Take for example the stoneskin spell, there is a GP cost and a limited amount of damage it can absorb, just pick one.
*squints eyes*
Between GP cost and damage absorptions, who would pick "GP cost?"
We quit worrying about spell components years ago. Unless you are in a situation where your party is basically captured and stripped naked, we assume you have the components to cast any spell you want. it hasn't really affected game balance, and it's fun to be able to cast spells without having to keep a spreadsheet of available components.
A handful of spells are supposedly balanced around costly spell components. But I can't think of many cases where it's warranted. Maybe Wish, which most games don't get around to using anyway.
Greater restoration, limited wish, raise dead, resurrection, restoration, true resurrection, wish (and spells that are permanent or make other spells permanent) are the ones that make sense for a GP cost. Most other spells not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you pull a 1/100th deathsnatcher feather out of your spell component pouch?
- How do you pull a spider web or a flame out of your SCP?
You're once again trying to move the goalposts, just like you did with the "Pretty sure that Euryale scales cost (RAI) more then 1 GP". I really hope you don't act that way when GMing.
It's a game. Material components are made to check whether the character has a free hand and access to their equipment. What they aren't made to check is how much of a dick the GM can be.
Seriously, what exactly the material component is, is just flavor with no mechanical effect, and playing otherwise is a significant divergence from the rules. The game literally tells you "Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch."
Look, no one minds you houseruling something you don't want in your campaign as-written. It's completely normal for GMs to do so, and I'd even call it proper GMing. But be honest about it, and be consistent. Don't hide behind some made-up thing that you present as following the rules. And if you do try to implement a houserule disguised as some sort of "just following logic" in-universe limitation, don't complain when players find a to circumvent said limitation. After all, finding solutions to obstacles is an intergral part of the game.
Fly is a great spell, MP 1 is basically strictly superior to it, and, for one person
If a polymorph spell is dispelled, you fall to the ground and go splat. If Fly is dispelled, you gently float down. Fly also grants a bonus to fly check (+4 plus half caster level). And lastly, Fly can be cast on others.
The offensive boost is thus generally speaking comparable (in some cases more then that) to the one from haste
I once did the math for my Summoner, and found that Haste adds to the group's damage per round as much as the entire per-turn output of one of the group's best damage dealers. MP1 is not out of line for the power level of a 3rd level spell, especially for the few classes whose spell lists it appears on.
The monstrous physique change is less about components and more a 1/0 depending if your chars is sufficiently familar with the monster or not.
ANd it says that where, exactly? Wild Shape has the line "The form chosen must be that of an animal with which the druid is familiar.", but no such line exists for any of the polymorph spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
ANd it says that where, exactly? Wild Shape has the line "The form chosen must be that of an animal with which the druid is familiar.", but no such line exists for any of the polymorph spells.
So I noticed . . . seems like a serious oversight.
- The line is copy-pasted form the 3.5 Wild Shape text. It should be noted that the 3.5 polymorph spells don't have such text.
Also relevant is that Paizo made the polymorph rules from scratch, and did not include anything like that line. The "piece of the creature whose form you plan to assume" material component is also a Paizo invention (3.5 Polymorph required "An empty cocoon", and other spells like Alter Self didn't have any material component), yet there is no mention of familiarity, or the material component being expensive or hard to get, in the polymorph rules.
Considering how cowardly WotC was with non-spell class features, it looks like a deliberate choice for 3.5, and an artifact for PF.
^I don't think "cowardly" is the right adjective, but they sure were something(*) with non-spell class features . . . although that is most likely just inherited all the way from original D&D.
(*)"Stingy", "penny-pinching", and "miserly" all come to mind, and seems to me like they still fit for D&D 5e.