Why Do Many DMs Overlook This Restriction for Spellcasters?

[Mordane76]

In 3rd edition, isn't the new rule that you just have a generic "spell component pouch," which includes all components except for pricey ones over a certain value?

In my view, this is a good thing. D&D's already got enough micromanaging and recordkeeping.

I think this kinda cheapens magic A LOT. Wizard pays one time fee of like 15 gp, and has more or less unlimited spellcasting, save those rare spells with costly components? Isn't a wizard's magic kinda like a fighter's sword and armor? Fighters, and other physical combat characters, are spending pantloads of GP on weapons and armor, while a wizard has that pouch he bought back at first level... and that's all, if he doesn't cast these costly-component spells. Doesn't this seem a little... I don't know... unbalanced?

 

[Oni]

I think this kinda cheapens magic A LOT. Wizard pays one time fee of like 15 gp, and has more or less unlimited spellcasting, save those rare spells with costly components? Isn't a wizard's magic kinda like a fighter's sword and armor? Fighters, and other physical combat characters, are spending pantloads of GP on weapons and armor, while a wizard has that pouch he bought back at first level... and that's all, if he doesn't cast these costly-component spells. Doesn't this seem a little... I don't know... unbalanced?

Question, have you seen how much it cost to scribe a spell into a spellbook?

 

[smetzger]

In many games I've played in, and in most I've run, DMs overlook the restriction on wizards having a list of spell components on their person, making sure they have those components at hand, then making sure that components used in the spellcasting are crossed off, and then requiring spellcasters to find/pay replenish their components.

WHY?

Because thats the official rule. Check out that Spell Component pouch.

 

[Psion]

*raises hand*

But at 1/2 the cost in DMG.

Me too.

Anyway, I use the default "generic component pouch." Micromanaging spell components is not fun, and I only make players track components with actual costs. Other than that, the only time that spellcasters need worry about spell components is when they are forcibly or accidentally parted from it. Then the specifics can be fun ("Rats! my component pouch was in the backpack that just went over the waterfall. Can I find any live spiders around here?") I think that is more than captures the moment when the flavor of the rules is most telling: when it is a stressful situation and the DM can screw with the player's head.

 

[Tiberius]

I use spell components in that a caster is out of luck if they do not have their spell component pouch for their mundane components or they do not have the appropriate item for the exotic components. Thus, if a mage is captured and stripped of his gear, then he will be restricted to those spells he has prepared for which he can find components.

In response to the other question in the thread, I use the scribing rules as written in my game. Boccob's Blessed Books are therefore much sought-after.

-Tiberius

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Doesn't this seem a little... I don't know... unbalanced?

Are you making the fighters and such spend money on whetstones and armor upkeep?

SD

 

[jmucchiello]

In many games I've played in, and in most I've run, DMs overlook the restriction on wizards having a list of spell components on their person, making sure they have those components at hand, then making sure that components used in the spellcasting are crossed off, and then requiring spellcasters to find/pay replenish their components.

Because my smarta$$ players would constantly be asking me what spell components the enemy wizards have. And if I didn't have an exact amount of bat guano and wool for the number of spells cast by the wizard they'd get annoyed. "Why do we have to do it if you don't?" So I don't. They don't.

 

[Mordane76]

Are you making the fighters and such spend money on whetstones and armor upkeep?

Touche. It just rubs me wrong that these things last forever once bought. I'll admit that I didn't think about it for a while, but once I sat down and thought about it, it just really bothered me. I don't think whetstones, spell component pouches, and armor upkeep should be overlooked.


I also think that arcane magic should be costly, and I don't know if I feel it's costly enough. Therefore, I agree with writing spells into books at high costs, skill checks to decipher scripts before they can be scribed, and the high cost of new spell research.

(Holds up shield in preparation for the flames)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This thread is reminding me just how much I need to keep on top of the power gaming wizard in the party. I don't think he ever takes the cost of his scribing and casting into account.

 

[Trepelano]

Here is how I do it: I keep up with minor material components in generic "component points". A spell component pouch comes with 50 component points and additional points cost 1sp each. Any spell that requires a minor material componet expends an number of component points equal to its spell level.

Its not exactly realistic, but then neither is the hit point system. It sure is easier to keep up with.

Since I don't have a lot of magic componet shops in my campaign (although there are a few), I allow them to make a gather information check, and their roll represents the maximum number of component points they can purchase in an hour of searching.

This assumes a large city. Smaller urban areas would have a circumstance penalty assigned to the roll.

Its never come up, but if a wizard tried to gather his own components in the wilderness, I'd probably require a Wilderness Lore check, instead. This would represent an entire day's searching - and he would be required to keep these "natural component points" listed seperately. He could only spend these points if the material componet listed could be found in nature.