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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I like the flavor of them -- and that's all material components are in 3E, since the everfull pouches of components sell for a whopping 25g -- but I agree that the mechanics of the wizard's spellbook is often more punitive than anything else.

If there was a way to make it rewarding and fun to use spellbooks, but not a total screwjob for the wizard character, I'd be strongly in favor of that.

I say this both as the player of an illusionist and as a DM of two wizards in my Midwood campaign.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I love spellbooks. I love spell components. However, for practicality purposes, I keep them completely in the background.

This is my view as well. I like the flavor of including components, but they are effectively a non-rule, except for expensive components (which should stay). XP costs should be dropped as XP are metagame mechanics.

Some spells should transition to an "arcane focus" item -- could be a wand, staff, or familiar, or perhaps even a weapon for warrior-mages.

If you drop components completely, you lose the opportunity to have PC wizards hunt for "power components" that can change spell function -- a mechanics that adds a lot of flavor to the game.

Spellbooks should remain, though scribing and upkeep costs should be reconsidered.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

why not make all material components expensive but not required. so if you use a material component it increases the dc of the spell by 1 or 2

i guess it would be added to the attack of the spell in 4e. Not sure of the price though, as i don't know how far a gold peace goes in 4e. The wealth system could be different.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The only thing about spell components in (A)D&D that bothere me was that there was not a single comlete table of component costs anywhere! I don't mind having to track my units of bat guano for my Fireball, but it's damn hard, as player as well as DM, to track something that is important to use but has not one cp of cost associated.

And I'm not really fond of that "everful component pouch" idea 3e instituted either...simply because at some point, it gets funny to have a pouch that holds pounds of bat guano, dragon scales, silver powder!, sulphur, etc, without gaining more weight while supplying twice or thrice as many spells with components as before. (The possible chemical reactions inside such a pouch alone give me the creeps ).

One complete table, and a wizard who is used to tracking component costs since 1st level can come up with a simple "refill list" he adds to each time he gets a new spell with M component, and tell the DM "I buy X times my list for Y gp" and simply adds X to his amount of components in the pouch.

Of course, simplifying the components and creating a system with some background instead of the pun-based components D&D has would help that. See the Ultima games, where you had a handful of components and combined them for different effects, covering a good broad list of spells with those alone. Each component had flavour for why it worked for which kind of spell and what function it had for magic, and the amount of them was easier to track.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I prefer the AE way, too, especially if it were extended so that the minor effects are done through focuses instead of things you track particular uses of. And as long as we are cribbing from Hero and GURPS with all this explicit talk of focuses, might as well put in an option for "burnout". Your fire opal is a focus for your fire spells, adding extra effects, but every time you use it, you risk turning it to slag. Per SWSE, if the caster has to roll to overcome defenses, as opposed to the target rolling a saving throw, you can make such burnout the consequence of rolling a 1.

I could also go for keeping the minor material components, but changing their purpose. Perhaps in 3E terms, you don't need the material component when you cast, but rather when you prepare the spell. Thus during the adventure, everyone can simply ignore it. If the party returns to town, it can be plausibly handwaved. It's only when camping in the wilderness or hostile territory that it even matters--and thus it can be abstracted into some kind of roll: "Ack, I'm out of bat guano. That fireball I did yesterday was my last. Time to break out the lightning bolt." That might actually put a bit of excitement back into spell prep.

AE uses "readied" spells which stay readied even after you cast them. If material components are required to ready spells, then there needs to be an additional rule that spells with expensive components automatically becomes "unreadied" when cast. Actually, I rather like that idea as another restriction on things like "raise dead".

In any case, if components are kept, there should be more variety in the combinations. There just aren't that many spells in the PHB that don't require material, verbal, and somatic, comapred to the whole. Every combination should probably have a good selection of spells.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My own wizard, the one in the story-hour thread linked to in my thread, uses a specially deisgned crossbow to work his magic.

And I bet his one spell does the same damage as shooting someone with a crossbow bolt, right?

 

[gizmo33]

Oh, definitely. I figure the gag-and-bind technique is almost always viable, though. And it makes silent/stilled spells and ranks in Escape Artist worthwhile, too!

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. Goblins would be paranoid to the degree that they might even just make stuff up - "lightning bolts from his a**" and that sort of thing. The whole situation is tough for me to DM because I can see no reason why poorly equipped monsters would risk keeping a PC spellcaster captive alive. I guess this is a side note though, but it would be a reason for me to consider spell components across the board.

 

[drothgery]

I'd go with 'ditch material components, keep spellbooks, make spellbooks work differently'...

Yet another benefit of ditching free/inexpensive material components is that you ought to be able to save a ton of space that way; losing one or two lines from amost every spell description is going to add up.

I don't think 'power components' rules should be in PH1. They seem likely to become overly complicated, and involve lots of recordkeeping. If they show up in the 4e equivalent of Complete Arcane, that's fine.

 

[Moab2]

I love the concept of spell components and spellbooks. I'm a big fan of the little things that add flavor. To me, wizards would lose a lot of their appeal if we took away the dusty tomes and vials/jars of random creature parts and gooey bits.

That said, I think the spell component rules are poorly written, making them easy, and in some cases necessary, to ignore. I agree with some of the other posters that power components would be a great way to address the situation to keep everyone happy. You can cast the spell without any components to keep track of, but if you go out of your way to get that basilisk eyelash, your spell will be ever so slightly better. Best of both worlds.

 

[Dragonblade]

I agree with some of the other posters that power components would be a great way to address the situation to keep everyone happy. You can cast the spell without any components to keep track of, but if you go out of your way to get that basilisk eyelash, your spell will be ever so slightly better. Best of both worlds.

Now this is a fine idea. Components are not needed to cast, but if you do actually have the material component and use it, then you gain a small boost to your spell's "attack" roll (I'm presuming that 4e will use SW Saga style "flipped" saves).