| Corwin Icewolf |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics, sorcerers, and bards basically all get the ability to cast spells without bat dookie for free. But in the case of wizards, if you don't want to use bat dookie in your spells, you have to spend a feat on eschew materials.
Kidding aside, to be clear, if you want to replace material components with something else as a wizard, you have to spend a feat, which could be used to allow you to perform melee touch spells from a distance, instead on the ability to cast spells without a 6 silver piece item. This is the worst kind of feat tax. It is a feat tax purely on flavor, there is almost no mechanical benefit over just spending the 6 silver pieces, but if you want your wizard to wave his hand instead of chucking bat dookie around, you have to make the unfortunate decision of either being less powerful mechanically, or not using their magic in the way you envisioned.
This is another thing I always thought 5e got right. You can buy a focus instead of a material component pouch. So if you want a cool staff, wand or orb you can use that to cast spells, or if you really want the bag of bat dookie for some reason, like maybe your wizard is a beautician, you can do that too.
| shroudb |
You're mixing stuff.
Wand/staff can be used for spellcasting actions. Specifically for somatic actions.
You want to use a wand for "both" somatic and materials? That's too much.
Escew materials is specifically so that you can have both hands full (like with a wand a a shield) and still be able to cast.
So, basically, you "gain" one hand with the feat. Which is about equal to the rest of the feats of that level.
In fact, it's about the same as the cleric feat that allows you to inscribe your holy symbol and not holding it on hand.
| Corwin Icewolf |
See, for me, It's a flavor choice for the kind of wizards I tend to play, and I don't like guano flavored wizards, but if I'm not likely to use a weapon and a wand, that "extra hand" does me little good, and wand+weapon is really the only time it gives the benefit you're talking about.
And sorcerers get it free, can still use wands for somatic components and aren't near as disadvantaged compared to wizards in 2e.
| shroudb |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, for me, It's a flavor choice for the kind of wizards I tend to play, and I don't like guano flavored wizards, but if I'm not likely to use a weapon and a wand, that "extra hand" does me little good, and wand+weapon is really the only time it gives the benefit you're talking about.
And sorcerers get it free, can still use wands for somatic components and aren't near as disadvantaged compared to wizards in 2e.
sorcs are way worse atm than wizards, don't bring this up as an argument.
and if the only thing you want from escew is the flavor and nothing mechanic, then that's easy to fix with a talk with your table GM. ("Can my character replace all non costly material components with "fairy dust" that i keep in this pouch?")
balance wise, the feat is fine where it is, so there's no need to suddenly "give it for free" to all wizards.
| Joey Cote |
Which would you rather do, not spend 6sp to cast a spell and have to carry around a huge list of items that you need for daily spellcasting (which only gets worse if you are going to be on an extended adventure), or be able to cast a touch spell as ranged? You have the option, its a wonderful option. Back in AD&D I played a high level wizard for years, managing the hundreds of spell components I needed was terrible.
| Cantriped |
The problem is that druids, clerics, bards, and sorcerers all have a clause allowing them to use the appropriate foci (such as a holy symbol, religious text, or instrument) to perform both somatic and material actions, but not the wizard.
Wizards should be allowed to use their arcane focus or spellbook.
Eschew materials has value to most casters who fear being captured and stripped of their equipment.
| Corwin Icewolf |
Corwin Icewolf wrote:sorcs are way worse atm than wizards, don't bring this up as an argument.See, for me, It's a flavor choice for the kind of wizards I tend to play, and I don't like guano flavored wizards, but if I'm not likely to use a weapon and a wand, that "extra hand" does me little good, and wand+weapon is really the only time it gives the benefit you're talking about.
And sorcerers get it free, can still use wands for somatic components and aren't near as disadvantaged compared to wizards in 2e.
Not really. But even if I missed something, I'd rather they boost sorcerers and let them both have the highly situational benefit.
and if the only thing you want from escew is the flavor and nothing mechanic, then that's easy to fix with a talk with your table GM. ("Can my character replace all non costly material components with "fairy dust" that i keep in this pouch?")
Still a lame material component, just the same one every time. The spells don't seem to define their material components anymore anyway so I could probably do that without talking to the gm. Now granted I could talk to the gm about having a dedicated focus or something to replace material components, assuming I manage to find a home game in the final version of the playtest, but that's kind of an oberoni fallacy argument.
balance wise, the feat is fine where it is, so there's no need to suddenly "give it for free" to all wizards.
In what way is it nearly as beneficial as the other wizard feats. Even counterspell is less situational now that they've clarified you don't have to identify spells first to use it.
Which would you rather do, not spend 6sp to cast a spell and have to carry around a huge list of items that you need for daily spellcasting (which only gets worse if you are going to be on an extended adventure), or be able to cast a touch spell as ranged? You have the option, its a wonderful option. Back in AD&D I played a high level wizard for years, managing the hundreds of spell components I needed was terrible.
Well flavor wise, I'd rather do the first one. However, were I optimizing, I would want the second one over the first since its more likely to actually be useful more than once every ten game sessions. That's the problem.
The problem is that druids, clerics, bards, and sorcerers all have a clause allowing them to use the appropriate foci (such as a holy symbol, religious text, or instrument) to perform both somatic and material actions, but not the wizard.
Wizards should be allowed to use their arcane focus or spellbook.
Eschew materials has value to most casters who fear being captured and stripped of their equipment.
Being able to manipulate your arcane focus or spellbook instead would be fantastic, even though getting stripped of your equipment doesn't happen often enough to worry about. It would be like a fighter taking improved unarmed strike in case they lose their sword.
| shroudb |
shroudb wrote:Corwin Icewolf wrote:sorcs are way worse atm than wizards, don't bring this up as an argument.See, for me, It's a flavor choice for the kind of wizards I tend to play, and I don't like guano flavored wizards, but if I'm not likely to use a weapon and a wand, that "extra hand" does me little good, and wand+weapon is really the only time it gives the benefit you're talking about.
And sorcerers get it free, can still use wands for somatic components and aren't near as disadvantaged compared to wizards in 2e.
Not really. But even if I missed something, I'd rather they boost sorcerers and let them both have the highly situational benefit.
Quote:and if the only thing you want from escew is the flavor and nothing mechanic, then that's easy to fix with a talk with your table GM. ("Can my character replace all non costly material components with "fairy dust" that i keep in this pouch?")Still a lame material component, just the same one every time. The spells don't seem to define their material components anymore anyway so I could probably do that without talking to the gm. Now granted I could talk to the gm about having a dedicated focus or something to replace material components, assuming I manage to find a home game in the final version of the playtest, but that's kind of an oberoni fallacy argument.
Quote:balance wise, the feat is fine where it is, so there's no need to suddenly "give it for free" to all wizards.In what way is it nearly as beneficial as the other wizard feats. Even counterspell is less situational now that they've clarified you don't have to identify spells first to use it.
Joey Cote wrote:Which would you rather do, not spend 6sp to cast a spell and have to carry around a huge list of items that you need for daily spellcasting (which only gets worse if you are going to be on an extended adventure), or be able to cast a touch spell as ranged? You have the option, its a wonderful option. Back in AD&D I...
it gives you a free hand, that's why it's balance wise equal to the other options.
if YOU don't want to use the hand, that's not the problem of the feat, it's your problem.
and yes, sorcs are WAY worse than wizards atm, there's no disputing that, just do a quick search on these forums alone if you don't believe me.
you still want free POWER on a class that really isn't lacking any power. So... no.
Again, it's more than the flavor, not having to waste a hand is actually much better than what a lot of classes get for their level 1 class feats.
lastly, don't even compare a "divine foci" which basically does nothing, with a wand/staff that doubles up as both a magic utility item and a weapon.
If it's just "fluff" ask for a SEPERATE "arcane foci" (not your wand/staff) from your GM, that's easy to do, and unecessary to print in the book (imo).
| Corwin Icewolf |
Corwin Icewolf wrote:shroudb wrote:Corwin Icewolf wrote:sorcs are way worse atm than wizards, don't bring this up as an argument.See, for me, It's a flavor choice for the kind of wizards I tend to play, and I don't like guano flavored wizards, but if I'm not likely to use a weapon and a wand, that "extra hand" does me little good, and wand+weapon is really the only time it gives the benefit you're talking about.
And sorcerers get it free, can still use wands for somatic components and aren't near as disadvantaged compared to wizards in 2e.
Not really. But even if I missed something, I'd rather they boost sorcerers and let them both have the highly situational benefit.
Quote:and if the only thing you want from escew is the flavor and nothing mechanic, then that's easy to fix with a talk with your table GM. ("Can my character replace all non costly material components with "fairy dust" that i keep in this pouch?")Still a lame material component, just the same one every time. The spells don't seem to define their material components anymore anyway so I could probably do that without talking to the gm. Now granted I could talk to the gm about having a dedicated focus or something to replace material components, assuming I manage to find a home game in the final version of the playtest, but that's kind of an oberoni fallacy argument.
Quote:balance wise, the feat is fine where it is, so there's no need to suddenly "give it for free" to all wizards.In what way is it nearly as beneficial as the other wizard feats. Even counterspell is less situational now that they've clarified you don't have to identify spells first to use it.
Joey Cote wrote:Which would you rather do, not spend 6sp to cast a spell and have to carry around a huge list of items that you need for daily spellcasting (which only gets worse if you are going to be on an extended adventure), or be able to cast a touch spell as ranged? You have the option, its a[/qSaying "ROAR!!! IT GIVES YOU A FREE HAND!!!" Over and over doesn't say answer the question of why it's as good as the other feats There's nothing you can do with that free hand that, as I've said already, it doesn't even always give you, that's as good as reached shocking grasp, or preparing extra spells with a familiar.
Why should the alternate option be in the book? Because of pfs, which is ridiculously hostile to even the most minor reskinning.
| shroudb |
a free hand is +2 ac with a shield, a free hand is holding a wand and a weapon, a free hand is using a two-hander without wasting actions to switch grips, a free hand is etc etc etc.
for starters, ANY gish build NEEDS that feat, like 10 times more than reach spell or whatever else is there.
if YOU don't want to use it, that's your problem.
reach is the best feat of the lot for pure casters, i don't debate that, but eschew is better than familiar imo (much more builds want eschew rather than familiar), and again, i compare it to what other classes get, like he almost identical inscribe holy symbol that clerics get, and almost always include in their war-priest builds (like gish builds auto0include eschew)
Saying"ROAR!!! WHAT DOES IT DO" and just plugging your ears and going "i don't want to hear it, i don't want to hear it, i don't want to hear it" is a terrible attitude
you haven't provided a SINGLE reason why wizards "need" that feat except "BUT I WANT IT FOR FREE"
| Corwin Icewolf |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a free hand is +2 ac with a shield, a free hand is holding a wand and a weapon, a free hand is using a two-hander without wasting actions to switch grips, a free hand is etc etc etc.
for starters, ANY gish build NEEDS that feat, like 10 times more than reach spell or whatever else is there.
if YOU don't want to use it, that's your problem.
reach is the best feat of the lot for pure casters, i don't debate that, but eschew is better than familiar imo (much more builds want eschew rather than familiar), and again, i compare it to what other classes get, like he almost identical inscribe holy symbol that clerics get, and almost always include in their war-priest builds (like gish builds auto0include eschew)
Saying"ROAR!!! WHAT DOES IT DO" and just plugging your ears and going "i don't want to hear it, i don't want to hear it, i don't want to hear it" is a terrible attitude
you haven't provided a SINGLE reason why wizards "need" that feat except "BUT I WANT IT FOR FREE"
Look I just want a non feat taxy alternative to using material components, which I have always found to be a lame silly weak attempt at sympathetic magic, they have always just been nonsense tacked on to a magic system that could have used something more appropriate, but you're only suggestion is"hope desperately that you can find a home game somewhere in the tabletop desert you live in, and hope that the gm is amenable to using something less lame." The cleric and druid alternatives are already in the rules, why can't the wizards be, Instead of me relying on finding a home game with a GM that's cool with it?
| shroudb |
shroudb wrote:Look I just want a non feat taxy alternative to using material components, which I have always found to be a lame silly weak attempt at sympathetic magic, they have always just been nonsense tacked on to a magic system that could have used something more appropriate, but you're only suggestion is"hope desperately that you can find a home game somewhere in the tabletop desert you live in, and hope that the gm is amenable to using something less lame." The cleric and druid alternatives are already in the rules, why can't the wizards be, Instead of me relying on finding a home game with a GM that's cool with it?a free hand is +2 ac with a shield, a free hand is holding a wand and a weapon, a free hand is using a two-hander without wasting actions to switch grips, a free hand is etc etc etc.
for starters, ANY gish build NEEDS that feat, like 10 times more than reach spell or whatever else is there.
if YOU don't want to use it, that's your problem.
reach is the best feat of the lot for pure casters, i don't debate that, but eschew is better than familiar imo (much more builds want eschew rather than familiar), and again, i compare it to what other classes get, like he almost identical inscribe holy symbol that clerics get, and almost always include in their war-priest builds (like gish builds auto0include eschew)
Saying"ROAR!!! WHAT DOES IT DO" and just plugging your ears and going "i don't want to hear it, i don't want to hear it, i don't want to hear it" is a terrible attitude
you haven't provided a SINGLE reason why wizards "need" that feat except "BUT I WANT IT FOR FREE"
considering that material components to cast a spell are one of the most thematic leftovers of adnd, i honestly disagree.
i do acknowledge that there's some people who don't want that, but thankfully there are options for that.
sorry but that's how things work.
i mean, look at monks. there are a lot of people who like martial artists with traditional martial arts weapons, but that requires a feat too (because it does offer mechanical benefits)
there are people who want to deliver divine justice throught their weapons but that too requires feats
there are people who etcetcetc
"base" class gives the most base of the options, and then you build them up using your feats. If you don't want to use material components, pick up a feat and be done with it.
if you want your material component pouch to be a different kind of flavor of a material component pouch, then that's purely a flavor houserule.
you don't really expect to have every flavor everyone wants printed now, do you? So we get only one. which is the most traditional dnd option. and that's fine.
p.s.
don't get me wrong. i don't have ANY issues to have a supplumentary "arcane focus instead of material pouch" option just for flavor. I just (personally) don't believe they'll include something like that.
good luck though, maybe you'll get lucky :D