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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

The situation you describe is not any different in function to the system in place unless you are also saying we should reduce the number of spells which are exceptions (meaning do not have all three types of components required).

What is different between the two situations is the amount of space in a spell description taken up by the necessary information: right now we have a component line that might stretch to additional lines in rare cases; changing the rules to generally assume all spells have VSM components would remove that line from a number of spell descriptions, but would add a new line of text along the lines of "This spell has no verbal component." into the spell description of others - the net result being slightly less lines of text spent on spells (assuming there are more spells with all three components than without one or more, which I haven't checked the numbers on so I could be wrong), and also that it becomes even more likely that a player or DM overlooks which spells do or don't have a particular sort of component because information that is currently called out in the same place in every spell would be stitched somewhere into the paragraph(s) of description.

 

[Koren]

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"

The phrasing was intentional. Glad someone got it.

 

[mrpopstar]

The situation you describe is not any different in function to the system in place unless you are also saying we should reduce the number of spells which are exceptions (meaning do not have all three types of components required).

Oh, yes, only spells intended to do the types of things you describe in your example should have exceptions.

 

[Blue]

Had fun with it in 3ed as a player - we only bpthered when it made a difference, but when my wizard was kidnapped there was first what I could cast without components, gestures or words, then just words when I got myself ungagged, then words and found components when I was still bound but hopping free. Did you know a white stone was a component for some spell or another in 3ed and it's not an uncommon thing to find when you fall out of a moving wagon?

But most of the time it's "make sure you have a hand free to for S, M or both" and buy a spell component pouch and not worry about it.

 

[Koren]

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.

Thanks, your search fu is stronger than mine! I was able to compile the ingredients, costs, and whether they are consumed by the spell. Posted in the original thread if you're interested.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ugren)/page3&p=6869981&viewfull=1#post6869981

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Oh, yes, only spells intended to do the types of things you describe in your example should have exceptions.

So then which spells get the exception and which that currently do would be changed?

 

[mrpopstar]

What if we didn't list components with spells at all, and instead they were included under the spellcasting description of each class?

You must use verbal components or play an instrument to cast a bard spell.
You must use verbal components and a holy symbol to cast a cleric spell.
You must use verbal components and somatic components to cast a sorcerer spell.
You must use verbal components, somatic components, and an arcane focus to cast a wizard spell.

 

[mrpopstar]

So then which spells get the exception and which that currently do would be changed?

Only those spells that have a compelling reason not to have a verbal or somatic component would get the exception, the rest would change.

 

[happyhermit]

What if we didn't list components with spells at all, and instead they were included under the spellcasting description of each class?

You must use verbal components or play an instrument to cast a bard spell.
You must use verbal components and a holy symbol to cast a cleric spell.
You must use verbal components and somatic components to cast a sorcerer spell.
You must use verbal components, somatic components, and an arcane focus to cast a wizard spell.

That is an option, but it does still remove the possibility of, for example; The wizards hands are bound, "Oh, @#$% what spells do I have?" "GAAH, why do all my spells need somatic!" "Oh wait, I just picked up dimension door, sweet! Now I just need to..."

Granted, a lot of people may never use situations like these, and it might be worth dropping it in those games, I like having the option/information right there though.

 

[mrpopstar]

This is a good idea for simplicity if people still want to include components but don't necessarily want the hassle of looking at the components of each spell.

Thanks!

It also helps to reinforce that the magic of each class is unique.

Seems odd that a bard—master of song, speech, and the magic they contain—must provide intricate gestures and a pinch of salt to cast comprehend languages.