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

gizmo33 said:
But wouldn't goblins know about that? I can imagine goblins telling horror stories to one another about the time that the captured wizard killed the whole tribe with nothing but the power of his gaze. Not having read the rules, I can imagine goblins being ultra paranoid about the different methods of spell casting, to the point that a known spellcaster would be killed outright rather than risk a chance that he somehow cast.
I think that's a pretty damned reasonable attitude for a bunch of goblins, whether or not Wizards use material components. Hell, even in the RAW, an enemy spellcaster could always have the Eschew Materials feat, so just taking away all his stuff isn't certain protection against his powers.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think the 3e approach to spell components (in case you haven't read your PHB lately, a "spell component bag" that you don't track individual components in unless they are expensive) works perfectly. If you are really fretting over whether you have Bat Guano, you weren't playing by RAW.
 

GreatLemur said:
I think that's a pretty damned reasonable attitude for a bunch of goblins, whether or not Wizards use material components. Hell, even in the RAW, an enemy spellcaster could always have the Eschew Materials feat, so just taking away all his stuff isn't certain protection against his powers.

Yea I think it's reasonable given the current rules too. The tough part is that without a way of reliably capturing wizards, it pretty much dooms them to execution. So much for scenarios where a wizard is captured and held for ransom etc.
 

gizmo33 said:
Yea I think it's reasonable given the current rules too. The tough part is that without a way of reliably capturing wizards, it pretty much dooms them to execution. So much for scenarios where a wizard is captured and held for ransom etc.

A bag over the head works wonders for this.

Brad
 


Psion said:
I think the 3e approach to spell components (in case you haven't read your PHB lately, a "spell component bag" that you don't track individual components in unless they are expensive) works perfectly. If you are really fretting over whether you have Bat Guano, you weren't playing by RAW.

If you're not supposed to fret over having bat guano (and I've never seen or played a wizard that did), why are they bothering to spend space in the PH listing it?
 


drothgery said:
If you're not supposed to fret over having bat guano (and I've never seen or played a wizard that did), why are they bothering to spend space in the PH listing it?

Flavor I suppose. I always thought it was at least as interesting as artwork - which also doesn't serve a purpose in the game. Spell components could be moved to the back of the book as an appendix with tiny type. It's not necessary that it be part of the spell description paragraph IMO.
 

It's funny, that whole topic was as interesting 10-15 years ago, and probably spawned some articles during the 1E era as well (couldn't find any quick references). Took a bit to type this here up, so please forgive for any typos I made inbetween...is already late-ish here. :) Just as food for thought.

Oh, and italianranma, thanks for that pointer...that list is great! At least for those who really want to put some sense into tracking spell components. :)

Richard Baker said:
One of the optional rules presented in the Player’s Handbook is the use of spell components. You are free to decide to use or ignore components in your own campaign; as long as the NFCs abide by the same rules and restrictions the players do, the game works equally well in either case. The real crux of this issue are material components, and whether or not players
should have to keep track of their stocks of spell reagents. There are some very good reasons why you shouldn‘t use material components in play; it requires a great attention to detail and some honesty on the part of the players, and may create obstacles or difficulties that take away from the DMs plot. After all, if the party’s wizard has to drop out of the epic adventure in mid-stride to track down the ingredients for his next fireball spell, all concerned may feel a little frustrated or annoyed.
On the other hand, using spell components and requiring an account of what the wizard has on his person and what he has stockpiled in his laboratory or home base can add another dimension of detail and pseudo-realism to the game. If spell components aren’t used, who cares if a wizard is down to his last three coppers? More than any other class, a wizard can operate with no concern for material wealth, unless he has to worry about whether or not he can afford to buy the materials he’ll need to be able to cast his spells. In addition, the use of spell components requires players to spend some time and effort thinking about situations their characters would certainly be dealing with and can enhance role-playing if it isn’t taken to extremes.
Generally, enforcing the requirements for material components works best for low- to mid-level characters. By the time a wizard is 8th or 9th level, he’s usually wealthy enough to
easily buy any materials he needs, and his daily selection of spells is so broad that keeping track of each type of component carried becomes a logistical nightmare. By that time, the DM can allow the player a little slack; the wizard‘s a mighty hero now, and both player and DM may have other arenas of role-playing (building laboratories or establishing strongholds)
that the character will be graduating to. However, at low levels, wizards and priests will find that some of their favorite spells have to be saved for when they’re truly needed.
For example, low-level wizards often rely on the armor spell as their sole means of defense against physical attack. Armor requires a piece of leather-no problem there-that has been blessed by a priest. Referring to Table 69 NPC Spell Costs in the DMG, bless is usually reserved for characters of the same faith as the casting priest, and even then a small sum might be required. So, the wizard who wants the piece of leather blessed for his spell might have to convert to the faith of nearest available priest, and tithe him 10 or 20 gp to boot! If you consider how often players simply say, "Oh yeah, I'll cast armor the day before we leave, so I'l have my 1st-level spell open and armor in effect," you can see just how much hassle (and role-playing opportunities!) are ignored by the player and DM.
 

I like the inclusion of spell components as a flavor mechanic, but I've honestly never used them in game under Any edition. I will say though that as far as Gygaxian funny goes (and who can deny this is what they always were) writing new spells and thinking of material components for them was always great fun. Did I ever expect them to be used? Bloody hell no, but it was fun to think of them. I always figured it fell into the same category as calls of nature and encumbrance (which I've also never used, it was always an eyeballed common sense type thing).

Spellbooks on the other hand are 100% pure necessity IMO. Whereas the specific rules for them can be altered and adjusted, the existence and importance of a wizard having a spellbook cannot be sacrificed.
Then again, my opinion is that a wizard should never carry his primary spellbook around. If you're going of adventuring and you're not carrying a spare/copy of your spellbook, you're not a terribly bright wizard (or just a very poor one, monetarily).
Hmm, with 4E approaching, maybe I'll post my as-yet unplaytested 3.5E magic system in the House Rules forum and get opinions. It addresses spellbooks somewhat and my thoughts on them (and I somehow doubt getting it playtested at this point is less likely than it was a few months ago). But here, I digress.

And really... how can you leave such gems as "Rubbing a glass rod with wool" by the wayside? Even if you presume that people don't grasp that the component for Lightning Bolt is to build up a static charge... the simple mental image here is funny gold ("Dude, you're stroking your glass rod in combat? Is this REALLY the time or that? Bwa-haha")
 

Remove ads

Top