End material components!


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.

I'm actually interested in it for a lot of reasons, one of the big ones is that i'm starting to get resentful for people wanting easily houseruled aspects of the game removed. Alignment, Material components, all things that are easier to simply houserule away than to houserule into existence. Its not clever to say "well just add via houserules" Thats WAY more gm work than simply saying you aren't using the rules. Games with lots of extra gm work tend not to be very popular because no one wants to run them.


Thank you for responding Wild Spirit, your candor is greatly appreciated.

Wild Spirit wrote:
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.

I've never participated in a game with truly infinite spell component pouches (though I have run a few games in a setting with stupid common/cheap bags of holding.) It's usually handwaved as the caster collects ingredients off-screen for player convenience.

Quote:
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)

Whether for good or ill, 3P's ridiculous wealth scaling assures this isn't actually the case.

Quote:
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.

I don't follow television, but totally agree with the basic point you're making.

D&D and PF are VERY materialistic games by default. In my massive sweeping houserules I've scrapped the wealth acis of power.

Going back to material components, I have zero qualms against a rebalancing of various spells to not have any expensive components.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

so lets do the following them:
make under 1 gp and or all MCs not mandatory
make sidebar making them optional and advice on reasonable MCs.
make certain spells ( animate dead, create undead, gate) into rituals that require components, and list reasonable components

seriously though, why would one want to be in the mavohi desert and use bat poo as afireball MC when the capital city of Dubai tht is 3 weeks out the other direction. They sell all components for 3 x the standard amount( hey the RW dubai, if I spelled it right imports everything) and even the bat poo has to be shipped in...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I sure hope you aren't making that statement for all of us that value material components.

I'm making a comment to someone that has said they want material components so he can then take them from casters to prevent casting.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

For some of us it's all about the value of material components as a....

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

I fail to see how that requires hard coded components. If you want it for flavor, make your own or borrow it from pathfinder classic. Why would you need a 3rd party to include them for EACH spell?

kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.

None of that requires a single material component to be printed in a rule book or have it required material IN the spell for everyone if it's an optional rule.

Ryan Freire wrote:
I'm actually interested in it for a lot of reasons, one of the big ones is that i'm starting to get resentful for people wanting easily houseruled aspects of the game removed. Alignment, Material components, all things that are easier to simply houserule away than to houserule into existence.

I'm equally as irked at people insisting thing NEED to be core when they too can easily houserule things in. NOTHING prevents you from adding material components to the game if they aren't there. NOTHING prevents you from using pathfinder classic alignment if it isn't there. You HAVE the PRD so it's NOT like you have to reinvent the wheel. You want the new fireball to have components? Say the pouch is required and use the components from the PRD... WOW was that hard... :P NEED alignment, look it up in the PRD... WOW, that's tough too...

Ryan Freire wrote:
Thats WAY more gm work than simply saying you aren't using the rules.

No, it's NOT. Open PRD... Super, super hard...


Still more work than "we're not using this"


Ryan Freire wrote:
Still more work than "we're not using this"

Going in circles are we?

Please use any of my previous posts to debunk your comment, thank you.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Still more work than "we're not using this"

Going in circles are we?

Please use any of my previous posts to debunk your comment, thank you.

You didn't debunk crap.


Include it in the book. It's almost all written already since this is a second edition of the game.

If you don't want to use it, then don't use it.

I don't think anyone in this thread is going to change their mind at this point.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Still more work than "we're not using this"

Going in circles are we?

Please use any of my previous posts to debunk your comment, thank you.

You didn't debunk crap.

Using vulgarities now? How mature. Yes, you should be the one to decide how everybody else plays their game if they want to actually follow the rules.


Can we at least say that when describing spell's and components in the book(and the database) there a block of text that reads something like;

"GM are allowed to wave the requirement of Material components should they feel the inclusion of them will bog down the players too much. At the same time, GM can also allow players to come up with their own components for their favored spell's. Of course, certain spell should still be limited in some way due to their effects in game EG, Ressurrection"

A Better person could probably word it better than me


MerlinCross wrote:

...

Of course, certain spell should still be limited in some way due to their effects in game EG, Ressurrection"
...

It wouldn't solve anything. This is the bit I personally have problem with.

How can I call myself 'good' when I do not cast Raise Dead and Resurrection upon everyone who died during town siege? Would only Resurrecting nobles who can afford to pay be moral? What about the countless beggars and urchins? Am I supposed to let them rot? /RP


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

...

Of course, certain spell should still be limited in some way due to their effects in game EG, Ressurrection"
...

It wouldn't solve anything. This is the bit I personally have problem with.

How can I call myself 'good' when I do not cast Raise Dead and Resurrection upon everyone who died during town siege? Would only Resurrecting nobles who can afford to pay be moral? What about the countless beggars and urchins? Am I supposed to let them rot? /RP

Its almost as if the cost of material components is a balancing factor keeping people from just popping back to life from every mishap or disease.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Wild Spirit wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

...

Of course, certain spell should still be limited in some way due to their effects in game EG, Ressurrection"
...

It wouldn't solve anything. This is the bit I personally have problem with.

How can I call myself 'good' when I do not cast Raise Dead and Resurrection upon everyone who died during town siege? Would only Resurrecting nobles who can afford to pay be moral? What about the countless beggars and urchins? Am I supposed to let them rot? /RP

Its almost as if the cost of material components is a balancing factor keeping people from just popping back to life from every mishap or disease.

A temporary caster ability drain/sickness could serve the same purpose.

And it gets around the whole 'cash = eternal life' thing I have the biggest problem with.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Wild Spirit wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

...

Of course, certain spell should still be limited in some way due to their effects in game EG, Ressurrection"
...

It wouldn't solve anything. This is the bit I personally have problem with.

How can I call myself 'good' when I do not cast Raise Dead and Resurrection upon everyone who died during town siege? Would only Resurrecting nobles who can afford to pay be moral? What about the countless beggars and urchins? Am I supposed to let them rot? /RP

Its almost as if the cost of material components is a balancing factor keeping people from just popping back to life from every mishap or disease.

A temporary caster ability drain/sickness could serve the same purpose.

And it gets around the whole 'cash = eternal life' thing I have the biggest problem with.

Uh, not really, a temporary caster ability drain/sickness is in every way a weaker restriction than a hard resource requirement.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Uh, not really, a temporary caster ability drain/sickness is in every way a weaker restriction than a hard resource requirement.

Or is it? Pardon me asking, but have you ever have to beg? People will give you pocket-change no problem but ask for a place to sleep or a place to shower and not a single soul will help you.

In the same way, a noble might pity the PC and pay for their Resurrection but very few clerics are willing to vomit whole day for somebody they don't know.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Uh, not really, a temporary caster ability drain/sickness is in every way a weaker restriction than a hard resource requirement.

Or is it? Pardon me asking, but have you ever have to beg? People will give you pocket-change no problem but ask for a place to sleep or a place to shower and not a single soul will help you.

In the same way, a noble might pity the PC and pay for their Resurrection but very few clerics are willing to vomit whole day for somebody they don't know.

Other than all the gods who preach self sacrifice, and for the noble who determines exactly how well received their faith is within the duchy and sets any taxes the church as to pay?

A day's inconvenience is not the same limiter as "we cant come up with 5000 gp in diamond dust.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Uh, not really, a temporary caster ability drain/sickness is in every way a weaker restriction than a hard resource requirement.

Or is it? Pardon me asking, but have you ever have to beg? People will give you pocket-change no problem but ask for a place to sleep or a place to shower and not a single soul will help you.

In the same way, a noble might pity the PC and pay for their Resurrection but very few clerics are willing to vomit whole day for somebody they don't know.

Other than all the gods who preach self sacrifice, and for the noble who determines exactly how well received their faith is within the duchy and sets any taxes the church as to pay?

A day's inconvenience is not the same limiter as "we cant come up with 5000 gp in diamond dust.

Preaching something is one thing, acting upon it is another. You'd be amazed how many preachers in this world preach poverty while living in boundless luxury.

I said a day on purpose because most people wouldn't sacrifice even that much. Now imagine if it was a week of sickness. No chance. Holy men would wiggle like worms just to avoid raising anyone. And people with true faith and dedication? Why stop them.


Wild Spirit wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

...

Of course, certain spell should still be limited in some way due to their effects in game EG, Ressurrection"
...

It wouldn't solve anything. This is the bit I personally have problem with.

How can I call myself 'good' when I do not cast Raise Dead and Resurrection upon everyone who died during town siege? Would only Resurrecting nobles who can afford to pay be moral? What about the countless beggars and urchins? Am I supposed to let them rot? /RP

the beggars and urchins would be conscripted into the watch and the guard as a militia unit......

but from a RP angle, I cant even say if I ever saw clerics and other healers raise the entire dead of the hold or holds in any AP or novel/ movie. unless they are needed its tend to those who live and those who you can steal from death's doorstep first and give last rites to those you cant help.
commoner and noble alike.

after the siege ends, see what and who is left, adn start looting the enemy dead for salvage and raid the temples for suplies( MC, scrolls and rods of resurrection) to raise who can be raised and bury and or burn the dead.

how do you call yourself good if you cant raise all the fallen? it gets down to this: good need naught be charitable. Trying to cast true resurrection and raise dead on an large number of a town say of 5000 souls is going to be taxing on the caster's body, MC or NO MC.

which is why I said:
make under 1 gp and or all MCs not mandatory
make sidebar making them optional and advice on reasonable MCs.
make certain spells ( animate dead, create undead, gate) into rituals that require components, and list reasonable components


MerlinCross wrote:

Can we at least say that when describing spell's and components in the book(and the database) there a block of text that reads something like;

"GM are allowed to wave the requirement of Material components should they feel the inclusion of them will bog down the players too much. At the same time, GM can also allow players to come up with their own components for their favored spell's. Of course, certain spell should still be limited in some way due to their effects in game EG, Ressurrection"

A Better person could probably word it better than me

Better wording likely is available, but the concept is a good one.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Uh, not really, a temporary caster ability drain/sickness is in every way a weaker restriction than a hard resource requirement.

Or is it? Pardon me asking, but have you ever have to beg? People will give you pocket-change no problem but ask for a place to sleep or a place to shower and not a single soul will help you.

In the same way, a noble might pity the PC and pay for their Resurrection but very few clerics are willing to vomit whole day for somebody they don't know.

Other than all the gods who preach self sacrifice, and for the noble who determines exactly how well received their faith is within the duchy and sets any taxes the church as to pay?

A day's inconvenience is not the same limiter as "we cant come up with 5000 gp in diamond dust.

Preaching something is one thing, acting upon it is another. You'd be amazed how many preachers in this world preach poverty while living in boundless luxury.

I said a day on purpose because most people wouldn't sacrifice even that much. Now imagine if it was a week of sickness. No chance. Holy men would wiggle like worms just to avoid raising anyone. And people with true faith and dedication? Why stop them.

Except this is a world where if you DON'T practice what you preach you don't get the magic spells from your god.


Steelfiredragon wrote:


how do you call yourself good if you cant raise all the fallen? it gets down to this: good need naught be charitable.

Why this ultimatum? Of course it's impossible to help everyone. I just want to roleplay a truly good PC for once. And yes, the concept of goodness and charity go hand in hand (read any holy book there is).

Heck, let me pay in experience - 3.5 style. It's still better than this materialism++ everyone is trying to push for.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:


how do you call yourself good if you cant raise all the fallen? it gets down to this: good need naught be charitable.

Why this ultimatum? Of course it's impossible to help everyone. I just want to roleplay a truly good PC for once. And yes, the concept of goodness and charity go hand in hand (read any holy book there is).

Heck, let me pay in experience - 3.5 style. It's still better than this materialism++ everyone is trying to push for.

Nah, its really not because that method falls the other way down the balance hole, where a pc becomes lower level than the rest of the party over time.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Wild Spirit wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:


how do you call yourself good if you cant raise all the fallen? it gets down to this: good need naught be charitable.

Why this ultimatum? Of course it's impossible to help everyone. I just want to roleplay a truly good PC for once. And yes, the concept of goodness and charity go hand in hand (read any holy book there is).

Heck, let me pay in experience - 3.5 style. It's still better than this materialism++ everyone is trying to push for.

Nah, its really not because that method falls the other way down the balance hole, where a pc becomes lower level than the rest of the party over time.

Bear in mind in 3.5 [and possibly in PF2 based on what we've seen thus far] the lower level party member gains more experience for helping higher level teammates.


truely good, self sacrificing , feeds the poor and tends dying etc.
bleeding hearts.... use your share of the wealth and not anyone elses.
yes I know charity and good walk hand in hand,... you know Id go on, but this is where I ignore this discussion with you, dont need another thread liek the paladin and its alignment ones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:

Include it in the book. It's almost all written already since this is a second edition of the game.

If you don't want to use it, then don't use it.

I don't think anyone in this thread is going to change their mind at this point.

The 'word count' seems to be an awfully precious thing when considering what to include and what not so I would say material components should be in the Ultimate Magic 2 if included at all.


graystone wrote:
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.

The answer in the linked post is more vague than your quote implies.

"Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball."
It's rather silly that such an important element of how spells functions isn't explicitly stated in the CRB. The FAQ answer seems more of an afterthought than anything.

"Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse."

The answer is in no way clear on what said "special abilities" are (I would argue that metamagic applies. I mean, what other purpose would they have than to obfuscate the casting of a spell).

If "manifestation" covers both the act of casting and the spell effect, and they happen even if you've applied metamagic, then there's no reason to have said metamagics at all (aside from my issues with the metamagic system itself).


Wild Spirit wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

...

Of course, certain spell should still be limited in some way due to their effects in game EG, Ressurrection"
...

It wouldn't solve anything. This is the bit I personally have problem with.

How can I call myself 'good' when I do not cast Raise Dead and Resurrection upon everyone who died during town siege? Would only Resurrecting nobles who can afford to pay be moral? What about the countless beggars and urchins? Am I supposed to let them rot? /RP

See I'm thinking of it as a mechanic view. If Resurrection is free, what's to stop the barbarian from going Leeroy Jekins on everything? What some level and ability damage? Well spell's can remove those and would also be free. Heck some could argue that dying counts as an "extended rest". These people are full of bull, but could still argue it. Part of the arguement against CLW wands was they trivlized healing. Doing the same for death, well, there goes a bunch of tension.

Flip side to RP: How can you call yourself good if you don't do the same for your normal healing spells? And if you do good for others what about your team? What do you tell them if they end up hurt or dead due to you using spell's on others?

Add to that, any dead NPC shouldn't be grieved over if it can be spammed. Old man Hood that taught the party to survive in the woods only to die holding off a couple owlbears for the party? Meh we'll get him back in 4 levels. The old guard captain the group won over after a few week, the man who shoved his daughter into the Paladin's arms to take her to safety while he made a last stand to cover the retreat? Give the cleric a few days. That town that was razed to the ground , building burnt and families shattered, a possible backstory for a character or to give the PC's drive to go stop the BBEG? "Don't worry Timmy, your mom and dad are 8th on the list to be brought back. We'll also make sure your house is rebuilt, a new school is founded so you can learn a trade, and a kitty orphanage is opened". You see where I'm going with this.

Never mind all the forces that deal with death might find that all their new charges/prizes going missing and look into the matter. Also the fact you could easily just have the BBEG keep getting revived far easier now. Final bit, cast the spell all day. But last I checked pretty sure the target has to be willing.

Remove the gold cost so everyone can get raises. Decent suggestion brought on by RP reasons and maybe some RL views. Okay. I still think you should limit it somehow so you don't completely break Death in game and in Universe. Much like any other spell with a noticeable component cost(any cost that rare or pricey, like magic item price). Now these limits don't have to be material based, but something has to be there to prevent issues of spam


Expensive component based is the easiest method for gm's to control resurrection access. It prevents spamming, it explains why accidental death and murder is still a thing in the world.


I'm all for player freedom and individuality, but it is the GM's job to set the tone of the world.

I often let players have massive input on their hometown, but the rest of the setting is in the GM's hands unless and until the player characters enact change through their own power [which is typically fairly limited in scope until at least level 5]


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not a balance thing Wild Spirit, that's a Setting Tone thing.

Most of us aren't interested in a rainbows and unicorns setting where vast swaths of prematurely deceased can be freely brought back just because they didn't deserve to die.


Ryan Freire wrote:
The minute expensive components are removed every 17th level mage gets to add +5 to every stat. Planar ally and planar binding get even more potent. Kings are never assassinated.

Yeah and PF2 will otherwise be exactly the same as PF1 with no rebalancing whatsoever.


Ryan Freire wrote:
The minute expensive components are removed every 17th level mage gets to add +5 to every stat. Planar ally and planar binding get even more potent.

Every 17th level mage already gets +5 to every stat by Divination and Greater Teleport and Shop-busting every metropolis until they find a +5 tome, or by crafting one themselves.

Planar Ally and Planar Binding were never effectively controlled by WBL because consumed wealth is supposed to flow back over time. It's just a budgeting thing rather than the consumption of potential wealth.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

That's not a balance thing Wild Spirit, that's a Setting Tone thing.

Most of us aren't interested in a rainbows and unicorns setting where vast swaths of prematurely deceased can be freely brought back just because they didn't deserve to die.

I actually understand your viewpoint but please get mine: I want to feel relevant to the party, not just to be a Raise Dead wending machine (money comes in, live people out).

I want to be able to decide who will live and who will not, I want to rolepay a divine caster on a mission to make the world a better place. I can't do that if random GM is like "no spell components for you, lol".


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The minute expensive components are removed every 17th level mage gets to add +5 to every stat. Planar ally and planar binding get even more potent.

Every 17th level mage already gets +5 to every stat by Divination and Greater Teleport and Shop-busting every metropolis until they find a +5 tome, or by crafting one themselves.

Except thats controlled by...dun dun dunnnnnnnn gm's controlling wealth by level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The minute expensive components are removed every 17th level mage gets to add +5 to every stat. Planar ally and planar binding get even more potent.

Every 17th level mage already gets +5 to every stat by Divination and Greater Teleport and Shop-busting every metropolis until they find a +5 tome, or by crafting one themselves.

Except thats controlled by...dun dun dunnnnnnnn gm's controlling wealth by level.

Sure, if the GM is a manipulative bastard who violates wealth by level.

Applying wealth by level as part and parcel of the rules does nothing to restrict what I just said.


Wild Spirit wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

That's not a balance thing Wild Spirit, that's a Setting Tone thing.

Most of us aren't interested in a rainbows and unicorns setting where vast swaths of prematurely deceased can be freely brought back just because they didn't deserve to die.

I actually understand your viewpoint but please get mine: I want to feel relevant to the party, not just to be a Raise Dead wending machine (money comes in, live people out).

I want to be able to decide who will live and who will not, I want to rolepay a divine caster on a mission to make the world a better place. I can't do that if random GM is like "no spell components for you, lol".

You can have that ability without having unlimited access to raising the dead.

Healing the sick, restoring damage, regenerating lost limbs and/or organs, extended access to breath of life [say one minute per caster level or somesuch], etc


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The minute expensive components are removed every 17th level mage gets to add +5 to every stat. Planar ally and planar binding get even more potent.

Every 17th level mage already gets +5 to every stat by Divination and Greater Teleport and Shop-busting every metropolis until they find a +5 tome, or by crafting one themselves.

Except thats controlled by...dun dun dunnnnnnnn gm's controlling wealth by level.

Sure, if the GM is a manipulative bastard who violates wealth by level.

Applying wealth by level as part and parcel of the rules does nothing to restrict what I just said.

Wealth by level, is in its own description not a hard and fast rule. some games have less, some more, and the only assumption it makes is that all pc's have roughly the same amount.

Beyond which at 17th level, two +5 tomes is well over half the wealth by level it suggests, and given that any given metropolis only has 3d4 major magic items at any given time, and there are about 30 metropolis level cities in the entire inner sea. Expecting to be able to just snap your fingers and do some divining and teleporting to pick up +5 tomes is either a very generous gm, rule bending, or incredibly lucky.

How many times do you have to roll this to get a +5 tome? I rolled 120 major items, got about 4 tomes, none of which were over +4.

You can magic item mart 16k or less at will...more than that and either the gm helps you (via placing, or allowing you to convince an npc to make one for you) or you get lucky.

Edit: the entire point of which is to point out that without the costly material component, 80k or so gets that wizard +5 to all 6 of his stats via scroll creation without the costly components.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Expensive component based is the easiest method for gm's to control resurrection access. It prevents spamming, it explains why accidental death and murder is still a thing in the world.

And there's the problem: controlling access. I am sorry, but if I wanted my GM to control me I would invite them to a sex dungeon and not to a game of Pathfinder. Only the rules should control my character and that's it.

The rules do control your character. In this case, they say you can't Raise the Dead without a 5000 gp diamond. The DM can control whether or not you gain access to said diamond. You are saying "the rules should control my character" but also that you want to throw out these particular rules that limit you.

You need a significant barrier to Raising the Dead to make Golarion function as it is currently written. Material components are the simplest way to do that, and maybe the best. I actually agree with you that it being tied to a gold value isn't the right way to go. I like the idea of "priceless" items you can't reliably gain access to, but could always be waiting for adventurers to stumble upon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a vast difference between a 5,000 gp diamond and the nebulous, cost-less components that come in any spell component pouch (and which are entirely negated by a single feat). Removing the latter has no game impact on the former and can easily be enacted without doing so.


I find it weird that raising dead would be a problem without the material component. I have played in a BECMI/Mystara campaign for 25+ years and we had a 36th level cleric in our party and even without the material component our DM was able to control excessive use of raise dead and such. E.g. sometimes the deity/immortal just didn't want to raise certain individual. And the material component wouldn't have been enough to control as the cleric was extremely rich merchant prince.


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

This whole thread is pointless. What do we know so far?

- There has been no indication of material components in PF2.0 leaked so far by Paizo.
- The few examples of spells used in the live play podcast were acid splash and shield(no material components in PF1.0).
- Since it has been suggested that verbal and somatic components each cost an action, it seems plausible that material components would add yet another action to the action cost of most spells... unless they no longer exist, or you have the eschew components feat.
- Esoteric material components (that cost a lot!) have been floating around the Paizo offices for some while (since before PF Unchained), and since we know that magic in PF2.0 is going to be a new version on the PFU limited magic system, it seems possible they could include them.
- Alchemical power components exist in PF1.0, and we know that alchemists are getting a serious revamp in PF2.0, so perhaps alchemical power components will still be a thing.

What we don't know is whether the bog-standard D&D tradition of cheap mundane material components for most spells will continue.

It seems very likely that expensive material components will still be a thing. Nothing has appeared that would contradict that. IMHO they are still necessary, as much as ever.

I predict we'll know more soon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
This whole thread is pointless.

By extension, so is the entirety of this sub-forum.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The 'Eschew Materials' feat effectively deals with non-expensive material components and plenty of games effectively give casters that for free by assuming that they just keep their component pouch stocked by gathering materials during down times.

That leaves expensive components. These really aren't too bad and there needs to be SOME sort of limit to keep players from casting these endlessly.

In my games I have used a variant of the old 'XP cost' system instead. Powerful spells, magic item creation, magic rituals, and the like have an XP cost (related to the level of the effect), but instead of subtracting this cost from their earned experience as in prior versions of the game I have each character keep a separate running total of 'expended XP'. If their expended XP would ever exceed their earned XP then they can't cast the spell / create the item / whatever until they have earned more XP. Provides a solid limit on potentially world-altering abilities separate from GP costs.

151 to 200 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