Do you require players to track their rations, waterskins and other mundane expenses or risk accidentally dying of hunger and thirst?You mean you don't do this? But it's in the RAW, even if only in the form of the Cost of Living rules.
If my players's characters aren't paying for their lively hood, or using magic/Survival skills to meet their needs, they're gonna' die.
P1:"I'm going to attack the orc with my sword."
DM:"Okay, roll your attack with a -2 penalty."P1:"What, why?"
DM:"You're dehydrated, you haven't said you were going to drink anything this whole game."
P2: "I'm going to sneak around the orcs to attack from behind next round"
DM: "Okay, roll stealth with a -4. You haven't changed or washed your clothes in a week and stink terribly."
P3: "I'll cast Bless."
DM: "You can't, you're unconscious because you didn't specify that you were breathing."
I prefer the:
P1: "I'm going to attack the orc with my sword."
DM: "Ok, roll your attack with a -2 penalty because you haven't said that you've used the bathroom all day, and you really, really have to go."
Oh how wrong I was. You've totally opened my eyes to the error of my ways. /sarcasm
Focuses cannot be ignored by eschew materials, because in addition to them not being material components, a large number of them are crucial to how the spell functions such as magic jar (not the best example since the focus has a gp cost but the point stands).
It is interesting how many people are using statements like 'believe' when this is the rules forum.
RAW: As shown in this post Eschew Materials does not cover Foci.
House Rule: Eschew Materials does cover Foci.
This is the rules forum, if you are going to go against RAW when RAW is this clear at least please state that you are doing so as a house rule when you state your opinion.
RAW and RAI are two types of rules paradaigms. RAW is easy to identify, if we were all here on the Rules Forum answering only RAW questions there would be very few threads and fewer comments.
RAI is much harder to narrow down, if we could get Devs on here regularly answering RAI questions it would be much easier but since we don't we debate them.
When debating RAI, it is often a good idea to preface your interpretation with "I believe..." unless you are intimately familiar with the Dev that wrote it.RAW has already been answered, only thing left is to debate RAI. If someone doesn't wish to debate the RAI with us they are under no obligation to do so.
And were the people I was responding to debating RAI that would be great. But they are not, they are stating that they have always 'believed' it was a certain way and thus it must be that way.
Acknowledging the RAW, then debating the RAI is another matter entirely.
It is interesting how many people are using statements like 'believe' when this is the rules forum.
RAW: As shown in this post Eschew Materials does not cover Foci.
House Rule: Eschew Materials does cover Foci.
This is the rules forum, if you are going to go against RAW when RAW is this clear at least please state that you are doing so as a house rule when you state your opinion.
So, am I to assume that in your games, Faerie dragons and naga are flying and slithering around with component pouches for their respective foci?
You know, because RAW?
You seemed to miss the point of my post entirely. I did not state that RAW is how I run my games. I was stating that if people are going to post their methods as if they were RAW they should indicate that it was a house rule.
People continue to post their statements of how they think it works without making such disclaimers. Ergo, they are posting that they think it is RAW because this is the Rules Forum.
Actually, that question was specifically directed at Gauss for his RAW is Truth, Truth is RAW stance.It is interesting how many people are using statements like 'believe' when this is the rules forum.
RAW: As shown in this post Eschew Materials does not cover Foci.
House Rule: Eschew Materials does cover Foci.
This is the rules forum, if you are going to go against RAW when RAW is this clear at least please state that you are doing so as a house rule when you state your opinion.
So, am I to assume that in your games, Faerie dragons and naga are flying and slithering around with component pouches for their respective foci?
You know, because RAW?
I have already answered this. It is an oversight just like NPC wizards not having spell component pouches at all. The feat needs to be errata'd for the rules to work correctly just like those NPC statblocks or those wizards cant really cast all of those spells.
Please do not ascribe a stance to me that I did not state nor claim. My stance is not "RAW is Truth, Truth is RAW".
My stance is that if people are going to state house rules they should state this fact rather than stating a house rule as if it were RAW. Furthermore, if they are going to discuss RAI vs RAW there should be something in their post to indicate that.
People keep posting incorrect 'how it works' statements without claiming that what they are posting is either a house rule or debating RAI.
_Ozy_, and if the people I was responding to were debating the RAW by stating that Eschew Materials does not work correctly then you would have a point. But, they were not.
People keep making 'how it works' statements without corroborating statements when it has already been clearly shown that it does not work that way by RAW.
If they want to debate the RAW of Eschew Materials they should provide corroborating statements. They did not.
If they want to discuss the RAI of Eschew Materials they should make statements to that effect. They did not.
If they want to discuss how they run Eschew Materials (to include Foci) as a house rule they should make statements to that effect. They did not.
Certain people are simply stating something to the effect of "Eschew Materials includes Foci" without stating that it is RAI or a house rule. Thus, we MUST assume they continue to believe the RAW is this.
This is not the Hexcrafter where something clearly does not work in the rules. Eschew Materials clearly works. Whether it is the intent to work the way it does is another matter entirely and up for debate.
Many people (including myself) will house rule Eschew Materials to include Foci but that is what it is, a house rule.
You still seem to be misunderstanding my position, I hope the above clarifies it.
Eschew Materials works as written. It may not work in certain corner case situations but it does work. Corner Cases have never proved that something does not work as written though they can indicate an issue that may need to be resolved.
A Naga and other limbless creatures casting "Silent Image" is such a corner case.
It is not stupid to differentiate the debate between RAW and RAI. It is quite important to do that in order to effect changes.
Here is an example of that importance:
RAW: Eschew Materials covers only Material components.
RAI (might be): Eschew Materials also covers Foci components.
An argument for the above RAI would be supported by the corner case of the Naga having Silent Image and being unable to cast it by RAW.
So, now that this example establishes RAW and then a possible RAI is established a coherent FAQ request can be made which shows how the RAW of Eschew Materials does not conform to the expected RAI.
Ie. it is not only not stupid to differentiate between RAW and RAI but it is required in order to present things in a logical manner.
Unfortunately, people who are posting statements like 'Eschew Materials includes Foci' are screwing things up for those people who want this fixed because then we have to go another round with showing the difference between RAW, RAI, and house rules before the thread can move on to getting the thing FAQ'd.
I have to go with Gauss on this. The RAW is clear and it works. The best way to deal with naga's and such is to house-rule/handwave it.
Whether the Naga (or any other creature without means to use Foci) is a corner case or not is a debatable point that is not actually relevant.
Your point is that if RAW is 'broken' then the difference between RAW and RAI is stupid.
My point is that if the RAW works except in certain cases then it is important to identify those cases as part of a coherent discussion with the intent to effect a change in the RAW.
Here is a series of logical steps to show why it is important to identify the RAW vs the RAI.
1) Does Eschew Materials work as written for a humanoid spellcaster? Yes, the humanoid spellcaster can use Foci without problem.
2) Does Eschew Materials work as written for a non-humanoid spellcaster such as the Naga? No, the Naga cannot use Foci and thus, clearly, cannot use a spell on it's spell list.
3) Is this an error with the creature? Probably not, if there are multiple instances of creatures with Eschew Materials that are unable to use the spells they have.
4) Is this an error with the feat Eschew Materials? Probably, if there are multiple instances of creatures with Eschew Materials that are unable to use the spells they have.
5) Based on 2 through 4 is it reasonable to believe that Eschew Materials should include Foci? Yes.
6) Make a FAQ request showing the problem with Eschew Materials as shown above.
Water Naga - magehand
Spirit Naga - magehand
Royal Naga - magehand
Lunar Naga - magehand
Guardian Naga - magehand
Dark Naga - magehand
Lunar Dragon - magehand
Kirin - magehand
Faerie Dragon - magehand
Notice a pattern... So which of these can't have foci?
Well, TBH graystone, Mage Hand is a poor substitute and I don't think that is intended either.
It would mean any spell with a Focus becomes a two round affair (one to cast Mage Hand and get the Focus out and then another to cast the normal spell).
Actually, that question was specifically directed at Gauss for his RAW is Truth, Truth is RAW stance.It is interesting how many people are using statements like 'believe' when this is the rules forum.
RAW: As shown in this post Eschew Materials does not cover Foci.
House Rule: Eschew Materials does cover Foci.
This is the rules forum, if you are going to go against RAW when RAW is this clear at least please state that you are doing so as a house rule when you state your opinion.
So, am I to assume that in your games, Faerie dragons and naga are flying and slithering around with component pouches for their respective foci?
You know, because RAW?
I have already answered this. It is an oversight just like NPC wizards not having spell component pouches at all. The feat needs to be errata'd for the rules to work correctly just like those NPC statblocks or those wizards cant really cast all of those spells.
He is not saying that RAW is infallible. He is saying the rule is what the rule is.
I am sure he will agree that by RAW certain creatures should not be able to cast certain spells. That is different than saying "you should run the game this way".
Going back to the naga example yes they(creatures that do not follow the rules) should be FAQ'd so the devs can decide to fix them or the feat in question.
On a related note: Being a sorcerer is not what allows someone to cast without components. Having the eschew materials feat does. That is why the sorcerer class has the feat for free.
However not every class that cast as sorcerer has the feat so by RAW they can not cast a lot of spells in their statblock since they dont have spell component pouches either.
Rakshasas and dragons are examples of this. Strangely enough the dark naga has eschew material as a bonus feat.
Well, TBH graystone, Mage Hand is a poor substitute and I don't think that is intended either.
It would mean any spell with a Focus becomes a two round affair (one to cast Mage Hand and get the Focus out and then another to cast the normal spell).
I think you misunderstand me. All you need to do is "manipulate the material components or focus" to cast the spell (and never go into what that entails). With mage hand, you can position the item to wear it. Have something like a charm bracelet with your foci attached and put it on your tail, ankle, arm, leg, neck ect. It only take set-up actions, not combat actions.
Ahhh, interesting concept graystone. Still, I doubt that is intended.
I personally believe RAI is more important than RAW in rule determinations, so once again i state that eschew materials' intent is probably to negate the need for a component pouch.
any other view point seems pedantic or simply makes the game have several issues.
occam's razor, I create the least assumptions from this view point therefore it is probably the best solution, and probably the intended one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nagas having problems with material components is only part of their problems. They have no hands for the somatic components.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
LOL, they do not have Still Spell although I think this falls under the unwritten rule where creatures without hands that can cast spells have 'some other method' to gesture when casting spells with somatic components.
Nagas having problems with material components is only part of their problems. They have no hands for the somatic components.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
RAvingdork brought this up a while back with blink dogs. The devs basically said that other creatures use their body movements to substitute for hand movements. Now this is not in the FAQ or in any errata so it is not "official". I would suggest FAQ'ing it also if you want it to be official.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the main topic I dont think the feat in question is intended to replace foci. I do think that those monster stat blocks according to my examples above are just not working per RAW.
Even if you change the feat to include foci, that does not change the fact that many monsters do not even have the feat or hands, so this is part of a bigger, but in my opinion still small issue.
Ahhh, interesting concept graystone. Still, I doubt that is intended.
Maybe not, but it's fortunate happenstance if it isn't.
LOL, they do not have Still Spell although I think this falls under the unwritten rule where creatures without hands that can cast spells have 'some other method' to gesture when casting spells with somatic components.
Yes, I think it's as wraithstrike says. They get a kind of Natural Spell natural ability.
|
RAvingdork brought this up a while back with blink dogs. The devs basically said that other creatures use their body movements to substitute for hand movements. Now this is not in the FAQ or in any errata so it is not "official". I would suggest FAQ'ing it also if you want it to be official.Nagas having problems with material components is only part of their problems. They have no hands for the somatic components.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
I haven't really commented since my decision to just include it affecting foci as a houserule but I'm sure I've seen somewhere mention of this. Not specifcally non-humanoid creatures use non-humanoid geastures but a feat or item or something that allowed shapeshifters (Kitsune, Druids, etc) to use the "approrpiate" geastures and sounds for their new forms to cast spells in them.
I haven't really commented since my decision to just include it affecting foci as a houserule but I'm sure I've seen somewhere mention of this. Not specifcally non-humanoid creatures use non-humanoid geastures but a feat or item or something that allowed shapeshifters (Kitsune, Druids, etc) to use the "approrpiate" geastures and sounds for their new forms to cast spells in them.RAvingdork brought this up a while back with blink dogs. The devs basically said that other creatures use their body movements to substitute for hand movements. Now this is not in the FAQ or in any errata so it is not "official". I would suggest FAQ'ing it also if you want it to be official.Nagas having problems with material components is only part of their problems. They have no hands for the somatic components.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
There WAS a 3.0 feat SURROGATE SPELLCASTING that did this for those with nonhumanoid or nonhumanlike forms. It also allows for foci/material component use.
EDIT:
"Benefit: You complete the verbal and somatic components
of spells by substituting vocalizations and gestures
appropriate to your shape. You must still have suitable
appendages and vocal organs. For example, a giant eagle
could substitute screeches and waves of its talons for the
normal verbal and somatic components of a spell. You can
use any material component or focus that you can hold.
This feat does not permit the use of magic items by a creature
whose form could not ordinarily use them, and you do
not gain the ability to speak if you cannot already."
Do you require players to track their rations, waterskins and other mundane expenses or risk accidentally dying of hunger and thirst?You mean you don't do this? But it's in the RAW, even if only in the form of the Cost of Living rules.
If my players's characters aren't paying for their lively hood, or using magic/Survival skills to meet their needs, they're gonna' die.
P1:"I'm going to attack the orc with my sword."
DM:"Okay, roll your attack with a -2 penalty."P1:"What, why?"
DM:"You're dehydrated, you haven't said you were going to drink anything this whole game."
P2: "I'm going to sneak around the orcs to attack from behind next round"
DM: "Okay, roll stealth with a -4. You haven't changed or washed your clothes in a week and stink terribly."
P3: "I'll cast Bless."
DM: "You can't, you're unconscious because you didn't specify that you were breathing."
Oh how wrong I was. You've totally opened my eyes to the error of my ways. /sarcasmI prefer the:
P1: "I'm going to attack the orc with my sword."
DM: "Ok, roll your attack with a -2 penalty because you haven't said that you've used the bathroom all day, and you really, really have to go."
Actually, this was something else.
To some people, tracking the minutia of daily eating doesn't add to a game, it detracts from it. Through magnification (in this case exaggeration), the absurdity of doing something that makes the game less fun becomes apparent.If you have fun tracking daily food intake, then you're not doing it wrong. Although some of us don't have fun with that, and we're not wrong either.
|
Here's the way I see it.
3.5 version
ESCHEW MATERIALS [GENERAL]
You can cast spells without relying on material components.
Benefit: You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. (The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.) If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component at hand to cast the spell, just as
normal.
Pathfinder version
Eschew Materials
You can cast many spells without needing to utilize minor material components.
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.
The 2 versions are almost exactly the same, so no obvious change from the 3.5 version. There was no "Spell Component Pouch" in 3.5. Personally I'd say no on the foci part but with the PF addition of the "Spell Component Pouch" people can and will come to different conclusions, so expect table variance unless and until the Devs decide to give their attention to this question.
Here's the way I see it.
3.5 version
ESCHEW MATERIALS [GENERAL]
You can cast spells without relying on material components.
Benefit: You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. (The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.) If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component at hand to cast the spell, just as
normal.Pathfinder version
Eschew Materials
You can cast many spells without needing to utilize minor material components.
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.The 2 versions are almost exactly the same, so no obvious change from the 3.5 version. There was no "Spell Component Pouch" in 3.5. Personally I'd say no on the foci part but with the PF addition of the "Spell Component Pouch" people can and will come to different conclusions, so expect table variance unless and until the Devs decide to give their attention to this question.
Um.... there totally was. I feel really bad for your Wizards now.
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
Where was the spell component pouch introduced in 3.5? I scaned my 3.5 books but didnt find it and the srd doesnt referance where itcame from.
I dont remember it at all in 3.5.....could be I just getting old.
Equipment chapter, under Tools and Skill Kits.
Page 111 of the 3.0 Player's Handbook.
Page 130 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook.
|
|
Where was the spell component pouch introduced in 3.5? I scaned my 3.5 books but didnt find it and the srd doesnt referance where itcame from.
I dont remember it at all in 3.5.....could be I just getting old.Equipment chapter, under Tools and Skill Kits.
Page 111 of the 3.0 Player's Handbook.
Page 130 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook.
Ya found it doing a slower scan of the book. So it must be my mind getting old....oh well.
You would think then that the feat would be better then the 5gp item but as written it isnt.
Dude, it's not a strawman, it's humorous hyperbole.
Actually, this was something else.
There's some overlap and blurred lines there if you ask me.
Ravingdork brought this up a while back with blink dogs. The devs basically said that other creatures use their body movements to substitute for hand movements. Now this is not in the FAQ or in any errata so it is not "official". I would suggest FAQ'ing it also if you want it to be official.
Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that.
Sean K Reynolds responded with "How can a ghost cast? It doesn't even have a physical body?"
James Jacobs, on the other hand, had this to say:
If nagas can be sorcerers... I have no concerns or worries about blink dogs doing the same. Material components are the only things that are really a concern for handless spellcasters, and sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free.
Tail wagging Blink Dog Sorcerers!
**Warning: Thread derailment**
So cute until they try chewing your fireballed-face off.End of derailment.
Personally, I would hope the Eschew materials would cover focii, especially as they are stated to be "like material components," but as this thread (and the fact most other rules which only reference another rule have to explicitly state they operate like said rule with this exception) has shown it doesn't. Sigh.