D&D 4E Material components and spell books? Get rid of them for 4e!

[Dragonblade]

So a comment in another thread got me thinking about material components. In 20 years of playing D&D from Basic, 1e AD&D, 2e AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5, I have NEVER played in a group where material components ever mattered.

No DM ever cared about whether I had enough bat guano to cast Fireball. The only components that mattered were verbal and somatic. So why not just drop material components altogether? Why have rules that no one uses or pays attention to?

The same thing goes for spell books. It seems like a wizard PC is unduly punished by being forced to carry a spellbook. They have to spend a fortune of personal wealth on special inks, and if the book is ever lost, the PC is effectively crippled. No other class has such a liability.

Now for flavor purposes, I like the concept of wizards reading ancient tomes, but the rules as they stand place an unfair burden on wizards. And don't give me the whole "But they can learn every spell in the game!" stuff. They really can only learn the spells the DM allows them to find, and even if they did know every spell in the game, so what? This is already balanced by their spell slots per day.

Again in 20 years of playing D&D, I have never played with a group where a spell book was anything more than flavor for a wizard character. And never has any group I played with actually made the wizard character scribe his spells with special inks or anything.

I'm not trying to sound like I'm whining about this or anything, but seriously, does anyone actually adhere to the material component or spell book rules? I have never played with a group that has. So why have rules in the game that no one uses?

 

[Wormwood]

I'm not trying to sound like I'm whining about this or anything, but seriously, does anyone actually adhere to the material component or spell book rules? I have never played with a group that has. So why have rules in the game that no one uses?

Back in the day, when my gaming experience was limited, I adhered to the rules like they were Holy Writ. If the PHB demanded bat guano, gum arabic, or a tiny cream pie...then yes, I made sure to procure them all.

25 years later, I've played enough to realize what I like and what I don;t, and that rules which do not facilitate my preferred style should be ignored.

I currently run a 3.5 game for a group of D&D novices. The wizard character doesn't use spell components and she can cast her 0-level spells at will. She does have a spellbook, however, but it is purely for flavor.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

The spellbook is ok. No biggy. I can take it or leave it.

Material componants on the other hand need to be changed. If they exist at all, they shouldn't be necessary. Take Fireball for instance. You should be able to cast it without bat poo, but if the player went through the effort to get some and write it on his sheet, increase the Save DC by +1 or something.

In short, you should grant a bonus for the effort. Don't penalize those who don't want to bother with it.

 

[Fobok]

I'm kind of on the fence on this one. It's true, for the most part, it is just flavour. On the other hand, it's *major* flavour. The story opportunities they provide measure up more than most other aspects. One possibility is, with the change away from Vancian spellcasting (finally), they may just not be needed for day-to-day flavour, but still are available for research and similar tasks. There should be some reason for a high-level wizard to have a well-protected library in his tower. As for spell components, they should be reserved for the major effects, like Wish if it's still in the game.

 

[Mercule]

Material components are so ubiquetous that they are white noise. No one can keep track of all the stuff they need for their spells, so they hand wave them with the component pouch. Blech. Reduce the number of spells that require material components to a manageable level.

The idea of granting bonuses to diligent players is a good one, too, but still needs a limited scope. Otherwise, the OCD players will have an unreasonable advantage over the others.

I like spellbooks, myself. In a way. I hate the Vancian slot system, but I like a mechanism that drives wizards to adventure looking for more knowledge. I also like some reason wizards would keep a large library, since that's part of the stereotype. Just don't require them to carry around 50-100 pounds of paper with them everywhere.

 

[delericho]

Agree and disagree.

Ditch the spell components (except perhaps the 'expensive' components for spells like Wish), but keep the spellbook.

 

[Shade]

I don't mind spellbooks, but wouldn't miss them either.

I long ago dropped material components (except for the rare pricy one for game balance reasons, and then I just have the player mark off the equivalent gp value) and don't miss them one bit.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Material components I don't care about. Spellbooks are something I want to keep, however. Having played a lot of wizards, some of my best adventure experiences have come from losing a spellbook and having to either recover it or to face a quest knowing that I was only going to have the spells left in my head. Finishing off the bad guy while energy drained and using my last lightning bolt, without knowing where my next spell was an exhilirating experience.

Now I'm not advocating that wizards should be punished for having to use spellbooks, although taking a book away for a bit or at least putting it in danger can make for a pretty good adventure in the right circumstances. But to take a rules perspective, a spellbook functions as a fine mechanic to balance the diverse spell potential of the wizard and is an important flavor element of the genre. The only thing I'd really like to see changed about spellbooks is the insistence that each edition has had on counting pages in the darned things. Let each wizard keep all his spells in one book and be done with it.

 

[italianranma]

No DM ever cared about whether I had enough bat guano to cast Fireball. The only components that mattered were verbal and somatic. So why not just drop material components altogether? Why have rules that no one uses or pays attention to?

As a DM I'm firmly convinced that more details add to a player's experience. When my players sit at an inn to eat dinner, I tell them exactly what they're eating. There's no mechanical benefit to eat at an inn that serves wild game turkey and turnips over rat stew, but my players will choose the former because of the descriptive text.

Likewise if a wizard player is so inclined, they may add spell components as a tool to help them get in character or expand the playing experience. Now keep in mind that removing spell components removes also a small part of the game: If a wizard is captured and relieved of his spell components: he can't cast certain spells until he regains them. This kind of restrictive plot device shouldn't be abused, but it can be a nice experience for a player every now and then.

The same thing goes for spell books. It seems like a wizard PC is unduly punished by being forced to carry a spellbook. They have to spend a fortune of personal wealth on special inks, and if the book is ever lost, the PC is effectively crippled. No other class has such a liability.

Is the fighter punished for having to carry armor and weapons? Is the cleric punished for having to carry a holy symbol? Is the rogue punished for having to carry thieves tools? Likewise should a fighter lose his +2 Flaming Adamantine Longsword, he's lost a significant amount of his fighting power. He'll probably go to great lengths to get it back. Once again, this isn't something I do to players often, but it can be a great plot device.

Have you ever run a campaign where you actually forced the wizard's player to use the spellbook rules as they are written? My player was surprised at the expense and amount of spellbooks he had to carry around. I even allowed him to enter a great wizarding library, but he didn't have the necessary components to copy down all the spells he wanted. It was sublime, and a much different kind of reward system than he was used to.

But then again I treat all my players fairly: The fighter had to buy a whetstone (and use it and replace it as it got old) repair his armor (and pay a fee to use a smithy if he didn't want an armorer to do it for him) and buy feed for his warhorse, etc. These little accounting rules that many DMs ignore aren't important to the game, BUT (and that's a big but) do add to the experiance, and don't take a lot of time out of the session.

 

[Dragonblade]

Is the fighter punished for having to carry armor and weapons? Is the cleric punished for having to carry a holy symbol? Is the rogue punished for having to carry thieves tools? Likewise should a fighter lose his +2 Flaming Adamantine Longsword, he's lost a significant amount of his fighting power. He'll probably go to great lengths to get it back. Once again, this isn't something I do to players often, but it can be a great plot device.

But all of these things are easily replaced (except for the magic item). A spell book is not and its essential to the character.

Have you ever run a campaign where you actually forced the wizard's player to use the spellbook rules as they are written? My player was surprised at the expense and amount of spellbooks he had to carry around. I even allowed him to enter a great wizarding library, but he didn't have the necessary components to copy down all the spells he wanted. It was sublime, and a much different kind of reward system than he was used to.

One DM toyed with the notion, and then all the players who liked arcane casters made Sorcerers instead.

But then again I treat all my players fairly: The fighter had to buy a whetstone (and use it and replace it as it got old) repair his armor (and pay a fee to use a smithy if he didn't want an armorer to do it for him) and buy feed for his warhorse, etc. These little accounting rules that many DMs ignore aren't important to the game, BUT (and that's a big but) do add to the experiance, and don't take a lot of time out of the session.

I agree that does add to the experience. And when I was younger I really got into those details. We still do to some extent. But when you have work and family, gaming time is a precious commodity and we'd rather spend it by getting to the meat of the story and the action.