Limiting a Spell Component Pouch

[Jester David]

Let us assume you decide the pouch holds 50 "uses" (10 uses per 1 gp). How do you then explain to the wizard's player that, since he has cast Sleep 50 times, he cannot cast his Light spell? By using up his fine sand, he has somehow run out of fireflies? There's a loss of verisimilitude here.

Your example is a bit of a stretch. Yes, in that very unlikely and laughably implausible scenario it seems silly. But on the table it should be a little easier as few people will remember the last 10 spells they've cast, let alone the last 50.

The two alternatives are tracking each individual component (that way leads madness) or assuming that even though he's been underground for three days and has been casting light every few minutes he still has an endless supply of fireflies.
It's easy enough to handwave with a "oh, you guessed you were going underground and stocked up on fireflies". But after a few days it gets incredulous.

And why must the pouch be replenished by cash outlays? The character is somehow incapable of going out at night to catch fireflies, or gathering fine sand or rose petals? He has to engage others to do these things for him?

Nope. As I've said, I'm perfectly fine with skill checks being used to gather. Say a DC 5 check restores 5 uses and +5 use for every five the check exceeds the DC. Or so. Again, some feedback on the numbers would be nice so I don't hose my players, but I won't hold my breath.
But that does require ranks or assistance. No reason an urban wizard should know how to catch fireflies or grasshoppers.

And, if it's winter, good luck with that.

It seems that, in trying to engage the caster in addressing his material components, you risk shattering suspension of disbelief (how DOES that little pouch carry enough components to cast every 0 level spell plus all those 1st level spells - even at the start of his career - a dozen or so times? What keeps all those fireflies alive in there so they can be used to cast Light every ten minutes? I have to BUY a drop of sweat to cast Touch of Fatigue??? Very few components for low level spells (at least from the core rules) seem all that difficult to come by. The more unusual/crafted ones are Focuses, so you don't need to replace it.

It is a two-pound pouch. Kinda heavy really.
If the pouch is "empty" and he can justify finding the components ("I wipe the sweat off my face and cast") I'd totally allow it because it's dramatic and evocative and cool.
No place ever says the fireflies have to be alive. I assumed they were dead and dried.

I think 5gp pays for the pouch itself - the spellcaster gathers up the components to fill it.

A regular belt pouch is 1gp. I think the extra 4gp says something is included.

Just like fighters are assumed to spend down time maintaining weapons and armor, the spellcasters maintain their spell pouches and do spell research.

Yet archers still have to buy arrows and sling users have to buy bullets despite stones being common.
There's a price for a whetstone, so a DM could arguably impose penalties if it's not bought.

 

[N'raac]

Your example is a bit of a stretch. Yes, in that very unlikely and laughably implausible scenario it seems silly. But on the table it should be a little easier as few people will remember the last 10 spells they've cast, let alone the last 50.

So what happens when the wizard has cast 50 of his combat spells and is "out of components", then memorizes a utility spell he has never used before? He didn't think to bring along those components, yet they would have been there if he'd cast one less Sleep spell?

Nope. As I've said, I'm perfectly fine with skill checks being used to gather. Say a DC 5 check restores 5 uses and +5 use for every five the check exceeds the DC. Or so. Again, some feedback on the numbers would be nice so I don't hose my players, but I won't hold my breath.

This also requires an assessment of which components are needed, doesn't it? How tough can it be to find sweat? Replacing your lost miniature bell may be tougher (a focus, so the pouch needs to be gone, but if magic is hated and feared, George's Supply Shop probably doesn't have a dozen spell component pouches laid out in various colours - and how did he know to leave out the components for my opposition schools?).

But that does require ranks or assistance. No reason an urban wizard should know how to catch fireflies or grasshoppers.

No? He just figured out how to cast the spell without ever succeeding with it before? If you can accept he's learned how to cast the spell, it seems reasonable to expect he's also learned how to get the required components. Other than really unusual components, of course.

And, if it's winter, good luck with that.

Yet once he shells out the cash, he's all replenished, since the components could be anything until he decides what spell to cast. At what point do we suspend realism in favour of game play?

It is a two-pound pouch. Kinda heavy really. If the pouch is "empty" and he can justify finding the components ("I wipe the sweat off my face and cast") I'd totally allow it because it's dramatic and evocative and cool.

How does he carry drops of sweat in the pouch when it's full? And how does he keep the wool for his Daze spell from absorbing it? Most characters have to spend time rooting around to pull specific items from a full pouch or pack. It seems like the component pouch is special somehow in enabling just the right component to be accessed as needed (even if the spell is Quickened!).

A regular belt pouch is 1gp. I think the extra 4gp says something is included.

Like the compartmentalization needed to segregate components for easy access? It must exist, or magic items that automatically place the right item in your had would speed up your spellcasting since you no longer have to poke around for the right bug in your pouch.

Seriously, would YOU pay 4 gp for some wool, wax, dead bugs and bat guano? And how does the spell pouch maker know exactly which spells I have, and what order I will use them in, to put exactly the right mix of 50 (or whatever number) components in? You think never running out strains credibility!

Yet archers still have to buy arrows and sling users have to buy bullets despite stones being common.
There's a price for a whetstone, so a DM could arguably impose penalties if it's not bought.

But they never have to replace the bowstring (or it's somehow free).

You can hurl ordinary stones with a sling, but stones are not as dense or as round as bullets. Thus, such an attack deals damage as if the weapon were designed for a creature one size category smaller than you and you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls.

So you can use stones in your sling if you so choose. And they have no assigned price, even if it's winter and there's 10' of snow on the ground. Imagine that!

How useful is a whetstone in maintaining your quarterstaff? And isn't it nice that it never wears out, even after sharpening swords every day for 50 years (or 500 if you're of the right race). "This whetstone has been in our family for thousands of years, passed from father to son, and used to sharpen our chicken killin' knife, also handed down for thousands of years."

 

[N'raac]

But let's be realistic - part of the reason we track ammo and not components is because we're trading off "realism" and "gameplay". It's not a huge deal to mark off my arrows as I shoot them (and we even check 50% retrieval for missed shots), but it would be a huge deal to track components for even half a dozen spells per spell level. Plus, arrows cost something and bugs don't.

Now, the one I saw that could be cause for alarm in a game more focused on obtaining components, especially where magic is feared or hated, is Detect Undead. Get caught collecting THAT component and see how it works out!

Pathfinder establishes a default. No doubt, some gamers prefer a different one. Don't bother tracking ammo, or encumbrance, isn't that uncommon, and tracking every component is also possible. I suspect, however, that the result of making players track every component is not a good one. Assuming the bag has components for the next X spells you cast lacks verisimilitude. Perhaps removing most components altogether is the better answer (most of them are just bad puns or loosely connected objects anyway). Now, maybe the characters need components for research, so they still risk being caught digging up grave dirt.

 

[Matthias]

Now, the one I saw that could be cause for alarm in a game more focused on obtaining components, especially where magic is feared or hated, is Detect Undead. Get caught collecting THAT component and see how it works out! .... Perhaps removing most components altogether is the better answer (most of them are just bad puns or loosely connected objects anyway). Now, maybe the characters need components for research, so they still risk being caught digging up grave dirt.

Now these are good points to make for reducing MCs to reuseable foci. If the focus for, say, a Evil spell or Necromantic spell is unusual but easily recognized, being caught possesing such items could cause the PCs a lot of trouble with local authorities (or local vigilance committees).

 

[Jester David]

So what happens when the wizard has cast 50 of his combat spells and is "out of components", then memorizes a utility spell he has never used before? He didn't think to bring along those components, yet they would have been there if he'd cast one less Sleep spell?

Yup. Odd but hardly the oddest thing in PF. Heck, I doubt it would even crack the Top 10.

No? He just figured out how to cast the spell without ever succeeding with it before? If you can accept he's learned how to cast the spell, it seems reasonable to expect he's also learned how to get the required components. Other than really unusual components, of course.

This assumes he's been casting the spells for a while. But how often has a brand new first level PC been casting spells? Have the actually used a burning hands in a life or death situation? Couldn't it all just be theory? There's no reason to assume his master didn't just hook him up with components during the apprenticeship, if the wizard isn't self-taught from reading books.

Yet once he shells out the cash, he's all replenished, since the components could be anything until he decides what spell to cast. At what point do we suspend realism in favour of game play?

I am! I'm tracking uses rather than individual components. And you said it was bad for verisimilitude.

But really, I always lean towards choosing narrative realism over gameplay. That's why I play RPGs rather than board games or a miniature wargame campaign.
Now, I opt for what I can "narrative realism" rather than hard, firm realism. Anything that wouldn't raise an eye in your average action movie but might not quite reach the level of "Confirmed" on MythBusters. Bruce Willis action movies rather than Schwarzenegger.

But they never have to replace the bowstring (or it's somehow free).

I once had a player insist he was buying 10 extra bow strings (in case one snapped). I've never DMed a bowstring snapping before, but he'd obviously seen it happen enough to be cautious.
Every D&D/PF game you play has different assumptions.

And isn't it nice that it never wears out, even after sharpening swords every day for 50 years (or 500 if you're of the right race). "This whetstone has been in our family for thousands of years, passed from father to son, and used to sharpen our chicken killin' knife, also handed down for thousands of years."

That's just tempting me to add a whetstone use limit.

But let's be realistic - part of the reason we track ammo and not components is because we're trading off "realism" and "gameplay". It's not a huge deal to mark off my arrows as I shoot them (and we even check 50% retrieval for missed shots), but it would be a huge deal to track components for even half a dozen spells per spell level. Plus, arrows cost something and bugs don't.

If you think insects are free you've never owned a pet reptile.

The sole reason we don't track components is that no one could think of a good way to track spell component consumption while tracking arrows is easy.
Hence my gameplay compromise of "50 of uses in your pouch", which is a middle ground between the bottomless pouch of fireflies and tracking exactly how many bits of wool the wizard has.

Pathfinder establishes a default. No doubt, some gamers prefer a different one. Don't bother tracking ammo, or encumbrance, isn't that uncommon, and tracking every component is also possible. I suspect, however, that the result of making players track every component is not a good one. Assuming the bag has components for the next X spells you cast lacks verisimilitude. Perhaps removing most components altogether is the better answer (most of them are just bad puns or loosely connected objects anyway). Now, maybe the characters need components for research, so they still risk being caught digging up grave dirt.

Removing components takes some of the flavour out of magic. That's some of the thinking that lead to 4e. "It doesn't directly add to the fun, so dump it."


I'm not advocating this as a rule for everyone's game, any more than I think everyone should track rations (your PCs do eat, right? ) or encumbrance. But if it fits the feel of your campaign and adds to the atmosphere and tone... how is it a bad thing?

 

[Jester David]

Okay, here's the benefit behind how I would like this to work.
(Which a "x uses in a pouch" system should.)

In adventures near an urban location, where the PCs can rest, buy food, and generally resupply the game plays normally.
The wizard might need to drop a little extra gold but this is trivial and it's easily managed by a monthly "upkeep" cost.
No changes. Period. Except maybe a wizard might be encouraged to "go gather spell components" as a downtime activity.

Where the system comes into play are those situations when the party is out of their element of away from civilization.
When they've been on the sea having sailing adventures for a month. When they're exploring the Deep Roads in a forgotten dwarven settlement. When they're trapped in the Shadow Plane trying to rescue a lost soul. When they're lost in the Trackless Desert for a fortnight.
Times when you want resources to run low. And it' nice to have the option of spell components running out.

 

[N'raac]

This assumes he's been casting the spells for a while. But how often has a brand new first level PC been casting spells? Have the actually used a burning hands in a life or death situation? Couldn't it all just be theory? There's no reason to assume his master didn't just hook him up with components during the apprenticeship, if the wizard isn't self-taught from reading books.

Have you looked at the starting age of a wizard? I'd expect he has cast the spells as part of his apprenticeship, or he would reasonably have a failure chance with them. Just as I would assume he researches in his down time, practices new spells, and this is what enables him to add new spells when he levels up.

I am! I'm tracking uses rather than individual components. And you said it was bad for verisimilitude.

Discovering the wizard was packing 50 fireflies and nothing else seems less than stellar for verisimilitude. Assuming he has little difficulty replenishing his mundane components seems much less problematic. So does a L12 wizard looting a L1 wizard's spell component pouch and being thrilled to discover all that bat guano so he can again cast Fireball, despite the fact the pouch owner could not. YMMV. The pouch vanishes into the backstory. Which, in fairness, is what you are trying to alter.

I once had a player insist he was buying 10 extra bow strings (in case one snapped). I've never DMed a bowstring snapping before, but he'd obviously seen it happen enough to be cautious.
Every D&D/PF game you play has different assumptions.

I generally have extra bowstrings for an archer. And I spend some gold on "routine maintenance" every now and again.

If you think insects are free you've never owned a pet reptile.

Yet I don't see wizards purchasing Purina Familiar Chow...

The sole reason we don't track components is that no one could think of a good way to track spell component consumption while tracking arrows is easy.

Sure.

Hence my gameplay compromise of "50 of uses in your pouch", which is a middle ground between the bottomless pouch of fireflies and tracking exactly how many bits of wool the wizard has.

Still no good ways, then. Why doesn't the wizard wear a wool sweater so he doesn't need the pouch for that spell?

Removing components takes some of the flavour out of magic. That's some of the thinking that lead to 4e. "It doesn't directly add to the fun, so dump it."

Apparently they aren't adding much flavour now as you don't like the current system. It's a game. We play for enjoyment. "If it doesn't add to the fun, ditch it" sounds fine to me. Now, we need to assess whether components add to the fun. That pouch can be stolen, at which time you need too fly by your wits to find some usable components until you have time to restock. But you won't have much trouble finding a drop of sweat or pulling a bit of wool from a sweater.

May as well pick a bat for your familiar so you'll be able to use Fireball

I'm not advocating this as a rule for everyone's game, any more than I think everyone should track rations (your PCs do eat, right? ) or encumbrance. But if it fits the feel of your campaign and adds to the atmosphere and tone... how is it a bad thing?

It's a bad thing if it detracts from the enjoyment of the game more than it adds to that enjoyment. What do your spellcaster players think of this idea?

 

[Jester David]

Apparently they aren't adding much flavour now as you don't like the current system.

I like more than I dislike. But there's a reason I'm playing Pathfinder and asking here and on the Paizo forums...

It's a game. We play for enjoyment. "If it doesn't add to the fun, ditch it" sounds fine to me. Now, we need to assess whether components add to the fun.

Monopoly is a game. If I wanted something that was just a game I would be playing Wrath if Asardalon twice a month not Pathfinder. I want something more.

Fun is also subjective.
You know what isn't fun? Dying. Losing a PC. Heck, failure itself is pretty un-fun. We should get rid of that. Critical hits are fun. Every hit should be a critical!
Yes, it's hyperbole, but I'm making a point. The touches of realism are what makes D&D and Pathfinder what they are.

That pouch can be stolen, at which time you need too fly by your wits to find some usable components until you have time to restock. But you won't have much trouble finding a drop of sweat or pulling a bit of wool from a sweater.

May as well pick a bat for your familiar so you'll be able to use Fireball

Yup. Could totally happen. Would suck but would be fun.

Last time I played a wizard I was failing a swimming challenge. The DM used our carried weight against us, and my Str 8 wizard was getting his butt kicked. So he jettisoned his spell component pouch for that extra couple pounds (and his pants). I had to do the next five sessions without a pouch, scavenging components and picking spells based on what I could find. Which was fun. Challenging but rewarding.

Sometimes not being 100% and handicapped is fun. And when you succeed you feel even more badass.

It's a bad thing if it detracts from the enjoyment of the game more than it adds to that enjoyment. What do your spellcaster players think of this idea?

I haven't yet. Not sure anyone is playing a wizard yet. I'm starting them as NPC classes with the basic stat array. Yes, I'm a horrible human being.
I wanted to be able to come up to them and say "Here's my idea. I got some feedback on the numbers and it seems balanced and fair."

 

[N'raac]

Fun is also subjective.

Absolutely - which is why I ask what your players think of the concept. What your group finds enjoyable is the most important issue.

The touches of realism are what makes D&D and Pathfinder what they are.

I always find mixing "realism" and "magic" a bit odd. Realistic magic is an oxymoron. Verismilitude is what I come back to.

I haven't yet. Not sure anyone is playing a wizard yet. I'm starting them as NPC classes with the basic stat array. Yes, I'm a horrible human being.

I wanted to be able to come up to them and say "Here's my idea. I got some feedback on the numbers and it seems balanced and fair."

Might be worth getting the input up front, rather than spending a ton of time on something your players dislike, perhaps to the point of avoiding a character needing components.