@ Cartigan:
Well, I already said I would do it for low levels only, not up to 20.
Said this, why couldn't advance them by class would not be enough? Classes offer a great diversity, expecially if are combined in encounters..
I have a player who tracks spell components voluntarily. I didn't make him do it, but he keeps track of all of the components and how much of each he has on him himself. This way, when the party needs something wierd not related to casting a spell, like a handfull of sand, he knows he has it on him and how much. Its come in handy, and takes him about 10 minutes per session when everyone is updating character sheets. I like it.
I would like to see a limit on how many components a pouch can carry, and force the player to keep track of each. If a pouch can carry 10 diferent components and up to 50 spell castings, and the player has to write down how much of each he has, it would improve the game. It becomes a significant reduction in a caster's power, IME. It enhances low level play. I do so much more complicated things in role playing games I really don't understand the issue.
That being said, I would like to see spell components either thrown out or reworked. Most of them are dumb hold-overs from bad jokes. I forget which divination had you making a TV.
Are there any spells that have beans for a spell component so when the casters take too much time to do anything or stop playing casters they can say it is because they aren't bean counters?
I don't know what "game" you are playing that counting how many tiny bells, whistles, and bits of sand you have would "improve" it.
Well, I currently have a character that uses different types of ammunition. I have a good 15 different types, each with special qualities, damage, and cost. In combat I need to decide what type I want to use and when so that I do not run out of spells. Its more fiddly than a spell component pouch, which just requires a list of components and what spells they are used for, ticking off uses. It enhances the game by making me also have to deal with resource management. Not always having the right tool for the job at hand improves the game, IME. You have to work arround more problems, instead of through them, since you need to plan for future obsticles with what resources you have in mind.
Hmm, you keep track of hit points. How hard could it be to make a check mark every time you cast a spell?I've seen two ways that have worked with tracking spell components for each spell:
1. Spell component pouch has 50 "charges" each spell eats up a number of charges equal to spell level.
2. The GM did all the work and gave the players sheets with the spells listed as well as the components for each spell and cost for each component.
I did something like #2 for 1e, they could go to a shop and get x packets of y for z. specially prepped and packaged specifically for casters (my home brew had apothecary shops and the like that served as occult shops as well, they didn't sell big ticket items, but most potions, components, some low level wands and the like could be found.
#1 is what I'd like for Pathfinder.
I prefer the system as written. If you want #1 then house rule it in. I personally don't think that playing a character should be such a chore though. Not everyone likes having to do such detailed book keeping.
Edited for grammar.
The real question should be "Why would I want to do this?" Short answer: I don't either as a player or GM.
Long Answer: It is another variable to keep track of. It adds an unnecessary burden to players of casting classes. You already have to adjust hp, ac, saves, hit bonuses, and ammunition. Sometimes these numbers are changing on a round by round basis. It simply becomes one more thing to keep track of. It also brings up another issue. I am going to cast a spell. I get hit by an attack in response to casting and I fail my concentration check. Do I lose the components or not. The spell failed to go off since I wasn't able to concentrate. I lose the spell but do the components get consumed as well? The rules don't say. One more thing for me to house rule and keep track of.
I like the rules as written since they are adaptable to a wide range of gaming styles. I don't want some subsystem added in that I then have to cut out. If you like keeping track of stuff then add the system in. Just don't expect everyone else to want to use it. We all have different ideas about what makes this game fun.
well you could say 5gp/level... so a 7th level spell pouch is 35 gp.
Trouble is once you get up in spell level the components get pricey.
one pouch of 35 gpv isnt going to contain 50, 25 gpv onyx's.
we are talking about fur, string, guano, things like that.
Anything else HAS to be tracked.
Messing around with Pcs every once in a blue moon to make them work to get their spell pouch filled isnt deviating from RAW, its role playing, gaming, adventure hooking.
He doesnt have to tally off 50 pinches of sand. But as i was saying early, if you give SOME attention early on, to spell components, then making them adventure to get the unobtainium for their staff of ridiculous energy, isnt going to be so strange. But if you let them get away with freebies up intil then, they will get all herky jerky once you tell them they cant make magic items in a tent in the wild with nothing but the stuff in their 5 gp pouch!
Isaac assimovs rules to science fiction, once you make a "law" it must be followed.
So if the 5gp pouch covers all things needed for magic, you cant suddenly require materials later on in the same campaign/world. People will balk at it.
Well, I currently have a character that uses different types of ammunition. I have a good 15 different types, each with special qualities, damage, and cost.
So you wield bows? Big deal.
15 different items to keep up with. That's what 6-15 spells? That's great for a level 4 spellcaster and all. I'm sure they would love to add that tedium into also having to figure out which spells they do and don't have prepared. And have or haven't cast. And how many more than can cast of X spell or X level.Its more fiddly than a spell component pouch, which just requires a list of components and what spells they are used for, ticking off uses.
Please go through the spell page and make a list of all the spell components. Make sure to set it up so you can find any cross uses and multiple component spells.
It enhances the game by making me also have to deal with resource management.
I hate to tell you this, but resource management DOES NOT ENHANCE THE GAME. People do not play D&D because they want to play Farmville or Age of Empires. If they want to play Farmvile or AoE, they will play Farmville or AoE.
Not always having the right tool for the job at hand improves the game, IME.
Yes, it is your opinion. I don't see how anyone shares it. Maybe the rest of the professional bean counter D&D players.
You have to work arround more problems, instead of through them, since you need to plan for future obsticles with what resources you have in mind.
Your games must be pretty damn simple that you have to create extra, arbitrary problems for people to deal with above and beyond what already exist in the game.
Messing around with Pcs every once in a blue moon to make them work to get their spell pouch filled isnt deviating from RAW, its role playing, gaming, adventure hooking.So if the 5gp pouch covers all things needed for magic, you cant suddenly require materials later on in the same campaign/world. People will balk at it.
The pouch doesn't cover all things though. It only covers components that have no cost listed for them. As long as players remember that the pouch only has trivial components in it they shouldn't have a problem with the other stuff. Anything with a cost is a required purchase. So yeah you have to go buy the 500gp pearls and such. And you have to find someone who has them. And yes this can be a problem if the only settlement nearby is a landlocked small farming town with little outside trade. But you don't have to worry about purchasing bat guano or handfuls of sand. Those minor items are covered. I have never had a player complain about having to purchase certain components for spells because they have a price listed.
Oh and making players work to fill their characters spell pouch is deviating from RAW if the components have no listed price. Even for spells like alter self when they are used to impersonate a specific person.
The real question should be "Why would I want to do this?" Short answer: I don't either as a player or GM.
Long Answer: It is another variable to keep track of. It adds an unnecessary burden to players of casting classes. You already have to adjust hp, ac, saves, hit bonuses, and ammunition. Sometimes these numbers are changing on a round by round basis. It simply becomes one more thing to keep track of. It also brings up another issue. I am going to cast a spell. I get hit by an attack in response to casting and I fail my concentration check. Do I lose the components or not. The spell failed to go off since I wasn't able to concentrate. I lose the spell but do the components get consumed as well? The rules don't say. One more thing for me to house rule and keep track of.
I like the rules as written...
But, for spells that do have a material component that isn't negligible in cost, aren't you already doing this? That is in the rules a written. Is doing this for other spells really that much of a burden?
Is doing this for other spells really that much of a burden?
It's enough that I'd probably either dump a feat into Eschew Materials or not play a caster.
(Or, more likely, find a different group to play with -- because a group that tracks individual spell components is invariably also doing a lot of other bookkeeping that's the completely opposite of anything I find interesting.)
Hell, I don't even want to track arrows. Spend that time on story. Spend that time on roleplaying. Spend that time on combat or traps or puzzles or animal husbandry or anything but that much accounting.
Well, I currently have a character that uses different types of ammunition. I have a good 15 different types, each with special qualities, damage, and cost.So you wield bows? Big deal.
15 different items to keep up with. That's what 6-15 spells? That's great for a level 4 spellcaster and all. I'm sure they would love to add that tedium into also having to figure out which spells they do and don't have prepared. And have or haven't cast. And how many more than can cast of X spell or X level.
When preparing spells they look at their list of components for what they have. so they notice how many, and if they can't cast any. When they cast the spell, they mark off a tick of the component, which is labled with what spell it is used in. Not seeing the problem here. I have done it before in 2nd ed and have a player doing it now.
Its more fiddly than a spell component pouch, which just requires a list of components and what spells they are used for, ticking off uses.Please go through the spell page and make a list of all the spell components. Make sure to set it up so you can find any cross uses and multiple component spells.
In other words, take 10 minutes to read your spells before using them, and write down what you need for them on your character sheet. Also not a big deal. I have cross referenced things all over the place on my 4 page character sheet, and have never had any issues.
It enhances the game by making me also have to deal with resource management.I hate to tell you this, but resource management DOES NOT ENHANCE THE GAME. People do not play D&D because they want to play Farmville or Age of Empires. If they want to play Farmvile or AoE, they will play Farmville or AoE.
Obviously, since many people disagree with you on these boards, perhaps there are multiple different ways of playing the game. It enhances my game. Perhaps it wont enhance yours.
Not always having the right tool for the job at hand improves the game, IME.Yes, it is your opinion. I don't see how anyone shares it. Maybe the rest of the professional bean counter D&D players.
IME is in my experience, not my opinion. That means that is what I have actually seen happen in games. I love when mid-adventure I realize that I left something back at base that would be perfect. It reminds me why I acquired it, and causes me to reformulate how I approach the problem next time. Perhaps you like games being cake-walks. I don't. I like having to work with the tools at hand. Being Macgyver isn't fun if you always have what you need.
You have to work arround more problems, instead of through them, since you need to plan for future obsticles with what resources you have in mind.Your games must be pretty damn simple that you have to create extra problems for people to deal with above and beyond what already exist in the game.
Working within a constrained system is more fun than having total freedom. Total freedom is boring. The more constraints that are on the system, the more interesting it is, to a point. That point is different to everyone. Resource management is a reasonable point that adds to my gaming experience. Its less fun when you have infinite spells.
If the players are just going to keep multiple spell component pouches filled all the time and have easy access to refilling, its not an issue. Roll it up into their cost of living and be done with it. On extended adventures though, when they will not be able to get more sand, or bat guano, or cat hair, or copper wire, or whatever, forcing players to track their resources has enhanced the game every time I have seen it done. It adds a layer of complexity that they do not usually deal with, creating a new puzzle, and many people enjoy it.
But, for spells that do have a material component that isn't negligible in cost, aren't you already doing this? That is in the rules a written. Is doing this for other spells really that much of a burden?The real question should be "Why would I want to do this?" Short answer: I don't either as a player or GM.
Long Answer: It is another variable to keep track of. It adds an unnecessary burden to players of casting classes. You already have to adjust hp, ac, saves, hit bonuses, and ammunition. Sometimes these numbers are changing on a round by round basis. It simply becomes one more thing to keep track of. It also brings up another issue. I am going to cast a spell. I get hit by an attack in response to casting and I fail my concentration check. Do I lose the components or not. The spell failed to go off since I wasn't able to concentrate. I lose the spell but do the components get consumed as well? The rules don't say. One more thing for me to house rule and keep track of.
I like the rules as written...
There are far more spells that have non-costly components then costly ones. You also cast them a whole lot more by simple fact that the costly components are a limiting factor. So yes, it is considerably more book keeping.
Poorly designed and ill conceived feats should not be used as "proof" of anything, especially when it comes to an overreliance on material component minutiae.
Simple solution: Allow spells to work without components, but grant users a minor statistical bonus (to any one variable) *if* a material component *is* used.
1. You'll see the use of them dramatically drop off, overall.
2. You'll see the (few) players who do like to micromanage components actually begin to care about them.
I've always found Eschew Materials to be a good feat. Maybe not from an optimizer's perspective, but from a practicality point of view? Fabulous. I don't have to tote around a spellcaster's pouch. I don't have to rummage through all sorts of nasty crap every time I want to cast a spell. I don't have to worry about my bat guano dissolving in a stream. I can cast spells from my bathtub. I don't wear a sign saying "SPELLCASTER" around my neck. I can actually use more spells while Pinned (no M component spells while pinned). And yes, if someone takes away my pouch (should I carry one), I'm not screwed. And it's not even a metamagic feat!
But, for spells that do have a material component that isn't negligible in cost, aren't you already doing this? That is in the rules a written. Is doing this for other spells really that much of a burden?The real question should be "Why would I want to do this?" Short answer: I don't either as a player or GM.
Long Answer: It is another variable to keep track of. It adds an unnecessary burden to players of casting classes. You already have to adjust hp, ac, saves, hit bonuses, and ammunition. Sometimes these numbers are changing on a round by round basis. It simply becomes one more thing to keep track of. It also brings up another issue. I am going to cast a spell. I get hit by an attack in response to casting and I fail my concentration check. Do I lose the components or not. The spell failed to go off since I wasn't able to concentrate. I lose the spell but do the components get consumed as well? The rules don't say. One more thing for me to house rule and keep track of.
I like the rules as written...
Yeah it is a burden. Most of the spells that are used frequently don't have expensive material components. The only time that keeping track of components has been an issue in recent memory is for a specialist necromancer in one of my games. The player has no issue with it and for the record most of those spells that they need the components for aren't being cast in combat.
You will never convince me that keeping track of components for trivial stuff is good. I used to be a gamer that liked such things. I even tried creating lists of components for 1e/2e games back in the early 90's when I still relatively new to gaming. I thought it would be so cool to know every little detail about my character. Turns out that it was a major bore and all of that paper work didn't make the game any better. Over the years I have figured out what I like and dislike about games. When minutia get out of hand the game becomes less about having fun and more about planning for contingencies.
By introducing a more detailed spell component system you run the risk of having players try and justify carrying absurd amounts of things with them. Characters will pack dozens of extra spell pouches and every monster will be dissected for any and all organs and parts just in case they are needed. That is not enjoyable for myself as a player or GM.
That doesn't mean that everyone will feel that way. Some people enjoy games like that. While I personally don't want such a system added to the game it isn't because I think that playing that way is wrong. It is because the Rules As Written are a baseline for all games in that system. By adding this extra stuff you have a good chance of turning away players who don't enjoy such things. RAW has to be adaptable to a large variety of play styles. My play style and yours may vary greatly, and I believe they do, but the game needs to present rules for all of us to construct our games with. Thus we have house rules. House rules can let us change the game from it's base form to a new form more suited for our individual tastes.
So saying "we are out of bat guano" or "your cat's fur is wet and needs drying before use" is against RAW?
So saying "we are out of bat guano" or "your cat's fur is wet and needs drying before use" is against RAW?
If you wish to do that to your player then go ahead. But for the record I can't find anywhere in the book where it has rules for such things. It does say to assume you have any component that you need without a gp cost listed.
I will note that this can lead to some situations that make no real sense, like a water drenched character casting sleep with wet sand. But the rules don't actually say what to do in those situations. It is up to the GM to decide to either let it go or to impose a penalty. I personally just let it slide as I follow RAW. And I am well aware that this may not always result in the game world making sense but it does work as designed and players seem willing to forgo some realism in order to make the game enjoyable. Your experiences may differ though.
|
The real question should be "Why would I want to do this?" Short answer: I don't either as a player or GM.
Long Answer: It is another variable to keep track of. It adds an unnecessary burden to players of casting classes. You already have to adjust hp, ac, saves, hit bonuses, and ammunition. Sometimes these numbers are changing on a round by round basis. It simply becomes one more thing to keep track of. It also brings up another issue. I am going to cast a spell. I get hit by an attack in response to casting and I fail my concentration check. Do I lose the components or not. The spell failed to go off since I wasn't able to concentrate. I lose the spell but do the components get consumed as well? The rules don't say. One more thing for me to house rule and keep track of.
How do you do it now? You don't. There's no difference between RAW and what I want (well, I will accept getting rid of even pretending zero cost components mean anything and getting rid of the spell pouch all together, having a virtual eschew materials for all casters with the exception of components with a listed cost - which aren't covered by the feat anyway) except the component pouch is an consumable. That's it.
How is 50 of unspecified what you need any different than infinite unspecified whatever you need, except you run out of 50 unspecified things eventually? It's a check mark.
It's an item that makes a feat mostly redundant. For 5gp, you get a feat, because there is absolutely zero mechanical difference between having a bottomless bag of stuff and a feat that lets you forgo a bottomless bag of stuff. And in 99% of games I've been in or observed, no one even remembers the damn thing is there anyway.
well there are water proof scroll tubes for a reason.
Im assuming some kind of upgrade for your spell pouch (goat bladder) could make it water proof too.
there would be no purpose for water proof scroll tubes if water didnt ruin scrolls. But i dont see it written anywhere.
Working within a constrained system is more fun than having total freedom. Total freedom is boring
Why play D&D? Why not play WoW? A computer game is the ultimate constrained system.
Working within a constrained system is more fun than having total freedom. Total freedom is boringWhy play D&D? Why not play WoW? A computer game is the ultimate constrained system.
I do not think he meant this kind of constraint.
A component pouch means that there are istances the game changes if the pouch is not there. If this becomes intriguing or annoying depends from frequency, players and how the thing is managed by GMs I guess.
Back on the topic of magic item sales.
In my personal experience, with magic item availability, I find that it is all to easy to have problems pop up with characters and gear if they can't buy it.
What happens to the exotic weapon fighter who never gets a magical version of his weapon as a treasure drop. He either scraps his character concept and retrains his feats later in the game or he plays his character and feels gimped. This is a problem when magic items are not for sale.
There are a variety of ways to deal with this issue and they all have pros and cons. I find though that it is simply easier to use the rules. If the player gets a longsword +2 in a treasure drop they can turn it in for money and buy they weapon they want. I don't have to custom drop specific items and they don't have to worry about being stuck without the right gear for their feats.
I would suggest that if you don't have many magical items in your campaign world that you give characters a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage every 3 or 4 levels and that you give them a +2 (max +6) enhancement bonus to a stat starting at 9th level and every odd level there after. This should make up for the lack of items. If they do get an item that is magical it won't stack as these are the same kind of bonuses the items use.
To answer the original Post:
Yes
I allow my players to buy and sell magic items, one it keeps them from making it them selves, and having to derail the campaign for the time it takes, and cause I feel the game has progressed to the point of needing this option.
Sadly the D20 system it inherently dependent on equipment of the appropriate level to continue playing, if you really feel that magical items have ruined the game, try a system that doesn't depend on magical items.
I for one am partial to the Palladium Fantasy RPG, but finding people to play a old system they are not use to is just as hard as it is for me to think about playing 4th edition (I HATE 4th edition in case you needed and explanation for that).
I do not think he meant this kind of constraint.Working within a constrained system is more fun than having total freedom. Total freedom is boringWhy play D&D? Why not play WoW? A computer game is the ultimate constrained system.
Didn't he? He is extolling the virtues of a heavily rule constrained system down to minutiae - a tabletop RPG is basically the last game he wants to be playing.
How is 50 of unspecified what you need any different than infinite unspecified whatever you need, except you run out of 50 unspecified things eventually? It's a check mark.It's an item that makes a feat mostly redundant. For 5gp, you get a feat, because there is absolutely zero mechanical difference between having a bottomless bag of stuff and a feat that lets you forgo a bottomless bag of stuff. And in 99% of games I've been in or observed, no one even remembers the damn thing is there anyway.
Here are some questions for you. Have you ever forgot to remove ammunition when your character used it? If you have to do lots of math each round because of changing bonuses would you be more likely to forget such things? I already have issues where we have to go back and count ranged attacks for purposes of determining ammo because the players were dealing with so many variables and had to keep track of a lot of different effects and situations. If I add this seemingly small thing it will have an impact on my game and not a good one. I can already see it "Did you remember to count off the right amount of spell component uses? I believe you would be out of spell components at this time." At that point we have to go back round by round to count spells and such to make sure they didn't mess up on their counting. That is a headache. I am good at the games math. Not all of my players are. It is never as simple as you just make a check mark. When you have a bunch of players keeping track of so many variables each round adding one more thing to the mix can indeed pose problems. And yes wands and such can be a pain to keep track of. Especially when they are almost out of charges. Because the moment they run out of charges the players lose an option and the game changes. This really matters when you have a large fight with lots of opponents to face in a short time.
And as for the bag and the feat. They are not the same rules wise. Refer to the rules on the pinned condition.
From the PRD(pg 568 in core rulebook):
Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is flat-footed. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
So yeah there is a difference between the feat and the pouch. I will admit that this probably rarely happens in games most of the time. But I was in a party that grappled a lich in 3.0. The DM was not very happy at our solution to an enemy spellcaster.
Edited for grammar.
|
|
How is 50 of unspecified what you need any different than infinite unspecified whatever you need, except you run out of 50 unspecified things eventually? It's a check mark.It's an item that makes a feat mostly redundant. For 5gp, you get a feat, because there is absolutely zero mechanical difference between having a bottomless bag of stuff and a feat that lets you forgo a bottomless bag of stuff. And in 99% of games I've been in or observed, no one even remembers the damn thing is there anyway.
Here are some questions for you. Have you ever forgot to remove ammunition when your character used it? If you have to do lots of math each round because of changing bonuses would you be more likely to forget such things? I already have issues where we have to go back and count ranged attacks for purposes of determining ammo because the players were dealing with so many variables and had to keep track of a lot of different effects and situations. If I add this seemingly small thing it will have an impact on my game and not a good one. I can already see it "Did you remember to count off the right amount of spell component uses? I believe you would be out of spell components at this time." At that point we have to go back round by round to count spells and such to make sure they didn't mess up on their counting. That is a headache. I am good at the games math. Not all of my players are. It is never as simple as you just make a check mark. When you have a bunch of players keeping track of so many variables each round adding one more thing to the mix can indeed pose problems. And yes wands and such can be a pain to keep track of. Especially when they are almost out of charges. Because the moment they run out of charges the players lose an option and the game changes. This really matters when you have a large fight with lots of opponents to face in a short time.
And as for the bag and the feat. They are not the same rules wise. Refer to the rules on the pinned condition.
From...
I think everyone is missing one point. Right now, a spell pouch holds whatever you need in it. It doesn't care what no cost component you need, it's there. I just want to know why, if I put a quantifier (50), all the sudden the pouch has to have the exact component? Why can it be just like the infinite pouch in that it has exactly what you need for whatever you're casting right then, but only for 50 castings, instead of for infinite castings?
I tick my arrows off before I even roll the dice. There is so much downtime at a table of four to handle minor tracking that I have plenty of time for all of my tracking (buffs, conditions, etc) without any issues.
And, frankly, if you're pinned, you're not casting without still spell anyway. And most players aren't taking still spell until at least third, and probably later. By then most have eschew anyway. So, and this is just my opinion, quite a bit of you post kind of misses my point all together.
the only way we will be able to balance the game to function without the big 6 is to write a whole new system. i beleive Kyrt Ryder has several great ideas. i have some as well.
balance all limited use class ability related resources to work on a per encounter basis. if an ability doesn't work well as a per encounter resource. make it a passive bonus instead or drop the class. drop the vancian magic concept out the window. use "Power Points" instead and assign different per encounter abilities different costs. by per encounter, i mean per 5 minutes.
include the concept of ritual casting and healing surges ala 4th edition. with the caveat that healing surges are on a per encounter basis and may be used independenly by anyone (self only) as a swift action without requiring a divine caster to access. rituals would cost gold pieces instead of burning slots. if you include the healing surges mechanic, healing spells will no longer be neccessary. my suggestion for healing surge value would be 1/4 max HP + con modifier +level.
find every way you can to reduce the number of dice rolled.
kyrts weapon/armor rules are amazing, i reccomend making one last tweak, turn all weapon dice into static numbers. turn all other damage dice into static numbers, like evocation spells, sneak attack and so on. and balance all static numbers around being always active and remove immunities to such static bonuses. this will make combat slightly faster.
don't use dice for hit points, use high static numbers that increase health across the board and utilize these for monsters too. as to require less need for excessive amounts of monstrous hit dice.
balance out the distribution of bonuses across the board as neccessary and make the big 6 part of the bonuses gained by leveling instead. but offer enough bonuses to help the multiple attribute dependant keep up with the single attribute dependant.
instead of dice or point buy
utilize static arrays
fix the multiclass system to work differently.
drop the charisma attribute. almost everyone who can get away with dropping it to the bare minimum will do so with no problem.
|
|
I would like to see a 'rarity' added to magic items (actually items in general would be nice) - very much like Warhammer Fantasy RP 2nd ed. used. 3.x/p is all about rolling dice so I can't see why I can't, as DM, I can't have a table so I don't look like the bad guy every time time I tell a player nope to buying a magic item. Even if I try explaining the village they are in has a population of four, and that's including the Daxon called Colin! Sure we have guidelines of the value of items available in towns, cities etc, but it's assumed if you reach the right size then every item is available from vending machines.
My main problem I have with the commonness of magic items is that every single individual with enough money would have items that negate many of the PC's abilities making PC's not really that heroic. Wealth by level you may say - I'm not sure my 5th level Noble who is a King really has a wealth by level, even if he is EVIL. Unless there is an "I'm evil" tax enforced by the gaming gods?
3.x/p is just "Consumerism: the Roleplaying Game"...
...
I never assumed that you were talking about specific components. In my response I didn't list a specific component such as bat guano. My problem with your idea is that it adds more paper work to the game. Basically I am against adding another item to keep track of.
As for the whole pinned issue. It takes two feats to be able to cast spells while pinned in most circumstances.
I have brought up several points against it's inclusion in the base game. The fact that I can see problems with it in my gaming group already should be all the reason I need to not like this idea. It will not improve my game in any way. It adds an extra factor to keep track of. It allows players to cheat in another way if they are so inclined. It can cause logistical problems. The base rules don't support it. It introduces the need to write more rules into the game to deal with specific situations (losing spells due to failed concentration checks). It is another money sink for charcters ( a small one at best). It can result in another form of metagaming (10 spell pouches just in case). But the one problem that I have with it above all else is that I simply don't find the idea fun for me or any players I currently have. The rules as written work for my game. If they don't work for you then house rule them how you would like.
Your idea seems to be focused on making a middle ground between gamers who want more book keeping and those who don't. Neither side will be completely happy with such a result. The gamers who want to focus on spell components and such will still house rule their games to deal with things like wet cat hair. The gamers who don't like such things will simply brush them aside and ignore them. Your solution will only appeal to a small group of individuals who like such things. It is far easier to leave the rules as written and add such things in if you want.
Wow. All this talk of material components for spells... I've removed material component requirements (except for expensive ones) from spells in my games. It's silly watching casters play with bat guano, dead spiders, and literal bull crap to cast spells.
|
|
...I never assumed that you were talking about specific components. In my response I didn't list a specific component such as bat guano. My problem with your idea is that it adds more paper work to the game. Basically I am against adding another item to keep track of.
As for the whole pinned issue. It takes two feats to be able to cast spells while pinned in most circumstances.
I have brought up several points against it's inclusion in the base game. The fact that I can see problems with it in my gaming group already should be all the reason I need to not like this idea. It will not improve my game in any way. It adds an extra factor to keep track of. It allows players to cheat in another way if they are so inclined. It can cause logistical problems. The base rules don't support it. It introduces the need to write more rules into the game to deal with specific situations (losing spells due to failed concentration checks). It is another money sink for charcters ( a small one at best). It can result in another form of metagaming (10 spell pouches just in case). But the one problem that I have with it above all else is that I simply don't find the idea fun for me or any players I currently have. The rules as written work for my game. If they don't work for you then house rule them how you would like.
Your idea seems to be focused on making a middle ground between gamers who want more book keeping and those who don't. Neither side will be completely happy with such a result. The gamers who want to focus on spell components and such will still house rule their games to deal with things like wet cat hair. The gamers who don't like such things will simply brush them aside and ignore them. Your solution will only appeal to a small group of individuals who like such things. It is far easier to leave the rules as written and add such things in if you want.
Honestly I don't really care. I'd rather they just got rid of it all together. Having a mandatory item that has zero mechanical value and only serves some meaningless fluff is stupid game design. It's legacy stupid design, but it's still stupid design.
There's no 15 minute day in campaigns I run, similarly theres no 4xDay Encounters either.
It can and does occasionally turn into the 24 hour day, and somedays its one encounter some days its heaps.
You wont always know.
You can't always plan.
You might set up ambushes, but the bad guys do too.
And we like it like that.
well, at least i am trying to come up with a solution to the magic item issues, problem is that it requires a new system.
i suggest thay Kyrt Ryder's method works great in theory. i would just suggest the above tweaks i listed to the system.
i beleive that certain difficult to aqcuire dice like the D2 and D3 should be dropped, as should almost never used dice like the D12 and dice that don't mesh well with system formulae. such as the D10 for 3.5 edition weapons. the D10 was given it's own special damage progression as an afterthought. and i beleive that at least half of the core exotic weapons could be dropped. the whole list of special monk weapons and the list of "hand and a half" weapons are good examples of things that can be dropped on a mechanical level and would greatly trim down the list of exotic weapons. the finesseable versions of non-finesseable martial weapons could be dropped in favor of making said martial weapons truly finesseable.
i'd rather make the game friendlier towards those who do not have the money for huge amounts of dice, mats, and minis than outright requiring them.
I'm thinking that if the conversation on spell components keeps up, it should probably be given its own thread. That having been said:
Plus, I think at this point its a lot more conducive to the main topic to just post if you allow magic item purchases and under what conditions and move on. I'm not sure what arguments and vitriol are going to solve here, and if someone has a different play style, I doubt a pointed comment is going to change what they enjoy in the game.
Removed some posts - please read what you are posting before you click on the "Submit Post" button.
I think if the magic item has a trivial (bat guano) reagent then thats lovely and we can handwave away. Traces of bat guano at the scene of a 'crime' might reveal clues to adventurers etc in a campaign and thus have a very useful role.
On the other hand, 500gp worth of black pearl (or some other big cost) represents that the spell should be cast sparingly, and the player SHOULD have to expend the 500gp to cast it.
Otherwise we'd just rush headlong into every combat and just await the clerics rez if it all went bad. MMO style.
I agree with Shifty -- I generally go "you have your pouch you can cast" but occasionally they'll find a partially used spell component as a clue at the scene of a crime they are investigating or if captured parts of spell components they can use as they are trying to escape and get their stuff back -- but when I do this part I tell them what spells the component can be used for (that way they don't have to hunt the information down).
Honestly I don't really care. I'd rather they just got rid of it all together. Having a mandatory item that has zero mechanical value and only serves some meaningless fluff is stupid game design. It's legacy stupid design, but it's still stupid design.
I can agree with this. It is foolish when many of the components were meant as jokes for the writers of the game. I don't really give them much thought outside of using them as clues in adventures. I know the fireball casting mage is using bat guano from his pouch but the specifics don't matter normally. Now if you enter a room and smell the strong smell of sulfur and bat guano together you better be prepared to face a fireball at some point.
Back on the topic of magic item sales: I will agree that in many games the magic items often become rather commonplace and unexciting for players. This is one of the problems with 3.x based games in general. Unfortunately the only solution I can think of is to have items that grow as you level. Then you could custom tailor items to mean something and at the same time they would stay relevant as the characters progress through the levels.
Hmmm, after reading through the thread, I'm thinking of adding the following paragraph as a house rule.
Spell Component Pouches: These pouches represent 50 castings worth of material. The exact components do not have to be specified, it is assumed when you buy it, you buy with the components that match your spells and the activity amount us use said spells. While adventuring, a Knowledge(Arcana) check can be made (DC 15). For each point by which you beat the DC, you can recover one charge. Such a check takes one hour. If all 50 charges are used, the spell component pouch is empty until refilled (which costs half as much as buying a pouch).
Boom, done. The mage has no more effort to keep track of 'ammo' than the archer does, and an easier time of carrying his 'ammo' (no weight other than the pouch). Want to have more charges? Buy another pouch. Want to refill it in town without paying gold, scrounge for a couple of hours and make a few Knowledge(Arcana) rolls. This is no different than the archer using Craft(Arms) to make some new arrows in the field. Both are on equal footing, and both have to worry about ammo. There's no 'Keep track of charges of guano' which is a bit much, but also no 'Free Feat' with the pouch.
I like that MDT.
If you did want to limit magical items, but still allow them to be found...
Have magic items tie themselves to a soul.
If you kill someone, their magic items bond to your soul (if it's a group effort, then the items bond to one of the people involved, based on affinity (basically whoever can most use it)). Once it's bonded, it can't be transferred to someone else unless you die. However, it's energy can be infused via your soul into another item by someone with the item creation feats. Half it's magic is lost in the process (IE: Half the item value goes toward the enchantment of the other item. Therefore, when they do find an item they can't use, they keep it until they can hire a wizard/sorcerer etc to use the item creation feats to channel that energy into an item they want to improve.
There is no 'magic mart', unaligned magic items (those who's owners died and the item was untouched for X years) are very very rare and very sought after. You can bond them to your soul by invoking them once. Minor magic items, such as scrolls, wands, and potions do not bond, being too weak.
This also gives you a way for the character to 'evolve' his favorite weapons and gear as he levels up, rather than replacing the heirloom weapon or graduation present his family gave him.
Hmmm, after reading through the thread, I'm thinking of adding the following paragraph as a house rule.
Spell Component Pouches: These pouches represent 50 castings worth of material. The exact components do not have to be specified, it is assumed when you buy it, you buy with the components that match your spells and the activity amount us use said spells. While adventuring, a Knowledge(Arcana) check can be made (DC 15). For each point by which you beat the DC, you can recover one charge. Such a check takes one hour. If all 50 charges are used, the spell component pouch is empty until refilled (which costs half as much as buying a pouch).
Boom, done. The mage has no more effort to keep track of 'ammo' than the archer does, and an easier time of carrying his 'ammo' (no weight other than the pouch). Want to have more charges? Buy another pouch. Want to refill it in town without paying gold, scrounge for a couple of hours and make a few Knowledge(Arcana) rolls. This is no different than the archer using Craft(Arms) to make some new arrows in the field. Both are on equal footing, and both have to worry about ammo. There's no 'Keep track of charges of guano' which is a bit much, but also no 'Free Feat' with the pouch.
What happens when a character fails a concentration check and loses a spell? Do they also lose a charge from the pouch or do they get to keep the charge as the spell failed to use the components?
|
What happens when a character fails a concentration check and loses a spell? Do they also lose a charge from the pouch or do they get to keep the charge as the spell failed to use the components?
Since the spell is expended, the components would be expended as well, yes? Because the caster used the spell, he just wasn't able to use it properly.
|
|
It's legacy stupid design, but it's still stupid design.Archibald the Evoker dumps the sand out of his pocket muttering something about traitors in our ranks, while wondering if eBay has already been flooded with bat guano and tiny bells?
I was referring to the 3.0 spell pouch rules. And them being a legacy carry over to Pf. I would not jeopardize my OSR leanings.
What happens when a character fails a concentration check and loses a spell? Do they also lose a charge from the pouch or do they get to keep the charge as the spell failed to use the components?Since the spell is expended, the components would be expended as well, yes? Because the caster used the spell, he just wasn't able to use it properly.
It all depends on how you look at it. The spell was wasted because it was unable to be cast properly. The components are normally consumed unless otherwise noted. But since the spell didn't work you can easily see a situation where the spell failed to consume the components. I was asking because I was curious which way MDT would lean. Either way requires a second paragraph describing the rules for such a situation.
What happens when a character fails a concentration check and loses a spell? Do they also lose a charge from the pouch or do they get to keep the charge as the spell failed to use the components?Hmmm, after reading through the thread, I'm thinking of adding the following paragraph as a house rule.
Spell Component Pouches: These pouches represent 50 castings worth of material. The exact components do not have to be specified, it is assumed when you buy it, you buy with the components that match your spells and the activity amount us use said spells. While adventuring, a Knowledge(Arcana) check can be made (DC 15). For each point by which you beat the DC, you can recover one charge. Such a check takes one hour. If all 50 charges are used, the spell component pouch is empty until refilled (which costs half as much as buying a pouch).
Boom, done. The mage has no more effort to keep track of 'ammo' than the archer does, and an easier time of carrying his 'ammo' (no weight other than the pouch). Want to have more charges? Buy another pouch. Want to refill it in town without paying gold, scrounge for a couple of hours and make a few Knowledge(Arcana) rolls. This is no different than the archer using Craft(Arms) to make some new arrows in the field. Both are on equal footing, and both have to worry about ammo. There's no 'Keep track of charges of guano' which is a bit much, but also no 'Free Feat' with the pouch.
what happens when an archers misses with his arrow? or someone makes their saving throw?
I like the idea of using a skill like arcana to "scrounge for charges" Give more use to a skill that doesnt get used much (and more reason to have it) and if the roll is failed gives the character a sense that certain components might be rare in the area, a DM could change the DC depending on where they where (might be hard to find squid tentacles, for the spell black tentacles, in the desert)
either way, the original inclusion of spell components was to introduce the rarity of magic, if you spend just a bit of time focusing on something silly like bat guano, pixie dust or what have you, it opens the door to the PCs needing to quest for rare materials for the creation of X and Y magic items, rather then buying them at magic mart.
Even something like a darkwood buckler, seems to me darkwood comes from ONE place in Galarion, so one should have to go there to get it.
If you want to make magic rare, it starts with spell components and making sure your wizard cant just cast anything of his level in the core rules, but must learn, search out, research these spells, and do some kind of role playing to collect the components.
Once this is done, they wont fight you so much, when you try to make magic items rarer than normal.
No one said keep things from them, but we are saying dont have magi-marts.
The ensuing discussions have been how to create a campaign that is conducive to that, and what are the repercussions of each change and difference.
high magic = magi-mart
medium magic means not worrying too much about spell components and not being able to just purchase or commission making them from any town
Low magic means you should count your spell components and look for rare items and high level spell components in lost crypts and ancient tombs.
It all depends on how you look at it. The spell was wasted because it was unable to be cast properly. The components are normally consumed unless otherwise noted. But since the spell didn't work you can easily see a situation where the spell failed to consume the components. I was asking because I was curious which way MDT would lean. Either way requires a second paragraph describing the rules for such a situation.What happens when a character fails a concentration check and loses a spell? Do they also lose a charge from the pouch or do they get to keep the charge as the spell failed to use the components?Since the spell is expended, the components would be expended as well, yes? Because the caster used the spell, he just wasn't able to use it properly.
ToZ has my view of it as well. You blew the spell slot, that expends the 'ammo'. Like a gun misfiring and ejecting the dud shell, or an arrow that misses it's target, or a dagger that misses it's target. It is gone. Can you replace it after combat? Possibly, with a skill check. Perception (finding dagger or arrow) or Knowledge(Arcana) for recovering the charge.
what happens when an archers misses with his arrow? or someone makes their saving throw?
While I would be inclined to have the component used up with such a house rule it is better to have definite wording that says that instead of leaving it up to the GM's judgement. After all this is not quite the same as an archers arrows.
The ranged combat rules are designed around the idea of a combatant running out of ammo and having to resort to other methods to fight.
Spellcasters are not designed that way. Casters are normally assumed to be able to cast any number of spells per day without worrying about components unless the component has a cost. By changing the way that the spell pouch works you change the way the class is played. Now casters have to worry about "ammo" for their most basic spells as well as for the rarer more costly spells. Thus there is a need for rules to determine what happens when a character uses the "ammo" and is unsuccessful. This becomes really important when you have to purchase your spell components. If you are going to be away from a place to easily recover your spell components then you have to plan accordingly by packing more pouches. This also becomes an issue with high level play as an average character will have to have 2 pouches to cast all of his spells. Any adventure where the characters are stranded away from civilization for any length of time would force the characters to play more conservatively with their spell resources than they otherwise would. Thus such precise rules become a necessity so that characters can plan accordingly.
Assume for a moment that a character doesn't take knowledge arcana as a skill. You start the adventure off and then strand the characters away from civilization. It doesn't matter whether the characters get lost, teleported, or are shipwrecked. The spellcaster is now at a severe disadvantage compared to other classes. The ranged character can still normally fall back to melee weapons and do ok. The spellcaster who can't cast spells is a different story. Once their pouch runs out they are out of luck. It actually forces the character to take the Eschew Materials feat if they wish to play their character effectively. I have always had the opinion that forcing a player to choose a feat is a bad idea. It would be better to just house rule out minor material components at that point or give them the feat for free.