D&D 5E Joke Material Components

[Mike Eagling]

While giving those who don't want to use them the burden of having to put this into their house rules, convince the other players, and -if it is a player having this view- the GM

To be fair, if the DM insists on using material components then the player either has to accept that or decide not to play.

I agree in principle that a more generic rule set that nonetheless provides the option of MCs would make for a better, general purpose (and, dare I say it, modular) system. But it's also true that adding them to the main text, with a sidebar saying "ignore them if you want", is arguably better, from a purely practical point of view.

 

[Mike Eagling]

That said, that "burden" consists of saying "we're using the optional rule for no components for spells." In other words, it's not really a burden at all.

I was just about to edit my post to say exactly this.

 

[pemerton]

If it's in a sidebar, I'm not sure if that counts as a house rule (since it's in the book).

That said, that "burden" consists of saying "we're using the optional rule for no components for spells." In other words, it's not really a burden at all.

Flip this around to a default of no components, and then if you want to include material components you're expected to come up with a long list of them for dozens, if not hundreds, of spells.

But it's also true that adding them to the main text, with a sidebar saying "ignore them if you want", is arguably better, from a purely practical point of view.

Two things.

First, spending pagespace and energy on this detracts from spending that space and energy on other things.

Second, peope can come up with their own material components - presumably, for those who like material components, this might be part of the fun! The only ones who will actually miss the old standbys, like bat guanao and nut shells, already have their old books that tell them what the various components are.

 

[Mike Eagling]

First, spending pagespace and energy on this detracts from spending that space and energy on other things.

But they're apparently devoting this time to material components so it's kind of moot.

Second, peope can come up with their own material components - presumably, for those who like material components, this might be part of the fun! The only ones who will actually miss the old standbys, like bat guanao and nut shells, already have their old books that tell them what the various components are.

People can come up with their own, or use the ones provided, or ignore the whole system. Everybody wins. Yay!

 

[Starfox]

But they're apparently devoting this time to material components so it's kind of moot.

There is a a HUGE difference between putting it in a playtest document and actually having it in the finished product.

Proofreading, editing, layout, even final design/balance considerations.

There is a saying: The last 10% of a project takes 90% of the time.

 

[Alzrius]

First, spending pagespace and energy on this detracts from spending that space and energy on other things.

It's a sidebar, a sidebar that you've said you want them to have, and I've said I'm not against. So who cares that it takes them space and energy? If they're going to do it, good. If not, that sucks, but what can you do?

Second, peope can come up with their own material components - presumably, for those who like material components, this might be part of the fun! The only ones who will actually miss the old standbys, like bat guanao and nut shells, already have their old books that tell them what the various components are.

People can come up with their own material components, sure, but that's more work than ignoring the material components that are already there, which is my point. If you can only default to one way, default to the one that's less work. Subtraction is easier than addition - it's less work to say "we're going to ignore these listed components" than it is to write down dozens, if not hundreds, of components from scratch.

Saying that people can carry around their old books is disingenuous. Many people only have so much material that they can easily haul with them. That's presuming that their books aren't lost, packed away, loaned out, or otherwise not easily available.

It's easier to default to having the components be there, and have their removal relegated to a sidebar (and if not a sidebar, then a house rule).

 

[Mike Eagling]

There is a saying: The last 10% of a project takes 90% of the time.

Indeed, which is why--if they're already inline with the spell descriptions--it makes more sense to leave them there and sidebar the rule to ignore them, rather than go through every affected spell and move them into their own section. Either that or:

$ sed -n '/^Components.*/!p' next.txt >next.txt.new

 

[Marshall Gatten]

In my game, any component that can be bought for less than 5gp can be assumed to be in a pocket somewhere in the caster's robes. They never need to be mentioned, and it's assumed that an adequate supply for several days casting of every known spell is maintained.

When it costs more than that, then it should appear in the equipment list.

But just about everybody (read as: NPCs) knows that if you are going to take a spell caster as a prisoner, step one is to take away their clothing and anything that might have hidden pockets. If that happens, a caster is unable to cast any spells requiring material components until they get their stuff back. And you tie their hands, preventing spells with somatic components. And you gag them to prevent vocal components. That's three different things that a caster must overcome before coming back to full strength.

 

[Starfox]

But just about everybody (read as: NPCs) knows that if you are going to take a spell caster as a prisoner, step one is to take away their clothing and anything that might have hidden pockets.

This is quite important and useful - it is good that there is a reliable method of negating a spellcasters power, or the only way to render one harmless it to kill him. But it doesn't have anything to do with specific spells having specific (joke) components - it could just as well just be said that you need some component and let the player make them up. And material components are not the only way to do this; lots of equivalent rules can be used. I can think of several on the top of my head.

* Needs to speak (gagging)
* Needs to gesture (handcuffs)
* Must see the target (blindfolding)
* Must not touch a specific substance (iron/lead/whatever)
* Needs their focus item (crystal, staff, drug, whatever)
* Needs specific ritual clothing

All of these are setting considerations. In one world, one of these applies, in another world another. So the question becomes, how much implied setting should the DnD rules have?

 

[Mike Eagling]

So the question becomes, how much implied setting should the DnD rules have?

There's the rub.

This ties back to a post I made upthread about separating crunch from fluff. My ideal for such rules would be "generically fluffy crunch", so to speak, that illustrate the possibilities but all the "real" settings are separated out as modules.

That probably isn't a particularly attractive product, however, and I suspect the GenCon book will be an indication of the finished item.