Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7299233" data-attributes="member: 1465">I haven't encountered such spells yet, so I am not 100% sure I would handle them in the following way really...One thing to notice is that most of the spells which have a costly material component are supposed to create permanent effects or otherwise to restore someone from a possibly permanent disability (e.g. resurrection-type spells). 1) Permanent effects work a little bit like buying an item, for example you cast Continual Flame as a sort of neverending torch, or Glyph of Warding as a security system for your mansion or castle. Naturally, there are situations where they may be dispelled or discharged, just like there is a situation for an item to be stolen or destroyed, so "permanent" doesn't have to mean truly permanent but rather lasting indefinitely i.e. without a hard-set duration limit. For these spells a GP cost makes sense to me, but I am not interesting in enforcing the details. I don't care if it's diamond dust or whatever, I just care that the GP are paid.2) Restoration effects, as well as other plot-changing spells (e.g. Astral Projection or some powerful divinations) have a GP cost rather as a measure against using them too often, thus devaluing other parts of the game such as playing appropriately to avoid death and navigate through the story instead of jumping to the solution. However for these kind of effects I am not fond of the GP cost in the first place, because as a DM any GP cost forces me to comply with the treasure standards, which is something I don't want to feel bound to (yes I know that all equipment has a GP cost too, but in my typical campaigns the PCs should be able to afford any mundane equipment after the first few levels, and magic equipment is instead not normally for sale beyond basic potions and scrolls). So in this category, I might actually rather enforce the material components details as a way to control how often the PC can resurrect someone or reveal a plot secret, and actually care less about the GP cost of it.3) Unfortunately there are also a few spells with a GP cost that don't fall into any of the above, and for which IMHO such material component cost is totally unjustified, for example Stoneskin and Magic Circle. These are neither permanent, nor plot-changing. If it's a small cost then it quickly becomes just a tithe or tax on each usage of the spells, but in most campaigns it's irrelevant and causes useless bookkeeping, and in stingy campaigns where is it not irrelevant then it's unfair because those spells have no reasons to be limited, nor there is a reason why PCs in a treasure-rich campaign should cast those more often. IMHO it's a design mistake to balance these spells with a GP tax, if they are better than their level, then they should be just higher levels. I don't know how I would handle these spells as a DM, probably I'll just tax the players the GP cost with some regret. Maybe I'll let them cast them at +1 slot level to avoid the cost. As a player, unfortunately the net consequence of this bad design choice is that I never personally use those spells at all.- Finally, keep in mind that these are my thoughts on spells with a pay-per-use cost i.e. with costly material component being consumed by the spell. Those with non-consumed material component are not an issue for me, the cost is equivalent to buying a piece of equipment, normally one time only.</blockquote>

Verification