D&D 5E Joke Material Components

[I'm A Banana]

Until a low magic campaign without a god-botherer or healbot is practical it will fall massively short. Or do fighters restore characters HP up to their full value now? The expectation for the Warlord is we do not need a cleric in the party. And we do not need spellcasters to keep going - we don't have to play a high magic campaign. And Mearls is explicitely opposed to this, making quips about shouting hands back on despite the fact that's way outside the Cure Wounds territory. (No one is arguing Warlords need a Regenerate equivalent, merely being able to handle the normal rigors of the adventuring day).



Without inspirational healing the Warlord can not fulfil its metagame role. And we revert to the narrowness of settings and worlds that all previous editions of D&D enforced (yes, even 3.X). Without the Warlord we are effectively limited to worlds where spells can be cast almost instantaneously, and where even a third level caster uses far more magic than Gandalf. Yes, there are other ways than the Warlord class to do this - but Next isn't offering them either.

I'd be more than happy to talk about this in a thread about it, but I'd prefer not to de-rail this one. I think the ways in which the current fighter options meet or fail to meet the needs of warlord players is a good convo to have!

That solves the tracking spell components. The silly spell components are a separate problem.

I'm implying that it can be solved by going abstract. If all you need to use a spell is a "component pouch," you can safely ignore the silliness -- wizards at your table won't be twirling nuts in their hands to cause madness, they'll just be reaching into their component pouches and waving around some incense or whatever.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't mind the more silly material components, but I also wouldn't mind if some were changed to reflect more modern symbolism. I suggest that a list of the egregious offenders be compiled so we can suggest alternatives.

As for material components in general, I absolutely think the best default is to have them, but not be required to track them.

As for really cool material components, such as dragon scales or the blood of a unicorn, I think these should be an option for enhancing spells.

 

[pemerton]

I am surprised by the heat of the debate.

I'm not that het up about it. I'm just surprised by what appear to be straight-faced suggestions that including these joke material components isn't simply a matter of mere taste (leavened with a high degree of fondness for past editions) but something of objective value which can teach new players the fun of fantasy RPGing.

As if those of who started with B/X or earlier editions - which had no material components - didn't work out that the game can be fun!

As if material components are more important to people's play experiences than (say) warlords, or inspirational healing, or metagame resources for players of martial PCs, or other stuff that is deemed too much a matter of contentious taste to include. I'm also reminded of Plansecape, in another couple of recent threads. 4e players lose most of the basic mechanical architecture of their edition, but we can't budge on Planescape or on Gygax's joke material components.

Hence my comment up thread - is D&Dnext the unity edition or the nostalgia/grognard edition?

I'm implying that it can be solved by going abstract. If all you need to use a spell is a "component pouch," you can safely ignore the silliness

This doesn't really tell me why we're spending book-space, and design effort, on including these things.

The only people who want to be told that a Confusion spell uses nutshells as its component already know that, because it's written in their old PHBs. The new game doesn't need to repeat that information.

In terms of setting out a framework for abstract, or player-chosen or GM-determined spell components, WotC could do worse than emulate the discussion of options for spellcasting "idioms" in the Burning Wheel rulebooks.

(I commented upthread that a lot of this stuff is really taking Gygax's actual play output and recycling it as input for new players. I'd rather have rules that offer me techniques to generate my own fun output. BW does that. Telling me that the material component for the Confusion spell is three nutshells does not do that.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd be more than happy to talk about this in a thread about it, but I'd prefer not to de-rail this one. I think the ways in which the current fighter options meet or fail to meet the needs of warlord players is a good convo to have!

Fair enough.

 

[Cyberen]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : I think most of your analysis is spot on... Except when you speak of book-space and design effort. Finding the right tone for the books is a huge issue, and these, admitedly, stupid bits about material components are deliberately put there so we can have this important discussion.
Being angry or bitter at the designers because they address this issue (in a clever, indirect but very tangible way imo) misses the point. It has definitely nothing to do with Warlords !
I don't even read material components, so I don't have a horse in this race, but I find it important to decide IF the rules should convey a tone, WHAT tone to convey, and HOW it could be done. I am definitely not advocating the replication of Gygaxian idiosyncrasies ad nauseam, but I have to confess I think ADD DMG makes a better read than the others e.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like material components and think they add character to spells. It can also serve to control usage with either rare or expensive consumable components.

I have always ignored components, but it might be nice to have a micro-management system (on a player's optional basis).

However IMHO just throwing "joke" material components does not make for a reasonable micro-management system, it's not a system at all, exactly because there is no rarity rationale on those components. Is bat guano harder to obtain than nut shells? And how much do you need matters also, since carrying around 100 sesame seeds in your component pouch is a piece of cake, but 100 iron bars might be different.

My point is just that D&D material components never made a "system", they're just there for flavor. If you are interested in using them a little bit more "tactically", the DM is on her own to make it up, even if wanting a simple system that worries only about keeping track of "dozes" (hence not going as far as tracking weight, encumbrance etc. which could be bordering the insane IMHO...).

I'd actually like to try playing a Wizard that has to manage the dozes of components however...

 

[I'm A Banana]

This doesn't really tell me why we're spending book-space, and design effort, on including these things.

The only people who want to be told that a Confusion spell uses nutshells as its component already know that, because it's written in their old PHBs. The new game doesn't need to repeat that information.

You seem to be assuming that the only people who are going to want it are people who already know of it. That's not true. There are 13 year olds and 8 year olds and 23 year olds everywhere who've never played the game just waiting to bust a gut or chuckle knowingly or roll their eyes and make womp-womp noises at these things. There's lots of people who, when they look at D&D for the first time, will flip to the spells and see the nuts, and say, "Ha, I could drive them nuts."

I think it's part of D&D's distinct identity that it has this bit of goofiness. It's not all GRIMDARK MANSCOWL. It doesn't take the inherently absurd idea of grown people pretending to be magical elves all that seriously.

In terms of setting out a framework for abstract, or player-chosen or GM-determined spell components, WotC could do worse than emulate the discussion of options for spellcasting "idioms" in the Burning Wheel rulebooks.

(I commented upthread that a lot of this stuff is really taking Gygax's actual play output and recycling it as input for new players. I'd rather have rules that offer me techniques to generate my own fun output. BW does that. Telling me that the material component for the Confusion spell is three nutshells does not do that.)

Eh. I'd rather have props that I can ignore than have to build props that I need.

 

[Starfox]

People have been talking about rare components, such as unicorn blood or dragon scales. But if using the Spell Component Pouch (the book standard since 3E) there is no rarity. It either has a gold cost, or it is in the spell component pouch in unlimited quantities. The material component text has been reduced to flavor. If someone actually points out that it is unreasonable for a PC to have a certain component the usual answer is "Huh? Didn't even read that". Which is a reasonable attitude - the game should be accessible to casual players.

And I think that is a very good reason for not having material components in Next - this is supposed to be the casual-friendly, beginner-friendly edition. It should not contain any gotchas.

* Changed my vote from "Other" to "Hate" recently.

 

[Gargoyle]

I like material components, but I can understand how the ones that lean more toward the silly side could annoy, and I'd be fine with changing or eliminating those. As opinions seems to vary about what is considered silly, I think they should be removed from the core and put in a module.

 

[urLordy]

As if material components are more important to people's play experiences than (say) warlords, or inspirational healing, or metagame resources for players of martial PCs, or other stuff that is deemed too much a matter of contentious taste to include.

It has definitely nothing to do with Warlords !

I'm confused... isn't the warlord and material components rather similar?

Surely everyone agrees that longswords, for example, belong in D&D; and everyone happily roleplays in a world containing longswords. Conversely, the very existence of the warlord and the nuts spell component is saying something more specific about the game world, they're both contributing certain extra flavours to the story which not everyone appreciates.

I do happen to dislike the warlord and neutral about material components, but I can appreciate that warlords has something to do with spell components.