D&D 5E Revisiting material components - enforcing in a game focused on resource-management

[MNblockhead]

I've always considered material components with no listed cost to be slightly malleable. The listed entry is often the most common or most desired form of component for the respective spell. If it isn't available, a caster can often make due with other materials on hand.

If the available resources are particularly scarce, a caster may not be able to cast spells without a means to create or diffuse certain elements and essences (a good reason to always have Alchemist's Supplies on hand). Depending on the level of scarcity, I might make it an automatic pass with the proper tools or set a DC for a tool proficiency check. Success indicates the caster can use any known spells with zero-cost material components. Failure would result in some (or all) spells with zero-cost material components being unavailable until more resources are acquired.

I like this idea. The listed components are simply those tried and true items known to work. But a Wizard could spend the time to test other ingredients.

I would want to avoid having to have an exhaustive Skyrim-like list of components. Instead, I will let the player argue why a different component should work. Based on their argument, I'll assign a DC. Then they can make an Alchemist tool check to test their theory.

It relies more on DM discretion than I would like but overall gives the player more options and agency. It also makes alchemist tool that much more useful.

Yeah, I like this idea. I like it a lot.

 

[MNblockhead]

Do this rules add fun to your game?

Well yes. I would think that is implied. I'm not asking for advice on how to make my game less fun.

But this is a new approach for me and I want to hear from others with more experience making components matter for their game so I can find ways to make it even more fun and avoid pitfalls that may make it less so.

 

[Blue]

3. I will have intelligent foes try their very best to take, break, or knock away a wizard's focus in battle. I will be merciless about it. In a world where at least low-level wizards are known, the smart combatant will know to disrupt the wizard and taking away his focus is one of the easier ways to do this.

My comment about this is that as long as knocking things out of hands - including disarming, which this effectively is - is as fully open the the PCs. Are you also planning on having shields disarmable (since Holy Focus can explicitly be them).

Oh, and I expect it to end badly. With characters focusing on the mechanics just like now we have grapplers, and major humanoid opponents disarmed.

 

[Blue]

Starting from 2nd level spells the pcs have to have material components. The focus won't work. Focus in general is a bad, lame, game ruining idea that saps flavor out of the spellcaster classes. I honestly have no idea who came up with the idea of focus or when, but it has to be one of the worst ideas for D&D.

Things like the Holy Focus being available on a shield are the only line of defense against the material component system being effectively unusable to any melee-based caster.

I'm fine with generalizations if they actually apply to everything you are talking about. In this case, however, you generic statements would invalidate a whole class of standard archetypes.

 

[Blue]

Question #1: Will you ever run foe casters who can not cast their spells because you have decided they wouldn't have that component. Will you do it willy-nilly, as in sometimes "ooops, I'm out of that" or "I've only got enough to cast it once" for things that the CR would count on doing repeatedly?

If it doesn't happen with a somewhat equal parity to PC casters, then it's putting in place rules that sound fair but in effect only hinder & nerf the PCs.

You might even want to take it out of your own hands, assigning a random chance to any spell the foe casts with components. (Don't bother to roll until you've chosen to cut down on prep work.)

Question #2: Will you be giving spell components as treasure, for the full load of spells the caster had (often multiples for consumables)? Is this in place of normally rolled treasure or in addition to it? If the PCs fail to kill an enemy caster fast, are you double-penalizing them by also subtracting the price of high cost spell components from what is granted?

 

[MNblockhead]

For example, random page flip into PHB... the Resistance Cantrip has a component of "A miniature Cloak", not a piece of cloth, not a cloak for a child, this sounds like someone has to have found a pixie sized, fully stiched cloak. For a cantrip that no one really uses anyways. Where do you get something like that? How much would a tailor charge to make one since a normal sized cloak isn't listed? It would easily be a couple silver, which isn't a lot but why are we bothering?

IRL "magic" rituals are full of stuff like this. I like magic to have these weird associations. Most adventurers can sew. It is assumed they mend and make simple items as they travel. It would not be difficult to stitch together a small cloak. It needn't be perfect. And, yes, I do love the idea of a wizard trying to trade or steal a pixie's cloak. It is a fun role-playing opportunity.

Or what about something like Hex requiring a petrified eye of a newt. How would you ever aquire that? Cast petrify (a 6th level spell requiring lime [I assume the caustic chemical not the fruit] water and earth) on a newt and then chiseling out if eyeball?

Good creative thinking! Hopefully your mentor is high enough level to provide one to you. But maybe you have to go get a newt for him to petrify for you.

See, this is why I LOVE making components matter. My D&D games need more newt hunts!

Chromatic Orb is one that constantly annoys me, because players like to take it at first level, but it requires a diamond worth 50 gold. No 1st level character is capable of affording that, so if I didn't hand wave it away then when my sorcerer got excited to cast their spell for the first time I'd have to tell them, "oh sorry, you aren't rich enough to cast that spell you picked" and that isn't fun for anyone.

Note - I am not doing away with spell focus. Just that you have to have studied with the component before you can cast the spell with the focus. I assume that the wizards academy or higher-level caster you are learning from will have this available. Or go to jewelers and pay to let them study with a diamond for a nominal fee. If you want a backup diamond while travelling, in case you loe your focus, well, you need to find a way to get one.

Then you get the something like Barkskin "a handful of oak bark". Here you have two options, either the party finds an oak tree because they are common enough in the area, they have the item, and then they must remember they have it and mark it on their sheet constantly when remaking sheets. Or, you are in an area where oaks don't grow, and I'm not even talking desert or tundra, a lot of plants have very specific biomes and if you don't want to just handwave it then you need to determine if this setting would support oak trees that the party could find. Then, after they have it.... it doesn't matter. It's just a gotta check "I cast barkskin" "Wait do you have Oak Bark on you" "Yes" "Is it on your character sheet". Is going to get old. Same with a lot of those, Yew Leaves for Detect Poison, Sumac leaves for Flameblade, wychwood for Dancing Lights, Licorice root for Haste (I don't even know what that is). Do all these grow in the same environments, how hard are they to actually find?

Again, not an issue for me.

1. No oaks in your area? I smell a plot hook.

2. Someone else may have some and sell it to you or your mentor may let you borrow to study with it and then you use your focus to cast thereafter.

3. Upthread there was a recommendation to allow players to propose alternative components and make a skill check with an alchemist set to see if they can figure out how to cast the spell with the substitute. I'm all for that! So then, yes, try with the bark from other trees.

4. My players use DnD Beyond, so no copying from one sheet to another. I trust them to manage their own inventories. If I wanted to, I suppose I could review their DnD Beyond sheets, but if I felt the need to do that, I wouldn't be playing with them.

Also you get stuff like Banishment which requires "An item distasteful to the target". Which is going to be... what? We had a game where our cleric banished a Giant Ape so we could get into the tower it was guarding and fight it through the doorway. We didn't expect to fight a Giant Ape, so we didn't grab "something distasteful to this Giant Ape" and even if we did know, how are we supposed to know what to get? If they need to have the material component first, does just getting it for one creature work, what is distasteful to Bjorn the City Watchmen that the Cleric Banished so he wouldn't get hurt, do you know? It becomes a mess.

You do research. You make a nature check. You do trial and error. Banishment is an annoying, broken spell without this limitation. Even with a focus, I would say, you need to bring to mind something distasteful to the creature that you have actually physically held in the past. Which is great for role-playing. If give the wizard an incentive to play around with every disgusting thing he comes across so he can properly envision it when casting the spell.

And the end result is either nothing changes from normal, because players either pick spells with easy components that they can quickly find and then use their focuses throughout, or you have spellcasters unable to cast their spells.

Hey, that's their choice. But if you want to have banishment, you better start getting up close and personal with a lot of gross stuff. Sure, most will rely on there focus...until they have it stolen or destroyed. I'm not going to cry from them. They can still cast spells without material components and they could have stocked up on some back up material components. A fighter that gets disarmed doesn't have as many backup options.

Also, if you are targeting focuses.... shouldn't you also target component pouches? It'd be even better for the enemy since then the caster might not be able to cast any spell at all.

ABSOLUTELY! Why is everyone making the enemies so damn polite. Disarm the fighters! Steal/destroy/cast away the wizards pouches and wands. Make the party think more tactically. Have backups to your backup. Take measures to make it difficult to steal your components and focus.

Not sure how much fun it is for the player though, especially if you don't do similar by trying to disarm fighters and break arrow quivers for archers. Though, picking up most weapons is a non-action once per turn so in the end disarming them alone doesn't do anything, you also got to steal the stuff and then you are mostly rolling athletics checks to wrestle over their weapons and items instead of actually damaging each other, which just drags things out.

Depends on the players. I don't think it would go over well at AL night at my local FLGS. But for my home game, we find combat far more interesting. You also need to keep an eye out for ambushes and pickpockets. Maybe the "simple" goblin encounter turns out not to be a simple beat down when one of them grabs your staff and runs off with it. Now you have chase him into the goblins' lair, where you are over numbered. You have to find your staff while avoiding getting mobbed in the tunnels. Or, the party determines it isn't worth the risk, the wizard relies on the components she has, until she can get to a place where she can buy or make a new staff.

I personally just don't see the value in it for the occassional "Oh, the wizard goes to the graveyard to get more grave dirt for that spell. That's a cool character scene."

I'm not saying that each and every component has to be a side quest. In fact, obtaining many components will be a downtime activity. But it gives additional tactical considerations that add to more interesting combats. It balances out some spells like banishment. And it does give a wealth of plot hooks and role-playing opportunities.

But, if the players don't want to deal with it, then, like encumbrance, it can be handwaved. But many people enjoy the resource management aspect.

 

[MNblockhead]

They can try foraging. They can use downtime activities to find/buy components. They can have access to components during training to get a level.

If they don't want to track components in their inventory, they need not carry components. They can rely on their focus (if they have that class ability). But if they want to have a way to cast a spell if they lose their focus, they need to have the component in their component pouch. I know that not all players will like it, but this resource-management is going to figure heavily into this campaign. The players know what they are signing up for. If they don't like this style of play, they won't join the game.

This will also be the first 5e game where encumbrance will need to be tracked. All players will have access to DnD Beyond so it isn't that onerous.

I probably wouldn't do this in any of my games, but if I did, it would likely be handled as foraging (see Basic Rules, "Activities While Traveling" pages 64-65 and DMG, "Foraging" page 111). So, while the PCs are traveling the wilderness or a dungeon, the spellcaster can opt to forage if the party is going at a slow pace. A passive Wisdom (Survival) check would resolve the outcome, if it's in question. The risk in doing this for the spellcaster is that he or she is automatically surprised if a wandering monster happens upon the party (and is trying to be stealthy). The other trade-off is that, unlike foraging food and water, this could reasonably be established as a little trickier and the group can only travel at a slow pace instead of a slow or normal pace. In a game like mine, traveling at a slow pace likely means you have less time to complete your quest and risk failure and, the longer you take to get around, the higher the frequency of wandering monster checks.

Rather than be about foraging specific items and keeping track of them, it would have to be something like you got the components or you don't. I'm not sure how I'd work that part out exactly, but I certainly would not get so granular as have the spellcasters track specific components outside of ones that cost an appreciable amount of gold.

 

[MNblockhead]

My comment about this is that as long as knocking things out of hands - including disarming, which this effectively is - is as fully open the the PCs. Are you also planning on having shields disarmable (since Holy Focus can explicitly be them).

Oh, and I expect it to end badly. With characters focusing on the mechanics just like now we have grapplers, and major humanoid opponents disarmed.

Yes, of course. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. In the DMG, Ch.9, under "Combat Options":

A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp.

Therefore, anything in a target's grasp can be knocked out of their grasp.

Yes, it adds an additional optional mechanic, but we like tactical combats and I don't think this makes combat much more complicated.

I don't quite get what I should be worried about.

 

[MNblockhead]

Things like the Holy Focus being available on a shield are the only line of defense against the material component system being effectively unusable to any melee-based caster.

I'm fine with generalizations if they actually apply to everything you are talking about. In this case, however, you generic statements would invalidate a whole class of standard archetypes.

Heck, I would be willing to home-rule that a specific sword can be a focus for certain character glasses. Put the holy symbol on the hilt. Or for some gods, the weapon itself is a holy symbol.

 

[MNblockhead]

Question #1: Will you ever run foe casters who can not cast their spells because you have decided they wouldn't have that component. Will you do it willy-nilly, as in sometimes "ooops, I'm out of that" or "I've only got enough to cast it once" for things that the CR would count on doing repeatedly?

Initially, I was thinking that they would have the components necessary to cast he spells on their list. But is every NPC caster that prepared? That they ALL have the components AND a focus. I don't think it is unfair because the party can loot the defeated caster. But is seems boring. I like mixing up the descriptions of the spell casting and mixing the challenges and tactics needed to fight enemy casters.

You might even want to take it out of your own hands, assigning a random chance to any spell the foe casts with components. (Don't bother to roll until you've chosen to cut down on prep work.)

I like this idea. Even something as simple as 1d4: (1) focus only, (2) Components only - sufficient for slots, (3) focus and limited components - any consumable will only have enough for one use, (4) focus and sufficient components for all slots.

For named, major foes, or foes like Archmages, I would expect they would be sufficiently prepared and may customize their equipment accordingly.

Question #2: Will you be giving spell components as treasure, for the full load of spells the caster had (often multiples for consumables)? Is this in place of normally rolled treasure or in addition to it? If the PCs fail to kill an enemy caster fast, are you double-penalizing them by also subtracting the price of high cost spell components from what is granted?

[/QUOTE]

Yes. And I don't roll for treasure in this campaign. It is all spelled out. But I like your idea of rolling for how kitted out NPC spell casters are. That way, with some you get no components. With others, you'll get a lot.