Spell Components--do you use them?

[frankthedm]

in my game magic has very sharp teeth to bite those who think it simply is a tool.

Not having the proper marterials when casting a spell is very good for mimicing the uncontroled magical outbusts that young sorcerers are known for before they properly train themselves. Of course, an uncontroled fireball is a lot worse than an uncontroled ray of frost.

 

[Urbannen]

Nitpick alert!!!!

A spell component can be verbal, somatic, material, focus, divine focus, or XP. A lot of people hear "spell component" and they think "material component", which I'm guessing is the true question of the poll: "Material spell components -- do you use them?"

If you don't keep the two straight, it becomes really hard to talk about spell-like abilities and alternate sorcerer classes.

 

[Treebore]

I require keepiing track of material spell components. i do not itemize unless they have an actual GP cost listed, I just have them deduct a certain amount of gold whenever they enter a town, based on how many spells they have cast since the last time they "restocked". this isn't a precise count of spells cast either, just a rough estimation. Components with a price tag are actually kept track of. Which is not very many, at least with regards to the spells players cast the most often.

Typically, the restocking costs are not very high, maybe 75 gp for all the material components without prices listed. The highest i ever went was around 250 gp, but that was because a LOT of spells had been cast since the last time.

I never have them run out of such items, unless it is something expensive.

 

[Zappo]

We keep track of costly components, but for inexpensive ones we assume that the spell pouch contains more than enough for any reasonable need. Only if the PCs get stranded away from any city for a long time it can become an issue. We reason that casting a spell only requires a very tiny amount of component, so space is not a real problem. The real weirdness is how can the caster manage to keep them separate, but I guess that that's what a 23 INT is for.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

Here's a question: would you let a fighter use a bastard sword in one hand without the feat? No? Hmm. I bet fighters would gain a lot more popularity if they were allowed to ignore proficiencies and requisites.

Well, maybe. Is it:

Cinematically appropriate?
The coolest thing that could happen?
The most fun thing that could happen?
Consistant with a TV series sense of cinematography?

If so, then sure, why not. The story and the characters are more important than the nitpicky details of combat in the games I run, anyway.

 

[drakhe]

going easy on beginners

Since my players are beginners (at least with regards to dnd3e) I'm going easy on them and told them as long as they remember to visit a component shop or wizard shop whenever possible they should not worry about the details.

I'm also rather included to be lenient in games with more expierienced players.
I found (on the one occasion I played a spellcaster myself) that spell components management (wow big word) took a rather large part of my activities.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

..

Well, maybe. Is it:

Cinematically appropriate?
The coolest thing that could happen?
The most fun thing that could happen?
Consistant with a TV series sense of cinematography?

If so, then sure, why not. The story and the characters are more important than the nitpicky details of combat in the games I run, anyway.

<rant>

If something as powerful as a feat is considered "nitpicky" in your epic story-intensive games why even bother to distinguish a bastard sword from a longsword in the first place? Why not call them all swords and get on with the game? That way, it won't interfere with the complex character development and in-depth story arc that you have painstakingly crafted with arduous and cunning roleplay.

I'm sorry, but I have to take a statement such as this one personally. Its wording presumes what is more important in my games; and you have no idea. I love a good story, and games with interesting characters are generally more fun for me. The fact that I think it's a good idea to stick to the rules doesn't have any effect. Everyone has their own way of playing this game.

</rant>

If this thread is in fact about material components only, then the rules support only keeping track of those material components with a monetary cost. If you have a component pouch, you have all non-costly components and focuses.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

<rant>I'm sorry, but I have to take a statement such as this one personally. Its wording presumes what is more important in my games; and you have no idea.

Hmm...

Wow. I want to play in one of these games where magic users don't have to follow the rules and use components. That would be awesome to be casting arcane spells in full plate with both hands full while bound and gagged.

Now, what was that phrase.. Oh yeah...

Its wording presumes what is more important in my games; and you have no idea.

Now, counter-sarcasm aside, the rules are Nitpicky to me If something blatently breaks the rules, and its the Right Thing For The Scene.... Bye Bye rules. <shrug>. Its how my game plays.

Now, please resume your hostile tone over the existance of Rule 0. (kidding, kidding...)

 

[Gez]

Don't keep track of it. It's boring. As 3e suggested, we use the spell component pouch. Only items with a cost greater than 1 GP are tracked separately.

Sorcerers don't even need the pouch.