. Even though the player didn't plan ahead for having to cast the spell, it's assumed that the character would know to do that.
There is another benefit to Eschew Components. It's a minor benefit, but it's there.
To identify a spell as it's cast , for counterspelling or just morbid curiosity, requires a spellcraft check. The base dc assumes the presence of verbal, somatic, and material components. For each component that can't be observed (too far away to see or hear, you are deafened or blinded, the spellcaster is invisible so all you can catch are the verbal, etc.) the dc is +2.
So sorcerers with Eschew Components are a little harder to counterspell.
So I've set my current house rule, Sorcerers can ignore spell components costing less than their sorcerer level x 50 for their sorcerer spells known (doesn't work across classes).
This means the feat actually does something for them, and I don't have to make all the other casters track worthless components.
I'll let everyone know how it works out when/if it doesn't, and why it did or didn't.
|
|
There is another benefit to Eschew Components. It's a minor benefit, but it's there.
To identify a spell as it's cast , for counterspelling or just morbid curiosity, requires a spellcraft check. The base dc assumes the presence of verbal, somatic, and material components. For each component that can't be observed (too far away to see or hear, you are deafened or blinded, the spellcaster is invisible so all you can catch are the verbal, etc.) the dc is +2.
So sorcerers with Eschew Components are a little harder to counterspell.
Huh. I've never seen spell identification or counterspelling used in a campaign, so I never thought about that aspect. That makes complete sense.
So I've set my current house rule, Sorcerers can ignore spell components costing less than their sorcerer level x 50 for their sorcerer spells known (doesn't work across classes).
This means the feat actually does something for them, and I don't have to make all the other casters track worthless components.
I'll let everyone know how it works out when/if it doesn't, and why it did or didn't.
Hmmmm, I don't know about that...expensive material components are factored into the cost and power of the spell. Levelx50gp seems a little high for me.
Huh. I've never seen spell identification or counterspelling used in a campaign, so I never thought about that aspect. That makes complete sense.
I think a putting in a foe or two who sunders or steals a spell component pouch from the wizard would also point out that there is some value in not needing such things.
(I've never run a wizard with Eschew Materials, as the rules make it very easy for the most part to not worry about such things. As feats go, I've never placed EM near the top).