Is a Focus a Material Component?


log in or register to remove this ad

Bloodstone Press said:
Agreed.

The good news is that a focus is not consumed by the spell casting so once you have it, you can reuse it.

Exactly....and a material component IS consumed during the casting. Hence the difference between the two. (See page 174, PH 3.5 for more info.)
 

UltimaGabe said:
That way, nobody in their right mind would ever make a spell with a costly material component into a Spell-Like Ability unless they never intended to cast it.

Bingo. Seems pretty clear to me that that was the intent. I think SLA's are supposed to represent the spells that have been cast so often that they've become second nature -- where the wizard's skill has enabled him to tap into the forces of magic directly without the 'crutch' of memorization and material components.
 

UltimaGabe said:
No, it would cost 2500xp. That's more than an eighth of a level by the time you're able to cast it, and although it may be a bit low for such a costly spell, the rule as it is (ten times the cost in XP) is completely unusable. That way, nobody in their right mind would ever make a spell with a costly material component into a Spell-Like Ability unless they never intended to cast it.

Of course, according to the MM (page 315), spell-like abilities require no components whatsoever (no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP).
 


UltimaGabe said:
In other words, as it is, the XP cost is way, way, WAY too high, and the only reasoning I can find for the misprint is that they meant for it to be 1/10 the cost in XP, rather than 10 times the cost in XP. If that were the case, why would anyone pick anything with a material component cost as their Spell-Like Ability?

Yeah, wondered about that too. :)

Bye
Thanee
 

Focus is not a material component. This is more an oversight of the Archmage prestige class wording than anything else. The game does have errors but that is what makes it so much fun. The game I play in the decision was no xp cost based on the MM since it wasnt covered under Archmage
 

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
Bingo. Seems pretty clear to me that that was the intent. I think SLA's are supposed to represent the spells that have been cast so often that they've become second nature -- where the wizard's skill has enabled him to tap into the forces of magic directly without the 'crutch' of memorization and material components.

But what if the Cleric serves the god life, rejuvination, and rebirth? He spends years of his life learning to bring fallen allies back from the dead, and he has made a career out of it- raising fallen soldiers at his temple whenever needed. Over the course of several years, he's brought hundreds of people back from the dead (all with hefty fines of diamonds, of course), and he decides that he uses the life-giving aspect of his deity so much, he never wants to be without it. But, once he makes it into his Spell-Like Ability, he can never use it unless he wants to flush five levels down the drain in the process.

If it were a 1-for-1 XP/GP tradeoff, it would be decent (kinda costly in terms of XP, but at least people would be able to use it). Why didn't they simply say, "No spell with a costly material component may be made into a Spell-Like Ability" rather than leave it as "You can make a spell with a costly material component into a Spell-Like Ability, but you can kiss leveling up goodbye if you ever intend on using it more than once"?
 

Combine Spell-Like Ability with Assume Supernatural ability (I think that's what its called). You spell-like ability becomes a (Su) ability. It no longer has an XP cost, and no longer allows SR.
 

James McMurray said:
Combine Spell-Like Ability with Assume Supernatural ability (I think that's what its called). You spell-like ability becomes a (Su) ability. It no longer has an XP cost, and no longer allows SR.

So, Wish could be taken as an SPA, then made a Su ability? Cool! :D

Andargor
 

Remove ads

Top