Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Weekly Wrecana - A New Division of Gish Classes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Igwilly" data-source="post: 7105170" data-attributes="member: 6801225"><p>Well, if you allow me, I would like to go back to the implement/material components discussion.</p><p>Material components can work. I like them when they work. The problem is, D&D never was particularly interested in making it work. Most components are completely random and a pain to track individually: with such different things for each and every spell, stocking components can be really boring. Also, many components, as Wrecan stated, are meta-jokes; not something to take seriously.</p><p>The spell component pouch, while intended to be an abstraction, is too much of an abstraction. The wizard cannot know which components he’ll need to which spells he’ll memorize in long trip, when he’s unable to restock the pouch, having such specific requirements. It’s so big of an abstraction that it may not be there, as well. Keep in mind that I actually like to track how many arrows are left in the quiver.</p><p>If we want material components in the game, we should take it seriously. Categorizing reagents by type is a good way – such as 4e or even a little more elaborated than that – but not specifying too much each spell’s requirement. The spell component pouch can then serve as a practical way to carry and refill your inventory without being a huge hand-wave.</p><p>Now, do we need spell components? I think this really depends on the writer/designer/DM. Perhaps we need, or perhaps we need foci to cast spells. However, I don’t think it’s a player’s decision: the DM should decide how such specific things are in his world.</p><p>Personally, I think the spell-caster should be properly equipped to cast spells; at least in the most efficient manner. Choosing both, however, seems like too much. Either spell component pouch or focus (what 4e calls implement). For arcane casters, at least. For divine casters… I imagine that, if the focus option is chosen, then it works as any other. If spell component is chosen, then the cleric should carry a valuable sacred symbol/talisman, with higher-level spells demanding symbols that are more expensive. Alternatively, just use spell components, too! Other types of magic may work in different ways, or be equal to one of them.</p><p>Both ways can work. It’s just that D&D rarely worked on them to actually, well, work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Igwilly, post: 7105170, member: 6801225"] Well, if you allow me, I would like to go back to the implement/material components discussion. Material components can work. I like them when they work. The problem is, D&D never was particularly interested in making it work. Most components are completely random and a pain to track individually: with such different things for each and every spell, stocking components can be really boring. Also, many components, as Wrecan stated, are meta-jokes; not something to take seriously. The spell component pouch, while intended to be an abstraction, is too much of an abstraction. The wizard cannot know which components he’ll need to which spells he’ll memorize in long trip, when he’s unable to restock the pouch, having such specific requirements. It’s so big of an abstraction that it may not be there, as well. Keep in mind that I actually like to track how many arrows are left in the quiver. If we want material components in the game, we should take it seriously. Categorizing reagents by type is a good way – such as 4e or even a little more elaborated than that – but not specifying too much each spell’s requirement. The spell component pouch can then serve as a practical way to carry and refill your inventory without being a huge hand-wave. Now, do we need spell components? I think this really depends on the writer/designer/DM. Perhaps we need, or perhaps we need foci to cast spells. However, I don’t think it’s a player’s decision: the DM should decide how such specific things are in his world. Personally, I think the spell-caster should be properly equipped to cast spells; at least in the most efficient manner. Choosing both, however, seems like too much. Either spell component pouch or focus (what 4e calls implement). For arcane casters, at least. For divine casters… I imagine that, if the focus option is chosen, then it works as any other. If spell component is chosen, then the cleric should carry a valuable sacred symbol/talisman, with higher-level spells demanding symbols that are more expensive. Alternatively, just use spell components, too! Other types of magic may work in different ways, or be equal to one of them. Both ways can work. It’s just that D&D rarely worked on them to actually, well, work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Weekly Wrecana - A New Division of Gish Classes
Top