Why Do Many DMs Overlook This Restriction for Spellcasters?

[Sagan Darkside]

I don't think whetstones, spell component pouches, and armor upkeep should be overlooked.

Unfortunetly d&d does not lend itself easily to that style of play.

You could come up with a general upkeep schedule, and if the pc's don't have it done.. then they suffer some penalties.

But- then do you change the schedule when the fight an iron golem- since it would do some damage to weapons versus the goblins they killed last week?

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.

It depends on the homebrew I am running at the time- if the world is magic-light, then I will raise the costs. If it is magic heavy, then I will keep it or make ways to circumvent its high cost.

But in the end I keep reminding myself that a fighter can swing a sword from dusk to dawn, but the wizard has a limit on their abilities. I don't want to make gaming more technically difficult for someone because they choose to play one class over the other- especially when that class is already technically difficult by design.

SD

 

[Sanackranib]

spell components

Bingo.

It IS a hassle. And a rather large one. It adds a reasonable amount of flavor, and so I can live with it, and I'll never be affraid to keep track of the components for them (or include them in a plot hook), but I'm not going to track it like some sort of bloodhound detecting ways in which the players are 'cheating' because they don't micromanage their spell lists.

It's just tooo much hassle. Costly components I make them search for (because the cost is part of their balancing act), but otherwise, it's nada.

thats where the Zagygg's (spelling) component pouch came in
all the cheep meeningless stuff was covered.

same goes for the conjure spell component cantrip

 

[Ravellion]

If there would be, say, 20 different non costly components, fine. But nearly every spell has it's very own. That is what bothers me. I did have a party quest for Dragon blood for Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer though. (though I most likely will not do that again)

I have been playing with: all magic armour automatically resizes. I am altering that now though. Makes Craft: Armoursmithing a hell of a lot more interesting all of a sudden (especially if you say that a botched attempt could reduce or ruin the magic of the item)

Rav

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My wizard already requires enough extra bookkeeping, page flipping during sessions to recheck spells, and added expenses for scribing without nickel & diming my pocketbook and nerves over the going rate for bat guano.

If you think that would add to the game, you are nuts.

I do keep very exacting records on all components that have a listed cost in the spell description.

 

[Ace]

Don't look at me. All of my spell casters take Eschew Material Components.

 

[Dinkeldog]

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?

Actually, it reminds me of the magic dust from that movie.

In the past I've done strict spell components (my 2E campaigns). I'll probably go back to that when I return to the DM's seat.

 

[Sarellion]

I have given my sorcerers the eshew materials feat and the wizards have a magic focus that replaces all material components with small costs. Costly items still have to be purchased. Most of the time, it is a staff. The wizards have a skill to use their staff. A higher skill improves the power of the staff. It gets more difficult to destroy, they can sense the direction where to find the staff or even bring it to them. I wanted first to use feats, but this would be to costly for what I intended. So far it has worked well and it has accomplished what I wanted.

The goals were:

1. Wizards are easily identified. There is no reason for a wizard to run around in robes but most ppl recognize amagic focus.

2. I did not want to get the wizard so easily off the hook regarding spell components but also it should not be a big hassle for them.

 

[Mordane76]

I have given my sorcerers the eshew materials feat and the wizards have a magic focus that replaces all material components with small costs. Costly items still have to be purchased. Most of the time, it is a staff. The wizards have a skill to use their staff. A higher skill improves the power of the staff. It gets more difficult to destroy, they can sense the direction where to find the staff or even bring it to them. I wanted first to use feats, but this would be to costly for what I intended. So far it has worked well and it has accomplished what I wanted.

The goals were:

1. Wizards are easily identified. There is no reason for a wizard to run around in robes but most ppl recognize amagic focus.

2. I did not want to get the wizard so easily off the hook regarding spell components but also it should not be a big hassle for them.

This actually doesn't sound like a bad idea -- do you happen to have this on paper that we (or at least I) could take a look at?

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: How many hands to cast a spell?

Are you sure it takes two hands to cast a spell that uses a focus and is somatic? Or can you just have the hand holding the focus(or component) wave the component at the target?

I've always assumed that where a spell had both a somatic and a material component, the somatic component consisted of manipulating the material one in some way - throwing the sand (color spray or sleep) or bat guano (fireball) at the target, for instance.

Otherwise, wizards would have to drop their traditional staves to cast spells, and that's just silly.

J

 

[hong]

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.

Do you also enforce toilet paper requirements?

Because I don't know about you, but the way noone in D&D-land ever seems to have to worry about bodily functions is just a constant source of irritation for me.


Hong "I mean, WHERE exactly does all that bat guano come from?" Ooi