End material components!


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Wild Spirit wrote:

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?

Referencing a poorly balanced archetype for a primarily NPC theme doesn't make much of a case.


graystone wrote:
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?

Because part of identifying a spell as it's being cast is observing the material components.

If you can use anything you want, then that particular mechanic stops working.


LuZeke wrote:
graystone wrote:
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?

Because part of identifying a spell as it's being cast is observing the material components.

If you can use anything you want, then that particular mechanic stops working.

Identifying a spell can be flavored as anything. It actually makes more sense to flavor it as identifying the somatic and verbal components, since most spells have those, while not all spells have material components. Sorcerers even cast the same spells without the components.

Or in a setting where casting generates "instant runes" around you like in a lot of video games and anime, maybe you're identifying the manifestation of the runic patterns as they take form.

The thrust of the idea remains the same, that's a really trivial reason to try to enforce specific components. When I have components in my games at all, I let player casters customize them to fit the thematics of their character and magic style so it's something cool and unique to them. Like the person above with their elemental dolls, that's cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I let player casters customize them to fit the thematics of their character and magic style so it's something cool and unique to them. Like the person above with their elemental dolls, that's cool.

This is cool.

Having a default baseline helps players who don't invest that creativity (and lazy gms like me who don't want to invest that effort except on very rare occasion) but I can't think of a sincere scenario where I would reject a player's custom components.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Keeping expensive components (a theoretical balance method) and foci is okay. I'd rather they be balanced some other way, but at least that's something.

Lame, stupid stuff like throwing bat poop or swallowing a live spider? No. Get rid of that idiocy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LuZeke wrote:
graystone wrote:
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?

Because part of identifying a spell as it's being cast is observing the material components.

If you can use anything you want, then that particular mechanic stops working.

And yet, you can ID a silent, stilled, material-eschewed spell ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Lame, stupid stuff like throwing bat poop or swallowing a live spider? No. Get rid of that idiocy.

That occultic pseudoscience of arcane formulae and recipes is one of the best things about the entire DxP spellcasting system


Zhayne wrote:
And yet, you can ID a silent, stilled, material-eschewed spell ...

You can identify the spell effect, sure, but in that specific circumstance identifying it as it's being cast wouldn't fly since there's no cue to recognize it by.


LuZeke wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
And yet, you can ID a silent, stilled, material-eschewed spell ...
You can identify the spell effect, sure, but in that specific circumstance identifying it as it's being cast wouldn't fly since there's no cue to recognize it by.

You are incorrect. A spell that has NO components has the same exact method to ID it as one with all three. This was ruled through a FAQ.

FAQ

"all spells have their own manifestations" and THAT is what is used to ID a spell. Removing or lacking any of the components has NO bearing in IDing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Lame, stupid stuff like throwing bat poop or swallowing a live spider? No. Get rid of that idiocy.
That occultic pseudoscience of arcane formulae and recipes is one of the best things about the entire DxP spellcasting system

To me it feels like something included as a joke, and has only been massaged into something less over time. The original scry required you to build a simple television. It was never meant to be anything other than a gag and it's an old, lame joke which should be put out of its' misery.

There is no "occultic pseudoscience of arcane formulae" because it's all entirely nebulous and if you actually go back to the source to get more specifics on how the components are actually used it is 1000% goofball territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It also the reason that spell powers can be identified even though they have no spell components.

I would be fine with getting rid of material components that have no GP value. It never made sense to me that the powerful wizard can't cast fireball because he is out of "bat poo".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

It also the reason that spell powers can be identified even though they have no spell components.

I would be fine with getting rid of material components that have no GP value. It never made sense to me that the powerful wizard can't cast fireball because he is out of "bat poo".

It also removes the ability to limit spellcasting by destroying or confiscating a material component pouch.

Casters don't need the power boost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

It also the reason that spell powers can be identified even though they have no spell components.

I would be fine with getting rid of material components that have no GP value. It never made sense to me that the powerful wizard can't cast fireball because he is out of "bat poo".

It also removes the ability to limit spellcasting by destroying or confiscating a material component pouch.

Casters don't need the power boost.

People keep saying this, but that never comes up in games anyway and when it does, it's usually done in a super petty and vindictive way.

The more reasonable method to keep hazards that restrict casting is to have entangle effects impose spell failure chance (on all casters not just arcane) for spells with somatic components, have poison gas and other situations where you are holding your breath do the same for verbal components, remember that grappling is a combat action that exists, and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

It also the reason that spell powers can be identified even though they have no spell components.

I would be fine with getting rid of material components that have no GP value. It never made sense to me that the powerful wizard can't cast fireball because he is out of "bat poo".

It also removes the ability to limit spellcasting by destroying or confiscating a material component pouch.

Casters don't need the power boost.

People keep saying this, but that never comes up in games anyway and when it does, it's usually done in a super petty and vindictive way.

The more reasonable method to keep hazards that restrict casting is to have entangle effects impose spell failure chance (on all casters not just arcane) for spells with somatic components, have poison gas and other situations where you are holding your breath do the same for verbal components, remember that grappling is a combat action that exists, and so on.

Speak for your own games, not broad statements like that because you don't actually have data that it "never comes up" or is "done in a petty and vindictive way"

Its used regularly at my table to hinder spellcasters and when pcs are taken captive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

It also the reason that spell powers can be identified even though they have no spell components.

I would be fine with getting rid of material components that have no GP value. It never made sense to me that the powerful wizard can't cast fireball because he is out of "bat poo".

He can't cast the fireball because he's out of saltpeter (which the guano breaks down into, slowly in nature or instantly as part of spellcasting)

He can't cast web without a piece of web to expand into the spell effect.

This sort of thing adds tremendous flavor to the game and is something I would be remiss to lose as the baseline.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its used regularly at my table to hinder spellcasters and when pcs are taken captive.

If it's used regularly then I'd expect either multiple pouch use and/or taking a feat to ignore the component. "regularly" losing your class abilities doesn't sound 'fun' to me.

So I can see where Fuzzypaws' comments come from: any game that uses those tactics AND has inhabitants that think logicly ends up making those tactics useless as the inhabitants take steps to nullify the tactic. If a fighter is taking the time to sunder 5 spell pouches then the wizard did his job better than if he cast a spell: even better if the wizard doesn't even NEED the pouch as he only carries them to make foes waste actions sundering unneeded pouches. ;)

PS: I'm curious how one ID's a component pouch as different from any other pouch. Do you just randomly thrash any pouch you see in hope of it being a component pouch? What stops a wizard from using a power component out of a normal pouch to make someone wanting them it 'hinder' them into thinking it's a component pouch? Or does your game make wizards clearly label their pouches?

kyrt-ryder wrote:
This sort of thing adds tremendous flavor to the game and is something I would be remiss to lose as the baseline.

LOL Where you see flavor I see tedium and needless paperwork for no gain. So for me, I'd be quite happy to religate material components to an optional subsection of the rules for those of you that enjoy it: Why force those of us that dislike it to use it with baseline when it can be an optional rule?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:


I'm inclined to agree on Wish, or at the very least make it a 20th level capstone class ability like in Starfinder. But I can just see the outcry if they do...

Hell, I'd be okay if they took a page from 4E on "Rituals" for stuff like Raise Dead and other powerful effects with long casting times and high material costs. Set them partially or entirely outside the spell system entirely. But that will also cause a huge outcry because "yer getting FOR EEE in muh Pathfinder!", so I'm not sure there is a win-win for Paizo that will allow them to both balance the game and make everyone happy.

I'd be OK with lengthy rituals but not with the material cost. I hate to be eternally broke, just because I keep resurrecting people.

I don't think a long casting time or coming back weaker can be the only restrictions on Raise Dead, because the implications for the world at large get out of hand. Why do NPCs stay dead? A dearth of high level casters only gets you so far, IMO. If scarcity of caster time is the issue, then casters would probably start charging for said time, which puts us back where we started with material components for any party without a cleric.

Merely being weaker may discourage PCs from reviving instead of rolling up a new character, but that's a meta consideration that would rarely hold up in narrative. If my child dies, I would obviously rather him come back to life slightly less healthy than stay dead.

Also, the longer a Raise Dead takes, the harder it can be to justify doing mid-adventure when there is a ticking clock. Even without a cleric in the party, at high levels PCs could theoretically teleport back to a city and then back to where they left in the same hour. If someone eats it midway through a ticking clock scenario, they could be gone for several sessions before the party has time to rest and Raise.

I'm not saying diamonds are the best barrier to Resurrection, but it seems better for world building than much of what has been suggested so far. You need something which explains why EVERYONE isn't Raised; as is we still run into the issue of why everyone who can afford it isn't Raised.

Other options to consider: Strong chance of people coming back with a Horror Adventures style corruption. Gating being Raised through various methods of DM fiat: "My God let me come back because I still have work to do." Or making it so that the item consumed in the ritual can't simply be bought; the calcified heart of a mature dragon could conceivably work it's way into a treasure pile. (BBEG would certainly like to keep such a thing on hand in case of their own death, making it a convenient thing to leave behind after a very tough encounter.)

Making conducting the ritual itself an ordeal, either for the casters or the deceased, is also an option. Maybe it involves a difficult saving throw, maybe it involves some kind of encounter in it's own right. Imagine PCs battling psychopomps as they to actually drag their friend out of the River Styx, or some kind of weird spirit realm vision quest. Could be really cool! And explains why only the brave and powerful seem to get brought back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some players love going into endless detail about every inch of their character's appearance and gear, every speck of dirt in their inventory and so on. For those players, tracking material components can be a fun activity.

For everyone else, it's needless tedium that punishes them for picking a class in a game meant to be played for fun.

This is why MC should be optional flavor, or reserved strictly for power components that actually do something. Or as I suggested earlier... Implements like (gasp!) 4E (pearl clutch!), where a component bag is its own type of "implement" and has its own game benefit.

EDIT: Worth noting, for those GMs like the one above who do like to target the spellcaster's tools, implements still allow that. It's just that it's not always a component pouch, sometimes it's a rod or a staff or the Eye of Agamotto.


The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Resurrection's gate being either artifacts you can't purchase, or a risky ordeal those involved must overcome. Both have the benefit of being easily scaled to the style of your specific campaign. The items can be as rare or as common as you want, and the ordeal can be as hard as you want. Whatever fits the campaign and story.

There's also no reason it has to involve actual spell casting this way. A one time use artifact, or instructions or equipment for the ritual, could be employed by any party. This would also be good for BBEG contingency plans; all they really need is one minion loyal enough to bring the boss back. If the magic in question doesn't require an intact body, that might do interesting things to encourage people to take prisoners over murder hobo'ing.

I don't think I have a strong opinion on costless material components. They don't matter that much right now, but that could be an argument that we don't need to bother with them. One thing I can appreciate is that taking away material components is one of the few ways you can hold some casters prisoner sans anti-magic fields. But there are too many exceptions to that rules for jails to rely on it. That is something that might be worth addressing. How do we hold sorcerers prisoner at low levels? Keeping them bound, gagged, and blindfolded indefinitely seems inhumane and impractical, and there are ways still ways they can escape. Not allowing enough rest to recover spell slots (or non-spell class features) is slightly more humane, but among other issues you would need to completely deplete their current slots. Maybe being knocked out at 0 HP long enough drains them out of you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:
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!

Every game I'm in generally ignores them so long as the caster has a components pouch. For spells with a significant cost, we generally just make the PCs mark off the cost in GPs. None of the games makes a player actually find 5,000 gp of diamond dust, etc.

I don't mind spell components adding some flavor to a spell description, but honestly I wouldn't miss them and Paizo could save some page count by leaving them off.


graystone wrote:


kyrt-ryder wrote:
This sort of thing adds tremendous flavor to the game and is something I would be remiss to lose as the baseline.
LOL Where you see flavor I see tedium and needless paperwork for no gain. So for me, I'd be quite happy to religate material components to an optional subsection of the rules for those of you that enjoy it: Why force those of us that dislike it to use it with baseline when it can be an optional rule?

If it's a secondary option then spells won't be published with components and the gms who want to use them will have to make them up for ourselves.

Now a sidebar option explaining the lack of harm in a GM handwaving material components aside would be good.


I have noticed some talking about the tedium of 'free' material components...

Why?

A spell component pouch is functionally bottomless because casters are assumed to be refilling it offscreen.

In the rare occasion materials would be unavailable for restocking that makes for a compelling story point of restricted resources.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps if martials didn't try to 'balance' us, we wouldn't try to destroy their universe.

But seriously, I hate the idea of paying to cast spells. You might as well pay somebody else to cast them for you! This makes me feel less like a powerful deity of myths and more like a merchant. At least write like this: "If you are playing with the material components option, you must first provide..."


"As you enter this chamber of the catacombs you see the final resting place of Lord Darrin MacGuffin. The burial flowers, which are well on their way to wilting, appear to have slid off the marble vault holding Lord MacGuffin and the stolen artifact he was buried with. However, there is a broken clay jar sitting in the middle of the room between yourselves and MacGuffin's burial vault."

-examine jar-

"For some reason it contains what appears to be dirt. There are a few pieces of grass root mixed in with small scattering of soil left in it. The dirt is relatively fresh and hasn't dried out completely."

-detect magic-

"You detect a strong necromatic aura coming from the broken jar."

-Knowledge: Arcana roll-

"Clay pots of grave dirt along with other material components are used in the creation of powerful undead."

-Prepare for undead fight, Chekov, your gunslinger, loads his pistol with undead-bane rounds-

"You open the marble vault and find it... empty of both Lord MacGuffin as well as the artifact you were seeking. The door behind you suddenly slams shut. Redde Herringbone, MacGuffin's majordomo, stands next to what appears to be a suit of armor you'd see as decoration in a castle. Redde cackles, "Let's see who is the real one in charge now, eh, Darrin? Attack them!" The armor slowly advances forward."

-Chekov fires his gun at the armored undead corpse of MacGuffin-


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah that's actually a fair point. Discarded material components is one of the few ways to foreshadow that a specific spell was once used here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone saying that maybe resurrection sickness is a way to balance bringing people back to life must forget to actually use this in their games:

Raise Dead wrote:
Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell gains two permanent negative levels when it is raised, just as if it had been hit by an energy-draining creature.

We HAVE resurrection sickness, and it takes both time and money to get rid of it (2000gp and more than a week to remove both negative levels if using Restoration). Resurrection gives just 1 negative level, but the spell costs twice as much as Raise Dead. Only True Resurrection doesn't give you any negative levels, and it costs five times as much as Raise Dead.

Fuzzypaws wrote:


Or in a setting where casting generates "instant runes" around you like in a lot of video games and anime, maybe you're identifying the manifestation of the runic patterns as they take form.

I frickin' LOVE instant runes and I fully support this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the most ridiculous material component is for Bless Water. It is way too expensive, especially for the lower level characters who would even it. And why would anyone sell it without profit?


Bloodrealm wrote:
Raise Dead wrote:
Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell gains two permanent negative levels when it is raised, just as if it had been hit by an energy-draining creature.
We HAVE resurrection sickness, and it takes both time and money to get rid of it (2000gp and more than a week to remove both negative levels if using Restoration). Resurrection gives just 1 negative level, but the spell costs twice as much as Raise Dead. Only True Resurrection doesn't give you any negative levels, and it costs five times as much as Raise Dead.

Yeah, but reducing negative levels isn't the only point of those other two spells. The negative levels thing is just a perk.

Raise Dead wrote:

You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than 1 day per caster level.

...

A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.

Additionally, it requires an actual corpse.

The max days of being dead can be anywhere from 9 to 20 days depending on your group's level. If you're in the hinterlands and someone dies and it takes you too long to get a big enough diamond or to find someone to cast it, the person cannot be raised.

Additionally, if they had their corpse animated it would also nix this method of being brought back.

Resurrection wrote:

The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.

...

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected.

Behold, we can now bypass some of those silly restrictions. We can resurrect someone who has been dead for 200 years by using some hair in a locket even though the person was a lich for 195 of those 200 years.

True Resurrection wrote:


This spell functions like raise dead, except that you can resurrect a creature that has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level. This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased's time and place of birth or death is the most common method).

...

You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can't resurrect constructs or undead creatures.

Even true resurrection can't restore to life a creature who has died of old age.

Who needs bodies to resurrect someone? Tarrasque ate them? No problem. We don't even need to sift through Tarrasque poop to bring them back.

Besides, your Wizard buddy that permanently got himself turned into an elemental lord can also be resurrected at this point.


graystone wrote:
[If it's used regularly then I'd expect either multiple pouch use and/or taking a feat to ignore the component. "regularly" losing your class abilities doesn't sound 'fun' to me.

By pc's, via sunder, steal, and sleight of hand. Generally to weaken an antagonist and occasionally when the gm has captured the party to add challenge to the encounter. Not every spell requires a material component you know.

graystone wrote:


PS: I'm curious how one ID's a component pouch as different from any other pouch.

Its the one he reached into before casting a spell that requires a material component.

graystone wrote:
LOL Where you see flavor I see tedium and needless paperwork for no gain. So for me, I'd be quite happy to religate material components to an optional subsection of the rules for those of you that enjoy it: Why force those of us that dislike it to use it with baseline when it can be an optional rule?

It's less work for people who dislike it to say "we're not using material components" than it does for a table to come up with material components for each spell.


Gregg Reece wrote:

"As you enter this chamber of the catacombs you see the final resting place of Lord Darrin MacGuffin. The burial flowers, which are well on their way to wilting, appear to have slid off the marble vault holding Lord MacGuffin and the stolen artifact he was buried with. However, there is a broken clay jar sitting in the middle of the room between yourselves and MacGuffin's burial vault."

-examine jar-

"For some reason it contains what appears to be dirt. There are a few pieces of grass root mixed in with small scattering of soil left in it. The dirt is relatively fresh and hasn't dried out completely."

-detect magic-

"You detect a strong necromatic aura coming from the broken jar."

-Knowledge: Arcana roll-

"Clay pots of grave dirt along with other material components are used in the creation of powerful undead."

-Prepare for undead fight, Chekov, your gunslinger, loads his pistol with undead-bane rounds-

"You open the marble vault and find it... empty of both Lord MacGuffin as well as the artifact you were seeking. The door behind you suddenly slams shut. Redde Herringbone, MacGuffin's majordomo, stands next to what appears to be a suit of armor you'd see as decoration in a castle. Redde cackles, "Let's see who is the real one in charge now, eh, Darrin? Attack them!" The armor slowly advances forward."

-Chekov fires his gun at the armored undead corpse of MacGuffin-

See, while I like this sort of stuff, I also don't think things like creating powerful undead, actually raising the dead, creating demi planes and such should even be spells. They should be rituals, with long casting times, for which skill checks are required and material components that suit the spirit of the ritual. That sort of stuff makes me happy and I'd much prefer it to Create Greater Undead just being a spell on a spell list.

Meanwhile, fireball, cone of cold and other spells you cast in the space of a few seconds are not rituals, and should not have components.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:

"As you enter this chamber of the catacombs you see the final resting place of Lord Darrin MacGuffin. The burial flowers, which are well on their way to wilting, appear to have slid off the marble vault holding Lord MacGuffin and the stolen artifact he was buried with. However, there is a broken clay jar sitting in the middle of the room between yourselves and MacGuffin's burial vault."

-examine jar-

"For some reason it contains what appears to be dirt. There are a few pieces of grass root mixed in with small scattering of soil left in it. The dirt is relatively fresh and hasn't dried out completely."

-detect magic-

"You detect a strong necromatic aura coming from the broken jar."

-Knowledge: Arcana roll-

"Clay pots of grave dirt along with other material components are used in the creation of powerful undead."

-Prepare for undead fight, Chekov, your gunslinger, loads his pistol with undead-bane rounds-

"You open the marble vault and find it... empty of both Lord MacGuffin as well as the artifact you were seeking. The door behind you suddenly slams shut. Redde Herringbone, MacGuffin's majordomo, stands next to what appears to be a suit of armor you'd see as decoration in a castle. Redde cackles, "Let's see who is the real one in charge now, eh, Darrin? Attack them!" The armor slowly advances forward."

-Chekov fires his gun at the armored undead corpse of MacGuffin-

See, while I like this sort of stuff, I also don't think things like creating powerful undead, actually raising the dead, creating demi planes and such should even be spells. They should be rituals, with long casting times, for which skill checks are required and material components that suit the spirit of the ritual. That sort of stuff makes me happy and I'd much prefer it to Create Greater Undead just being a spell on a spell list.

Meanwhile, fireball, cone of cold and other spells you cast in the space of a few seconds are not rituals, and...

I don't hate this idea. I'll add that Spells like Bless Water probably shouldn't exist-- why not just lump it in with an appropriate Craft Skill? We already know alchemy and crafting is getting an overhaul. Having magic that creates permanent items you can sell off can do weird things to your party's WBL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I'll add that Spells like Bless Water probably shouldn't exist-- why not just lump it in with an appropriate Craft Skill? We already know alchemy and crafting is getting an overhaul. Having magic that creates permanent items you can sell off can do weird things to your party's WBL

Just commented about the silliness of Bless Water earlier and I have to agree here. What is especially silly is that the price for brewing CLW potion is 25gp and the selling price is 50gp while the material component for Bless Water spell is 25gp but they sell it without profit for some reason.


Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:
LOL Where you see flavor I see tedium and needless paperwork for no gain. So for me, I'd be quite happy to religate material components to an optional subsection of the rules for those of you that enjoy it: Why force those of us that dislike it to use it with baseline when it can be an optional rule?
It's less work for people who dislike it to say "we're not using material components" than it does for a table to come up with material components for each spell.

This. Empower newer GMs (who might otherwise lack the understanding) to handwave material components without fear of breaking the game if they prefer, but leave them as a baseline.

Regarding Bless Water, I always explained it as the sale of holy water isn't a business, it's a charity for the good of the community that recoups material costs.

(I too would approve of Holy Water Crafting)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Empower newer GMs (who might otherwise lack the understanding) to handwave material components without fear of breaking the game if they prefer, but leave them as a baseline.

People already do this.

My experience with material components is that that unless it is something odd (Clay jar of grave soil) or has a cost (Onyx costing 25gp) as long as I have my belt we just play through it. My GM would occasionally say, "You notice you're starting to run low on bat guano and sulfur." Which means I should probably note that and nab it at the next town or acquire through other means. If not, I'll run out at some point and will have to adjust my spells for the day. I would also ask things when we get to town, "Do I need to restock any spell components?" If so, I'd stop by an alchemist shop or wizard store.

I'm not sure why people consider this tedious bookkeeping. It's actually less tedious than an archer who has to track each and every arrow shot and restock at each town.


Gregg Reece wrote:

My GM would occasionally say, "You notice you're starting to run low on bat guano and sulfur." Which means I should probably note that and nab it at the next town or acquire through other means. If not, I'll run out at some point and will have to adjust my spells for the day. I would also ask things when we get to town, "Do I need to restock any spell components?" If so, I'd stop by an alchemist shop or wizard store.

I'm not sure why people consider this tedious bookkeeping. It's actually less tedious than an archer who has to track each and every arrow shot and restock at each town.

I don't even do that much. Characters restock off screen except in the very rare scenario that resources are extremely scarce for plot. (Typically I might do that once or twice in a larger campaign)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Empower newer GMs (who might otherwise lack the understanding) to handwave material components without fear of breaking the game if they prefer, but leave them as a baseline.

People already do this.

My experience with material components is that that unless it is something odd (Clay jar of grave soil) or has a cost (Onyx costing 25gp) as long as I have my belt we just play through it. My GM would occasionally say, "You notice you're starting to run low on bat guano and sulfur." Which means I should probably note that and nab it at the next town or acquire through other means. If not, I'll run out at some point and will have to adjust my spells for the day. I would also ask things when we get to town, "Do I need to restock any spell components?" If so, I'd stop by an alchemist shop or wizard store.

I'm not sure why people consider this tedious bookkeeping. It's actually less tedious than an archer who has to track each and every arrow shot and restock at each town.

Because tracking the number of arrows and silver arrows you have left is less tedious than tracking five pages worth of material components for every single spell you know.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Wild Spirit wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:


I'm inclined to agree on Wish, or at the very least make it a 20th level capstone class ability like in Starfinder. But I can just see the outcry if they do...

Hell, I'd be okay if they took a page from 4E on "Rituals" for stuff like Raise Dead and other powerful effects with long casting times and high material costs. Set them partially or entirely outside the spell system entirely. But that will also cause a huge outcry because "yer getting FOR EEE in muh Pathfinder!", so I'm not sure there is a win-win for Paizo that will allow them to both balance the game and make everyone happy.

I'd be OK with lengthy rituals but not with the material cost. I hate to be eternally broke, just because I keep resurrecting people.

I don't think a long casting time or coming back weaker can be the only restrictions on Raise Dead, because the implications for the world at large get out of hand. Why do NPCs stay dead? A dearth of high level casters only gets you so far, IMO. If scarcity of caster time is the issue, then casters would probably start charging for said time, which puts us back where we started with material components for any party without a cleric.

Merely being weaker may discourage PCs from reviving instead of rolling up a new character, but that's a meta consideration that would rarely hold up in narrative. If my child dies, I would obviously rather him come back to life slightly less healthy than stay dead.

Also, the longer a Raise Dead takes, the harder it can be to justify doing mid-adventure when there is a ticking clock. Even without a cleric in the party, at high levels PCs could theoretically teleport back to a city and then back to where they left in the same hour. If someone eats it midway through a ticking clock scenario, they could be gone for several sessions before the party has time to rest and Raise.

I'm not saying diamonds are the best barrier to Resurrection, but it seems better for world building than much of...

As far as NPCs being raised, the one being raised has to want to return to the land of the living. If they are in a good place, why would they come back? Of course that means that more evil people will get raised, everything else being equal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now I understand why you hate components.

Spell component pouches are fundamentally bottomless, if you're tracking the unpriced components you're creating a LOT of hassle for yourself.

Instead of 5 pages, you have a handful of lines. One line for the number of spell component pouches (spares are good in case of didarm/sunder/AoE save fail) and a few more for expensive components the character uses.


Aristophanes wrote:
As far as NPCs being raised, the one being raised has to want to return to the land of the living. If they are in a good place, why would they come back? Of course that means that more evil people will get raised, everything else being equal.

General note, but when it comes to Rezzing, the NPC is most assuredly not in a good place when the caster comes a knocking. Essentially any target of a Rez is pretty much universally sitting in line in the Boneyard unless they got earmarked for another plane early via various PRCs or spells like Hellfire Ray.

If your NPC is in the good place (aka got Judged and whisked off as a petitioner) he can't be raised even if he wanted to. Same applies to an evil dude who got judged and sent off to Hell/Abaddon/the Abyss. No turning back after Pharasma has her word.


Also, having a lock in guarantee that "they are in a better place now" takes a fair bit of the sting out of murder, for example.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Also, having a lock in guarantee that "they are in a better place now" takes a fair bit of the sting out of murder, for example.

Say hello to this world.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Now I understand why you hate components.

Spell component pouches are fundamentally bottomless, if you're tracking the unpriced components you're creating a LOT of hassle for yourself.

Instead of 5 pages, you have a handful of lines. One line for the number of spell component pouches (spares are good in case of didarm/sunder/AoE save fail) and a few more for expensive components the character uses.

Quoting PRD for anyone who doesn't believe you.

Spell Component Pouch

Spell Component Pouch wrote:
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.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Also, having a lock in guarantee that "they are in a better place now" takes a fair bit of the sting out of murder, for example.
Say hello to this world.

I don't think you can compare real world faith with Golarion based facts, is the thing. Certainly we don't legally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
If it's a secondary option then spells won't be published with components and the gms who want to use them will have to make them up for ourselves.

Why do you see that as a bad thing? If it a totally flavor thing, why not have the player that's interested in that thing come up with them?

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Now a sidebar option explaining the lack of harm in a GM handwaving material components aside would be good.

Or a sidebar that gives hints on inventing components if you wish.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
I have noticed some talking about the tedium of 'free' material components...

#1 we don't know is the new game is going to have pouches like pathfinder classic. #2 some of us have been around long enough to remember a world without pouches. Remember, we're talking about all new rules so we can't assume the old way works

Ryan Freire wrote:
By pc's, via sunder, steal, and sleight of hand. Generally to weaken an antagonist and occasionally when the gm has captured the party to add challenge to the encounter.

Generally only works once... pouches are cheap and so are feat slots for a caster. As a pattern of common NPC behavior, it's pretty ineffective.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Its the one he reached into before casting a spell that requires a material component.

So I can get a foe to waste an action messing with my 'pouch' by reaching into a pouch while casting a spell? Again, how are the components and pouch ID'd? If the DM is using 'unfun' tactics, I'll be stuffing my hands into random pouches just to mess with people, even on characters that aren't casters. A rogue using a major magic can easily reach into a pouch when he uses it...

Ryan Freire wrote:
It's less work for people who dislike it to say "we're not using material components" than it does for a table to come up with material components for each spell.

Is it? How is a seperate listing in the back of the book with a big list of 'optional' components a huge amount of work? Or a blog post of components. IMO, it doesn't seem onerous for people that WANT the extra work of material components to have to do a little bit of extra work.

Gregg Reece: nifty post but since EVERYONE uses a pouch, you'd NEVER see any cheap material components sitting by themselves. So instead of broken clay pots, for most spells you'd have a pouch sitting there that could be used for any spell.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Empower newer GMs (who might otherwise lack the understanding) to handwave material components without fear of breaking the game if they prefer, but leave them as a baseline.

OR empower players and DM to come up with their own if that's there thing. It's MUCH more 'flavorful' if they come up with their own 'flavor' that it is for some 3rd party to TELL you what flavor is good for you. I'd MUCH rather have them say it uses material components [if we MUST have them] and leave it blank for you to fill in what that is.

Gregg Reece wrote:
It's actually less tedious than an archer who has to track each and every arrow shot and restock at each town.

Would useless and vestigial be saying it better? If it's JUST a negligible cost and you never think of it again, then get rid of it. At least arrows have a non-negligible cost and I STILL want to get rid of that bother.

Bottom line: what is gained from material components that couldn't also be gained from players roleplaying whatever components they think are appropriate when they cast a spell?


Core books don't need to be filled with a bunch of optional rules when they're EASY for people to just not use. It is easier for the players who don't want to use them to simply say "we aren't using these rules" at their table, component lists are exactly the kind of work people shouldnt have to do themselves when the removal of them is so much easier than the creation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

Core books don't need to be filled with a bunch of optional rules when they're EASY for people to just not use. It is easier for the players who don't want to use them to simply say "we aren't using these rules" at their table, component lists are exactly the kind of work people shouldnt have to do themselves when the removal of them is so much easier than the creation.

Some people are just hellbent on shoving the concept of Material Components down our throats. If you want to use them, fine, a half-page table can fit into any book. But writing them in makes leaving them out a "houserule" and I know many people who aren't OK with that.

Look, if I want to see the rich getting everything they want, and the poor starve to death I'll turn on the TV. At the very least let me have some escapism in the form of Pathfinder!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Core books don't need to be filled with a bunch of optional rules when they're EASY for people to just not use.

*shrug* the same case can then be made that material components should be dropped altogether then as it's EASY for people to make up their own or use the ones from pathfinder classic by pulling up the PRD or your old books.

Ryan Freire wrote:
It is easier for the players who don't want to use them to simply say "we aren't using these rules" at their table, component lists are exactly the kind of work people shouldnt have to do themselves when the removal of them is so much easier than the creation.

It's actually easier to NOT have the components to ignore if we're going by what's easy. If you NEED components to mess over your players then add an option for component pouches for THOSE people: the exact components don't matter IF the only reason you have them is to take them away from your players so they can't cast spells right? That's a SUPER EASY optional rule that takes a whole sentence to make and is EASY to use. You aren't going to convince me that printing material components for EACH spell is going to be easier than that.


@ Wild Spirit Please explain how pulling ingredients for spells out of a hat (by that I mean untracked spell component pouches) damages your escapism?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
If you NEED components to mess over your players then add an option for component pouches for THOSE people:

I sure hope you aren't making that statement for all of us that value material components. For some of us it's all about the value of material components as a....

..... Component of the world and the way magic functions.

He might be more interested in the pouch as a vulnerability but for me the pouch facilitates easy use of wonderfully weird fetishes and ingredients that makes Magic more magical.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
@ Wild Spirit Please explain how pulling ingredients for spells out of a hat (by that I mean untracked spell component pouches) damages your escapism?

Yeah, how could an infinitely sized 'hat', containing everything from bat guano to live spiders damage my excapism I wonder.

And that's just cost-free components.

What's the point of spending my whole life learning how to cast spells only being limited by my own (lack of) wealth? Had I just taken over the town business, like father wanted, I would have enough money for the components and the spell casting service. Father was right, there is no point in adventuring. (/RP)

Besides, the whole "life is about material wealth" attitude is pretty toxic to deal with IRL (Kardashians are such great role models, aren't they?), I am no mood to have it written into my game as well.

101 to 150 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / End material components! All Messageboards