Level Up (A5E) Spell components with a cost...

[tetrasodium]

They are a good gating & limiting feature, but when the spells have the individual components listed by cost in the spell descriptions it makes it really tough to adjust the economy or even poke the gm if caster feels like the gm is being short on gold and not giving tout the components needed. This could be avoided by having a list of rare & expesive components used in the spell list plus a few extra for futureproofing additions.

Instead of chromatic orb saying it needs a diamond wort 50gp it uses 1 gram of chaos shale & circle of death uses 5 grams of necrotic infused pearl then 1 gram of each is listed on a table with the other costly components as 50gp & 100gp/gram giving the player a simple table of "maybe reprice these things GMbob?" & the GM a simple thing they can scan for useful sellable stuff the party might want to keep.

 

[aco175]

I like the idea of super components or universal components, like residium from 4e. There could be a 'magic item' that covers all components below 100gp, like a wand or such. I like making PCs quest for a rare components like a unicorn horn which may allow healing spells to be cast at +1 level or something.

 

[tetrasodium]

I like the idea of super components or universal components, like residium from 4e. There could be a 'magic item' that covers all components below 100gp, like a wand or such. I like making PCs quest for a rare components like a unicorn horn which may allow healing spells to be cast at +1 level or something.

That's another good solution. The current state is so obnoxious that IME both gms & players forget until someone notices they need it for this new spell they want or a GM remembers a player bringing it up to point it out to players who hadn't really considered the spell because of it. Other than the "this spell should almost never be used" insane cost items consumed by spells like raise dead & such I find a lot of tables just ignore it or say subtract the gold with nobody really tracking it.

 

[clearstream]

They are a good gating & limiting feature, but when the spells have the individual components listed by cost in the spell descriptions it makes it really tough to adjust the economy or even poke the gm if caster feels like the gm is being short on gold and not giving tout the components needed. This could be avoided by having a list of rare & expesive components used in the spell list plus a few extra for futureproofing additions.

Instead of chromatic orb saying it needs a diamond wort 50gp it uses 1 gram of chaos shale & circle of death uses 5 grams of necrotic infused pearl then 1 gram of each is listed on a table with the other costly components as 50gp & 100gp/gram giving the player a simple table of "maybe reprice these things GMbob?" & the GM a simple thing they can scan for useful sellable stuff the party might want to keep.

It's possible that ritual and having a cost should become synonymous. So that all spells that can be ritual cast have non-trivial material costs. And all other spells can be cast just using a focus.

There are a few spells that could be shifted around, like detect magic becoming a cantrip.

This is all probably outside the scope of Level Up, as it is really rebalancing.

 

[R_J_K75]

I generally don't use components for spells much anymore but I would like to see an index of components with their price and rarity in the spell description section of the book.. With the ability to quickly reference what components are for which spells I may be more inclined to use them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's possible that ritual and having a cost should become synonymous. So that all spells that can be ritual cast have non-trivial material costs. And all other spells can be cast just using a focus.

That brings back bad memories of 4E. I went through all the trouble of taking a feat and actually learning the rituals, only to have them require cash for every attempt, and then probably fail due to the skill check requirement. It's a feels-bad mechanic.

 

[glass]

That brings back bad memories of 4E. I went through all the trouble of taking a feat and actually learning the rituals, only to have them require cash for every attempt, and then probably fail due to the skill check requirement. It's a feels-bad mechanic.

"A cost" does not have to equal "cash" (any more than it did in 4e). Also, nobody in my 4e game (or my PF1 game with similar homebrew ritual rules) ever seemed to feel bad about rituals. But then the skill checks (where required - a lot of rituals were "no check") were pretty easy, so I do not remember anyone failing one.

_
glass.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"A cost" does not have to equal "cash" (any more than it did in 4e).

In 4E, every ritual that I can recall had a cost that was represented in terms of cash. Some of them also required a healing surge, of course, but the cash was the primary cost.

Also, nobody in my 4e game (or my PF1 game with similar homebrew ritual rules) ever seemed to feel bad about rituals. But then the skill checks (where required - a lot of rituals were "no check") were pretty easy, so I do not remember anyone failing one.

That seems unlikely, unless you were specifically built to focus on those checks, or you specifically only used rituals that worked without making a check. Knock comes to mind as a ritual which both has a ridiculous cash cost and is likely to fail against level-appropriate challenges.

 

[glass]

In 4E, every ritual that I can recall had a cost that was represented in terms of cash. Some of them also required a healing surge, of course, but the cash was the primary cost.

No they didn't. If the Compendium was still around I would give you examples, but since it is gone you will have to take my word for it (or not).

That seems unlikely, unless you were specifically built to focus on those checks, or you specifically only used rituals that worked without making a check.

Yes, but the sorts of characters who are going to be using rituals in the first place are characters who are going to be good at those checks by default. The two ritual casters in my 4e RotRL game were a Psion and an Artificer, so Int primary and trained in Arcana without any real investment (and the Artificer had decent Wis and training in Heal too). In the WotBS campaign that I played in, my Bard was the ritual caster (Int secondary, decent Wis for multiclassing purposes, and trained in pretty-much everything).

Knock comes to mind as a ritual which both has a ridiculous cash cost and is likely to fail against level-appropriate challenges.

TBF, nobody in my games ever bothered with Knock, possibly for those very reasons. OTOH they made extensive use of Comprehend Languages (which cannot fail) and Phantom Steed (which theoretically could, but won't).

_
glass.