That doesn't, IMO, nerf casters. They can hide multiple component pouches on their person if they are worried about losing both their focus and components. They may also want to have some safe house, store room, hidden cache, or laboratory where they store extra components in case they lose the components on their person. This just drips spell casting flavor for me.
One other change I am thinking about now is that the spell caster can only be attuned to one focus at a time. But it is a special focus-attunement slot that doesn't count against magic item attunement limits. Otherwise, at higher levels, the caster can just have, say, an extra wand hidden on his person. I like the idea that if your wand/instrument/staff/holy symbol is broken, stolen, lost, you need to get somewhere where you can take the time and money to make or buy a new one.
It drips with flavor, but I can also see it being aggravating. Having multiple component pouches means that they have to have multiples of the same components. For some easy, for those which are quest worthy did they get four or five of the component?
And which bag is it in? If components are specific and become necessary then they have to mark which bag the component is in, unless they are quantum bags which contain what they need to contain at the time.
IRL "magic" rituals are full of stuff like this. I like magic to have these weird associations. Most adventurers can sew. It is assumed they mend and make simple items as they travel. It would not be difficult to stitch together a small cloak. It needn't be perfect. And, yes, I do love the idea of a wizard trying to trade or steal a pixie's cloak. It is a fun role-playing opportunity.
A fun roleplay opportunity, but for a cantrip almost no one uses anyways because it isn't good enough.
I admit, I didn't realize people who weren't proficient in Tailor's Tools can sew clothing, but it just makes a little used cantrip less likely to be picked at later levels because they are going to look at the component list and decide it isn't worth the time and effort.
And, while "realism" is cool, sometimes it causes gameplay problems that I don't want to deal with.
Good creative thinking! Hopefully your mentor is high enough level to provide one to you. But maybe you have to go get a newt for him to petrify for you.
See, this is why I LOVE making components matter. My D&D games need more newt hunts!
See, I think it would just frustrate my players. They want to focus on getting to the Temple of Light to discover information about the trouble brewing in the Western Mountains while dealing with the fact that the Sorcerer just picked up an orphaned ward by promising to teach them magic.
Not hunting down amphibians so they can cast spells like the rules allow.
Note - I am not doing away with spell focus. Just that you have to have studied with the component before you can cast the spell with the focus. I assume that the wizards academy or higher-level caster you are learning from will have this available. Or go to jewelers and pay to let them study with a diamond for a nominal fee. If you want a backup diamond while travelling, in case you loe your focus, well, you need to find a way to get one.
Well, in this specific case this was just me grouching because in fact you are wrong about how Chromatic Orbs component works. Remember, you can use a focus in place of material components as long as the material components do not have a listed price. Chromatic orb is specifically a diamond worth at least 50 gp.
So, RAW, you need that diamond to cast that spell. No matter what. I find it a stupid restriction for a mid-tier 1st level spell.
Edit: It seems you caught it requiring the diamond in later posts. You did say something I'd want to point out though "Why couldn't the diamond be a quest reward?"
Two things. One, you'd have to tell the player ahead of time that you are going to give this item as a reward so it is fine if they take the spell. Two, most tables aren't so lovey-dovey that the team would be willing to do something dangerous for all of them simply so one person could get something. Even if it was something like giving the Fighter Plate Mail which is demonstrably useful for the entire party, I'd have the rest of the group asking me "That's great, but what am I getting for doing this?"
It is a style thing I bet, but the idea of a reward being so specific is unusual to me.
Again, not an issue for me.
1. No oaks in your area? I smell a plot hook.
2. Someone else may have some and sell it to you or your mentor may let you borrow to study with it and then you use your focus to cast thereafter.
3. Upthread there was a recommendation to allow players to propose alternative components and make a skill check with an alchemist set to see if they can figure out how to cast the spell with the substitute. I'm all for that! So then, yes, try with the bark from other trees.
4. My players use DnD Beyond, so no copying from one sheet to another. I trust them to manage their own inventories. If I wanted to, I suppose I could review their DnD Beyond sheets, but if I felt the need to do that, I wouldn't be playing with them.
4) Yeah, we use paper sheets. I've only got one person using DnD Beyond, and I generally end up forgetting it is an option
1) I don’t smell a plot hook. More than likely, I would ask you the DM if there were Oaks in the region, and if you said no, I just wouldn’t take the spell. Why take a spell that I won’t be able to use until I complete a sidequest, which requires interrupting whatever the party is currently doing or wants to do next, instead of a spell that has easily available components that won’t disrupt the party’s plans and that I can use quickly. I’ve seen this quite often, personal quests take a backseat to the main storyline, and players will feel pressure to opt for quicker resolutions to not hold up the rest of the group.
You do research. You make a nature check. You do trial and error. Banishment is an annoying, broken spell without this limitation. Even with a focus, I would say, you need to bring to mind something distasteful to the creature that you have actually physically held in the past. Which is great for role-playing. If give the wizard an incentive to play around with every disgusting thing he comes across so he can properly envision it when casting the spell.
Hey, that's their choice. But if you want to have banishment, you better start getting up close and personal with a lot of gross stuff. Sure, most will rely on there focus...until they have it stolen or destroyed. I'm not going to cry from them. They can still cast spells without material components and they could have stocked up on some back up material components. A fighter that gets disarmed doesn't have as many backup options.
You can’t really “trial and error” banishing a giant so the party can run away. You either can or you can’t. And, I feel like in practice, this limitation is only going to make it more likely Banishment is used in it’s most annoying context, because players are only going to be capable of using it on enemies that they can prepare for for a significant amount of time, so boss monsters especially.
Or, you’ll allow “that time I touched an Otyugh” to count for 90% of Banishment uses and it won’t end up mattering anyways.
ABSOLUTELY! Why is everyone making the enemies so damn polite. Disarm the fighters! Steal/destroy/cast away the wizards pouches and wands. Make the party think more tactically. Have backups to your backup. Take measures to make it difficult to steal your components and focus.
Because I have trouble with players who haven’t figured out focusing fire is a good strategy or that finishing the fight before looting the bodies is better than “called it” and running the enemy wizard’s corpse. Heck, I get new players who can’t remember how to cast spells regularly.
If I actually disarmed the fighter and took away their weapon in a combat, I’d probably end up with a TPK that combat.
And additionally, in so many of the cases with these material components, once you have the thing, even if your focus gets taken away you can still cast. Unless you also take their components or they don’t have that component. So, unless I’m spending two rolls to remove all combat potential from them, it doesn’t end up mattering. Sure, I could have the valor bard tell me they drop their shield, grab the pinch of salt they took from old man Jenkins in episode two to cast their spell, then use their item interaction to pick up their shield and reequip it… or, they can tell me what they cast and we can keep the combat moving. The place we end up is the same, so why make them jump through hoops they don’t want to jump through.
I'm not saying that each and every component has to be a side quest. In fact, obtaining many components will be a downtime activity. But it gives additional tactical considerations that add to more interesting combats. It balances out some spells like banishment. And it does give a wealth of plot hooks and role-playing opportunities.
But, if the players don't want to deal with it, then, like encumbrance, it can be handwaved. But many people enjoy the resource management aspect.
And like I said in my first comment, if this leads to a game you and your players will enjoy, go for it and I wish you well.
But, whether this ends up fun for the players is debatable, and whether you really want some of the potential results is questionable. After all, if I was a wizard who kept getting his staff stolen and it messed up my casting and I kept having to make new ones, I ask for one to be made with a chain and manacle it to my wrist so it can’t be stolen. Or pick spells with simple components that are easy to obtain and specify that I’m carrying five different component pouches, with a few spares in our luggage. Because I don’t want to deal with losing my abilities.
Or, play a monk and be incapable of being disarmed. Or tattoo my holy symbol on my hands so I always have my holy symbol available.
But, these aren’t done for interesting character reasons, they are pre-emptive counters to the DM. which just make them less fun for me. I don’t want to be constantly trying to out-think the DM, I want to enjoy the game.
Uh, is it common to NOT track ammunition? I've played 5e for over 4 years and never tracked or had players track components in any game I've played in or ran, but in every one, ammunition was tracked. And this is RAW. After a battle, if you spend a minute searching the battlefield, you can recover 50% of your spent ammunition. This assumes you are tracking your ammunition in the first place.
Do archers in your game just have unlimited ammunition?
It isn't any more difficult counting arrows than hit points. HeroLab will even print off character sheets with little boxes to check off for tracking limited resources like ammunition. On-line character sheets make it even easier. Some DMs hand out toothpicks to represent arrows/bolts/bullets. When the character makes a ranged attack they can just throw the toothpick onto the battlemap.
I’ve never bothered to track arrows in DnD or bullets in most games. 20 arrows cost 1 gold. Player decides to spend 5 gold of their starting cash on arrows and starts with 120. They will need to make around 240 attack rolls per RAW before they need to get more arrows. But frankly, even that many bought is over kill because enemies carry arrows, and killing a tribe of 8 goblins will probably net you at least 24 more arrows, and those gnolls carry arrows, and those bandits carry arrows.
And it only costs 5 gold to replenish back to stock if all that fails at some point during the campaign.
The only limitation is if you start using only 20 arrows per quiver and a player is only allowed to carry one quiver. Then they either get a cart or a mule to carry their extra equipment or they run out if they are away from a town for more than a few weeks. of dangerous trecking… unless they can simply make more arrows as a fletcher.
It simply isn’t worth the headache.
