Disarm, why so easy?

[Nail]

That's not the way D&D 3.5 is designed. All low-value, regular spell components fit in one pouch.

D&D 3.5 is "designed" for all components to be in one pouch? Whatever gave you that idea? How strange.

FWIW, Artoomis, my groups have never played that way.

 

[Nail]

Just like clerics and holy symbols, there's little reason for a wizard to have only one place where his material components go.

 

[Artoomis]

D&D 3.5 is "designed" for all components to be in one pouch? Whatever gave you that idea? How strange.

FWIW, Artoomis, my groups have never played that way.

Whatever gave me that idea? Perhaps this:

Spell Component Pouch
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

There you have it. A pouch.

 

[Artoomis]

Just like clerics and holy symbols, there's little reason for a wizard to have only one place where his material components go.

I agree that it is a good idea to have a spare spell component pouch or three. Very advisable. Either that or take the Eschew Material Components feat.

 

[Pielorinho]

There you have it. A pouch.

And what do the rules say about a wizard with a spell component pocket?

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

And what do the rules say about a wizard with a spell component pocket?

Daniel

??

Spell Component Pouch
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

The rules say nothing about how else you might carry spell components in other ways. It's all speculation, but I suppose you could do whatever you want - or, more accurately, whatever your DM allows.

 

[Dagger of Lath]

While it's all well and good to seperate your material components and hold perhaps a fly in your left pocket and a spider in your right, I can't help but feel that it removes the necessity of having material components. If there's no negative downside to the zero-cost material components then why have them as limiters of spells or the annoyance that most people are willing to spend a feat to rid themselves of.

The main downside I feel is the ability to have them removed (or to require them while in a grapple). Now this isn't necessarily through a monk disarming you of them, but there should be some way to lose your material components or have them taken from you.

EDIT: You know a lot of tribal magic supposedly (from what movies tell me) had medicine pouches which were filled with all kinds of items. Perhaps a spell-component pouch is a special ritualistic item, which the mage doesn't even open when casting spells (the components dissappear from the pouch)... just a thought.

 

[Pielorinho]

EDIT: You know a lot of tribal magic supposedly (from what movies tell me) had medicine pouches which were filled with all kinds of items. Perhaps a spell-component pouch is a special ritualistic item, which the mage doesn't even open when casting spells (the components dissappear from the pouch)... just a thought.

While that's an interesting idea, it's almost certainly not what's intended: the item is not ever mentioned as being magical, nor is it created through any spell or item creation feat.

The reason for having them, Dagger, is that rarely they can be the object of an adventure. I played in a one-shot once in which the PCs had been captured, and a major part of the adventure was finding the normally common spell components necessary to cast enough magic to make an escape. Also, they're there for flavor.

Artoomis, the fact that the rules say nothign about alternate means of keeping material components (including making no mention of excluding them) says to me that you're exactly right: you can do it in any way the DM allows without violating the rules. Indeed, a DM that required a spell component pouch and did not offer the option of tracking components individually would, I think, be violating the rules.

Daniel

 

[Dagger of Lath]

While that's an interesting idea, it's almost certainly not what's intended: the item is not ever mentioned as being magical, nor is it created through any spell or item creation feat.

Oh I agree completely. I only mention it as a good excuse to give players for why they have to keep all their spell components in a single container, if one wanted to run with such a ruling. Though now that I mention it, it does inspire a bit of an interesting character image for a shaman type character, maybe using the wu jen class. (treating it as one of their taboos)

The reason for having them, Dagger, is that rarely they can be the object of an adventure. I played in a one-shot once in which the PCs had been captured, and a major part of the adventure was finding the normally common spell components necessary to cast enough magic to make an escape. Also, they're there for flavor.

Actually that could work quite nicely, you'd have some amusement with the characters scraping cobwebs off the wall, plucking out an eyelash, etc.

 

[Artoomis]

... Indeed, a DM that required a spell component pouch and did not offer the option of tracking components individually would, I think, be violating the rules.

Daniel

Oh, I don't know about that. I can see requiring a spell component pouch to be used as being perfectly valid.