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

[DND_Reborn]

Spell foci and component pouches ruined material components. Like others have mentioned, unless there is a cost, they are pointless now because they are unnecessary (again, due to spell foci and component pouches). If you play with the bookkeeeping of actual components, it makes sense to keep them--otherwise just get rid of them and say "spell foci or component pouch" because that is what 90% of the components have become.

 

[Lanefan]

Components: absolutely keep the VSM designators - it's three letters in a spell write-up so hardly space-consuming, and they very clearly tell you what's required for that spell. As for the actual material components, anything with a cost needs to be noted in the write-up; other than that the presence of a components pouch (or holy symbol for Clerics) will do.

Schools: if a school of magic is that distinctive then give it its own full class e.g. Illusionist, Necromancer, etc. Otherwise, I've never - ever - seen the point of schools of magic, and have happily ignored them for my entire DMing career.

 

[ccs]

Just imagine how much space could be saved by eliminating any type of discriptive from the game....

 

[ccs]

Components: absolutely keep the VSM designators - it's three letters in a spell write-up so hardly space-consuming, and they very clearly tell you what's required for that spell. As for the actual material components, anything with a cost needs to be noted in the write-up; other than that the presence of a components pouch (or holy symbol for Clerics) will do.

Schools: if a school of magic is that distinctive then give it its own full class e.g. Illusionist, Necromancer, etc. Otherwise, I've never - ever - seen the point of schools of magic, and have happily ignored them for my entire DMing career.

So you've never had mentors, guilds, etc that specialized in certain types of magic? Or refused to teach certain "schools"? Characters who wouldn't/couldn't cast certain types of spells? What about things resistant/vulnerable to various schools?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, I tend to find that "You need to have your arcane focus in your hand" is equally restrictive and removes some legacy text that otherwise we completely ignore. It doesn't hurt to have, but I won't weep if it vanishes either, because I prefer making up my own types of things.

Schools of magic though... I would want to keep them if they were more comprehensive. The only time they matter outside of the wizard is when using detect magic... and the issue is that few magic items have a clear school of magic, same with a lot of magical traps. So, the DM has to suddenly start making things up, and then for a lot of players hearing "You detect Abjuration magic" is about as helpful as hearing "The monster is a giant Crocuta."

So, I think we either need to lean more heavily into defining magic, or back out, but we are in a weird middle place which is putting an unnecessary pressure on the DM.

 

[Iry]

Most of the time it's irrelevant, but sometimes it can create a great cinematic moment. I don't see the harm in keeping it for those potential moments of Awesome, except maybe saving on word count.

 

[Lanefan]

So you've never had mentors, guilds, etc that specialized in certain types of magic? Or refused to teach certain "schools"? Characters who wouldn't/couldn't cast certain types of spells? What about things resistant/vulnerable to various schools?

In general, not really. Resistances and vulnerabilities are more element-based or damage-type based; and while casters are free to focus on a particular type of magic e.g. summonings or blast-castings or divinations it's by their own (player's) choice for flavour or characterization and doesn't have much if any mechanical impact.

The only exception sometimes is illusions, but there's a whole class for those.

Never mind that some of the school designations don't mesh with how I view the fiction. Cure spells, for example, have always been part of the necromantic school; and though this is technically within the definition of necromancy, to me necromancy has always carried an evil side to it - which is the exact opposite of curing, I'd think.

 

[Monayuris]

I like the designation of V,S,M in spells. But I think sometimes it becomes glossed over or ignored except for corner cases. They are good to have in the game to help guide ruling when those corner cases do occur. But they are relatively ignored many other times.

But I come from B/X as my favorite edition. It has neither components nor spell schools, and it works just fine, so their exclustion wouldn't really cause me to shed any tears.

I think V,S,M really matters more when you are dealing with a more permissive rule-set. B/X, for example, is really, really, really hard on magic-users. 5E on the other hand is really, really, really easy on magic-users. Maybe it more needs the context of V,S,M components to ground magic use.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I tend to think whenever we ignore rules like this--we just make the wizard more powerful.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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.

First, Schools: I use them as "magical descriptions of a general nature" for those able to Detect Magic in some way. I also use the school in regards to those using various Skills (Arcana, Religion and various others, if appropriate). For example, a chest may have "ancient runes carved around the lock". Now the player makes an Arcana (lets say) check and succeeds: "The runes are a warning involving concepts of Evocation". So, now the PC might decide to actually cast a Detect Magic on it to see if they can get more specific info...or leave it alone...or cast Dispel Magic just to be sure, etc. Another example, I might describe an area, but then give more info to the elven druid after a Nature Skill roll: "You, however, distinctly get a feeling of unease. The place has little patches of Moonlight Moss, and you can see a few Glow-Bugs flitting about...the area has a focus of Enchantment about it, but you can't make out anything specific".

In a nutshell...I use it every now and then to reward and encourage Players/PC's to utilize things other than Flame Bolt and Sneak Attack.

Second, Material Components: YES! Definitely use them! One of the first things I adjusted was to encourage Players to try and keep track of and pick up the specific Material Components. I did this by simply adding a 'carrot': If the PC actually has the appropriate Material Components that DO NOT have a "specific mention and price" (re: "A diamond worth at least 50gp's")...then they can get a 'bonus' to the spell. They can choose this bonus, and it is basically a +1 to the DC save, or +10% to the spells Range or Area of Affect, or maybe +1 extra person if it normally affects several people, etc), or maybe some other minor effect that they think would be cool or "character thematic". It may not be as cool as "You don't have it, you can't cast it...or you have to use a substitute and hope for the best"...but it's better than just "Oh, I have Spell Component Pouch". Bleeaachh!

IMNSHO, irrelevant stuff I’ve said many times before and is virtually assured to start arguments.

Please don’t keep doing this. You’re approaching a literal point of no return.

^_^

Paul L. Ming