Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AmerginLiath" data-source="post: 7372201" data-attributes="member: 777">I think “material components” works when it means the caster needs to have a component to pouch/focus/holy symbol — the spellcaster’s version of a toolkit. Just as somatic requirements are an interesting limit for when you’re grappled or chained or verbal requirements&nbsp; when you’re silenced or muffled, material requirements for spells in that basic fashion mean thinking about spell choice if captured or just simply gone to bed and fearing be woken up by marauders.The complex “eye of newt, toe fungus of an accountant worth 25 silver” components, on the other hand, get out of hand. I can see where components play a role for certain rituals or for spells of permanent duration (e.g. the diamond for a resurrection), but those costs tend to either be hand-waves or else they serve to point casters away from cool spells simply because the cost of the component is too high or there’s no available side quest for it.That’s why I like the basic idea of casting time (within a round; casting most spells more than a round again makes them not worth casting) in the old sense of segments — something this action economy gets at. Some spells are going to be “more expensive” to cast than others of the same level, but pricing that out at game level through granular components loses the fun of playing the spell in a round-based game. That’s why I like the thought experiments that come from seeing what other “costs” the action economy provides for these spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AmerginLiath, post: 7372201, member: 777"] I think “material components” works when it means the caster needs to have a component to pouch/focus/holy symbol — the spellcaster’s version of a toolkit. Just as somatic requirements are an interesting limit for when you’re grappled or chained or verbal requirements when you’re silenced or muffled, material requirements for spells in that basic fashion mean thinking about spell choice if captured or just simply gone to bed and fearing be woken up by marauders. The complex “eye of newt, toe fungus of an accountant worth 25 silver” components, on the other hand, get out of hand. I can see where components play a role for certain rituals or for spells of permanent duration (e.g. the diamond for a resurrection), but those costs tend to either be hand-waves or else they serve to point casters away from cool spells simply because the cost of the component is too high or there’s no available side quest for it. That’s why I like the basic idea of casting time (within a round; casting most spells more than a round again makes them not worth casting) in the old sense of segments — something this action economy gets at. Some spells are going to be “more expensive” to cast than others of the same level, but pricing that out at game level through granular components loses the fun of playing the spell in a round-based game. That’s why I like the thought experiments that come from seeing what other “costs” the action economy provides for these spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification