D&D 5E Material components

[Helldritch]

I only track component if the component is worth one gp or more. Or if the character lost its focus item somehow. Otherwise, I rely on the player's honesty.

 

[Maxperson]

I only track component if the component is worth one gp or more. Or if the character lost its focus item somehow. Otherwise, I rely on the player's honesty.

Or in prior editions, when the component is a freaking LIVE SPIDER. I mean, how and where do you keep something like that? And why would you want to eat it? Just get a party rogue.

 

[Umbran]

Well, most spell components are reduced to "Do you have a pouch or spell focus on you?" So, most of the time, I treat them like I do other mundane consumables like food - if you are in a normal area, and are paying your upkeep, you have it. They are a useful handle on scarcity scenarios, but otherwise not a big deal.

This being aside from specific components with a high cost. Those, I track more closely.

 

[Stormonu]

I've tried and tried to track components. I just don't find it worth the effort. I only concern myself anymore if there's an expensive spell component.

 

[Helldritch]

Or in prior editions, when the component is a freaking LIVE SPIDER. I mean, how and where do you keep something like that? And why would you want to eat it? Just get a party rogue.

Ho... in 1ed? I had an excel spread sheet for all character's components and I was keeping track of it like a raving madman. Even a failed spell would use up a component. It was really hard being a caster in 1ed...

I started to relax on components in 2nd edition. I have been tracking 1gp+ component ever since.

 

[Waterbizkit]

How does it effect the gameplay? E.g. did it cause any spectacular story elements, like fighting the main enemy they ran out of components. Do the players like it?

I'd be lying outright if I said it always resulted in spectacular story moments, but I do feel it can lead to significantly more decision points for the players depending on the situation, and those in turn can impact the story. I find this particularly true on the clerical side of things, though perhaps that's where I notice it most because I run fairly brutal combats where I'm not afraid to use intelligent enemies intelligently. I do things like focus on downed characters that are still a perceived threat should they rejoin the fight, altering tactics based on what the PCs are actually doing, up to and including retreat to a stronger position (even if this means leaving the "battle map") or altering positions and patrols if the PCs do something like attack, clear an area partially and then leave. But I'm getting off track a bit.

When a Greater Restoration is actually going to cost 100gp in diamond dust per casting, Heroes Feast a 1,000gp gem-encrusted bowl per casting, or even a simple Revivify costing 300gp in diamonds per casting and you make the players consider that, they have to plan accordingly. I mean it's no wonder some folk think it's harder to threaten PCs after the first few levels in 5E if they're letting Clerics sling free Revivifies left & right. And I'm not out to kill the PCs, but I want to challenge them and the more they have to think ahead about this kind of stuff, the more they have to be prepared to both plan ahead and to alter those plans should things go sideways.

You can still say the same for more "arcane" casters though. Take something like Simulacrum. If the spell actually cost 1,500gp in powdered ruby every time it got cast, that's not necessarily something that will get abused or, if nothing else, not something the player won't take into some consideration. Or what about Teleportation Circle? In my games, and this will obviously vary for table to table so may not be applicable, I typically make sure the PCs have ample chance to befriend NPCs that will grant them access to various circles they can use as return points so they can get back to these important places/people from wherever they may be. Being able to extricate yourself from the middle of nowhere once the quest is completed is great... so long as you have that 50gp worth of chalks and inks which the spell will gobble up... if not be prepared to hoof it back to civilization.

From time to time this kind of thing leads to interesting story moments. Not being able to revive a downed ally has caused players to turn back, which in turn had lead to alterations in the adventure site, like more enemies and reinforced areas, or major alterations to the story where the PCs return and the place has cleared out... the evil ritual was completed, the enemies absconded with the precious McGuffin or maybe they just took all the generic, but still ultimately valuable treasure and scarpered off before the players could return. Likewise walking home when you thought you were going to be able to "bampf" back can lead to all kinds of fun and interesting things.

Lastly, and quickly, yes, my players seem to like it overall. I've not heard complaints and when they're planning ahead and I hear them considering things like "Well, I have three spell slots for X, but I only have enough of Y component to cast it once..." it seems to be adding that extra layer I usually hope that it will.

Anyway, I've rambled on longer than intended. That's my two bits. Hope it's helpful or at least mildly interesting.

 

[Waterbizkit]

Double-post apparently.

 

[Li Shenron]

Pretty simple, so I don't know why people ignore it.

Because the rules tell them to? You CAN use specific material components if you want, but a focus or component pouch is so much simpler that it's no surprise few players choose to go with the specific components.

I've always found the idea of tracking specific ingredients for each spell amusing, but I would never force my players to comply with that. It's something that should stay very much voluntary. It can also create a small burden for the DM to balance the availability of all ingredients so that shortages can happen without them being frustrating.

 

[R_J_K75]

For me it comes down to what type of game does the DM and players want to run? If its a meticulously tracked inventory game where encumbrance is used then Id definitely track components, how many pages each spell takes up in a spellbook and how much it weighs. Chances are a high level wizard is going to have more than one spellbook, and non-magical backpacks and pouches only hold so much. Add spell components to this and theres alot of factors that can dictate which spells are available to a wizard at any given time.

We played a campaign where we took all of this into account where I played a Mage. I remember having multiple spellbooks and having to choose which ones to take and which ones to leave behind when preparing to go out on an adventure. Including spellbooks, components, magical items and mundane equipment I could only carry so much. This was a fun campaign, made for very realistic game.

Nowadays my players and I dont care to worry about components other than really costly or rare ones. Even then as the DM this is something I'd consider before I even gave a player a spell. Its just more of a hassle to do the bookkeeping. As we only play once every 2 weeks for a few hours, it adds nothing to our game so we dont keep track of components, inventories, or even gold...within reason. I run my games off the assumption that as adventurers the players are going to be somewhat prepared for the adventuring life and can afford most of the mundane necessities of that lifestyle.

 

[DnD Warlord]

When I DM I leave it for the player to track... but I try to make sure they are not too crazy “wait where did you find diamonds”.
As a pc I have played in every level of in between on this. Right now I am in a game that we don’t even really track our currency... we have a go value, but is it in gems coins (what type of gems or coins) we never track... so every identify I just mark off 100gp. Every teleport circle I just mark off the gold values. Because we are useing roll 20 it is way easier