|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:18PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2011
|
I was looking through the "How to Play" guide, and I noticed that Continuous Light (a 2nd level Cleric Spell) has a component cost attached to it. It says that to cast it, one needs to buy 50 gp of ruby dust. I noticed a few other spells that have components. Alarm (1st level Wizard Spell) requires a 1 gp silver bell to cast normally, and 25 gp in silver bells and ropes to cast as a ritual. Also, Turn Undead (1st level Cleric Spell) requires a holy symbol.
So I was just curious, who thinks that component costs for spells is a good idea? Who thinks it's a bad one?
Myself, I like the component costs. Continuous Light is basically a permanent version of Light, so it makes sense that it would cost something. It's essentially an Enchant Item spell, with one enchantment. Alarm's component is pretty cheap, and the Cleric starts off with a holy symbol, so that's not much of a problem. (Although, holy symbols probably do have a price.) Also, I think putting a price on spells like Wish and Disintegrate is a good idea, as it may make a Wizard hesitate to expend valuable resources. Also, the DM can make those materials hard to find, so the party may need to go on a quest to find the silver sand they need to use Wish.
But I don't want to bias anyone. So tell me, what's your opinion?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:20PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Plot/setting written into the mechanics? No thanks.
Good idea, as something that some people may find fun. Not something that should be enforced on all.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:23PM
#3
|
|
|
Component costs are an attempt at balance. It's an attempt that fails to take into account the variability of wealth from one campaign to the next. And there are inevitably was to reduce or eliminate them.
I favor components for ritual magic. What is a ritual without all the. . . you know, the ritual of it all. For non-ritual magic I favor components as power boosters. However, one of my favorite components really hasn't been part of WotC's D&D, and that is blood sacrifice. Why not require the taking of a life to raise an undead horde? Why not take a life to lower the spell-slot needed to cast a spell to bring back a dead friend?
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:24PM
#4
|
|
|
Keep them. They harm no one and can be overlooked for any setting if the DM so desires.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:29PM
#5
|
|
|
Spell components for the sake of game balance is bad. Spell components for narrative purpose is good. Solve for x.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:32PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Keep them. They harm no one and can be overlooked for any setting if the DM so desires.
Not if they're intended to be a counterbalance to the availability of the spell, they can't.
If my special pure crystal ball focus for using Scry spells is all awesome-story-fun that tells me how much effort it takes people to use the Scry spell, that's one thing. If my special pure crystal ball focus and its associated expenses are there to limit my access to the Scry spell then that is something else entirely.
To put this in 3.5 terms:
Spell component pouch, good. (Assuming refilling it is cheap and easy to do, unless specified by the DM in a "Magic is hard" setting)
Expensive, balance-oriented spell components that use long-term character resources (aka gold) to either limit availability or increase potency beyond normal, bad.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:38PM
#7
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I much prefer implements. I think they can be more flavorful, and just as iconic.
Let "spell components" be an optional rule to replace implements.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:39PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I really hope they will specify the kind of spell components you need for your spells.
And not just list components costs.
For spell A I need a duck feather and.....
And every single component costs this and that. Give lists to me.
But this should not be core.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:40PM
#9
|
|
|
Spell components should be fluff for non ritual spells. They only serve to stifle creativity and limit variety in casters. Hell look at almost all fantasy (non D&D based) out there. No spells that have a 3 second or less casting time have spell components. D&D forced its way of casting on you instead of allowing you to decide how magic works. If you want to say you need your bat guano to set fireball go ahead (that decision is purely fluff) but don't force my sorcerer who happens to get his power from a fire elemental bound to his soul to need no stinking bat guano.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 2:40PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I like em.
As balance not so much as wealth expectations vary between tables and campaigns.
But it am fine with some spell having a few material costs.
Heck, I am okay even with some materials being too heavy, delicate, or cumbersome to carry while adventuring. It would be cool to have a laboratory filled with all your spell components and foci where you must go to cast certain spells or search town for the spell components and foci that you need.
"Does anyone have a mirror this big?"
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
