|
I played AD&D 1e with a DM who studiously tracked material components...I literally had an entire notebook page just documenting how many eyelashes and owl feathers and other crazy stuff my magic-user was carrying around. I would not go back to that.
I like the spell component pouch idea, but it bothers me that it has infinite "cheap" components. There are threads kicking around where someone's listed all the stuff you have a n infinite free supply of once you buy a single 5 gp pouch and it's fairly ridiculous. I think I'd prefer if the pouch held a certain number of charges, and spells used up variable charges based on the spell. But even that might be too much bookkeeping, although really not as bad as tracking ammo. YMMV.
I also find it annoying that some components SHOULD be extraordinarliy rare, but because they don't have an exact GP value associated with them, some players try to argue that the 5 gp spell component pouch has an infinite amount of them. Apparently for 5 gp you can buy an ocean's worth of black dragon's blood, more small pieces of a demi-god than comprise said demi-god's entire body, etc.
I think they should maybe limit the spell component pouches by explicitly stating in spells whether or not components should be included in in a standard spell component pouch; AND they should limit the number of times a single pouch can be used without being refilled for another 5 gp (maybe 3-5 uses or so). Because as it currently stands, the spell component pouch basically a bag of holding (type infinity), that's full of an infinite amount of an infinite number of different things. That's magic that goes well beyond what even wish or miracle can accomplish.
One mechanical role spell components have is that they can be taken away. You can steal the bag, take it from a prisoner, sunder it, and so on.
If that happens, then every caster pays the feat tax for a feat to ignore X gp of components so they can ignore the 'I sunder his bag' lameness or they just buy 50 bags at a time so they can sport 5 at a time and keep 45 extra in a bag of holding. If people sunder/steal instead of stab them, it's considered a win for the caster.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
like a drop of devil's blood or a tuning fork of a very specific frequency. Those things should've had a material cost associated with them from the startDepending on the society I can see tuning forks being under 1 gold.
The thing is, it's not just a tuning fork. It's a tuning fork that's specifically tuned to the frequency required for [insert plane of existence here].
The thing is, it's not just a tuning fork. It's a tuning fork that's specifically tuned to the frequency required for [insert plane of existence here].like a drop of devil's blood or a tuning fork of a very specific frequency. Those things should've had a material cost associated with them from the startDepending on the society I can see tuning forks being under 1 gold.
All tuning forks are tuned to a specific tone to be called tuning forks. I don't see why 1 is more expensive than another.
and keep 45 extra in a bag of holding.Keeping extradimensional containers inside each other is generally a bad idea.
Good thing you're 100% wrong on spell component pouches being extradimensional containers! ;)
Even if you go the crazytown route of making them so, a pack bison means I can carry a few 1000 if I wished. [or the strong fighting type character can carry them]
As somebody mentioned before, what if some spells cost Resonance?
Spells like Stoneskin & True Seeing are part of DnD lore, but even if placed at higher spells levels have gameshifting effects if always active. They aren't necessarily unreasonable for prepping for the boss fight or going into the Palace of Illusions, but trying to balance a party that has them always cast vs. another without access to them would be difficult.
So there's a cost so that casting them isn't a given.
From what I remember, each spell with a monetary cost seems reasonable, generally for balance, and sometimes for story reasons, like Nondetection. At what level would a game designer start assuming a PC always has Nondetection up?
So if it costs Resonance that would stifle the spamming w/o breaking either tradition or game balance. Who knows how much would balance though. It'd have to be low enough that when needed a caster could cover the whole party, but not so much they'd do it daily.
As for the Raise Dead to Wish level spells, what if they had a permanent Resonance cost? Losing some Resonance wouldn't cripple the PC, but it would give death a consequence. And that "guy who always dies" probably should be retired!
At least change the material component for color spray to RGB from RBY. It's a pattern spell, you are not throwing paint at them.No comment?
I did make a comment on it on the first page...
and keep 45 extra in a bag of holding.Keeping extradimensional containers inside each other is generally a bad idea. And as I pointed out a couple of posts ago, spell component puches are pretty much epic level mythic bags of holding.
It's only the portable hole and bag of holding that have an interaction. Other extradimensional spaces are safe to store in each other, but you can't use one inside of another. So if you have a handy haversack inside a bag of holding, it's fine, but you have to take the handy haversack out of it if you want to get anything out of it.
Actually um, you would prolly want the bag of holding inside the haversack. Bags of holding are HEAVY~
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with dumping non-valuable material components. I've started to really hate the lore behind it.
I hate the idea of a wizard with an 8 dexterity somehow able to open the pouch, pull out the exact component he needs from a big, mixed-up stash of all sorts of knick-knacks, and then cast a spell, all with one hand in about 3.5 seconds.
What little bit of flavour it adds to the game is overshadowed by the questions it raises on carrying capacity, how it gets refilled, how its used, and how things stay organized within it. Not to mention how the vast majority of people really just ignore it beyond the purchase of one or two of them. Get rid of it, and strealine the game.
I'm more ambivalent of expensive material components, since those seem to be more of a balancing factor. I certainly wouldn't cry if they completely disappeared, but there's only a handful. Standardising the material components could help. (Like, all healing spells require X, all defensive spells require Y, etc...)
I do agree that power components are a neat idea, spending gold on certain reagents to give your spell just that little extra kick. That I like as a concept.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I hate the idea of a wizard with an 8 dexterity somehow able to open the pouch, pull out the exact component he needs from a big, mixed-up stash of all sorts of knick-knacks, and then cast a spell, all with one hand in about 3.5 seconds.
What little bit of flavour it adds to the game is overshadowed by the questions it raises on carrying capacity, how it gets refilled, how its used, and how things stay organized within it. Not to mention how the vast majority of people really just ignore it beyond the purchase of one or two of them. Get rid of it, and strealine the game.
You can make the pouch somewhat plausible if you decide it's got separated internal compartments (mini-pockets) inside, and that the caster only carries components for the spells they have prepped/known. It's slightly more reasonable that way.
I'm not the most agile person, but I have played a caster in a boffer LARP, and I will say you learn really quickly how to organize your stuff so that you can find it in a second or so. Fumbling with your gear while a monster is attacking you is how adventurers get killed.
As somebody mentioned before, what if some spells cost Resonance?
I thought about this during the initial Resonance discussions last week, and it doesn't work. If your body can only accept so much magic, then it makes sense to me that when you reach your limit that enemy spells of Sleep, Hold Person, Dominate, Feeblemind or whatever will cease to work on you. If you reject magic, you reject magic.
Sure, a Fireball in your general vicinity will still hurt you, because that's just a thing that suddenly exists and you're burning, just like you could fall into a pit. But transmutations, enchantments, necromantics... All sorts of magic that affects you directly would just fail. And we would enter into an entirely new era of GM confusion in trying to figure out which magical spell effects should hit a resonance point on players and which shouldn't. Spells (including those cast from potions and scrolls), for the sake of sanity, cannot be subject to resonance.
I hate the idea of a wizard with an 8 dexterity somehow able to open the pouch, pull out the exact component he needs from a big, mixed-up stash of all sorts of knick-knacks, and then cast a spell, all with one hand in about 3.5 seconds.
What little bit of flavour it adds to the game is overshadowed by the questions it raises on carrying capacity, how it gets refilled, how its used, and how things stay organized within it. Not to mention how the vast majority of people really just ignore it beyond the purchase of one or two of them. Get rid of it, and strealine the game.
You can make the pouch somewhat plausible if you decide it's got separated internal compartments (mini-pockets) inside, and that the caster only carries components for the spells they have prepped/known. It's slightly more reasonable that way.
I'm not the most agile person, but I have played a caster in a boffer LARP, and I will say you learn really quickly how to organize your stuff so that you can find it in a second or so. Fumbling with your gear while a monster is attacking you is how adventurers get killed.
You could also assume a subtle, low-level enchantment and an application of the mage's will. Every spell component pouch is enchanted just enough that someone with the proper magic seeking something from it can will it to render up the proper item. Like a portable fantasy vending machine, where you enter what you want from it and the pouch provides.
It would be cool for some spells to have a material component that isn't burned up, but mildly expensive. Something you could put in a crystal or have dried and attached to a chain that you need for the spell but dont need to burn through. More of a focus than a cost
As somebody mentioned before, what if some spells cost Resonance?I thought about this during the initial Resonance discussions last week, and it doesn't work. If your body can only accept so much magic, then it makes sense to me that when you reach your limit that enemy spells of Sleep, Hold Person, Dominate, Feeblemind or whatever will cease to work on you. If you reject magic, you reject magic.
Sure, a Fireball in your general vicinity will still hurt you, because that's just a thing that suddenly exists and you're burning, just like you could fall into a pit. But transmutations, enchantments, necromantics... All sorts of magic that affects you directly would just fail. And we would enter into an entirely new era of GM confusion in trying to figure out which magical spell effects should hit a resonance point on players and which shouldn't. Spells (including those cast from potions and scrolls), for the sake of sanity, cannot be subject to resonance.
That's one way to paint it.
And it leads me to wonder what happens if somebody without Resonance picks up a cursed item! "You carry it, dwarf. You have none left today."But there are three differences here:
-If the caster is using Resonance on these special spells, there's no commentary on how much targets can get affected by spells.
-If the recipient is paying the Resonance, then it still would have no effect on spells which had no Resonance cost (which is nearly all of them.)
-And if you set aside both of those (or expand Resonance's role) then there's still the concept of Resonance being about the character harmonizing, "resonating", with the magic. Offensive spells aren't (necessarily) trying to do that, being disharmonious by nature.
And now I'm wondering if there will be effects that sap one's Resonance or even break one's Resonance with an item. "Dispel Resonance" sounds like a great way to ruin a PC's weekend.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every spell should have material component that is annoying to buy even if not expensive and annoying to carry on.
Yeah, because "annoying" is precisely what I want my gaming to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, Arcane Bond wizard's feature holds the key. In lots of fantasy themes wizards have an iconic item that helps them manifest magic.
Wands, Harry Potter.
The Magic Hat, Presto the Magician (D&D cartoon).
The Staff, Gandalf (not really, but kind of).
Give 'vancian casters' a unique item, something worth to sunder/steal in combat, keep material components for powerful spells only. Of course if this item is lost the caster can still cast spells with V/S components, and can be replaced.
Personally, I also agree that an overhaul in the spell system would feel refreshing.
I still prefer the old 1E Raise Dead and Resurrection restrictions to give it a real weight. "System Shock" saving throw to survive (or forever perish), being brought back from the dead incurs a permanent loss of 1 Constitution, and you can never be raised more times than your initial Constitution score, even if you manage to raise it later. Being brought back from the dead should be a major event from the character, with real risks and consequences.
We still houserule the first and third of these in my home campaign, to give death more weight. The loss of Con is replaced by the negative level from normal Pathfinder rules. For my players, death is always far more than just an (expensive) inconvenience...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why people keep hating on wish. Outside of theorycraft, it comes with the biggest self-limiting factor available - the fact that the GM needs to okay it.
In the last ten years, I can count on one hand the number of times it's been cast.
I can only chalk up the fear of Wish to people not instilling fear of it in their players instead.
I've made it perfectly clear to players in my games that wishes are a dangerous game, since I have carte blanche to twist them in any fashion befitting the narrative or situation, and I consider myself quite capable in doing so.
Wording matters, so outside of the safe options as per the spell, the wish must be spoken out loud as intended. "My character wishes for this, this and that" is not applicable, and wishing in character about rule terminology is especially dangerous.
I generally make a distinction between divine wishes and arcane wishes (yes, technically the spell itself is purely arcane, it's a thematic distinction).
Divine wishes, from beings such as djinni or the like, will twist the wish into an undesirable outcome for the amusement of the wish giver.
Player: I wish for a castle.
Now that castle could be anywhere. Like for example, a dilapidated castle sinking into a swamp with a hefty debt of gold that comes with it.
Arcane wishes try to resolve in the most literal, or efficient, way possible, without regard to safety (or anything, really).
Player: I wish for a castle.
GM: You might want to move out of that spot...
I like the idea of material components for flavour, but agree that the bottomless pouch is silly. Maybe a compromise is to say that each spell needs a specific focus, incorporating the classic material? So Presto the wizard has a small lump of sulphur smeared in bat guano that he has to wave around every time he casts a fireball, and a bottle with a drop of devil's blood for Infernal healing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Divine wishes, from beings such as djinni or the like, will twist the wish into an undesirable outcome for the amusement of the wish giver.
CG Large outsider
I don't want to turn this into an alignment thread, but I'm not seeing these two statements intersecting all that much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why people keep hating on wish. Outside of theorycraft, it comes with the biggest self-limiting factor available - the fact that the GM needs to okay it.
In the last ten years, I can count on one hand the number of times it's been cast.
I can only chalk up the fear of Wish to people not instilling fear of it in their players instead.
I've made it perfectly clear to players in my games that wishes are a dangerous game, since I have carte blanche to twist them in any fashion befitting the narrative or situation, and I consider myself quite capable in doing so.
I don't mind wishes per se. I'm totally okay with, like, having a djinn provide a wish or a deity granting a boon in the form of wish or something.
My problem with it (and miracle) is twofold:
a) It doesn't feel like something a caster should just be able to do whenever they feel like it, have the spell slots available, and happen to have 25k gold on hand.
b) I don't like the explicit, written-out mechanics of it (which are necessary simply because it is a spell you can take). It's all well and good to be like "ah yes be careful what you wish for" but a particularly rules-lawyery players will be like "no it explicitly states I can ask for x, y or z carte blanche and it doesn't have any kind of chance to fail or go wrong." Specifying what kinds of spells it can replicate or how it goes about granting ability scores really makes wish feel like just another mundane spell instead of an amazing, powerful, incredibly rare gift.
Just take it off the spell list and save it for certain creatures and NPCs to grant to players at the GM's discretion. Or heck, make it a limited-use (maybe even single-use) capstone ability for wizards and clerics.
While I don't like Wish and try to minimize its appearance in my games - it's always from artifacts or outsiders and banned to my players as a spell - I also don't always go for screwing the players. Really, a wish should only be twisted if the players get overly greedy or complex.
So, say, the example of a castle. Bear in mind a keep only costs 100,000 gp or thereabouts, and a wish "costs" 25,000 gp. I think that amount of disparity is fine for what would essentially be a super beefed up Shape Stone / Fabricate spell. If they just wish for a "keep" or they wish for a generic "castle" without getting too specific, I'd say a keep is shaped out of the earth in front of them. If they wish for a palace or get too specific with their request, then I'll twist the wish... unless the party made some preparations, and brought a warchest with a bunch of jewels and so on with an offering to the spirits on top of the wish. Then assuming they offered a reasonable amount, sure, whatever. It's not like asking for a snazzy home is breaking reality too much, especially if it's not appearing in the heart of a major city.
So, yeah. If the PCs aren't being dickish, then I'm not going to be adversarial to them either. As long as they're not wishing on a demon, then, well, they should know better or be VERY careful I guess...
I really really like material components, even more so those unexpensive ones that you don't need to keep track of other than maintaining a spll component pouch by your side. They add so much good flavour. What I'd really like to be done to them is that using an unexpensive material component is included as part of the somatic action in spellcasting. Otherwise those amazingly flavourful little components will be probably excluded as most spells should only take two action and using a component requires one extra action.
Divine wishes, from beings such as djinni or the like, will twist the wish into an undesirable outcome for the amusement of the wish giver.
CG Large outsiderI don't want to turn this into an alignment thread, but I'm not seeing these two statements intersecting all that much.
Did you gloss over, or just ignore, the "or the like" qualifier? I also didn't specify that it's a general description of the idea, not a hard-line "this is how it always is"statement, because I mistakenly figured I wouldn't have to.
Still, I can play the alignment game if you want. You boldened the G, I could bolden the C.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another vote here for keeping minor material components. Visualizing how they might be used in a spell is part of the fun of roleplaying a wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Visualizing how they might be used in a spell is part of the fun of roleplaying a wizard.
After 30+ years of playing d&d, I can honestly say that I've never had "fun" with "minor material components"... Juggling bat crap never instilled a sense of joy in me :P
Visualizing how they might be used in a spell is part of the fun of roleplaying a wizard.After 30+ years of playing d&d, I can honestly say that I've never had "fun" with "minor material components"... Juggling bat crap never instilled a sense of joy in me :P
While that is a pretty good... "no" material to picture handling, I'm a tad of a sucker for it at times. Old game called Secret of Evermore had you actually mix components for your spells and that' always stuck in the back of my head .
From there it's moving into the Reagents to not only have some extra flavor to the spells and punch but let's my players experiment a bit. I suppose it might be a dumbed down basic version of Spheres of Power? Or whatever that let players kinda make/alter their spells.
Haven't done it in awhile though just stupid house rule I have
There is nothing more that I hate in pathfinder than Material Components. As a longtime player of spell-casters, both arcane and divine, I would like to ask, no beg, Paizo to do away with costly material components in the second edition! Please and thank you.
P.S.
And as a cheeky side-note, before one of you, less experienced folks, starts to claim how "material components are integral to the game balance", please go and have a look at Razmiran Priest Sorcerer in Pathfinder 1. He doesn't have to pay (buys a scroll once), so why should we?
They're mostly flavor, and are a common fantasy trope. I see no reason to get rid of them.
Maybe you mean expensive material components. In that case I agree, just because I dont want to have to deal with the bookkeeping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're mostly flavor, and are a common fantasy trope. I see no reason to get rid of them.
For me, if we HAVE to keep them for cheap ones, I'd at least like the actual Material Components left open: that way a character can 'flavor' the spell as they wish. If I want my fireballs to be powered by tiny fire elemental dolls that explode, why force me to stuff it with guano and sulfur? IMO, leave a base cost and make some suggestions for thematically appropriate ones for those that don't want to come up with their own.
Another thought is to let Material Components be an optional additive to a spell for a slight bonus so someone that adds a thematically appropriate one can trade an action for the buff. That way people that want it can add itti to their delight while others can go about their adventuring day only using it if they want the buff.
I vote to keep material component, cheap or expensive.
The cheap ones is a resource that can be taken away to disarm spellcasters casters if they need to be captured. It also provides some flavor.
The expensive ones are a resource cost that PCs need to keep aware of, and can serve as a goal to an adventure.
I would like to see more system support for material components. I like the concept of Esoteric Components from PF Unchained and Talismanic Components from Ultimate Campaign. I hate that these two subsystems were developed separately, and I would like to see a more unified and elaborate system where unique material components can be found or harvested from creatures, and they can be used to affect spellcasting or magic item crafting. This would allow material components to be more present in treasure hordes, and make monster killing more profitable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really just prefer to see wizards with an implement / focus, like 4E or most fantasy stories. And have "material components" or "medicine bag" be one of those implement options, with its own distinct traits from the other options.
Otherwise, I mostly like material components when present as power components to upgrade a spell like metamagic, or when used as sympathetic magic "ingredients" in a magic item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I often hear the game developers referring to is 'word count'. Therefore I'd say the material components should be left out from depleting the precious limitation and maybe something new added instead.
The cheap ones is a resource that can be taken away to disarm spellcasters casters if they need to be captured.
It's NOT an actual viable option most times in the current version of pathfinder. If sunder/stolen/destroyed pouches become a thing, casters generally have enough open feats to pick up a feat to ignore cheap material components. So in my experience, it's not truly a limit to any smart caster.
All tuning forks are tuned to a specific tone to be called tuning forks. I don't see why 1 is more expensive than another.The thing is, it's not just a tuning fork. It's a tuning fork that's specifically tuned to the frequency required for [insert plane of existence here].like a drop of devil's blood or a tuning fork of a very specific frequency. Those things should've had a material cost associated with them from the startDepending on the society I can see tuning forks being under 1 gold.
It is not that some are more expensive. It is the fact that you need to have the specific one to travel to the plane you want to go to.
So if you bought the rod for abyss, hell, heaven, elemental plane of fire and nirvana, you cannot travel to the Shadow Plane.
And having a rod for every plane (several copies, in case you want to go there again), plus every other component, would need a really deep spell pouch. And it is damn cheap at 5gp.
(several copies, in case you want to go there again)
It's a focus so it isn't destroyed. "Plane Shift: Components V, S, F (a forked metal rod attuned to the plane of travel)"