D&D 5E Are components (V,S,M) and schools in spell writeups really necessary for spells anymore?

[Kobold Avenger]

Thinking on the design of spells and their writeup entries and the latest complaints about "psionic magic", I don't think there's any relevance to components and school anymore compared to spell levels, range, casting time, duration and so on. Unless the material component is costly, most are going ignore the M. And very rarely does V or S come up such as in the case of Silence or Grappling. Schools are often arbitrary as it could be argued whether one spell belongs to a school or not.

I know those exist for legacy reasons and for the Wizard subclasses mainly. Removing schools from arcane spells left a lot of uninspired powers in their place during 4e because of the strict adherence to AEDU, the utility / attack divide and level filling for powers. It left no room for creative choices or spells that rely on player creativity like a lot of the illusion school spells. But going back to the 9 levels plus cantrips model, I feel in some cases the school could really just be keywords like: Evocation, Fire for fireball, or Psychic for something like Mind Blast. But design based on keywords though easy for those with system mastery to read, but it seems like it might go against the tendency to use natural language in 5e. Also I'm guessing that keyword soup could potentially be a problem if certain spells have too many keywords (maybe limit them to 3 or 5).

As for components themselves, I feel it should be which components used should be primarily a function of the class or subclass. Wizards and Druids must use V,S and M or focus for all spells, and that Bards must use V, and Artificers must use M, and Psions don't use those 3 at least but might use something else.

 

[Vael]

I dunno, I see the value for flavour reasons. That said ... Sorcerers should ignore material components, and some of the legacy components are frustrating like the cost for Shapechange or Chromatic Orb.

 

[CleverNickName]

I guess I'm in the "Not Broken/Don't Fix" camp. I don't have a problem with components and schools.

They are as "relevant" and "necessary" as your DM wants them to be, I guess. Folks that don't want them can ignore them easily enough...a lot easier than it would be for folks who do want them to add them back in, anyway.

 

[MarkB]

The non-valuable material components are pretty irrelevant, but I find the verbal and somatic components useful in indicating what it takes to cast a particular spell, and what it's going to look like in the fiction.

For instance, if a spell has a verbal component, you need to be speaking it in a clear voice - so if you're casting guidance to help someone's stealth check it's probably counterproductive, and if you're doing so to enhance an ally's deception check it's going to be pretty obvious to the person they're speaking to that you just cast a spell.

And if it has a somatic component, that means you need to be keeping a hand free in order to cast it, so consider carefully what you're carrying, and if you're trying to do it while climbing a rope or a steep cliff you'd better be keeping a very good grip with your other hand.

 

[Burnside]

I enjoy the specificity of material components for flavor.

Whether or not a spell has verbal or somatic components doesn’t come up a lot, but in every campaign I’ve played that was a reasonably lengthy one, it absolutely mattered a handful of times.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

For instance, if a spell has a verbal component, you need to be speaking it in a clear voice - so if you're casting guidance to help someone's stealth check it's probably counterproductive, and if you're doing so to enhance an ally's deception check it's going to be pretty obvious to the person they're speaking to that you just cast a spell.

A player is going to argue they're casting the spell by whispering the verbal component.

But it does go back to my idea that those components shouldn't be in the spell themselves, but rather the classes themselves.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The non-valuable material components are pretty irrelevant, but I find the verbal and somatic components useful in indicating what it takes to cast a particular spell, and what it's going to look like in the fiction.

Sure, but what's the benefit to having that vary between individual spells? If all spells require you to speak clearly and gesture freely, it tells us just as much about what's going on in the narrative, but it saves a bunch of bookkeeping.

 

[Inchoroi]

I actually love components for spells, as both a DM and a player--but especially in the very rare instances that I get to play. I use them for roleplay during such times.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Spell components are important to me, and I would like to have material components revisited to be a more tangible resource again, but one that isn't too laborious to track.

But I'd be happy to be rid of the schools of magic as they currently exist. Instead of 8 broad and vague schools, I'd rather have numerous specific schools with fewer spells each. Fire Magic, Healing, Charm, Artifacing, Terraforming, etc. I think this would give more fodder both for world design and character design.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The non-costly material components and somatic components matter a lot if your hands are full.