D&D 5E Somatic and Verbal - Value Added?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yes, there being some spells which have a verbal component but not a somatic component and some spells which have a somatic component but not a verbal component is absolutely worth the complexity of tracking (which is as easy as noting 1, 2, or 3 letters next to each spell on your character sheet, resulting in a note of "CR-VSMgpc" being the most complex possible note and meaning that the spell requires concentration, is a ritual, has verbal, somatic, and material components, that the material component has a specific cost and is consumed in casting)

If for no other reason than for their to be some spells which work even in silence, and for their to be the possibility of escape via spell when otherwise physically stuck.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Are verbal and somatic components worth the added complication?

In my view: No.

 

[happyhermit]

I think it is obvious, but since some of you missed it, I'll expound.

Verbal and Somatic components could be replaced with a flat rule that _all_ spells have verbal and somatic components or that none of the spells have them. The added complication is in keeping track of which spells do and which spells do not have verbal and/or somatic components.

Personally I didn't miss it, I just am not sure what added complication "keeping track of which spells..." really has. Keeping track of how and by whom. As a GM, I don't really "keep track" of it at all, if a character is in a situation where one of them is restricted, then we look if there is a V &or M in the spell description. As a player, we look at them if wanting to "correctly" describe casting the spell, otherwise it doesn't matter outside of the aforementioned circumstance.

Maybe I am actually missing some sort of complication in "keeping track of" these things, but they are just 2 letters in the spell description. We do use the spell cards quite a bit, and find that that does help with mental overhead and complications, but when playing without components barely ever came up, outside of situations where they were "cool".

 

[Darkwing Duck]

if a character is in a situation where one of them is restricted, then we look if there is a V &or M in the spell description.

If that works for you, that's great. But, many players and groups of players feel that anytime the book is opened, the sense of immersion is disrupted.

 

[Ganymede81]

I much prefer a system where, to cast a spell, you must be able to speak clearly, gesture dramatically, and possess your magical focus. If you are missing one (maybe you lost your wand or are attempting to cast silently), you must succeed a concentration check to cast. If you are missing two or more, you simply can't cast.

 

[happyhermit]

If that works for you, that's great. But, many players and groups of players feel that anytime the book is opened, the sense of immersion is disrupted.

Ok, maybe that is where I am lost, are you talking about writing the different letters on a character sheet as the complication? To me, that doesn't even register. I actually find that the spell cards DO reduce some overhead for us, but if copying down spell descriptions then a couple extra letters don't make any difference for me. If you are talking about memorizing all spell descriptions, then I am out, most of my players would never do this.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Ok, maybe that is where I am lost, are you talking about writing the different letters on a character sheet as the complication? To me, that doesn't even register. I actually find that the spell cards DO reduce some overhead for us, but if copying down spell descriptions then a couple extra letters don't make any difference for me. If you are talking about memorizing all spell descriptions, then I am out, most of my players would never do this.

Are you looking for a discussion or an argument?
After I've put area of effect, range, detailed notes about particulars (such as how Mirror Image is affected by the d20 die roll to see if an image is hit), etc. FOR EACH SPELL KNOWN on the character sheet I really don't have space to put down something as trivial as verbal and somatic components. Which means that when they become important, we have to search the book.

 

[Lehrbuch]

If that works for you, that's great. But, many players and groups of players feel that anytime the book is opened, the sense of immersion is disrupted.

Not if the PC is a wizard!

 

[happyhermit]

Are you looking for a discussion or an argument?
After I've put area of effect, range, detailed notes about particulars (such as how Mirror Image is affected by the d20 die roll to see if an image is hit), etc. FOR EACH SPELL KNOWN on the character sheet I really don't have space to put down something as trivial as verbal and somatic components. Which means that when they become important, we have to search the book.

I don't know how you could interpret my post as looking for an argument, but I am sorry that you did. I was simply trying to understand by asking questions, which you have answered now, sorry that I upset you in the process.

To me, 2 letters was never something to consider, but we all have different levels of what we consider effort. I write a LOT, both on paper and typing, so I suppose something that might not register for me could be a pain for someone else. Space hasn't been much of an issue as I use multiple pages. Also, like mentioned we use the spell cards most of the time, so that removes it entirely.

So, now that I know we are on the same page; personally I am glad they included them, we use them when necessary or wanted and it is no trouble for us. I also think they can be skipped without any real problems.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Verbal and Somatic components could be replaced with a flat rule that _all_ spells have verbal and somatic components or that none of the spells have them. The added complication is in keeping track of which spells do and which spells do not have verbal and/or somatic components.

The advantage that some spells thus cannot be cast when gagged, bound, and/or mugged of components, whereas other spells still can be cast in these circumstances makes for a richer game. It gives PCs (and NPCs) different options in different circumstances and so the PCs can plan for those circumstances / try to avoid those circumstances / try to create those circumstances (if trying to restrict NPC options), depending on what they want to achieve.

So, I think that the added complication of keeping track of V, S, M is worthwhile. It isn't much effort to keep track, anyway.

 

[TwinPeaksGuy]

snipped. . .

Does anyone know of a compiled list of spells with costly components available anywhere?

one of the many lists in this thread summarizes that:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ts-(Leugren)&p=6746658&viewfull=1#post6746658


if only it listed the actual prices, as-is it goes on the list whether it costs 10 gp or 1000 gp.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Are verbal and somatic components worth the added complication?

Nope. At some point during the playtest (IIRC, the entire playtest, up until very very close to release), the rule was that all spells require verbal, somatic, and material components unless otherwise stated. This was a great rule. Unfortunately, in the end, they decided the traditional "ball of bat guano and sulfur" was too much of a sacred cow.

 

[delericho]

I recall there being a vocalise spell in earlier editions which allowed casters to cast their spells without verbal components. Not sure what the components of the spell were, it would be ironic if it had a verbal component.

S, M (a bell with no clapper).

 

[Bayonet]

I use verbal and somatic because binding a wizard hands or silence is worth while and adds to the game IMO. I do not use material components expect in a few rare cases like raise dead because I can tie that into quest etc to raise a dead ally. Kind of depends on what school of magic do you like from reading.

Components big pain in the dairy air except in a few cases where it makes sense from a story line prospective so i dodge them. The other two I use because I think it has added value does not always come in play but does on some fights and I keep it simple.

I'd go the same way on this. I like the fact that magic users can be crippled if silenced or bound, and that the loss of a spell focus or component pouch can make them the magic equivalent of a Champion Fighter with a shiv, so I keep them in the game. I only really get into the component debate when a PC's spell calls for something of worth (1000gp ruby, or whatever) then I just rule that they have what they need, they just burn the gp value to cast.

 

[mrpopstar]

If for no other reason than for their to be some spells which work even in silence, and for their to be the possibility of escape via spell when otherwise physically stuck.

I agree that these opportunities are important, but I think it would be easier to assume that all spells have a verbal and somatic component, and that these spells make exception an to that general rule within their descriptions.

 

[Jester David]

Are verbal and somatic components worth the added complication?

I think so.
I like that magic is different that swinging a sword and has different rules. It's not just an X-Men superpower, but you go through this little ritual. I like the flavour and esoteric touch it brings to magic.

Unfortunately, the rules a little spread out and early references don't really direct you to the right place. But once you learn the rules it's easy to ignore.

But your mileage might vary, and not everyone thinks the same. I think it's odd to be able to cast a spell while, oh, two weapon fighting. But if you want to play in a game where your TWF shoots magic missiles out of their eyes, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. But it's always easier to ignore a small rule like that than have to make up your own.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not that it is germane to the question, but the one thing I love seeing because of the complete illogic of the statement is...

"handwaving Somatic components"

 

[Horwath]

try to keep it simple.

If you're gagged or silenced you cannot cast spells with "V" components. Also you should look into the volume of the voice itself. Im kind of tired that most DM's think that wizards cast spells by shouting from the top of their lungs like a raving lunatic.

IF your hands are tied or if you're carring something heavy with both hands or bound somehow you cannot cast spells with "S" components.

As for material, most of them arent spent anyway while casting, so if you aren't mugged or in jail stripped of belongings you are considered to have spellcomponent pouch. Just track expensive ones and consuming ones.

 

[hejtmane]

try to keep it simple.

If you're gagged or silenced you cannot cast spells with "V" components. Also you should look into the volume of the voice itself. Im kind of tired that most DM's think that wizards cast spells by shouting from the top of their lungs like a raving lunatic.

IF your hands are tied or if you're carring something heavy with both hands or bound somehow you cannot cast spells with "S" components.

As for material, most of them arent spent anyway while casting, so if you aren't mugged or in jail stripped of belongings you are considered to have spellcomponent pouch. Just track expensive ones and consuming ones.

Me I never liked the magic that had material components as a concept seems more like alchemy and con artist. That is my view of magic I mean depending on what books you read depends on how they do magic everyone has their preference I know what mine are so I do not use material components it is just not how I see magic.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Are verbal and somatic components worth the added complication?

Are having more than two swords ("one handed" and "two handed") worth the added complication?

Answer that and you have your answer to your question.

^_^

Paul L. Ming