Generally, the number of components a spell has is the same as its action cost: 1-action spells have one component, 2-action ones have two components, and 3-action ones have three components. Is this an actual design requirement, that all spells must have one component for each action casting takes? Or is it just a general design choice that can be ignored if appropriate when designing new spells?
[Wasn't sure whether this belongs here, or in the 3rd-party/homebrew rules & design section. Feel free to move it if it's in the wrong place.]
I believe in the playtest, it was a working rule they were going by, however, I seem to recall hearing that after the playtest this was dropped. I believe there are actual examples of spells that don't follow that. (potentially one action, but multiple components, etc) However, I don't recall any specific example spell.
I believe, if you invent a new spell, you should probably use the number of actions to give you an idea of how many components. But I don't believe it is a hard fast rule.
Certainly, things that remove a component, do not for instance remove an action. And if something reduces actions, doesn't remove components.
Magic Missile. Somatic and Verbal components no matter whether you are casting the 1, 2, or 3 action version.
It isn't entirely accurate, but I still think of the components as being subordinate actions. They behave similarly enough for a general analogy.
So just like how Flurry of Blows only costs one action, but has two Strike actions inside it - casting a spell only costs the listed number of actions no matter how many spell component actions it needs.
Also (it is a focus spell though), Hymn of Healing. Two actions to cast and only Verbal component.
Ah, that's good to know. Was thinking about how to port the best flavour spell from 5e (vicious mockery), and the various design niches it filled there, and I realised that this was the biggest hurdle to an accurate port. Keeping it verbal only would've made it significantly more powerful in PF2 (or required it to be significantly nerfed) if that meant it had to be one-action, so it's good to know that they don't have to be one-for-one.
Thanks, you two. ^_^