It also meant you couldn't swing your sword at all. Is that also a bad thing?
Well, in general I can understand Salla's hostility to conditions that completely prevent a character from attacking. He would prefer a penalty to a negation.
But I don't understand why he's being so cagey about saying whether he is okay with weapon-users and casters having the same somatic and material requirements.... just like they do in 4e. It's almost like he knows he overstated his position when he said he wanted somatic components to be entirely fluff and doesn't quite know how to back out of that statement gracefully.
Just admit you misstated what you meant!
Hopefully a Fighter can still fight unarmed. Wrestling, kicking, and so on.
Well, in general I can understand Salla's hostility to conditions that completely prevent a character from attacking. He would prefer a penalty to a negation.But I don't understand why he's being so cagey about saying whether he is okay with weapon-
Ok, lets go with your interpretation ... not the actual rules of the game.
Is this spellpouch an infinite “Bag of Holding”? Is it magical? Does the Wizard verbally command this stupifying cornucopia to produce any item, no matter how obscure, atwill?
I've always found it quite easy to envision it as a couple belt pouches with hardened leather casing, with little packets of pre-prepared components (much like the story from the Player's Guide to Krynn), each marked with a couple of dollops of candlewax to make them readily identifiable (much like Braille). It is part of the 'assumed' process that the wizard collects these things as he can, when he can, and likewise picks up minimal amounts of them when in towns and cities. There are certain things in the game that are assumed.
This interpretation violates narrative immersion.
I have to admit, no one has -ever- tried -that- tactic of debate on me. Mainly because immersion is one of the things I like the most. Naturally, this makes me more than skeptical of your definition of 'narrative'. If you need to change the components for your world...go right ahead?
And to be forced to endlessly sniff the stink of this disbelief-begging scenario, when a player dislikes material components in the first place - because they violate the flavor of innate magic?
If you can't think of a way to make your wizard smell less (packaged components, the 'freshen' cantrip from Prestidigitation, etc)...that's not -my- problem.
And after double-checking the SRD...I must admit, sorcerors needing components was somethign I had forgotten -- they were done away with in Pathfinder for sorcs -as they should be-. I'll give you the innate argument for sorcerors. Wizards magic, however, is not innate.
I've always found it quite easy to envision it as a couple belt pouches with hardened leather casing, with little packets of pre-prepared components (much like the story from the Player's Guide to Krynn), each marked with a couple of dollops of candl
It also meant you couldn't swing your sword at all. Is that also a bad thing?
Well, in general I can understand Salla's hostility to conditions that completely prevent a character from attacking. He would prefer a penalty to a negation.
But I don't understand why he's being so cagey about saying whether he is okay with weapon-users and casters having the same somatic and material requirements.... just like they do in 4e. It's almost like he knows he overstated his position when he said he wanted somatic components to be entirely fluff and doesn't quite know how to back out of that statement gracefully.
Just admit you misstated what you meant!
Hopefully a Fighter can still fight unarmed. Wrestling, kicking, and so on.
To use 3.5 rules, you couldn't attack with anything bigger than a "Light" weapon. No longswords, as an example.
Well, in general I can understand Salla's hostility to conditions that completely prevent a character from attacking. He would prefer a penalty to a negation.But I don't understand why he's being so cagey about saying whether he is okay with weapon-
I have to admit, no one has -ever- tried -that- tactic of debate on me. Mainly because immersion is one of the things I like the most. Naturally, this makes me more than skeptical of your definition of 'narrative'. If you need to change the components for your world...go right ahead?
Heh, this is a reason I hate disagreeing with you. Both of us feel passionately about narrative immersion.
Narrative immersion means ... “it makes sense”.
Yet in this case, bags of infinite material components dont make sense.
Yeah, I certainly will change the material components for my world. The feces doesnt exist in the first place. Feces isnt the source of magic. Material components dont exist in the first place.
Magic is innate. The mage is the source of magic.
I have to admit, no one has -ever- tried -that- tactic of debate on me. Mainly because immersion is one of the things I like the most. Naturally, this makes me more than skeptical of your definition of 'narrative'. If you need to change the compon
Endless quivers don't make sense either, yet a lot of games use them, many of which without actually calling them that.
Is the solution to remove the existence of arrows?
I'm still not clear on why it's so oppressive to have M/S components for casters, but it's okay for everyone else.
Endless quivers don't make sense either, yet a lot of games use them, many of which without actually calling them that.Is the solution to remove the existence of arrows?I'm still not clear on why it's so oppressive to have M/S components for casters,
Heh, this is a reason I hate disagreeing with you. Both of us feel passionately about narrative immersion.
Narrative immersion means ... “it makes sense”.
Yet in this case, bags of infinite material components dont make sense.
Yeah, I certainly will change the material components for my world. The feces doesnt exist in the first place. Material components dont exist in the first place. Magic is innate. Feces isnt the source of magic.
And in a world like that, removing components is perfectly fine. But that shouldn't remove them from a spell's description, even if you insist on pre-pending 'Optional Component' to that part of the entry. It's just too difficult to make up an entire book's worth of components rather than overlook one line per spell entry, yannow?
And in a world like that, removing components is perfectly fine. But that shouldn't remove them from a spell's description, even if you insist on pre-pending 'Optional Component' to that part of the entry. It's just too difficult to make up an enti
Endless quivers don't make sense either, yet a lot of games use them, many of which without actually calling them that.
Is the solution to remove the existence of arrows?
I'm still not clear on why it's so oppressive to have M/S components for casters, but it's okay for everyone else.
I think it's mostly because arrows are usually dirt cheap and could be found/bought almsot anywhere, with the exception of the "unusual" arrow types, like magic arrows, etc.
I think it's mostly because arrows are usually dirt cheap and could be found/bought almsot anywhere, with the exception of the "unusual" arrow types, like magic arrows, etc.
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
How is this not an endless quiver?
...and bat guano isn't?Direct quote from d20srd:Spell Component PouchA spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost,
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
How is this not an endless quiver?
Exactly, the spellpouch is an infinite cornucopia of obscure items and makes no sense whatsoever.
Exactly, the spellpouch is an infinite cornucopia of obscure items and makes no sense whatsoever.
It's just too difficult to make up an entire book's worth of components rather than overlook one line per spell entry, yannow?
Material components are offensive. And having rules push them is offensive. It strongly interferes with the abilty of many players to enjoy the game.
Forcing players to fight with DMs over stuff like this is offensive. We are already arguing about it, now! It can only get worse once players start throwing around the “official” word.
The core needs to lack the disruptiveness and narrative senselessness of material components.
Material components are offensive. And having rules push them is offensive. It strongly interferes with the abilty of many players to enjoy the game. Forcing players to fight with DMs over stuff like this is offensive. We are already arguing about i
The core needs to lack the disruptiveness and narrative senselessness of material components.
I really thought you were one of the people who understood core.
No one cares if material components are "core". People just want them to be written in the PHB as an option, because it's a lot easier to ignore a list that's already written than it is to write your own list.
I really thought you were one of the people who understood core.No one cares if material components are "core". People just want them to be written in the PHB as an option, because it's a lot easier to ignore a list that's already written than it is
It's just too difficult to make up an entire book's worth of components rather than overlook one line per spell entry, yannow?
Material components are offensive. And having rules push them is offensive. It strongly interferes with the abilty of many players to enjoy the game. Forcing players to fight with DMs over stuff like this is offensive. We are already arguing about it, now! It can only get worse once players start throwing around the “official” word. The core needs to lack the disruptiveness and narrative senselessness of material components.
The problem as I see it is that you believe the player 'needs' to (or even has the -right- to) 'fight with the DM'. You think material components are 'offensive'. That's a good way to describe the idea of someone trying to remove tools from the DM that the DM can choose to ignore if they so wish.
Removing things en totalis is like an arrow. It is the tool of the oppressor.
Material components are offensive. And having rules push them is offensive. It strongly interferes with the abilty of many players to enjoy the game. Forcing players to fight with DMs over stuff like this is offensive. We are already arguing about it
That stance is going to be rather problematic, considering that there are going to be contradictory, mutually incompatible options that are all "official."
Very little that is in the PHB is going to be core. All of it will be official.
That stance is going to be rather problematic, considering that there are going to be contradictory, mutually incompatible options that are all "official."Very little that is in the PHB is going to be core. All of it will be official.
Haldrik, if spell components are included as an option, then they're hardly "official". Your DM can just say "we're not using that module." If he doesn't say this, you can ask him to not use that module.
Haldrik, if spell components are included as an option, then they're hardly "official". Your DM can just say "we're not using that module." If he doesn't say this, you can ask him to not use that module.
I want players who like material components to be able to enjoy them in a way they can live with.
But telling me I officially have to use them everytime I consult a spell, isnt one of them. If the game forces it on me, then I wont play the game, and wont buy the products. And that will be that. D&D will no longer be a game that I can enjoy.
I want players who like material components to be able to enjoy them in a way they can live with. But telling me I officially have to use them everytime I consult a spell, isnt one of them. If the game forces it on me, then I wont play the game, and
Putting them in PHB does not mean that you have to use them. That's the point of modularity. The vast, vast bulk of the PHB takes the form of optional modules. This is one of them.
Ok, you're not hearing what we're saying.Putting them in PHB does not mean that you have to use them. That's the point of modularity. The vast, vast bulk of the PHB takes the form of optional modules. This is one of them.
Putting them in PHB does not mean that you have to use them. That's the point of modularity. The vast, vast bulk of the PHB takes the form of optional modules. This is one of them.
Modularity means a separate module. Dont include the material components in the spell description. Keep them a separate module. Material components are feces.
Modularity means a separate module. Dont include the material components in the spell description. Keep them a separate module. Material components are feces.
It's not going to be in a section on its own, "Here's a list of spell components!" That doesn't make it not a module.
Are you really saying that something that says up in the header in the spells section:
"Material components (optional)
If you choose to use material components in your campaign, then the item listed here must be consumed in order to cast the spell"
with one single line each spell means that you're offended?
Module does not mean what you think it means.It's not going to be in a section on its own, "Here's a list of spell components!" That doesn't make it not a module.Are you really saying that something that says up in the header in the spells section:"
Spells should have a default "spell component" listing under the spell name, then maybe in the "Specllasting" part of the book or wherever, it can say somnething along the lines of...
"Your DM may require you to have x number of components listed under the spell in question. Depending on the setting your DM may require you to huse a different component instead of the default." or something.
Spells should have a default "spell component" listing under the spell name, then maybe in the "Specllasting" part of the book or wherever, it can say somnething along the lines of..."Your DM may require you to have x number of components listed unde
I want players who like material components to be able to enjoy them in a way they can live with.
But telling me I officially have to use them everytime I consult a spell, isnt one of them. If the game forces it on me, then I wont play the game, and wont buy the products. And that will be that. D&D will no longer be a game that I can enjoy.
Great! Then you agree with us that it should be included in the core as an OPTIONAL module that doesn't tell you that you have to do anything. Glad we resolved this.
Great! Then you agree with us that it should be included in the core as an OPTIONAL module that doesn't tell you that you have to do anything. Glad we resolved this.
But interleaving that list with the spell list is offensive?
Yes. I dont want to look at it EVERY time I consult a spell.
Besides, other players might want different material components for different settings. Some settings might work better with more protoscientific alchemical flavor, with chemical extracts. Other settings might work better with more nature magic, with animal and vegetable products. Specific flavor is too intrusive to what needs to be a setting decision.
Moreover it is too intrusive for those players for whom the flavor of innate magic is vital.
Yes. I dont want to look at it EVERY time I consult a spell. Besides, other players might want different material components for different settings. Some settings might work better with more protoscientific alchemical flavor, with chemical extracts.
Putting them in PHB does not mean that you have to use them. That's the point of modularity. The vast, vast bulk of the PHB takes the form of optional modules. This is one of them.
Modularity means a separate module. Dont include the material components in the spell description. Keep them a separate module. Material components are feces.
What's the big deal with you reading "Optional Material Componant: bat guano" at the end of the spell description? If that little tidbit will cause you to not play 5e, then I'll wave goodbye to you, because that's simply not a rational response to the situation.
Modularity means a separate module. Dont include the material components in the spell description. Keep them a separate module. Material components are feces.[/quote]What's the big deal with you reading "Optional Material Componant: bat guano" at the
Great! Then you agree with us that it should be included in the core as an OPTIONAL module that doesn't tell you that you have to do anything. Glad we resolved this.
Of course, I want you to enjoy D&D. I want to enjoy D&D too.
Of course, I want you to enjoy D&D. I want to enjoy D&D too.
But interleaving that list with the spell list is offensive?
Yes. I dont want to look at it EVERY time I consult a spell.
I would not be against them listing all the componants for all of the spells at the end of the PHB spell section. That said, if it is in the spell description, then so be it. It's simply not a rational response to not play the game over their inclusion in the spell description. I could almost see it being rational to leave the game over componant inclusion as a non-optional rule, if it wasn't so easy to just ignore even that.
It seems like you might need to work on your anger issues.
Yes. I dont want to look at it EVERY time I consult a spell.[/quote]I would not be against them listing all the componants for all of the spells at the end of the PHB spell section. That said, if it is in the spell description, then so be it. It's
It's simply not a rational response to not play the game over their inclusion in the spell description.
It is rational to care about the rules.
It is irrational to force unwanted things on players who dont want them.
Explain to me how including componants in the spell description clearly as an OPTION, forces componants on you?
It is rational to care about the rules.It is irrational to force unwanted things on players who dont want them. [/quote]Explain to me how including componants in the spell description clearly as an OPTION, forces componants on you?
...just so ya know, I'm Chaotic Good and I don't trust a'one of ya! *keeps spell components handy*
Heh. You just think you have spell components. Theyr just an illusion that I cast. I destroyed the real spellpouch. Heh heh.
Erm...umm...I use a Ring of Wishes to convert my levels to Sorceress? *gulp*
Heh. You just think you have spell components. Theyr just an illusion that I cast. I destroyed the real spellpouch. Heh heh.[/quote]Erm...umm...I use a Ring of Wishes to convert my levels to Sorceress? *gulp* :-D
English are you frightened I think you and I just agreed with Max and Anjel
I'm with you. At this point, not only can I not understand why Haldri is so offended at an easily ignorable line for the material component in the spell description, I can't even figure out what accommodating him would mean for the entire concept of modularity. If modular rules cannot be interspersed with the nonmodular rules, I think the entire game will be rendered unweildy and incomprehensible. Anybody using modules will have to flip through a different section for each module. It would be an absurd organization.
I'm with you. At this point, not only can I not understand why Haldri is so offended at an easily ignorable line for the material component in the spell description, I can't even figure out what accommodating him would mean for the entire concept of
I tend not to use components, but I have no issue with a line in the description giving a sample of what some would be.
If we take Haldrik's suggestion of listing them elsewhere, then that will up the page count for little gain plus the extra headache of having to look up the components in a separate place. Kinda silly when a few words in the spell's description will get it done, and for those of us who don't like components, we can very easily ignore it.
I tend not to use components, but I have no issue with a line in the description giving a sample of what some would be.If we take Haldrik's suggestion of listing them elsewhere, then that will up the page count for little gain plus the extra headache
After 31 pages of debating, the core group still has not seen either side waver. And also, in my opinion, still actually miss the point of the entire debate. I could read this for days.
After 31 pages of debating, the core group still has not seen either side waver. And also, in my opinion, still actually miss the point of the entire debate. I could read this for days.
I do like spell components, but I get where Haldrik is coming from...sort of.
What do the warring tribes think of this idea.
Fireball Evocation Spell Effect Stuff (Optional) Components of typical Settings: Sulphur and Bat Guano, Alchemical Solutions, Charcoal, Pine Tar, and Saltpeter, or Star Dust
I do like spell components, but I get where Haldrik is coming from...sort of. What do the warring tribes think of this idea.FireballEvocationSpell Effect Stuff(Optional) Components of typical Settings: Sulphur and Bat Guano, Alchemical Solutions, Cha
After 31 pages of debating, the core group still has not seen either side waver. And also, in my opinion, still actually miss the point of the entire debate. I could read this for days.
After 31 pages of debating, the core group still has not seen either side waver. And also, in my opinion, still actually miss the point of the entire debate. I could read this for days.
Somebody likes to watch eh.
Watch and occassionally partake. It's like when half the party really really wants to steal the big red gem sitting in the middle of the floor directly below the demon statue, and the other half says no. Then they debate it for 20 minutes, there's lots of grunts, groans and even laughter. Then some player (generally a halfling) just grabs the darn thing. Yup, that's what this reminds me of, and that's why it's fun to watch.
Somebody likes to watch eh.[/quote]Watch and occassionally partake. It's like when half the party really really wants to steal the big red gem sitting in the middle of the floor directly below the demon statue, and the other half says no. Then they
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?
After 31 pages of debating, the core group still has not seen either side waver. And also, in my opinion, still actually miss the point of the entire debate. I could read this for days.
If some PLAYERS like some OPTION, then THEY need to include that OPTION in THEIR game. It is selfish to push something on everyone else.
You aren't thinking this through. It is easier and more efficient to include these things in the original spell descriptions because having it in a separate module or optional rule means having to keep up with new spells separately as they are released. It is a book keeping nightmare for the developers and customers. This is especially ridiculous to expect of us because...wait for it...YOU CAN SIMPLY IGNORE THE COMPONENT AND COST IN THE TEXT.
You aren't thinking this through. It is easier and more efficient to include these things in the original spell descriptions because having it in a separate module or optional rule means having to keep up with new spells separately as they are relea
Why does everyone have to be identically affected by the same conditions?
They don't have to be, but it's very hard to see how one would ensure that the clases are roughly equal in power if they aren't. One of the things that was always problematic with psionics was that it could do virtually everything magic could do, and suffered none of the drawbacks. You could use it in silence, you could use it when paralyzed, you could use it while gaseous, you could use it in an antimagic field. You could use it while paralyzed, rendered mute, and in gaseous form while in an antimagic field. Heck, I've seen people argue they should be able to use some psionic disciplines while unconscious!
Now, if you could quantify the benefit of being able to use psionics without verbal, somatic, or material components, then we can offset the psions' power with some drawbacks. But I've never seen that work well. In AD&D, the attempt at balance was to simplu make them very rare. But that didn't work at all. If you didn't have a psionicist, then you didn't worry about it. but if someone hit the 3% chance of being a psionicist they were suddenly completely overshadowing the others.
In 2e and 3e, there were vague notions of psionicists being vulnerable to insanity. But those rules were odd and convoluted and thus often ignored.
It seems logical to me that a psion who only has to concentrate would not be impeded in the same way as a wizard who has to chant and wave his arms.
It's equally logical that a psionicist has to have a mental focus and must use his body to channel his psionic energy. Since we're discussing a completely fictional construct, why not let "logic" fit with "balance"?
Additionally, there have always been a subset of spells that required minimal components, some just verbal. A resourceful wizard would keep a few of these on hand for bad situations.
Those tended to be charms and teleports (and feather fall). Not coincidentally, those are the spells that most closely resemble psionic abilities.
They don't have to be, but it's very hard to see how one would ensure that the clases are roughly equal in power if they aren't. One of the things that was always problematic with psionics was that it could do virtually everything magic could do, an
My only issue is, is that everyone has to be the same. I think a world where certain casters use intricate chants and somatic moves to cast, and other casters innately channel arcane energy through force of will, and others cast by method Z, is much more interesting than one where every caster goes about their casting business in the same manner.
I'l explain it again: VSM serves only as a vector to shut down spellcasters. Whatever else it was intended to do simply didn't happen.
I'l explain it again: VSM serves only as a vector to shut down spellcasters. Whatever else it was intended to do simply didn't happen.
They don't have to be, but it's very hard to see how one would ensure that the clases are roughly equal in power if they aren't. One of the things that was always problematic with psionics was that it could do virtually everything magic could do, and suffered none of the drawbacks. You could use it in silence, you could use it when paralyzed, you could use it while gaseous, you could use it in an antimagic field. You could use it while paralyzed, rendered mute, and in gaseous form while in an antimagic field. Heck, I've seen people argue they should be able to use some psionic disciplines while unconscious!
Not by RAW it wasn't, at least in 3e(I don't remember 2e well enough to comment). Psionics was affected by everything magic was unless the DM decided differently AND it made scents, noises, flashes of light, etc. when used.
Not by RAW it wasn't, at least in 3e(I don't remember 2e well enough to comment). Psionics was affected by everything magic was unless the DM decided differently AND it made scents, noises, flashes of light, etc. when used.
I don't see why it would be so hard to balance classes that cast in different ways.
They've never managed it before.
Presumably they will be able to balance a monk with a fighter, and a monk is very minimally affected by certain impediments that could be devastating to a fighter.
Other than disarm, I can't think of any. That's a far cry from having one class that generally requires material, verbal, and somatic components, and another than can create effects while gaseous, paralyzed, and in an antimagic field.
My only issue is, is that everyone has to be the same.
I think everyone can be described differently, but the conditions should apply equally. So being grabbed should inflict apenalty on spellcastign commensurate with a penalty on physical attacks.
I think a world where certain casters use intricate chants and somatic moves to cast, and other casters innately channel arcane energy through force of will, and others cast by method Z, is much more interesting than one where every caster goes about their casting business in the same manner.
Interesting, sure? But also exploitable. So we need to tread carefully when making exceptions. Why would you want to have to carry a wand and shout fake Latin when you could get the same results just by looking at someone cross-eyed.
They've never managed it before. Other than disarm, I can't think of any. That's a far cry from having one class that generally requires material, verbal, and somatic components, and another than can create effects while gaseous, paralyzed, and in
What does it serve in a novel? Presumably since it has absolutely no value aside from shutting down casters, there would be no narrative value for it in a novel, so why do we ever see it, or is any author that uses it just a bad author?
"Zolgar casts magic missile and does 12 damage to Orc A" doesn't work in a novel.
Conversely, "I scoop a glob of bat guano out of my pouch and shape it into just the right oblate spheroid ball, with divots in just the right places, as I was taught by my mentor Zolgar the Magnificent all those years ago, and mystically propel it at the crowd of orcs centered around the authoritative-looking orc wearing the gold sash" is achieving little but dragging out an already way-too-long combat sequence.
In either case, the spell components are completely irrelevant to plot advancement until they become unavailable - via the wizards being tied and gagged and/or his bag of goodies stolen, or when some-odd material component becomes a MacGuffin quest.
The implication is that shutting down spellcasters via V/S/M is always bad.
Why?
It's not.
"Zolgar casts magic missile and does 12 damage to Orc A" doesn't work in a novel. Conversely, "I scoop a glob of bat guano out of my pouch and shape it into just the right oblate spheroid ball, with divots in just the right places, as I was taught b
@wrecan: it must be done with care, but it can be done: you chose the Wizard because, while his magic can be limited, the effects themselves are generally better then those of the psion.
@wrecan: it must be done with care, but it can be done: you chose the Wizard because, while his magic can be limited, the effects themselves are generally better then those of the psion.
I wasn't referring to 3e. In AD&D and 2e, psionics was immune to effects that target magic. Of course, in AD&D, psionics was a weird optional rule that any class could get, while in 2e, it didn't appear until 1991's Complete Psionics Handbook, a supplement that was generally derided as "munchkinny" But yes, in 3e, psionics is affected by everything that effects magic. It is also hampered by movement-hampering conditions in the same way that spellcasters are. It does not have material or verbal components though, which was a distinct advantage over spellcasting (in campaigns that bothered with material components at all)
I wasn't referring to 3e. In AD&D and 2e, psionics was immune to effects that target magic. Of course, in AD&D, psionics was a weird optional rule that any class could get, while in 2e, it didn't appear until 1991's Complete Psionics Handbook, a su
I wasn't referring to 3e. In AD&D and 2e, psionics was immune to effects that target magic. Of course, in AD&D, psionics was a weird optional rule that any class could get, while in 2e, it didn't appear until 1991's Complete Psionics Handbook, a supplement that was generally derided as "munchkinny" But yes, in 3e, psionics is affected by everything that effects magic. It is also hampered by movement-hampering conditions in the same way that spellcasters are. It does not have material or verbal components though, which was a distinct advantage over spellcasting (in campaigns that bothered with material components at all)
Yeah. In 2e, though (I've remembered a bit) the chance for success was based on stats. If I remember correctly, you had to roll to use any power you had and could fail to use a psionic power while standing still and taking your time. Wizards didn't have that fail chance. So while it wasn't limited like magic in other ways, magic was also not limited like psionics was.
Note: The above isn't a comment on balance. I still don't remember enough about it to know how balanced psioncs was when compared to magic. It was just to say that psionics had other limiters that magic didn't have.
I wasn't referring to 3e. In AD&D and 2e, psionics was immune to effects that target magic. Of course, in AD&D, psionics was a weird optional rule that any class could get, while in 2e, it didn't appear until 1991's Complete Psionics Handbook, a su
The implication is that shutting down spellcasters via V/S/M is always bad.
Why?
The same way that shutting down rangers is bad when they run out of arrows. It's just another argument by the "I want to be awesome all the time, and twice as awesome on Sunday!" crowd. I don't buy it any more than I do other complaints like it. Part of the fun of the game to a lot of people is trying to manage resources, and dealing with adversity. I did have a DM once that pulled jerky stuff like stealing spell components frequently, or causing a fighter's weapon to break, etc. You know what? I haven't gamed with that person in over 20 years, and haven't spoken to them in almost that long. Besides...
You can easily ignore spell components and related costs entirely!
The same way that shutting down rangers is bad when they run out of arrows. It's just another argument by the "I want to be awesome all the time, and twice as awesome on Sunday!" crowd. I don't buy it any more than I do other complaints like it. P
@wrecan: it must be done with care, but it can be done
It has yet to be done.
you chose the Wizard because, while his magic can be limited, the effects themselves are generally better then those of the psion.
In what edition? In 4e, wizards and psions were similarly restricted. In 2e, the psionic abilities were at least as powerful as the wizard spells (and without all the restrictions). So I imagine you mean 3e, though most of the optimization builds utilize psionics quite heavily. The infamous Pun Pun, for instance, began as a psion (egoist) build, before someone figured out an alternate build using one level of wizard and two obscure prestige classes. Psions were not generally considered to be weaker powerwise to the wizard.
It has yet to be done.In what edition? In 4e, wizards and psions were similarly restricted. In 2e, the psionic abilities were at least as powerful as the wizard spells (and without all the restrictions). So I imagine you mean 3e, though most of th
Not by RAW it wasn't, at least in 3e(I don't remember 2e well enough to comment). Psionics was affected by everything magic was unless the DM decided differently AND it made scents, noises, flashes of light, etc. when used.
In 1e psionics was optional and if I remember correctly there were dozens of psionic rounds to a standard combat round, so psionic combat took place largely separate from normal melee.
In 2e it was an optional add on similar in many respects to 1e, but greatly expanded.
And yes, in 3e it was more fully integrated into the mainstream game, and combat rules including disruption of "casting."
In 1e psionics was optional and if I remember correctly there were dozens of psionic rounds to a standard combat round, so psionic combat took place largely separate from normal melee.In 2e it was an optional add on similar in many respects to 1e, bu
If I remember correctly, you had to roll to use any power you had and could fail to use a psionic power while standing still and taking your time. Wizards didn't have that fail chance.
IIRC, that fail chance was much less than the chance of spell failure that moderately Wisdomed clerics had. It was very complicated though, which is why you didn't see a lot of psionicists outside Dark Sun in 2e. It just wasn't worth the annoyance of rolling all those threshold dice before invoking an effect. (Also, you were often derided as a powergamer.) If you had decent mental stats (and you wouldn't play a psionicist without decent mental stats), you probably didn't worry about failure all that often.
Note: The above isn't a comment on balance. I still don't remember enough about it to know how balanced psioncs was when compared to magic. It was just to say that psionics had other limiters that magic didn't have.
That's true. In practice, though, the limits were more unnecessary complexity than true limits.
IIRC, that fail chance was much less than the chance of spell failure that moderately Wisdomed clerics had. It was very complicated though, which is why you didn't see a lot of psionicists outside Dark Sun in 2e. It just wasn't worth the annoyance
Not by RAW it wasn't, at least in 3e(I don't remember 2e well enough to comment). Psionics was affected by everything magic was unless the DM decided differently AND it made scents, noises, flashes of light, etc. when used.
In 1e psionics was optional and if I remember correctly there were dozens of psionic rounds to a standard combat round, so psionic combat took place largely separate from normal melee.
In 2e it was an optional add on similar in many respects to 1e, but greatly expanded.
And yes, in 3e it was more fully integrated into the mainstream game, and combat rules including disruption of "casting."
2e psionic powers worked in a similar manner to 2e non-weapon proficiencies, though. You might have cell disruption that was roll under your con score, or maybe con minus 2 to succeed. If you rolled the exact number you needed, then it was like a critical success. 2e psionics was fun, but it wasn't as powerful as magic that I can remember (BIG disclaimer there )
In 1e psionics was optional and if I remember correctly there were dozens of psionic rounds to a standard combat round, so psionic combat took place largely separate from normal melee.In 2e it was an optional add on similar in many respects to 1e, bu
If I remember correctly, you had to roll to use any power you had and could fail to use a psionic power while standing still and taking your time. Wizards didn't have that fail chance.
IIRC, that fail chance was much less than the chance of spell failure that moderately Wisdomed clerics had. It was very complicated though, which is why you didn't see a lot of psionicists outside Dark Sun in 2e. It just wasn't worth the annoyance of rolling all those threshold dice before invoking an effect. (Also, you were often derided as a powergamer.) If you had decent mental stats (and you wouldn't play a psionicist without decent mental stats), you probably didn't worry about failure all that often.
Con was one of the big stats used by psionic powers, so you needed 3 high stats and even then you still failed 10-25% of the time, depending on whether you had a 15-18 in your specific stat (assuming no penalties to the stat from the specific power). I just don't see how psionics in 2e was power gaming. Playing a wizard with no rolls necessary was much better in my opinion.
That's true. In practice, though, the limits were more unnecessary complexity than true limits.
That I can agree with.
Edit: What was the failure chance for a cleric? I can't remember needing to roll for my clerics, but then I usually had a 16-18 in wisdom or I wasn't a cleric.
IIRC, that fail chance was much less than the chance of spell failure that moderately Wisdomed clerics had. It was very complicated though, which is why you didn't see a lot of psionicists outside Dark Sun in 2e. It just wasn't worth the annoyance
2e psionic powers worked in a similar manner to 2e non-weapon proficiencies, though. You might have cell disruption that was roll under your con score, or maybe con minus 2 to succeed. If you rolled the exact number you needed, then it was like a critical success. 2e psionics was fun, but it wasn't as powerful as magic that I can remember (BIG disclaimer there )
We never really used psionics until 3e and 4e so I may be off on my description, and honestly I don't find them the least bit appropriate for fantasy games. More of a sc-fi kind of thing if you ask me. Although I owned all of the books for each of the editions, I can't say I was 100% familiar with all of the rules in those books. I've always been glad though that I could ignore psionics even though they were right there in front of me in the core rule books. And I never begrudged others their use, or the space in the rule books.
We never really used psionics until 3e and 4e so I may be off on my description, and honestly I don't find them the least bit appropriate for fantasy games. More of a sc-fi kind of thing if you ask me. Although I owned all of the books for each of
Psions were not generally considered to be weaker powerwise to the wizard.
Generally, yes they were. While still a tier 1 class, they were not quite on par with the wizard due to the wizard getting free scaling on his spells while a psion had to spend additional power points to get the same effect.
Generally, yes they were. While still a tier 1 class, they were not quite on par with the wizard due to the wizard getting free scaling on his spells while a psion had to spend additional power points to get the same effect.
Edit: What was the failure chance for a cleric? I can't remember needing to roll for my clerics, but then I usually had a 16-18 in wisdom or I wasn't a cleric.
I don't recall that there ever was. Standard concentration check, maybe?
I don't recall that there ever was. Standard concentration check, maybe?
2e psionic powers worked in a similar manner to 2e non-weapon proficiencies, though. You might have cell disruption that was roll under your con score, or maybe con minus 2 to succeed. If you rolled the exact number you needed, then it was like a critical success. 2e psionics was fun, but it wasn't as powerful as magic that I can remember (BIG disclaimer there )
We never really used psionics until 3e and 4e so I may be off on my description, and honestly I don't find them the least bit appropriate for fantasy games. More of a sc-fi kind of thing if you ask me. Although I owned all of the books for each of the editions, I can't say I was 100% familiar with all of the rules in those books. I've always been glad though that I could ignore psionics even though they were right there in front of me in the core rule books. And I never begrudged others their use, or the space in the rule books.
I can see psionics as both fantasy and sci-fi. It never bothered me, but a lot of my friends have issues with it, so it rarely got used.
We never really used psionics until 3e and 4e so I may be off on my description, and honestly I don't find them the least bit appropriate for fantasy games. More of a sc-fi kind of thing if you ask me. Although I owned all of the books for each of
Edit: What was the failure chance for a cleric? I can't remember needing to roll for my clerics, but then I usually had a 16-18 in wisdom or I wasn't a cleric.
I don't recall that there ever was. Standard concentration check, maybe?
In 1e you needed to have a 12 WIS or less to have spell failure chance. It went from 5% to 20% at 9. Less than a 9 WIS and you could not be a cleric.
I don't recall that there ever was. Standard concentration check, maybe?[/quote]In 1e you needed to have a 12 WIS or less to have spell failure chance. It went from 5% to 20% at 9. Less than a 9 WIS and you could not be a cleric.
Edit: What was the failure chance for a cleric? I can't remember needing to roll for my clerics, but then I usually had a 16-18 in wisdom or I wasn't a cleric.
I don't recall that there ever was. Standard concentration check, maybe?
No. 1e and 2e had failure rates for things based on stats. Pretty sure that's what Wrecan was referring to.
I don't recall that there ever was. Standard concentration check, maybe?[/quote]No. 1e and 2e had failure rates for things based on stats. Pretty sure that's what Wrecan was referring to.
Edit: What was the failure chance for a cleric? I can't remember needing to roll for my clerics, but then I usually had a 16-18 in wisdom or I wasn't a cleric.
I don't recall that there ever was. Standard concentration check, maybe?
In 1e you needed to have a 12 WIS or less to have spell failure chance. It went from 5% to 20% at 9. Less than a 9 WIS and you could not be a cleric.
Realistically, you never had a failure rate, though. I never saw a cleric with less than a 14 in wisdom, and usually it was a 15+
I don't recall that there ever was. Standard concentration check, maybe?[/quote]In 1e you needed to have a 12 WIS or less to have spell failure chance. It went from 5% to 20% at 9. Less than a 9 WIS and you could not be a cleric. [/quote]Realistic
Realistically, you never had a failure rate, though. I never saw a cleric with less than a 14 in wisdom, and usually it was a 15+
Yeah, that was pretty much my experience as well. We did early on...circa 1979-80...because we rolled three dice in order for stats. But even then it rarely happened.
Yeah, that was pretty much my experience as well. We did early on...circa 1979-80...because we rolled three dice in order for stats. But even then it rarely happened.
Realistically, you never had a failure rate, though. I never saw a cleric with less than a 14 in wisdom, and usually it was a 15+
Don't forget the vast array of "Lose (some big number) from (stat). This is permanent." traps and spell/monster effects Gygax was way too fond of creating.
When 1E wasn't overtly killing PC's ("The rest of you hear some rending noises. The thief is dead"), it strongly encourged jumping off a cliff and creating Bob2, Bob3, etc., via rampant screwjobbery.
Don't forget the vast array of "Lose (some big number) from (stat). This is permanent." traps and spell/monster effects Gygax was way too fond of creating.When 1E wasn't overtly killing PC's ("The rest of you hear some rending noises. The thief is
Realistically, you never had a failure rate, though. I never saw a cleric with less than a 14 in wisdom, and usually it was a 15+
Yeah, that was pretty much my experience as well. We did early on...circa 1979-80...because we rolled three dice in order for stats. But even then it rarely happened.
We did that early on, but it ended up being..
"My highest roll is in strength, so I'm a fighter!" and so on. If someone rolled so poorly that no stat was good, then we let him re-roll. Nobody was forced to play an utterly useless character.
Yeah, that was pretty much my experience as well. We did early on...circa 1979-80...because we rolled three dice in order for stats. But even then it rarely happened.[/quote]We did that early on, but it ended up being.."My highest roll is in streng
"My highest roll is in strength, so I'm a fighter!" and so on. If someone rolled so poorly that no stat was good, then we let him re-roll. Nobody was forced to play an utterly useless character.
I liked rolling that way because it often forced people out of comfortable roles. Some of our best games revolved around the guy who loved thieves playing a cleric, or the guy who loved rangers playing a magic-user. Or me, who loved magic-users playing a fighter. It really made you grow as a role-player.
I liked rolling that way because it often forced people out of comfortable roles. Some of our best games revolved around the guy who loved thieves playing a cleric, or the guy who loved rangers playing a magic-user. Or me, who loved magic-users pla
"My highest roll is in strength, so I'm a fighter!" and so on. If someone rolled so poorly that no stat was good, then we let him re-roll. Nobody was forced to play an utterly useless character.
I liked rolling that way because it often forced people out of comfortable roles. Some of our best games revolved around the guy who loved thieves playing a cleric, or the guy who loved rangers playing a magic-user. Or me, who loved magic-users playing a fighter. It really made you grow as a role-player.
I agree. It's probably why I'll play almost anything these days.
I liked rolling that way because it often forced people out of comfortable roles. Some of our best games revolved around the guy who loved thieves playing a cleric, or the guy who loved rangers playing a magic-user. Or me, who loved magic-users pla
If you describe it differently, it needs to work differently.
What? Why does "being grabbed when making spellcasting gestures while holding your implement/material components" need to work differently than "being grabbed when making stabbing gestures with your dagger" than "being grabbed while making slashing gestures with your logsword". Nobody cares if we don't have different rules for hindering a dagger-weilder and a longswordsman so I really don't see why hindering a spellcaster needs to be so different.
I think a world where everyone casts the same way is only slightly less boring than a game that outlaws certain actions because they are deemed unbalancing.
But all casters in D&D do cast in the same way. Clerics and wizards cast identically. The only difference (pre-4e) is that clerics use more foci (holy symbols) while wizards use more components.
Psionics is the weirdo in the room, which is why psionics was always introduced in some subsequent supplement (ala 2e, 3e, and 4e), or in an Appendix as an optional rule (ala 1e). I don't even remember how or whether BECMI introduced psionics. And that's because introducign a new subsystem for casting eats up a ton of space. So you throw it into its own book.
What? Why does "being grabbed when making spellcasting gestures while holding your implement/material components" need to work differently than "being grabbed when making stabbing gestures with your dagger" than "being grabbed while making slashing
Okay, now I know this was just a typo, but...now I want one.
Krukkus the barbarian faces down the great wyrm with unwavering courage. As the beast drew level with the cliff edge, he leapt towards it, swinging his round, wooden logsword down towards its skull...
Okay, now I know this was just a typo, but...now I want one.[/quote]Krukkus the barbarian faces down the great wyrm with unwavering courage. As the beast drew level with the cliff edge, he leapt towards it, swinging his round, wooden logsword down to
What? Why does "being grabbed when making spellcasting gestures while holding your implement/material components" need to work differently than "being grabbed when making stabbing gestures with your dagger" than "being grabbed while making slashing gestures with your logsword". Nobody cares if we don't have different rules for hindering a dagger-weilder and a longswordsman so I really don't see why hindering a spellcaster needs to be so different.
If only somatic components that are no more difficult than stabbing are required, I agree. Typically that is not how casting has been described though. It's completely unimportant if I chant when I stab, but integral if I'm casting a spell..
Chanting isn't a somatic component.
Really what somatic components do is require you to use one or more hands (depending on the specific implementation) in order to cast the spell. In remarkably the same way, mind you, that weapons require you to use one or more hands.
Now, if you really object to verbal components, I'd ask a serious question: Why?
If only somatic components that are no more difficult than stabbing are required, I agree. Typically that is not how casting has been described though. It's completely unimportant if I chant when I stab, but integral if I'm casting a spell..[/quote
If only somatic components that are no more difficult than stabbing are required, I agree. Typically that is not how casting has been described though. It's completely unimportant if I chant when I stab, but integral if I'm casting a spell.
Chanting is a verbal component, not a somatic component.
I personally feel based on the flavor behind the class they should cast in a fashion much more similar to a psion.
Then come with a way so we can figure out how much the benefit of casting while paralyzed and gaseous is, because to me it sounds ripe for exploitation.
Chanting is a verbal component, not a somatic component.Then come with a way so we can figure out how much the benefit of casting while paralyzed and gaseous is, because to me it sounds ripe for exploitation.
I said that "if only somatic components that are no more difficult than stabbing are required, I agree". And then when on to say that casting has typically included chanting (verbal components).
Yep. It's far more difficult to move your arms, hands and fingers in very precise ways, while using componants in a precise way AND speaking precise words timed in conjunction with the other two, than it is to stab someone. The former is far easier to disrupt.
Yep. It's far more difficult to move your arms, hands and fingers in very precise ways, while using componants in a precise way AND speaking precise words timed in conjunction with the other two, than it is to stab someone. The former is far easier
I said that "if only somatic components that are no more difficult than stabbing are required, I agree". And then when on to say that casting has typically included chanting (verbal components).
Bleh, now you've confused me, when did I say chanting was a somatic component?
You didn't. What you did was talk about somatic components and then go on to say how you typically also have to chant while using somatic componants and people got confused.
Bleh, now you've confused me, when did I say chanting was a somatic component?[/quote]You didn't. What you did was talk about somatic components and then go on to say how you typically also have to chant while using somatic componants and people got
If only somatic components that are no more difficult than stabbing are required, I agree. Typically that is not how casting has been described though. It's completely unimportant if I chant when I stab, but integral if I'm casting a spell.
Chanting is a verbal component, not a somatic component.
I personally feel based on the flavor behind the class they should cast in a fashion much more similar to a psion.
Then come with a way so we can figure out how much the benefit of casting while paralyzed and gaseous is, because to me it sounds ripe for exploitation.
That's easily done by writing the conditions properly.
Previous editions' Paralyze spells were basically "You can't move." Not a whole lot to go on, beyond that. There's a whole host of subconditions that result from that: you can't move from one place to another (obvious), you can't attack, spells with somatic components fail, your AC drops because you lose your Dex bonus to AC / are flatfooted.
The pseudo-physical consequences of paralyzation, as opposed to clearly defining what the condition is, are where the exploitation comes from. If paralyzation says "You can't take actions" and casting the spell is an action, then it doesn't matter if the spell says you don't have to wave your arms, you still can't cast it. If a spell says "You can cast this spell even while paralyzed" then that's the proper form of an exception.
This is where the truly greatest lesson of 4e should be applied: clear definitions of rules, that fit properly together, under an exception-based design. None of this wishy-washy DM adjudication. If DM adjudication were really the best way of doing things, we wouldn't have rulebooks. Rules exist for a reason, and anything that's actually a rule should be made properly. 4e certainly isn't perfect in this regard, but the concept behind its treatment of rules is worth continuing.
And, perhaps more importantly, things that aren't rules don't need to adhere to these sort of standards. There's lots of things in all of the editions that don't rise to the level of rules, defined by me here to be the things that we don't work out via roleplaying and need outside arbitration to resolve. To use a topical example, the specific gestures associated with a somatic component aren't a rule, because they don't need to be. This isn't a learn-to-be-a-wizard simulation, you don't have to practice your swish-and-flick in order to play D&D, and so a judgment is made by the game designers that that doesn't have to be a rule, so it's not a rule.
Chanting is a verbal component, not a somatic component.Then come with a way so we can figure out how much the benefit of casting while paralyzed and gaseous is, because to me it sounds ripe for exploitation.[/quote]That's easily done by writing the
The pseudo-physical consequences of paralyzation, as opposed to clearly defining what the condition is, are where the exploitation comes from. If paralyzation says "You can't take actions" and casting the spell is an action, then it doesn't matter if the spell says you don't have to wave your arms, you still can't cast it. If a spell says "You can cast this spell even while paralyzed" then that's the proper form of an exception.
Excep it seems to me that Lord_Daxl has a problem with paralysis stopping the sorcerer from casting specifically because he doesn't have to move to cast. That seems to me to be Lord_Daxl's point that flavor needs to be mechanically supported.
He seems to be arguing that sorcerers should be penalized in other ways in exchange for the ability to cast spells while paralyzed.
And, yes, Lord_Daxl, I was confused. I agree that if we include verbal components, that preventing speaking doesn't compleyely invalidate the caster. Silence should impose a penalty, in the same way that other spells may impose a minor penalty on weapon-users.
Excep it seems to me that Lord_Daxl has a problem with paralysis stopping the sorcerer from casting specifically because he doesn't have to move to cast. That seems to me to be Lord_Daxl's point that flavor needs to be mechanically supported.He seem
The pseudo-physical consequences of paralyzation, as opposed to clearly defining what the condition is, are where the exploitation comes from. If paralyzation says "You can't take actions" and casting the spell is an action, then it doesn't matter if the spell says you don't have to wave your arms, you still can't cast it. If a spell says "You can cast this spell even while paralyzed" then that's the proper form of an exception.
Excep it seems to me that Lord_Daxl has a problem with paralysis stopping the sorcerer from casting specifically because he doesn't have to move to cast. That seems to me to be Lord_Daxl's point that flavor needs to be mechanically supported.
He seems to be arguing that sorcerers should be penalized in other ways in exchange for the ability to cast spells while paralyzed.
And, yes, Lord_Daxl, I was confused. I agree that if we include verbal components, that preventing speaking doesn't compleyely invalidate the caster. Silence should impose a penalty, in the same way that other spells may impose a minor penalty on weapon-users.
At this point, it seems as if 5e spell casters will be stronger than non-spell casters. Language used in the articles to date indicates this. What we don't know at this time, is how much stronger they will be. Assuming they don't change spellcasters and they are stronger than non-casters, there needs to be more limitations on them with regard to stopping spell casting than there does on melee types.
Unless things change, I think silence should completely stop any spell that has a verbal component.
Excep it seems to me that Lord_Daxl has a problem with paralysis stopping the sorcerer from casting specifically because he doesn't have to move to cast. That seems to me to be Lord_Daxl's point that flavor needs to be mechanically supported.He seem
Maybe certain spells, like Shout, Word of (Alignment), etc. will have verbal components, while others will not require those. I think it makes sense for Silence to block something like Healing Word . Also, I like the way 4e didn't actually say that VMS are necessary (except in rituals), but they existed in the background. A python wrapped around the wizard restrained his hands enough to limit his spell-casting efficiency.
Maybe certain spells, like Shout, Word of (Alignment), etc. will have verbal components, while others will not require those. I think it makes sense for Silence to block something like Healing Word . Also, I like the way 4e didn't actually say that V
Still no challenge to the oppression that is material components for an archer?
Really, the whole (V/S/M) issue also exists for non-casters (well not V), yet I only see complaints when they're applied to casters. What gives?
I think most people just ignore it who don't like it, kinda always have type of thing. Probably because for the most part basic arrows are cheap, and magic arrows shouldn't really break (not that most arrows should if your shooting outdoors).
Anyways despite the arguing most people seem to agree material components can exist but shouldn't be used to balance the game, so they can be ignored easily.
I think most people just ignore it who don't like it, kinda always have type of thing. Probably because for the most part basic arrows are cheap, and magic arrows shouldn't really break (not that most arrows should if your shooting outdoors).Anyways
What might have worked better was having fighters gain as many feats as a wizard gained spells and then cutting back on their taxation.
That's a lotta feats. A 3e fighter got 11 bonus feats by 20th level. With bonus spells from decent INT, and not counting cantrips at all, a 3e wizard had 11 spells/day by 6th - at 20th he'd have 40 or more - and that's not counting the fact that the wizard /also/ got a few bonus feats. Even 4e didn't give fighters quite as many exploits as wizards had spells - the wizard's spellbook doubling the number of daily & utility powers they could choose from, and having cantrips on top of that (not to mention free rituals, that aren't technically /spells/ by 4e definitions).
It's even more feats than than most people might think. Using the 3e mold, a wizard can research new or existing spells with nothing but time and money. If we're keeping fighter feats and wizard spells at equal numbers, then fighters should be able to develop new techniques, jutsu, or what-have-you through nothing more than money and time to train.
That's a lotta feats. A 3e fighter got 11 bonus feats by 20th level. With bonus spells from decent INT, and not counting cantrips at all, a 3e wizard had 11 spells/day by 6th - at 20th he'd have 40 or more - and that's not counting the fact that th
which leaves the question since countless tables are ignoring them, why have spell components in the first place??
If they're likely to be ignored, they're no good as a balancing mechanism. So, sure, include them, not as hard-and-fast rules considered when balancing the magic system but as possible flavor descriptions of 'the kinds of things wizards do to cast spells.'
That's the winner. I've never heard anyone suggest that spider climb is too powerful without needing to gobble a spider. Spell components, unless they're quite rare or expensive, do not work as balance. However they do make great fluff for those who want to use them.
If they're likely to be ignored, they're no good as a balancing mechanism. So, sure, include them, not as hard-and-fast rules considered when balancing the magic system but as possible flavor descriptions of 'the kinds of things wizards do to cast
which leaves the question since countless tables are ignoring them, why have spell components in the first place??
If they're likely to be ignored, they're no good as a balancing mechanism. So, sure, include them, not as hard-and-fast rules considered when balancing the magic system but as possible flavor descriptions of 'the kinds of things wizards do to cast spells.'
Which also enables those of us who think they're kind of ridiculous to ignore them completely. Works for me. Make verbal and somatic components flavor-only too, and we're getting somewhere.
Only if you make weapons and armor flavor only along with thieves tools.
I say keep the somatic and verbal components but don't balance around them. Interrupting a spell doesn't need to require verbal and somatic components. If you take a spell as an act of will or individual power, you can still interrupt it just the way you can interrupt someone performing any other action.
I'd also like to point out the vagueness of verbal and somatic components. If you know how to throw your voice, can you throw it through a gag to still cast verbal component spells? How elaborate are the somatic components? Just pointing at the target is a meaningless action but could be all that's required.
If they're likely to be ignored, they're no good as a balancing mechanism. So, sure, include them, not as hard-and-fast rules considered when balancing the magic system but as possible flavor descriptions of 'the kinds of things wizards do to cast
Keep them. They harm no one and can be overlooked for any setting if the DM so desires.
This.
Loved spell components in the past, love 'em still. They are easily ignored and shouldn't cause anyone to have fits.
Spell components are easy to add to a game. Their absence shouldnt cause anyone to have fits.
Actually they are not anywhere as easy to add as they are to ignore.
That's both correct and incorrect. Adding them is easy, but if you do that outside the rules you create a cross-referencing problem. I say print them with the spells, but make sure not to use them when determining balance, and make sure that people know they are optional.
This.Loved spell components in the past, love 'em still. They are easily ignored and shouldn't cause anyone to have fits. [/quote]Spell components are easy to add to a game. Their absence shouldnt cause anyone to have fits.[/quote]Actually they are
Still no challenge to the oppression that is material components for an archer?
Really, the whole (V/S/M) issue also exists for non-casters (well not V), yet I only see complaints when they're applied to casters. What gives?
Oh someone upthread (or it may have been another, but I thought it was in this one) mentioned the 'unfunness' of the horrors of actually tracking your ammunition. Like it was something only a 'hardass' DM out to ruin fun would do. But it sure is quiet compared to material components for casters, isn't it.
Actually, while I don't believe I'm the person you're mentioning, I don't personally care for tracking ammunition. If a character is an archer, I have no problem assuming they are prepared enough to use their weapon all day long without running out of ammo. Only under situations where characters are deprived of resources do I believe in tracking ammo.
Oh someone upthread (or it may have been another, but I thought it was in this one) mentioned the 'unfunness' of the horrors of actually tracking your ammunition. Like it was something only a 'hardass' DM out to ruin fun would do. But it sure is qu
Endless quivers don't make sense either, yet a lot of games use them, many of which without actually calling them that.
Is the solution to remove the existence of arrows?
I'm still not clear on why it's so oppressive to have M/S components for casters, but it's okay for everyone else.
Generally speaking, non-casters don't have material components (except for ranged attacks like arrows or thrown missiles). A more appropriate comparison would be implements or foci. Both foci & implements are appropriate comparisons because the weapon is neither consumed nor leaves the character's possession in the attacking. Also, implemenets are an appropriate comparison because characters usually find magic weapons that augment their attacks.
Generally speaking, non-casters don't have material components (except for ranged attacks like arrows or thrown missiles). A more appropriate comparison would be implements or foci. Both foci & implements are appropriate comparisons because the wea
Putting them in PHB does not mean that you have to use them. That's the point of modularity. The vast, vast bulk of the PHB takes the form of optional modules. This is one of them.
Modularity means a separate module. Dont include the material components in the spell description. Keep them a separate module. Material components are feces.
I have to disagree. Putting them in the spell description, perhaps with a different color background, or in some kind of box, makes the most sense as it prevents players and DMs from having to cross-reference spells with the list of components in an appendix or in another book.
Modularity means a separate module. Dont include the material components in the spell description. Keep them a separate module. Material components are feces.[/quote]I have to disagree. Putting them in the spell description, perhaps with a different
Why does everyone have to be identically affected by the same conditions?
They don't have to be, but it's very hard to see how one would ensure that the clases are roughly equal in power if they aren't. One of the things that was always problematic with psionics was that it could do virtually everything magic could do, and suffered none of the drawbacks. You could use it in silence, you could use it when paralyzed, you could use it while gaseous, you could use it in an antimagic field. You could use it while paralyzed, rendered mute, and in gaseous form while in an antimagic field. Heck, I've seen people argue they should be able to use some psionic disciplines while unconscious!
I believe the books did address the antimagic field issue. IIRC, the psionics handbook stated that SR and antimagic can work against psionics if the DM wants them to.
They don't have to be, but it's very hard to see how one would ensure that the clases are roughly equal in power if they aren't. One of the things that was always problematic with psionics was that it could do virtually everything magic could do, an
DOWN WITH ARROWS! 
)
)
