Which doesn't solve the 15 minute adventuring day. That wasn't caused by "going nova" - that's only a method to get there - it's caused by depleting your stock of available "do anything"ness. Which can just as easily, if not more so, be achieved by making people count how much bat crap they have in a bag.
You asked how it's a step toward fixing the 15 minute day. By increasing the cost of blowing the spellcaster's wad, which you acknowledge is one way to get to the 15 minute day, you decrease the likelihood of a wizard engaging in that behavior.
Nobody said it was the only way to fix a 15 minute day nor would fix it on its own.
Yes, but I keep it limited.
I like to keep magic items popular, but generally rare). It seems to me that anyone who ran a store like that was just BEGGING to be robbed. And they have been in earlier games I've run/played in. Let's face it, when you're a level 15 warlock with some serious connections in the assassin's guild, you don't really need to sneak in at night. Armed robbery with an eldritch blast and the ability to fly away at a moment's notice will do the job.
....adventurer passing through, but they're a small portion of the population, and there's no internet to sell globally. As an adventurer, it's much more profitable to gather a group and raid a dragon's den than try to pawn off...
yea see i like to keep it black market too, If you made it known you had +3 swords for sale, or knew how to make it, what keeps the evil witch king from kidnapping you to make one for every elite guard and knight is his army?
It keeps things on the down low. Also rumbling into town to unload items from a dragons hoarde? seriously, is any one place going to be able to (or want to) buy it all, unless you are willing to unload it insanely cheap?
i think these are all situations that make the bard type character more useful than they are usually seen as being.
In cyberpunk you needed a "Fixer" to move your wares and acquire new ones. this should definitely be an element of the game to keep things in check.
If you have to haggle/roleplay just a little for the first few levels to get spell components, it shouldn't be a far stretch to bring in an entire gaming session of just handling what to do with the treasure from the dragon and how to exchange it into things more useful to us?
It will take away the now all too common, ho-hum, another treasure hoarde, syndrome.
I also heard another comment about encumbrance up there.
Seriously? really? you just let people carry whatever?
100k gold on the elf wizard? no big deal?
why do you think the dwarf has that anti encumbrance ability? how would it ever be useful if no one tracked encumbrance?
sheesh
Yes I allow my players to buy magical items according to the rules in the core book. That said I think it takes away a lot of the wonder from magical items (as do the crafting system), but the game is balanced around pc's having a certain amount of magical gear according to their level. If you remove the pc's chance of getting magical items you will upset the games balance and the pc's might not be able to handle appropriate challenges as written.
Unfortunatly my character in my real life campaign suffers from this.
In my games, the PC's are usually based in/around a major metropolis, so there is always a place to sell just about anything. But if they want to buy/enchant anything, they've got to commision it from the appropriate guild/whatever and go on the waiting list.
To all the people bringing up 1e/2e: if you like the rules in those editions that much, just play those instead of Pathfinder. Or both, it's not like you have to lock yourself into just one system.
Is spending one gold for 20 more arrows really that difficult. Why not have a custom quiver made that can hold 40 arrows. Why not get a handy haversack and put a lot of quivers in it. Why can't a caster just buy a rediculous amount of "stuff".
It's not difficult at all to buy up lots of arrows. But how are you toting them around? If, getting back to the original question, it's easy to buy up lots of magic items, then it's pretty easy to buy up the resources and pack them around. If not, then you end up buying pack animals or paying henchmen to lug stuff around for you... or you eventually run out of something.
What concerns me about all of this is what it does to the game. Maybe it skews the power of spellcasters a bit higher if they don't have to worry about how many times they can cast a particular spell. That's much of the complaint about how wizards trump rogues with utility spell wands, isn't it? Who needs a rogue to open your locks if the wizard has a huge supply of knock spells? The wand issue isn't that different from a spell component tracking issue, it just cranks up the volume a bit.
When we don't have to track many resources in the game, realistic or abstract, what do we lose? On one hand, parties may be able to remain in adventuring sites longer without resupply, but I'd also argue that doing takes the game away from its roots in pulp adventure and moves it closer to the realm of a tactical skirmish game. That may work for some people's styles but I don't think it's ideal for the game as a whole, particularly with respect to the genre D&D represents. I think if built too much into the rules, it represents a narrowing of the game's focus, something I think is best done at the individual table via house rules based on that group's preferred style.
Why is there this illusion that not giving someone something makes it mystical and appreciated? New things yes, but old things no. It is just like the first time I found the healing belt from MiC, the first time it was cool, and even though I still use it the awe is gone.
If my character is supposed to be impressed that is hard for me to RP if I don't really care about whatever if it is I am supposed to be impressed about.
Which doesn't solve the 15 minute adventuring day. That wasn't caused by "going nova" - that's only a method to get there - it's caused by depleting your stock of available "do anything"ness. Which can just as easily, if not more so, be achieved by making people count how much bat crap they have in a bag.You asked how it's a step toward fixing the 15 minute day. By increasing the cost of blowing the spellcaster's wad, which you acknowledge is one way to get to the 15 minute day, you decrease the likelihood of a wizard engaging in that behavior.
Nobody said it was the only way to fix a 15 minute day nor would fix it on its own.
You are ignoring my point that shifting the cause of the 15 minute adventuring day does not count as fixing it.
I wonder, do people really think tracking 100 different spell components is actually fun? By mid levels the number of things a wizard would have to be actively looking for to keep his spells available is absurd, and would occupy just about all their non-combat time. If you are looking for a way to balance casters with non-casters, this has to be one of the dumbest ones I can think of. I dont want to have to have an excell spreadsheet to track a relatively small aspect of my character.
That said, something along the lines of what DDO did might not be a bad compromise. Basically each spell level had a specific component (rather then individual spells), and you have to remember to purchase/find components of each level. If it were simplified to a managable number of components (such as 1 per level, or 1 per school of magic) I wouldn't mind tracking them. It would be akin to tracking arrows or encumberance. But given the huge variety of components listed in the rules, tracking as many as even a 6th or 7th level wizard would need to is absolutely absurd.
I remember in a past campaign a dm wanted me to do that and I out right refused. I actually compiled a list of over a hundred components for the spells my character would have had to deal with. I dont want to do that much book keeping. Wizards already have alot of book keeping to do with their alotment of prepped spells and what's in their spellbook. Adding dozens of components to track is not a reasonable request. The rules for the component pouch is a hand wave for sure, but it's a neccesary one. Being a wizard becomes completely impractical form a gameplay perspective without it. Should a wizard periodically indicate that he is replenishing his spell component pouch? Sure, but tracking the individual items in it would be a chore that no one should have to go through in a game they play for fun.
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.
The only way I think you could incorporate a scarcity of components rule without actually forcing the PCs to function as accountants is to have some sort of randomized roll each time the caster casts a spell.
Example:
Fastin the Fabulous wants to cast a fireball. He pulls guano, etc out of his spell pouch and casts his spell.
He then rolls a d20 on a roll of 1 that means he runs out of guano, drops his remaining stash, etc. He needs to either replenish it in town (expenditure equal to a value x sp) or spend some time foraging (x hours foraging where x is the dice roll value).
You can even scale components based upon rarity so that rarer components are more likely to run out, take longer time to forage or cost more to purchase.
That way your players don't have to be accountants but you restore some of the old time "OMG I just ran out of x" feel to the game.
Re: Wizards and Spell Components
If you refuse to abide by the limitations of the class, then you forfeit all rights to ever whine about how other classes suck compared to it.
What are you talking about? You need to be more specific.
The only way I think you could incorporate a scarcity of components rule without actually forcing the PCs to function as accountants is to have some sort of randomized roll each time the caster casts a spell.
Example:
Fastin the Fabulous wants to cast a fireball. He pulls guano, etc out of his spell pouch and casts his spell.He then rolls a d20 on a roll of 1 that means he runs out of guano, drops his remaining stash, etc. He needs to either replenish it in town (expenditure equal to a value x sp) or spend some time foraging (x hours foraging where x is the dice roll value).
You can even scale components based upon rarity so that rarer components are more likely to run out, take longer time to forage or cost more to purchase.
That way your players don't have to be accountants but you restore some of the old time "OMG I just ran out of x" feel to the game.
So they only have to be accountants 5% of the time? I don't see how that helps.
You are ignoring my point that shifting the cause of the 15 minute adventuring day does not count as fixing it.
I am not ignoring it. I'm rejecting it.
What are you talking about? You need to be more specific.Re: Wizards and Spell Components
If you refuse to abide by the limitations of the class, then you forfeit all rights to ever whine about how other classes suck compared to it.
He's preparing for some "Get off my lawn" speech I'm betting.
I am not ignoring it. I'm rejecting it.
You are ignoring my point that shifting the cause of the 15 minute adventuring day does not count as fixing it.
Then your argument is patently incorrect.
|
According to "my playstyle?" What the hell are you talking about? Why don't you man up and go ahead and point to all the posts I've made about "my playstyle" to prove the assertion you pulled out of your pouch of bs assertions?
How about every self-entitled post you made in the Wet/Lost/Stolen/Destroyed Spellbook threads?
Re: Wizards and Spell Components
If you refuse to abide by the limitations of the class, then you forfeit all rights to ever whine about how other classes suck compared to it.
Tracking spell components is not a limitation on the class, the rules as written handwave it with the component pouch. The point being discussed here is house ruling this particular limitation in not out.
Oh and in regards to the original post, generally in my game items worth under 1000 gp can be found in local markets and sold there was well. If they are worth more then that, they have to be commissioned by local wizards/clerics/etc for creation and then purchase, and if they are looking to sell them, they have to seek out interested buyers for their respective items. Usually in large cities this isnt overly difficult but it does take up time, and require skill checks and roleplaying to find and haggle with the buys or crafters. The idea of a magic mart doesnt appeal to me, but in a world where magic items exist, and can be made, I expect there to be some trade in the things, even if it is on a person to person scale.
Re: Wizards and Spell Components
If you refuse to abide by the limitations of the class, then you forfeit all rights to ever whine about how other classes suck compared to it.
Buying a spell component pouch and then having infinite spell components forever isn't that much of a limitation -- and that is the way Pathfinder is written.
|
however, saying something as simple as "you have acquired enough material components to cast 12 fireballs, 6 lightening bolts and 5 sleeps isnt at all unfair, as the archer has to keep track of his arrows.
Is spending one gold for 20 more arrows really that difficult. Why not have a custom quiver made that can hold 40 arrows. Why not get a handy haversack and put a lot of quivers in it. Why can't a caster just buy a rediculous amount of "stuff".
If you are not counting material components how are you tracking it? I track arrows in my games, but it is only one thing I have to track, as opposed to watching every component for every spell. If a DM told me to do that I just buy enough to ensure I can cast a few hundred spells, and later I use the handy haversack to make sure I never run out. He would have to house rule in some expiration date.That bolded area is confusing me.
I just want a "one pouch equals "x" castings" mechanic, not track every pinch of sand or spiderweb. That way it at least acts like what it should be, a consumable.
Because, seriously, it IS a free "eschew materials" for all intents and purposes without a consumption mechanic. It's a pain in the ass to have to keep targeting the thing so the players don't take what should get used up for granted.
According to "my playstyle?" What the hell are you talking about? Why don't you man up and go ahead and point to all the posts I've made about "my playstyle" to prove the assertion you pulled out of your pouch of bs assertions?How about every self-entitled post you made in the Wet/Lost/Stolen/Destroyed Spellbook threads?
You people have quite the impressive ability to relate two unrelated things. Perhaps you are confusing metaphors for argument?
Though I will give you one quarter of a point for that at least being similar to losing a spell pouch as opposed to saying being opposed to tedious in-detail upkeep of a spell pouch is the same as being opposed to losing the spell pouch.
|
|
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.
however, saying something as simple as "you have acquired enough material components to cast 12 fireballs, 6 lightening bolts and 5 sleeps isnt at all unfair, as the archer has to keep track of his arrows.
Is spending one gold for 20 more arrows really that difficult. Why not have a custom quiver made that can hold 40 arrows. Why not get a handy haversack and put a lot of quivers in it. Why can't a caster just buy a rediculous amount of "stuff".
If you are not counting material components how are you tracking it? I track arrows in my games, but it is only one thing I have to track, as opposed to watching every component for every spell. If a DM told me to do that I just buy enough to ensure I can cast a few hundred spells, and later I use the handy haversack to make sure I never run out. He would have to house rule in some expiration date.That bolded area is confusing me.
I just want a "one pouch equals "x" castings" mechanic, not track every pinch of sand or spiderweb. That way it at least acts like what it should be, a consumable.
Because, seriously, it IS a free "eschew materials" for all intents and purposes without a consumption mechanic. It's a pain in the ass to have to keep targeting the thing so the players don't take what should get used up for granted.
OK, but let's do it sensibly.
Every spell component pouch bought represents 50 castings each of every spell, individually. Since Wands usually work on a 50 per use basis, that's obviously the most sensible way to do it. But then you still have to count how many times you cast X spell.
If a spell component patch last forever, then why does the feat Eschew Materials even exist?
I think that anyone who handwaves material components should simply substitute Eschew Materials for Scribe Scroll when they first create their wizard.
The pouch can be taken away from you unlike the feat.
I just want a "one pouch equals "x" castings" mechanic, not track every pinch of sand or spiderweb. That way it at least acts like what it should be, a consumable.
I would agree with that and does seem to be inline with the healing/ disguise kits that have a predetermined number of uses before they must be replaced. It does mechanically make it spell "ammo" for people making the analogy there. One doesnt have to go from very ambiguious to very granular (each spell must be accounted for individually). I mean you could say each spell component pouch has X castings of each school as another step towards granularity, yet still making it fewer "things" to track than individual spells.
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 pouch can be taken away from you unlike the feat.If a spell component patch last forever, then why does the feat Eschew Materials even exist?
I think that anyone who handwaves material components should simply substitute Eschew Materials for Scribe Scroll when they first create their wizard.
But when does that ever happen!?!?! I mean, like it might happen once! Or twice!
No one is "requiring" that you keep track of spell components. it is, and always has been part of the rules.
If the spell requires 500 gp crushed black pearl, and you don't have it, you don't cast the spell. Period. been part of the rules forever.
that being said.
As i stated above, your character can spend the necessary amount of time in game acquiring his spell components. At some point the DM may say, ok, you have had a bit of a hard time finding X Y and Z needed for A and B spells. what are you going to do about it?
there are several ways the game can go.
Wizard can prepare different spells, not requiring those components. wizard can take extra lengths to locate said components, Party can travel elsewhere, Bard can beat the streets and catch a rumor of the mad hermit that collects bat guano (or whatever) and the group travels to see him.
also as the spells go up in power, the 5gp spell pouch or the eschew materials feat NO LONGER work (again read the rules) as anything over the cost of 5 gp must be procured individually (according to RAW), however even something as simple as alter self, requires "a piece of a creature whose form you plan to assume"
this is going to be in that 5gp pouch?
every piece of every creature you could possibly assume, ever?
where are the rules for these? there are no rules.
sure, they are written into each spell individually.
even the 5gp pouch cant have everything in it to assume for form of, send messages by, or charm each animal/creature type.
these are, always have been, and always will be RAW. Not adversarial DMs or some odd twisted way of playing.
anyone playing otherwise without using eschew materials feat has either been handwaving or cheating, which has created over the years posters to come onto threads toting about the superiority of how much better casters are than the other base classes.
it has also created the over powered magic campaigns because if they arent collecting materials for spells then of course they can just create magic items out of thin air.
But when does that ever happen!?!?! I mean, like it might happen once! Or twice!The pouch can be taken away from you unlike the feat.If a spell component patch last forever, then why does the feat Eschew Materials even exist?
I think that anyone who handwaves material components should simply substitute Eschew Materials for Scribe Scroll when they first create their wizard.
It happens as often as the GM decides to use such tactics. If it bothers you that a player is taking a class feature for granted then you can choose to disable that class feature. Sunder their weapons, steal their components, burn their grimoire, desecrate their holy symbol, and so on. It's as simple as that.
There is a good chance though that such tactics will make players upset. After all it will feel like you are personally trying to take their character out or render them ineffective. Adversarial game play is often detrimental to the fun factor of the game.
I'll never understand why people make these weird hacked up "dark world" or low magic style games in 3.x.
Not because it's "bad" to do so, but because there are so many, so much better games for it.
I mean come on, RuneQuest is literally built from the ground up to handle that kind of game. It's so much better at it then any houserule hack for 3.x it would make your head spin.
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.
Also keeping track of each individual spell component is basically the antithesis of fun.
I'll never understand why people make these weird hacked up "dark world" or low magic style games in 3.x.
Not because it's "bad" to do so, but because there are so many, so much better games for it.
I mean come on, RuneQuest is literally built from the ground up to handle that kind of game. It's so much better at it then any houserule hack for 3.x it would make your head spin.
Because alot of people for some reason don't want to not play d&d. Pathfinder was only sold to my group because someone said it was a revamp of the 3.5 ruleset and it had alot of changes we liked (skills were the obvious one). I have tried to get them to play a non-d20 game now for a while, and 1 guy is still opposed to it for some reason.
I totally agree with you. There are better systems for it. But people want to play what they know and do not want to learn a new ruleset.
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.
It happens as often as the GM decides to use such tactics. If it bothers you that a player is taking a class feature for granted then you can choose to disable that class feature. Sunder their weapons, steal their components, burn their grimoire, desecrate their holy symbol, and so on. It's as simple as that.
Except after you do it once, every player in the group will just buy ten spell component pouches or holy symbols forever after.
So, once. (Barring the classic if tired "you're captured and all your stuff is taken!" trope.)
If your players aren't smart enough to buy more spell component pouches once you start sundering them, you probably don't need to sunder their spell component pouches to offer them a challenge -- some simple orcs will do.
|
|
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.
Hmm, you keep track of hit points. How hard could it be to make a check mark every time you cast a spell?
The only problem I see with that argument is that PCs still progress. Unless you also progress the low level monsters, but eventually people are going to get tired of fighting Goblins.I don't mean to tell people how to play -- my biggest issue is that I don't see a way to make outlawing magical items work.I cannot speak for a total removal - (barring campaign flavour, magic items are fun!) but one hing I'm sure of when there are few around: encounters are designed to be slightly (generally) under CR, and use more weaker monsters because they have smaller numbers.
I didn't explain it correctly. I meant that for an encounter of CR X, I found better use more monster to reach that CR (smaller numbers in attacks, damage, saves) instead of a big one (higher numbers yadda yadda).
This includes orcs and goblins and, of course, advancing them at high levels (thing I find very enjoyable, BTW), but it counts for oozes and outsiders as well. (say x osyluth instead of 1 cornugon).
BTW, if the campaign is without items, I'd stuck with humanoids and low levels anyway ;)
" I prefer the system as written"
The system "as written" only allows you to ignore requiring to keep track of mundane,generic items under 5 gp in value,
it doesnt replace 25 gp onyx's and oils worth 2000 gold etc etc.
once you get up in level, like it or not, whether you have a pouch or eschew materials, the rules still say you have to keep track of these components.
you can even state that the pouch has ground "pixie dust" in it which is all the spell components under 5gp (fur, guano, twigs, string) combined into this dust and as such there is sufficient amounts of each component in this pouch to cast 50 spells.
so 50 spells for 5 gp,
caster just has to pick up a new one occasionally,
Still doesnt replace the rarer and more expensive stuff.
and when in town, trying to buy the 5gp pack, the vendor could simply state, "Gee bob, this pack will do everything you need, except fireball, see there has been a run on bat guano lately, a wyvern moved closer to town in the last month and has been eating all the bats, guanos become real rare, so this pouch wont do you no good if you want to cast fireball, the ingredients just aren't in there!"
or conversely, trusting to your spell casting to someone else making your pixie dust could go awry if someone (like the evil witch king) has bribed the shop keeper to purposefully mix a bad batch of pixie dust.
So some of your spells might go fizzle?
5 gold sounds like a real good deal, how many parachutists do you know that have someone else pack their chute for them??
However you want to read it 5gp is never going to give you all the spell components you need, its NOT how pathfinder is written.
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.
So how shall we keep track of it? Based on each, individually absurd component? Each spell in general? Then which spells? Any? Do you have to buy a new pouch every time you get access to a new level of spells? Etc, etc, etc. It's not remotely as simple as "Look, HP!"
also as the spells go up in power, the 5gp spell pouch or the eschew materials feat NO LONGER work (again read the rules) as anything over the cost of 5 gp must be procured individually (according to RAW), however even something as simple as alter self, requires "a piece of a creature whose form you plan to assume"
this is going to be in that 5gp pouch?
every piece of every creature you could possibly assume, ever?where are the rules for these? there are no rules.
sure, they are written into each spell individually.
even the 5gp pouch cant have everything in it to assume for form of, send messages by, or charm each animal/creature type.
these are, always have been, and always will be RAW. Not adversarial DMs or some odd twisted way of playing.
anyone playing otherwise without using eschew materials feat has either been handwaving or cheating, which has created over the years posters to come onto threads toting about the superiority of how much better casters are than the other base classes.
it has also created the over powered magic campaigns because if they arent collecting materials for spells then of course they can just create...
This simply not true. Per the rules (from the PRD, also found on page 213 of the core rulebook):
Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
This is per the rules. Any time you require them to find a component that doesn't have a gold cost you are using house rules and are not using RAW.
No one is "requiring" that you keep track of spell components. it is, and always has been part of the rules.
If the spell requires 500 gp crushed black pearl, and you don't have it, you don't cast the spell. Period. been part of the rules forever.
that being said.
As i stated above, your character can spend the necessary amount of time in game acquiring his spell components. At some point the DM may say, ok, you have had a bit of a hard time finding X Y and Z needed for A and B spells. what are you going to do about it?
Rules as written this is exclusively for costly spell components, not for every spell. If you are talking about only costly components, then I agree with you, and they are intended as balancing points for the individual spells (which tend to be rather powerful and/or the kind of spell you dont want to be case over and over in your game like wish)
there are several ways the game can go.
Wizard can prepare different spells, not requiring those components. wizard can take extra lengths to locate said components, Party can travel elsewhere, Bard can beat the streets and catch a rumor of the mad hermit that collects bat guano (or whatever) and the group travels to see him.
also as the spells go up in power, the 5gp spell pouch or the eschew materials feat NO LONGER work (again read the rules) as anything over the cost of 5 gp must be procured individually (according to RAW), however even something as simple as alter self, requires "a piece of a creature whose form you plan to assume"
this is going to be in that 5gp pouch?
every piece of every creature you could possibly assume, ever?where are the rules for these? there are no rules.
sure, they are written into each spell individually.
even the 5gp pouch cant have everything in it to assume for form of, send messages by, or charm each animal/creature type.
these are, always have been, and always will be RAW. Not adversarial DMs or some odd twisted way of playing.
Raw specifically says that it is assumed these items (non-costly ones) are in the pouch. And it is indeed a handwaive, but it is one put specifically by the developers of the game into the book so that casters dont have to track all these non-costly items individually. Most people do not want to deal with that kind of book keeping and the time it would take away from actual adventuring when the wizard goes off to find this stuff. For me a trip to a local apothecary is normally good enough, and even that isn't required by the rules as written for non-costly components.
I didn't explain it correctly. I meant that for an encounter of CR X, I found better use more monster to reach that CR (smaller numbers) instead of a big one (higher numbers).The only problem I see with that argument is that PCs still progress. Unless you also progress the low level monsters, but eventually people are going to get tired of fighting Goblins.I don't mean to tell people how to play -- my biggest issue is that I don't see a way to make outlawing magical items work.I cannot speak for a total removal - (barring campaign flavour, magic items are fun!) but one hing I'm sure of when there are few around: encounters are designed to be slightly (generally) under CR, and use more weaker monsters because they have smaller numbers.
I know that's what you mean, and that was the point of the argument. Creatures with higher CRs have buffer abilities because PCs are assumed to be buffer (because that's just how the system is designed). So that means to cover for not giving them magic, you have to put them against more and more Orcs. Which will eventually be pointless because no matter how many Orcs they face, the Orcs are still Orcs unless the DM takes the time to hand-sort out the proper algorithm to level up Orcs such that they represent a threat just below needing lots of magic.
|
|
So how shall we keep track of it? Based on each, individually absurd component? Each spell in general? Then which spells? Any? Do you have to buy a new pouch every time you get access to a new level of spells? Etc, etc, etc. It's not remotely as simple as "Look, HP!"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 only thing in a spell pouch is stuff not assigned a cost in the spell description. You say every pouch has 50 "charges", when you cast 50 spells that require a component with no cost in the spell description you need to reload the pouch.
Counting backward from 50 to 1 shouldn't be hard. I guess wands don't figure prominently in your games, must be a b!$#& to tick off those charges.