Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 9206957" data-attributes="member: 58172">To be clear, the costly gp component serves no balancing mechanic whatsoever. The availability of gp depends on the campaign setting, and on player ingenuity. In any case, most gp costs are a trivial amount at a higher slot when players already have an excess of gp with nothing to spend it on. Even for the two or three spells whose gp cost might be a disincentive, it is cleaner to design a better method to reduce spamming. All gp costs are "visual pollution" within the game mechanics.Similarly, the V and S component are unreliable for game balance. They are a vestigial tradition only.Perhaps V and S could serve a balance, but it would require a game design rethink. Meanwhile, the components are often untrue. For example, a Bard who is playing a flute would cast spells without either V or S.Ultimately, the 5e game is better when deleting the spell component line.Each class or subclass defines the methods for how to cast spells.To have components in the spell description gets in the way.</blockquote>