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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Without V or S components, how should the DM determine which spells can be cast underwater, in a vacuum, silenced, or while tied up?

Schools are fun. I see no reason to remove them.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Shadow of the Demon Lord does something similar, though it also breaks traditions up by the casting attribute the tradition uses.

Spell traditions are more like thematic cleric domains. Much as you say "this would give more fodder both for world design and character design." I like systems that do this (e.g., Fantasy AGE, True 20, etc.) because it gives you more distinct building blocks that allow you to homebrew in various ways. For example, you can say that the War Academy of Magic teaches Arcana, Battle, Fire, and Protection traditions.

 

[Raith5]

I have never factored in costless spell components. Throwing bat guano and rubbing fur didnt seem magical to me in 1e when I was kid and doesnt now.

 

[Azzy]

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.

Spell components have NEVER been necessary. Take the "basic" D&D line of B/X, BECMI, RC, etc. It didn't have spell components, schools, damage types, etc. D&D doesn't need those things (though I like the spell schools), and they could easily be removed without affecting the game. Heck, spell components have been one of the most ignored things from AD&D onwards (along with armor modifiers for weapons, weapon speeds, moral, racial level limits, etc.).

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I've been considering implementing components by class:

Artificer = M + S
Wizards = M + V + S
Cleric = V + F (holy symbol [god radio])
Druid = V, S, + F (mistletoe or similar)
Sorcerer = V, S
Bard = V + F (instrument + music)
Warlock = S + V ( + F [pact boon])
Paladin = V + S
Ranger = M + S

 

[clearstream]

The well prepared rogue can hide a dagger or lockpick to escape. The fighter can use raw strength to fashion an improvised weapon from a bedframe. Shouldn't the well prepared wizard have the option to have the right spell in hand?

And while gagging the wizard is workable, another effective approach is to blindfold them. Most spells require a visible target, and even for something like dimension door which does not, it's a lot harder to pick a viable destination spot when you've no idea of your surroundings.

Wizards quite often don't have sleight of hand, in my experience

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I like components. It actually helps to visualise what's happening in the fiction. And yes, in practice they don't often matter, but then there are certain situations in which they very much do. I don't like the focis though, as they just invalidate the need to use material components. I don't allow focis in my game.

Spell schools I really don't care about. I like the idea of spells being divided in some sort of thematic groups, as then you can link mechanics to that and assign them to classes for which they fit to, but I just feel that the normal D&D spell schools are not particularly thematically strong or interesting.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've been considering implementing components by class:

Artificer = M + S
Wizards = M + V + S
Cleric = V + F (holy symbol [god radio])
Druid = V, S, + F (mistletoe or similar)
Sorcerer = V, S
Bard = V + F (instrument + music)
Warlock = S + V ( + F [pact boon])
Paladin = V + S
Ranger = M + S

Does the mean that the paladin needs to keep a hand free to cast spells? I could see this as being very limiting.

 

[jasper]

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

1. I reply " "
2You very very jolly good right. I took out all the descriptive stuff in my first reply.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Does the mean that the paladin needs to keep a hand free to cast spells? I could see this as being very limiting.

I'd let a weapon act as extension of the paladin's hand, but wouldn't allow a paladin to cast while tied up.