Phoebasss
Explorer
Huh? I’m in favor of cutting the unnecessary fiddliness on spellcasting due to handedness. It looks like you are too.
Level Up (A5E) Object interaction, spell components, unarmed attacks and hand usage
I hate the excessive use of "fiddly" in 5e discussions. It's a way of saying words that imply badness without actually saying anything. There is pretty much zero mechanical difference to the player between saying that casting a spell requires a focus item plus a free hand unless your focus item subs itself for the somatic gestures by way of being a 2h staff & gish types have limited spell selection vrs a focus item aimed at full casters that is two handed while these other 1H focus items are aimed at partial casters & gish types are capable of casting a limited subset of spells if they are on your class list. The only difference is that one is easier to design around & is less likely to have accidental loopholes from combining unintended features since you can only use one focus at a time.
It's complicated. A lot of why certain casters feel kind of unfulfilling & people say they need fixing is because gish types don't have any restrictions that used to be there in the past so now spells need to be scaled back to account for the fact that anyone including some awesome gish can cast the same spell in plate+shield with extra attacks & so on. 3.5 still had a lot of limitations & powerful casters but those limitations proved to be both too harsh & not strict enough when it came to gish types, 5e dialed them all wayy back or even removed them and gave casters the exact same cantrips/spells as a gish so you have things like toll the dead (poor range, ok damage & no effect) alongside frostbite/ray of frost (poor range poor damage minor effect) alongside things like all of this & frequently extra attacks each adding +AbilityMod as well as class features that can enhance those attacks in various ways.... Great balance for a gish... not so much for a full caster. Even the switch from DR to 50% resist favors many small hits that add an AbilityMod from a gish like warlocks over one big hit for an equal number of dice regardless of if an ability mod is added & that holds for both hit chance as well as total damage.
jmucchiello
Hero
But according to the game, both the dust of one 100gp diamond and the dust of 5 20gp diamonds are capable of fulfilling the 100 gp of diamond dust that a spell might require. And it makes no sense that one could tell by looking at the diamond dust what it's worth.
This doesn't even bring the whole concept of "what is a 100gp diamond?" What if there's a scarcity or surplus of diamonds in the area? Etc.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Yeah, that goes on the list of unrealistic things in D&D. In position number 34,281, I believe.
Heh, yeah... all the cleric has to believe is the diamond in his hand is worth 100 gold pieces and that he'd pay 100 gold pieces for it. Which of course is true, because he'd certainly pay 100 gold pieces for the diamond because that way he'd be able to then use it in his spell. 
Yes, keeping low-price components (a different thing as correcting the hand use problem) is flavorful if you pay attention to it but as a DM it allowed me to provide some "boost to spells" without breaking the balance between classes. Regular bat guano is fine, but casting fireball with vampire guano bypasses fire resistance... Will it make fireball more powerful? Yes. Does it break the game? No, because (a) I control the availability of vampire guano and if the characters really wants it, acquiring components can be a adventuring hook (b) most often it's just a +1/+3 to DC depending on the components, so it's not something different than a +1/+3 weapon for the fighter with regard to bounded accuracy, except it's of limited use.
Somehow, my wizards players liked to agonize whether it was "worth" using the special components.
I fear when the party rogue in the party will buy a 10 gp diamond and sell it for 100 to the party cleric.
Somehow, my wizards players liked to agonize whether it was "worth" using the special components.
defcon1 said:
I fear when the party rogue in the party will buy a 10 gp diamond and sell it for 100 to the party cleric.
Last edited:
There's nothing to fear. Either the DM wants to let the party cleric cast the spell in question or doesn't. If the DM does, any requisite "expensive" component will be found and the party will tick the GP off their collective sheets and pay for it. If the DM doesn't... then they never make any "diamonds" or "diamond dust" available in the first place. A rogue selling a 10 gp diamond for 100 gp to the cleric will never be necessary.
The only time this sort of flim-flammery would come up would be if the DM runs a game where going out and finding spell components is a mini-game the party is expected to play. If the players have to do that as part of their normal adventuring, then yeah they might try and circumvent the finding of expensive diamonds by doing one of these "sales". But if that's the case... then it means one of two things-- 1) this is part of the rogue's character personality to attempt to flim-flam the gods and "get away with something" (IE it's a narrative/story decision on the rogue's part) in which case, cool! You as DM have something new to play with in the story with the Rogue and perhaps the Cleric. Or 2) The party is pointing out to you that they don't find the mini-game of needing to discover all their spell components fun and are doing whatever they can to just get what they need and then move on. In which case, you might as the DM need to rethink the idea of making the hunt for spell components a "thing" in your game.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that most spells requiring diamond dust are divine.
Which means in effect that the component is being sacrificed to a deity - and if the sacrifice ain't worth enough, the deity can always say so by denying the spell (i.e. it doesn't work when cast).
A nastier deity, or one who's seen this once too often, could accept the lesser sacrifice and still deny the spell.
The other easy workaround is that instead of diamond dust the sacrifice has to be actual gold pieces.
CapnZapp
Legend
Keep in mind - in this thread I'm arguing that simplifying/doing away with hand usage and object interaction rules would be a complete improvement, with close to zero drawbacks. Yes really.
I am not suggesting we remove spell components. I'm merely suggesting we make the game friendlier by not burying the rules for the few spells with exceptions in something as subtle and easily missed as "the absence of somatic or verbal in the list of components", and instead explicitly tell the reader which spells work differently.
This is to me a clear instance of sacred cows and darlings remaining in the game way past their due date. Level Up would make the entire 5E community a huge service by finally getting rid of them.
I am not suggesting we remove spell components. I'm merely suggesting we make the game friendlier by not burying the rules for the few spells with exceptions in something as subtle and easily missed as "the absence of somatic or verbal in the list of components", and instead explicitly tell the reader which spells work differently.
This is to me a clear instance of sacred cows and darlings remaining in the game way past their due date. Level Up would make the entire 5E community a huge service by finally getting rid of them.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Tell the reader, where? In the write-up for each differently-working spell?
That'd be fine if there's only ten such exceptions, but a lot of redundancy if there's 100.
Also, your arguing for removal of hand usage and object-interaction rules - while laudable in its attempts to make things more efficient - IMO opens up a lot of room for abuse and, in a way, serves to make the PCs even more powerful.
How does it make the PCs more powerful, you ask? Because far more often it's the PCs, rather than their opponents, who have enough possessions to have to worry about what is in which hand. Removing restrictions such that, in effect, anything the PC is carrying can be in either hand at any time serves to make life much easier for the PCs while not helping (most of) the monsters at all; hence, it's a PC power boost in relation to their opponents.
And PCs in 5e already have more than enough going for them.
Most of the time, when you look at a sacred cow you'll find it's achieved that status for a good reason.
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
Unlikely Wield + 3 Extra Attacks Interaction
