D&D 5E Material components

[oriaxx77]

Hey guys,

I would like to get some input on spell material components. Do you use it? Do you ignore it? How do you like it as a player, as a DM? What is your experience? etc ...
All of my friends pretty much ignore it, but I start to think it can give a very good flavor for a campaign and a bit more depth for resource management.

k.r.
Oriaxx

 

[Stalker0]

My group completely ignores it except for the "jail-thief" scenario. Aka:

1) The wizard gets captured. His component pouch is removed to prevent casting of spells.
2) A thief steals the wizards pouch, preventing spell casting during a fight.


Otherwise completely ignore it.

 

[Lanefan]

Most of the time possession of a components pouch* and occasional small expense knock-offs to replenish it means you're good to go. Lose your pouch or have it get destroyed and you're down to only casting spells with no M component.

The exceptions are for any spell whose M component has any significant value (e.g. the 100 g.p. pearl for Identify). These have to be tracked carefully by the player(s) but are still assumed to be in the components pouch unless specified otherwise.

* - or, for Clerics, a holy symbol usually worn around the neck; which is the default reusable M component for any spell that requires one that doesn't state what the M component is.

 

[commandercrud]

People often complain wizards are overpowered. People often ignore components. Hmmmm....

 

[Waterbizkit]

Components with a cost get tracked, especially those that get consumed by the spell. The basic components that are generally assumed to be part of owning a spell components pouch are not.

I toyed with the idea of occasionally having the characters who opted to use a components pouch over a spell focus spend the occasional bit of downtime or some trivial amount of money topping off their pouch, but in the end it seemed rather pointless. The little bit of RP to be had sending them off to look for odds & ends like bat guano or the like seemed as though it would get repetitive and having them spend even a few coppers on the otherwise "costless" components felt punitive when casters using a focus need not bother.

I genuinely feel that components with a cost need to be tracked, it's one of the potentially limiting factors of the more powerful magic and to ignore it seems like a freebie for the casters. But, everyone has those points where they prefer to draw their own line. I like to track components for spells and ammunition for ranged weapons. I also enforce encumbrance. However I've never tracked water or rations except possibly where I've made food scarcity part of the campaigns overall tone. Torches I go back & forth on.

Anyway, getting off track. To sum up, we absolutely track spell components, but only the pricey ones.

 

[oriaxx77]

Components with a cost get tracked, especially those that get consumed by the spell. The basic components that are generally assumed to be part of owning a spell components pouch are not.

I toyed with the idea of occasionally having the characters who opted to use a components pouch over a spell focus spend the occasional bit of downtime or some trivial amount of money topping off their pouch, but in the end it seemed rather pointless. The little bit of RP to be had sending them off to look for odds & ends like bat guano or the like seemed as though it would get repetitive and having them spend even a few coppers on the otherwise "costless" components felt punitive when casters using a focus need not bother.

I genuinely feel that components with a cost need to be tracked, it's one of the potentially limiting factors of the more powerful magic and to ignore it seems like a freebie for the casters. But, everyone has those points where they prefer to draw their own line. I like to track components for spells and ammunition for ranged weapons. I also enforce encumbrance. However I've never tracked water or rations except possibly where I've made food scarcity part of the campaigns overall tone. Torches I go back & forth on.

Anyway, getting off track. To sum up, we absolutely track spell components, but only the pricey ones.

How does it effect the gameplay? E.g. did it cause any spectacular story elements, like fighting the main enemy they ran out of components. Do the players like it?

 

[jasper]

I stopped not ignoring umm. Back in 1 E I had a player cast a spell which required a 10K GP component. He never had that much money in one go. Since then, I have never skipped making people track components. Now if it a causal game, you just mark of the gp as you cast it. If not a causal game then, you better have notes of when and where your bought it. One player told me he didn't like playing Accountants and Wizards. I replied "How nice".
Expensive material components are a filter for DM. And 5e only requires a Grand total 87,442 gp 1 sp 2 cp to pay for all the spells in all the main books. I think my Spell Cost chart is still on the site.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I like the idea of spell components; the combination of weird herbs and other esoterica enhances the idea of a wizard - even the most amiable and friendly - being slightly off-putting and odd. Of course, my introduction to D&D concepts was the Dragonlance Chronicles, which do an amazing job of describing abstract game mechanics in-world.

In practice, I have found spell components a major pain to track for over 25 years. I like the WotC-era approach of "pay attention to the expensive ones and handwave the rest." The 5e concept of a spell focus takes this in an even more interesting direction, and I approve.

I still like my casters to smell funny though. Old habits die hard.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We use them strictly---VERY strictly. If you don't have the material component (especially those with a cost), you can't cast the spell.

Pretty simple, so I don't know why people ignore it. But then again, a lot of people ignore things like encumbrance, rations, and water...

 

[Oofta]

Only if there's an expensive component, and even then I pretty much rely on the honor system because life is too short to double check paperwork and accounting.