How many uses has a spell component pouch?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

kinevon wrote:
Roger Corbera wrote:
I think components exists for a reason: to limit magic somehow. If the player doesn't take his time collecting them, he doesn't deserve his power. Components are as important as prayers to the cleric or training to the warrior.

I think you may have missed a rule in there, Roger.

Prayers to a Cleric are equivalent to studying his spellbook is to a Wizard. No more, no less. Both types of spells include M as requirements for spells. Clerics, on some spells, get to present their holy/unholy symbol instead of expending a material component. But many spells, on both spell lists, require material components, so a Cleric without a spell component pouch is almost as limited as a Wizard without a spell component pouch.

Abrir wrote:

don't bother with tracking it, hover i can see two ways, that you make like, and appease others here. Share your thoughts on this please.

A) Ask your players to role play restocking their sell component pouch.
B) assume the pouch has all components that required for all lvl 0, and lvl 1 spells.
C)if thy learned a higher level spell that has a component cost, AND arn't in city or place that the new component wouldn't be available, then they don't have it because they couldn't/didn't plan ahead enough to have that component(with few exceptions)
D) Any component above 1gp isn't in there

A) If your players are willing. Be ready to accept the RP as, "My Wizard always keeps his eyes open fort things that can be used a spell components."

B) It has all components that have no listed cost, for any level of spell.
C) Why do you make liufe difficult? And, please, explain why the material component for, say, burning hands would be a different component than for, say, scorching ray? Both of them are fire spells.
D) That is how a spell component pouch works, by RAW. Except if the PC puts such an item in the pouch as a "good" place to store it until needed. "Yes, I buy several onyx gems, worth, respectively, 25, 50, 75, and...

Isn't it pretty unusual for a cleric spell to have untracked material components (apart from domain spells)? I'm having trouble finding any spells on the cleric list that have material components that would be covered by the pouch.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roger Corbera wrote:
I think components exists for a reason: to limit magic somehow. If the player doesn't take his time collecting them, he doesn't deserve his power. Components are as important as prayers to the cleric or training to the warrior.

Good grief, dude. You may as well start penalizing every martial class if they don't explicitly say they wipe their weapons down after combat. Or start making their weapons deal less damage if they don't keep a whetstone nearby. Or make an archer's bow break because they're leaving it strung all the time.

The book specifically says to not worry about it. So don't worry about it and let the system work as it was designed to work..


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roger Corbera wrote:
Components are as important as prayers to the cleric or training to the warrior.

This is actually a rather insightful comment, as it illustrates why you shouldn't track any of those.

If you as the GM suddenly decided that I could no longer use Power Attack because I hadn't spent enough time in the gym in the last week, I'd be angry and consider this to be an unwarrantedly dick move.

There was actually a class -- I think it was in the old 1st edition Oriental Adventures -- that needed by rule to spend an hour a day practicing kata or lose its key martial arts class features. This rule was widely ignored in at tables and dropped quickly in later editions, because it wasn't fun; weapons practice is something that happens off-camera or during downtime. Similarly, a cleric's prayers happen off-camera, and if you decided that my cleric could no longer cast spells because he was in the dungeon and missed the Feast of St. Adelebert, I'd be angry.

Tracking spell components is not fun, and the Pathfinder designers knew this, which is why the spell component pouch exists. Practicing weapons is not fun, and the 2nd edition designers knew this, which is why the practice requirement no longer exists. And arbitrary nerfs to characters are definitely not fun, and I had hoped that everyone knew this.... but I was once again wrong.


You might as well say that the pouch is filled with magic fairy dust which is used by default for spells with cost-less components. You can create more magic fairy dust at will, but if it isn't stored in this special pouch, it instantly loses its mojo. The exact type of components is utterly inconsequential.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The spell component pouch is just a way to quantify that yes, your spellcaster character is keeping track of his cheap material components and refreshing them as needed during his down time, just as martial characters are maintaining their arms and other characters are also doing all needed maintenance.


claudekennilol wrote:
Roger Corbera wrote:
I think components exists for a reason: to limit magic somehow. If the player doesn't take his time collecting them, he doesn't deserve his power. Components are as important as prayers to the cleric or training to the warrior.

Good grief, dude. You may as well start penalizing every martial class if they don't explicitly say they wipe their weapons down after combat. Or start making their weapons deal less damage if they don't keep a whetstone nearby. Or make an archer's bow break because they're leaving it strung all the time.

The book specifically says to not worry about it. So don't worry about it and let the system work as it was designed to work..

I agree with everything you said except the bow part. Bows can be left with the string on for days without taking any form of damage at all, as long as they aren't recursive (which they weren't in those times).


Lifat wrote:
I agree with everything you said except the bow part. Bows can be left with the string on for days without taking any form of damage at all, as long as they aren't recursive (which they weren't in those times).

Sorry, you have me cracking up at "recursive". I'm picturing bows in the shape of some kind of capital cursive letter.

I'm assuming you meant a recurve bow.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm picturing bows that shoot bows that shoot bows that shoot bows....


blahpers wrote:
I'm picturing bows that shoot bows that shoot bows that shoot bows....

don't you mean when you nock the arrow, the arrow turns into a bow that knocks another arrow, and just keeps doing this

int Bow(int x){

while(true){
return Bow(x+1);
}
return 1;
};

The Exchange

The few times our group tracked this type of thing we basically ran a simple method of
- replace consumables like arrows and spell components every level.

That way we didn't track number of uses, but just made if a fixed cost every level. For standard arrows and spell components only.

If you cast expensive spells, or used special property arrows, they had to be tracked.

Another time we just put a fixed cost of living of 25 gp a week to msintain repairs to,equipment, replace damaged clothes and replace used resources from spells etc. that worked well too. Until we got to level 10 or so at which point 25 gold wasn't worth tracking, given the loot you haul in.

Cheers


Tarantula wrote:
Lifat wrote:
I agree with everything you said except the bow part. Bows can be left with the string on for days without taking any form of damage at all, as long as they aren't recursive (which they weren't in those times).

Sorry, you have me cracking up at "recursive". I'm picturing bows in the shape of some kind of capital cursive letter.

I'm assuming you meant a recurve bow.

Sorry. I naturally meant a recurve bow. English is a second language to me.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

If any DM makes a caster track 0 GP spell components the only thing he's effectively doing is making anyone playing a caster take the eschew materials (or something that accomplishes the same).

Tracking Bat poop and bits of string isn't a fun time. Earlier versions can attest to that.

That's the reasons archers in my games don't need to track arrows as long as they have a quiver. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


thorin001 wrote:

How many uses has a spell component pouch?

1) Store spell components
2) Paperweight
3) Pillow for a tiny creature
4) Improvised sap
5)

5) Infinite food supply


Umbranus wrote:
thorin001 wrote:

How many uses has a spell component pouch?

1) Store spell components
2) Paperweight
3) Pillow for a tiny creature
4) Improvised sap
5)
5) Infinite food supply

you do not want to accidentally cast fireball in your stomach. :P


Bandw2 wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
thorin001 wrote:

How many uses has a spell component pouch?

1) Store spell components
2) Paperweight
3) Pillow for a tiny creature
4) Improvised sap
5)
5) Infinite food supply
you do not want to accidentally cast fireball in your stomach. :P

No, but a component pouch contains infinite butter and infinite amounts of various other edible substances. Like wine (drinkable) coffee beans, live crickets, seaweed, animal parts, locusts, honeycomb,spiders,

6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.

7) Infinite ammo because abundant ammunition needs a piece of ammunition. And in addition to that infinite amounts of sulfur and saltpeter, two of three components needed to make gunpowder.

And about breaking casters: It could indeed be really fun to not have all your components ready. That's when creativity wins.
One of my casters was once captured and roped to a wooden beam. I managed to pull a piece of thread from my worn robe and a splinter of wood from the beam. That was all I needed to cast unseen servant and order it to free me and my comrades.

Most of the above examples are for wizard spells levels 0-2 only. God knows what you can do with the stuff for higher level spells.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Umbranus wrote:
6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.

While a normal candle burns for one hour, the small candle required for summon minor monster certainly does not.


SlimGauge wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.
While a normal candle burns for one hour, the small candle required for summon minor monster certainly does not.

Umbranus' point is that, by RAW, you have a limitless supply of candles. Even if it's only a birthday cake candle that burns for 2-3 minutes, you can still in theory go through 30 such candles every hour forever.


SlimGauge wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.
While a normal candle burns for one hour, the small candle required for summon minor monster certainly does not.

Where does it say that?

I'm confident the conversation is about RAW, not what makes sense. Clearly no one is carrying infinite butter.

Edit: Also, I find it funny that the candles was what you focused on. I'd be more concerned as a DM about infinite ammo.

Dark Archive

7) Ammunition is not a negligible cost. Even arrows cost 1g for 20 which boils down to 5s each. Small, yes, but not negligible.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
7) Ammunition is not a negligible cost. Even arrows cost 1g for 20 which boils down to 5s each. Small, yes, but not negligible.

One could argue that the price is not listed in the spell, therefore for this purpose it is a negligible cost.

How useful is the spell component ammo for use as actual ammo? Ask your DM. He/She will undoubtedly say "no."

Edit: Butter has a cost. In this case infinite butter is analogous to infinite ammo in this case.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.
While a normal candle burns for one hour, the small candle required for summon minor monster certainly does not.
Where does it say that?

The candle that burns for an hour has a specific cost (it costs 1cp) and hence cannot be found in a spell component pouch.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.
While a normal candle burns for one hour, the small candle required for summon minor monster certainly does not.
Where does it say that?
The candle that burns for an hour has a specific cost (it costs 1cp) and hence cannot be found in a spell component pouch.

That's fair. So it's more like a birthday candle.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Butter has a cost.

It does not.

Unless there's a price list that I'm missing, butter does not have a listed ("specific") cost.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.
While a normal candle burns for one hour, the small candle required for summon minor monster certainly does not.

Umbranus' point is that, by RAW, you have a limitless supply of candles. Even if it's only a birthday cake candle that burns for 2-3 minutes, you can still in theory go through 30 such candles every hour forever.

People are once again attempting to apply real world logic to in-game scenarios.

It simply does not work.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Butter has a cost.

It does not.

Unless there's a price list that I'm missing, butter does not have a listed ("specific") cost.

Butter may be a bad example. I'm confident that there is something "infinite" in a spell component pouch that also has a price listed somewhere. IRL everything, including butter, has a cost.

Although, if you want to get really pedantic, Milk has a cost and that is what butter is made from.


Artanthos wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.
While a normal candle burns for one hour, the small candle required for summon minor monster certainly does not.

Umbranus' point is that, by RAW, you have a limitless supply of candles. Even if it's only a birthday cake candle that burns for 2-3 minutes, you can still in theory go through 30 such candles every hour forever.

People are once again attempting to apply real world logic to in-game scenarios.

It simply does not work.

This. Everything "infinite" in a spell component pouch is useless for any use beyond being used as a spell component.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
6) Infinite light source without the light spell because summon minor monster needs a candle as component.
While a normal candle burns for one hour, the small candle required for summon minor monster certainly does not.

Umbranus' point is that, by RAW, you have a limitless supply of candles. Even if it's only a birthday cake candle that burns for 2-3 minutes, you can still in theory go through 30 such candles every hour forever.

The light cast by such a tiny candle would be too small to be useful as anything but a "here I am, attack me" device.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Obviouly, the quantities are not infinite. They are finite, but sufficient for your needs for several days of spellcasting, and the wizard character is assumed to be doing all the niggling book-keeping to be sure she has the relevant components on hand at all times.
After all you don't keep track of how often your PC needs to take a dump, either, and DMs rarely ask you to make a saving throw against terminal constipation.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Material components are a joke.

Dark Archive

This thread is largely meant to be a joke. I don't think anyone here actually believes anything here would actually work. It's just a fun thought exercise to see if RAW can be abused to it's limit. Nothing more.


Roger Corbera wrote:
I think components exists for a reason: to limit magic somehow. If the player doesn't take his time collecting them, he doesn't deserve his power. Components are as important as prayers to the cleric or training to the warrior.

Uh.

You know, those are excellent analogies, because it turns out that a warrior who never ever even refers to training still gets all their combat abilities, and a cleric who never makes any mention of "prayers" other than daily spell prep still gets all their spells and abilities, and a wizard who never does anything about spell components but, during character creation, write "spell component pouch" on a character sheet has all their zero-gp spell components available.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

We don't about a spell component pouch as long as it is listed on the PC's sheet...

BUT

If you wanted to advocate "tracking" spell components, why not just say that a spell component pouch has like 50 uses before being empty?


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
This thread is largely meant to be a joke. I don't think anyone here actually believes anything here would actually work. It's just a fun thought exercise to see if RAW can be abused to it's limit. Nothing more.

Or you could see that the real joke is the fact that casters of all classes get infinite stuff while all others have to track all their resources.

If a gm told my party we were starving but allowed the wizard to keep on casting grease I'd be pissed.


Wheldrake wrote:

Obviouly, the quantities are not infinite. They are finite, but sufficient for your needs for several days of spellcasting, and the wizard character is assumed to be doing all the niggling book-keeping to be sure she has the relevant components on hand at all times.

After all you don't keep track of how often your PC needs to take a dump, either, and DMs rarely ask you to make a saving throw against terminal constipation.

I just found the name of the next spell i'll be researching.

Dark Archive

Gingerbreadman wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
This thread is largely meant to be a joke. I don't think anyone here actually believes anything here would actually work. It's just a fun thought exercise to see if RAW can be abused to it's limit. Nothing more.

Or you could see that the real joke is the fact that casters of all classes get infinite stuff while all others have to track all their resources.

If a gm told my party we were starving but allowed the wizard to keep on casting grease I'd be pissed.

Were I GM'ing in that instance I would rule that the butter used as a spell component is rancid or otherwise unfit for consumption. The negligible spell components are used for material components of spells and nothing more.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Gingerbreadman wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
This thread is largely meant to be a joke. I don't think anyone here actually believes anything here would actually work. It's just a fun thought exercise to see if RAW can be abused to it's limit. Nothing more.

Or you could see that the real joke is the fact that casters of all classes get infinite stuff while all others have to track all their resources.

If a gm told my party we were starving but allowed the wizard to keep on casting grease I'd be pissed.

Were I GM'ing in that instance I would rule that the butter used as a spell component is rancid or otherwise unfit for consumption. The negligible spell components are used for material components of spells and nothing more.

Because casters need nice things.

Dark Archive

Gingerbreadman wrote:
Because casters need nice things.

Nice things = ability to cast 1st level spells?

I'm not one of these guys that will give casters the world on a platter but they do need to be able to be able to defend themselves. What you are suggesting is tantamount to having a strong wind blow all the arrows out of the archers quiver so now he's arrow-less...that's just a dick move for a GM just like taking away simple spell components despite the rules being quite clear that they should not be bothered with.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Gingerbreadman wrote:
Because casters need nice things.

Nice things = ability to cast 1st level spells?

I'm not one of these guys that will give casters the world on a platter but they do need to be able to be able to defend themselves. What you are suggesting is tantamount to having a strong wind blow all the arrows out of the archers quiver so now he's arrow-less...that's just a dick move for a GM just like taking away simple spell components despite the rules being quite clear that they should not be bothered with.

I'm not saying they should not be able to defend themselves. I say if casters get unlimited butter the group's fighter should be able to eat some of the infinite butter. If this infinite butter turns into something else THAT is a dick move because in reality it's just: Casters get to ignore their drawback of needing components while archers for example still need to track their arrows.

If bat guano and live crickets and butter and and and are infinite (for casters) they should be infinite for everyone and every other minor ressource should be infinite, too.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Gingerbreadman wrote:
Because casters need nice things.

Nice things = ability to cast 1st level spells?

I'm not one of these guys that will give casters the world on a platter but they do need to be able to be able to defend themselves. What you are suggesting is tantamount to having a strong wind blow all the arrows out of the archers quiver so now he's arrow-less...that's just a dick move for a GM just like taking away simple spell components despite the rules being quite clear that they should not be bothered with.

Spellcasters are fundamentally a class that needs to be bullied and picked on because it deserves it. All wizards full-caster classes are terrible and deserve only hate and scorn and new ways to punish them for not being fighters. Obviously.

Which is kind of silly, since if you hate casters that much you should just do away with them, but whatever.

Moving on from the "dick moves" and "I hate casters but I'll phrase it differently so I don't sound prejudiced," it's still just freaking boring. Party archer keeps track of arrows? Boring. If they buy a pack of 30 every week or so or run into and loot enough NPCs it's not worth tracking. Hell, my elf wizard handed the new ranger his supply months ago and nobody has noticed or cared about supply since. Carrying capacity matters a bit, but only if you decided to use an 8 str archer.

Same with spell components, same with keeping your armor and weapons in good repair. You can track it if you want but it gets real old real fast, and any place that can sell arrows should logically be able to sell eggshells, spiderwebs, and sticks of butter for a lot less because that junk's cheap as heck.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you ask players to track material components, you're a bad person and should feel bad.

Shame on you, Gary Gygax.

Dark Archive

Honestly who really forces archers to track their normal arrows? I know I don't, archers have unlimited normal arrows if they buy a quiver in my opinion. I realize that isn't RAW, but neither is the ability to eat spell component butter to stave off starvation.

The groups fighter also has an unlimited item. He has a sword that never chips or dulls from normal wear and tear. Sure a bad guy can Sunder it, but they can sunder a spell component pouch too.

Spell components are infinite but can only be used as spell components. Just like a fighter's sword, the pouch is just a means for the caster to continue doing what his class was made to do.
In essence this what this boils down to is:

"Do you have a spell component pouch?"
"Yes"
"Then you can cast any spell wit h a negligible material component"

....and literally nothing else...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Gingerbreadman wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
This thread is largely meant to be a joke. I don't think anyone here actually believes anything here would actually work. It's just a fun thought exercise to see if RAW can be abused to it's limit. Nothing more.

Or you could see that the real joke is the fact that casters of all classes get infinite stuff while all others have to track all their resources.

If a gm told my party we were starving but allowed the wizard to keep on casting grease I'd be pissed.

Were I GM'ing in that instance I would rule that the butter used as a spell component is rancid or otherwise unfit for consumption. The negligible spell components are used for material components of spells and nothing more.

You can't nerf my butter-focused mystic theurge! There's no way I'm giving up my unrefrigerated dairy treats! Purify Food & Drink is a level 0 spell, you know!

Grand Lodge

I would rather just use the false focus feat and holy symbol tattoo. Then I only have to keep track of components greater than 100 gp.


Epsilon wrote:
I would rather just use the false focus feat and holy symbol tattoo. Then I only have to keep track of components greater than 100 gp.

If forced to keep track of spell components I'd do the exact same thing. Every. Single. Time.


JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

If a spell component pouch lasts forever, and there's never any inconvenience, then the Eschew Materials feat has no purpose except avoiding a one-time fee of 5 gp. That seems a little weak for a feat.

you can't have your pouch sundered, ruined by weather or the environment, or have it taken from your person trough either theft or imprisonment.

it is weak, but does have it's purposes over a pouch.

oh and let's not forget that flavor. ;)

True, but that's only an advantage if the GM has those things actually happen sometimes.

This GM did something similar once. An arcane adversary noticed the PC wizard was casting spells with his sword out (arcane bonded sword). So ... the arcane adversary yoinked the sword with Pilfering Hand. The wizard was still able to cast, but he had to make a LOT more concentration checks.

My philosophy as a GM is that if your character has an obvious weakness, once in a while your enemies are going to exploit that weakness.

Grand Lodge

pennywit wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

If a spell component pouch lasts forever, and there's never any inconvenience, then the Eschew Materials feat has no purpose except avoiding a one-time fee of 5 gp. That seems a little weak for a feat.

you can't have your pouch sundered, ruined by weather or the environment, or have it taken from your person trough either theft or imprisonment.

it is weak, but does have it's purposes over a pouch.

oh and let's not forget that flavor. ;)

True, but that's only an advantage if the GM has those things actually happen sometimes.

This GM did something similar once. An arcane adversary noticed the PC wizard was casting spells with his sword out (arcane bonded sword). So ... the arcane adversary yoinked the sword with Pilfering Hand. The wizard was still able to cast, but he had to make a LOT more concentration checks.

My philosophy as a GM is that if your character has an obvious weakness, once in a while your enemies are going to exploit that weakness.

If that PC wizard had never seen your party before, that's an awful lot of meta-gaming. Unless the NPC was also an arcane-bonded adversary with a very long spell book he wouldn't have been able to cast it--I highly doubt he would have had that spell prepared. Or if spontaneous, I doubt he would have even known that spell.

Scarab Sages

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Epsilon wrote:
I would rather just use the false focus feat and holy symbol tattoo. Then I only have to keep track of components greater than 100 gp.
If forced to keep track of spell components I'd do the exact same thing. Every. Single. Time.

Same here.


claudekennilol wrote:
pennywit wrote:


My philosophy as a GM is that if your character has an obvious weakness, once in a while your enemies are going to exploit that weakness.

If that PC wizard had never seen your party before, that's an awful lot of meta-gaming. Unless the NPC was also an arcane-bonded adversary with a very long spell book he wouldn't have been able to cast it--I highly doubt he would have had that spell prepared. Or if spontaneous, I doubt he would have even known that spell.

Just to be clear, the NPC adversary, an arcane spellcaster with a high Spellcraft skill, used Pilfering Hand on the PC wizard. I (the GM) had put Pilfering Hand among the NPC's spells as a utility spell that could have been used on anybody in the PC party.

Grand Lodge

pennywit wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
pennywit wrote:


My philosophy as a GM is that if your character has an obvious weakness, once in a while your enemies are going to exploit that weakness.

If that PC wizard had never seen your party before, that's an awful lot of meta-gaming. Unless the NPC was also an arcane-bonded adversary with a very long spell book he wouldn't have been able to cast it--I highly doubt he would have had that spell prepared. Or if spontaneous, I doubt he would have even known that spell.
Just to be clear, the NPC adversary, an arcane spellcaster with a high Spellcraft skill, used Pilfering Hand on the PC wizard. I (the GM) had put Pilfering Hand among the NPC's spells as a utility spell that could have been used on anybody in the PC party.

Right, and I'm saying that no one ever prepares that spell so the fact that he had it without the NPC knowing anything about the party is awfully meta-gamey that he just happened to have it and just happened to steal the arcane bonded item. What I'm saying is there's no way that NPC could have known that he would want to steal that item (or anything for that matter) and have had that spell prepared (or known if spontaneous as they have a very limited number of spells known) without having in depth knowledge about the party before hand. There's nothing about an arcane bonded item that indicates what it is. Every game I'm in the caster is wielding a weapon of sometime just so he can threaten in case someone gets up close. So that he used his one cast of it (again, assuming not spontaneous) to just happen to steal the weapon from the guy casting spells is awfully suspect when it would have suited him better to steal the weapon from the guy trying to beat on his face (again, this is assuming he didn't have in depth knowledge about the party).

If you've seen that spell used in games then maybe your experience differs from mine. I've never seen a single PC/NPC use that spell.


claudekennilol wrote:


If you've seen that spell used in games then maybe your experience differs from mine. I've never seen a single PC/NPC use that spell.

In my experience, it gets used all the time for taking away weapons, spell component pouches, and wands. It's one of the more versatile spells out there.

(And, if you must know, the PCs were pretty well-known in the area AND this particular battle was the final act in a rather elaborate trap that had been set for the PCs.)

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / How many uses has a spell component pouch? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.