D&D 5E Joke Material Components

[Tequila Sunrise]

There's nothing wrong with them as far as I'm concerned. In most cases (at least for arcane spells), the material component's relation to the actual spell is largely symbolic in any case, so I'm perfectly happy for that symbolism to be on the level of wordplay (for sesame seeds) or cultural association (carrots for night vision) rather than purely physical.

I do think wizards from different cultures and species would associate different items with such symbolism, and might use different components as a result, and I'd be fine with a player choosing other components (of equal value) for those reasons, but I'm also fine for the existing ones to be the default for most characters.

Material-components-as-expendable-idiosyncratic-spell-foci is an interesting take, but it begs the question: Why would any wizard or wizard tradition use expensive expendable foci for certain spells, when a cheap component would serve as well?

(Presumably resurrection and other powerful spells will still require expensive components in 5e.)

 

[Cyberen]

Ok, they have *something* in common : D&D - playtest.
As "poll questions" they seem rather orthogonal : I am pretty sure you can love warlords or hate'em, and embrace silliness in the written rules or being rebuked by it in every possible way.
Also, Warlords focus so many problems I am not sure it's a good idea to allude to them, because odds are high the thread would derail wildly (for the record, though : I love warlords ! And silliness ! And I don't think there's any causal relationship between the too).
What I am trying to say is : material components, as written in the playtest, are not a mini-game proposed to wizard-players, but an attempt by wotc to find the tone they should adopt in the core. 1e, of all editions, was sometimes bordering goofiness : what do you think ?
My opinion is that I find these attempts rather refreshing, and they are part of my experience of the hobby. Of course, ymmv, but I don't think it's an old-schooler thing (except you might want to have been exposed to the 1e DMG to get the intent).

 

[urLordy]

What I am trying to say is : material components, as written in the playtest, are not a mini-game proposed to wizard-players, but an attempt by wotc to find the tone they should adopt in the core. 1e, of all editions, was sometimes bordering goofiness : what do you think ?

I don't imagine that WoTC was being purposefully goofy, but I definitely agree that material components is another fantasy detail used to capture the tone of D&D, along with mind flayers and rust monsters and other D&Disms. Just like ability scores, I think it would be tough to stamp out material components and still have enough people view it as essential D&D.

 

[Cyberen]

It's not a matter of "sacred cows" or important IP.
I would say 1e did a better job to emulate Monty Python Holy Grail than Tolkien. Do we reject this as a bug ? Or do we nod at it ? (I wouldn't embrace it as a feature...).

 

[urLordy]

On an aside, in 1e, wasn't each round a minute long? Enough time to dig into your spell pouch and pull out some nuts and chant a spell.

In a modern round, what's more jokey really? Using nuts to cast confusion, or pulling out nuts while casting a spell while ducking your enemy's attacks while coordinating your movements and timing with your allies -- that's a lot of fast thinking multitasking in 6 seconds! Frankly, it's one of the most impossible things in D&D. And if you don't think that's jokey, putting it to the Cinematic Test and see if it looks plausible on the big screen.

So I'm changing my vote from 'Other' to 'Hate Them'. Where 'Them' is actually all spell components, not just the jokey ones.

 

[KidSnide]

So, this latest packet has reintroduced joke material components (nut shells for confusion, sesame seeds for passwall, a piece of straw for water breathing, etc.). What is your opinion on these? I hate them.

I dislike joke components, but don't find all of these to be jokes. Nut shells are components for Confusion because of a shell game is one where the person with the shells confuses the viewer. Personally, I think "dried fish gills" would make a better component for water breathing, but a straw is something that helps you breathe underwater. Sesame seeds are a literary reference, but -- to be fair -- it's a reference to a situation where magic is used to open a passage. That seems like fair game to me.

But I do find using a carrot for Darkvision to be too silly for my taste. Some kind of "tincture made from common vegetables" rubbed under the eyes wouldn't bother me, but I don't see how a wizard can pull a carrot out of his pouch without looking ridiculous. (The water breathing straw has a bit of a problem here.) To me a material component should pass the sanity check of "does imagining a wizard casting a spell with this component seem silly?"

-KS

 

[Mike Eagling]

Three nut shells as the material component for Confusion is a joke - based on the slang usage of "nuts" to mean crazy.

Personally I'd assume the use of nut shells in a confusion spell would be a reference to the shell game, not a crass idiom for madness but I could be wrong.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I dislike joke components, but don't find all of these to be jokes. Nut shells are components for Confusion because of a shell game is one where the person with the shells confuses the viewer.

So it's actually the same joke as fur-and-amber (you're doing simple magic tricks that anyone can do, and fooling people into believing you're a wizard), with the added bonus of also being a lame pun (it's a spell that makes multiple people temporarily insane, with a material component of "a couple of nutcases"). Not bad. If we sneak in another meaning, it might actually become funny.

But I do find using a carrot for Darkvision to be too silly for my taste. Some kind of "tincture made from common vegetables" rubbed under the eyes wouldn't bother me, but I don't see how a wizard can pull a carrot out of his pouch without looking ridiculous.

To be fair, it does say "a pinch of dried carrot."

 

[Alzrius]

I would say 1e did a better job to emulate Monty Python Holy Grail than Tolkien. Do we reject this as a bug ? Or do we nod at it ? (I wouldn't embrace it as a feature...).

My understanding is that 1E was never trying to emulate Tolkien. It was much more oriented towards the pulps of the previous decades (e.g. Conan, John Carter, etc). The Tolkien elements (e.g. demihumans, balrogs, rangers, etc.) were added as a means to utilize the massive popularity Tolkien had at that time to help sell the system.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=54710]KidSnide[/MENTION], [MENTION=6703609]Mike Eagling[/MENTION] - you're probably right on the nutshells. I'm not sure that makes me like it any better, though - it's still an oddly culturally specific reference (a bit like the carrots).

EDIT: [MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION], your take seems right too.