As those of you who have seen the Black Book Beta know, I’ve generally eliminated the rules for spell components: Distinguishing exactly which spells require verbal and/or somatic components is an almost perfect example of the kind of non-essential detail that Legends & Labyrinths is systematically eliminating in order to provide you with a simplified and streamlined engine for your imagination.
I made an exception, however, for material components: Spells like identify and raise dead are partially balanced by the expensive material components they require.
And then, since I’d been forced to include the rules for material components anyway, I thought I might as well go ahead and include all of the material components.
But as I revisit the Grimoire for its final editing, I’m beginning to suspect I may have made a mistake. So what do y’all think? Should I keep all of the material components for the sake of consistency? Only keep the ones with a significant monetary cost? Get rid of all of them? Bring back all the spell components? Invent a fourth category of spell component and just toss it in there for kicks?
(What would that fourth category of spell component be? Hmm…)
How about a catch-all category called “ritual” that allows you (the game author) to specify prohibitive conditions for spells that need to be limited for balance purposes? For example, for an Identify spell to work properly, the item being identified needs to be prepared by being dipped in [insert non-cheap substance here]. This is not a “material component” in the sense that it powers the spell and is consumed by its casting, it is merely part of the necessary prep. For a raise dead/resurrection, it could be required that the spell be cast as close as possible to the target’s original birth place, or require a tissue sample from at least one of the the target’s parents. Something that requires a bit of a quest, and can’t just be done in the middle of a dungeon.
I’d say keep the ones that are a significant cost. In all of the games that I’ve played in it’s rare that we care about spell component cost unless it is significant.
Agreed with the above: non-valued material components are pretty easy to overlook. And no small percentage of them are just some multi-decade-old in-joke (like the copper piece for Detect Thoughts ala a Penny for your Thoughts).
About the only use I’ve ever had for non-valued components is the idea that you could have a caster check his component pouch whenever you’re asking the weapon-based characters to check their weapons (e.g., diplomatic event).
Unless they have a cost, they’re generally irrelevant, and I would get get rid of them.
Regarding vocal vs. somatic, there is an important difference there, since in stock 3.x, you suffer a chance of spell failure only for spells with somatic components. It used to be in 3.0 that a number of highly useful spells like Haste and Dimension Door required only vocal components. I’ve seen this used well by a multi-class enchanter / fighter who wore plate armour but who memorised vocal-only spells whenever possible to boost his fighting ability. It was a well done and very characterful example of system mastery.
Start with the assumption that all spells need all the different components, verbal sommatic and trivial materials. Then clearly mark each spell when deviates from this. Marking the rarer special cases insted of the common normal ones should decress the clutter.
I don’t think I’ve _ever_ paid in-game attention to material components not specifically called out as having a significant cost, in 30+ years of D&D. Actually tracking all of those fiddly bits would be a tremendous drain. In play I figure that as long as a caster has his “spell component pouch” to hand (considered one “bundle” if you’re using that system) he’s good to go. I assume that as long as periodic visits are made to a spot where they could be replenished (town with a magical supply shop), keeping the component bag topped-up is just another incidental expense (like cleaning and caring for armor/weapons, rent at the inn, and so on) that isn’t really interesting to track (unless it becomes so). It might become relevant if you pull one of those “you’ve been captured and the bad guys took all of your stuff” and you have to work with the spells you know AND can improve components for out of what’s at hand.
For a streamlined game, I’d junk everything but the costly components, and maybe the components you use for scrying. (Hmm, are those foci? Probably are, don’t remember offhand.) If you want you could mention that most spells have some trivial material component that is generally assumed to be on-hand for a reasonably competent caster with access to normal equipment, and if denied access to a component pouch maybe you invent a simple chance mechanic to see whether the component can be improvised (which, let’s face it, would be what you would do in that situation anyway, unless you’re really going to detail the contents of some random jail cell to indicate the type of stone it’s made of, whether there were bats living there at one point to provide a deposit of guano in the corner, and so forth).
I think that you should scrap rules for material components. That said, I think it’s pathfinder, that has a neat system whereby you can boost certain spells with rare animal/beast bits. So if the party gets attacked by a dangerous beast that wouldn’t normally have any treasure, you can still get a reward by looting its teeth or claws or fur or whatever to boost the power of spells, or possibly sell.
Exclude them; they’ve never come up in detail in any game I’ve played. Their only purpose is a fluff and it’s better to have the players detail any material components to add more flavour to their form of magic.
I don’t think there’s a reason to specify what the component is unless it’s either expensive or hard to acquire.
I like the idea of tracking generic components in the same way that you track rations and torches, so that if you run out, you can’t cast spells until you can scrounge up some more. Having to forage for components the same way you would for food if you’re stuck away from town for too long is interesting to me.
But stating what those generic components are has always wrecked my suspension of disbelief. First, because many of them are really silly. Second, because why would your component bag have just enough of each extremely specific ingredient? So I think that unspecified generic components for each spell are better.
For spells where the component is part of the balance, it could either be something expensive or something that can only be acquired by questing, because it’s not available for purchase at any price. Monster corpses would fit for that, but so would rare plants or minerals that can only be found in one location, like they are in Carcosa.
I think when you describe the purpose/function of expensive components in the beginning of the section, you should mention that many spells have inexpensive components that can be used to add description to spellcasting, but not describe the specific instances in the descriptions.
I wouldn’t eliminate material components entirely, but I would streamline them to avoid any need to describe most. Instead of specifying the materials used, I’d just break down the material component description for spells into a few categories: “None”, “Common”, “Focus”, “Rare”, and “Costly”.
None: Some spells don’t require a material component at all.
Common: Many spells require some sort of easily-acquired items. These materials may vary from region to region: The Flame Brethren of the Infinite Sands may use a fist-sized pyramid of brimstone when calling forth a scorching ray, but the magi of the frozen Ymiri Peaks carry a lens of clear ice for the same purpose.
Focus: Some spells require an item that can be used repeatedly, such as a scrying mirror or the ornate glass rods some mages use to focus lightning bolts upon their foes.
Rare: These components may not be readily available in all places, forcing spellcasters to choose other magic until they can be acquired.
Costly: While not necessarily uncommon (some items are both Rare AND Costly), acquiring these items involves substantial expense. Their typical value would be marked next to the entry.
As an example, a spell might state: Material Components: Rare, Costly (75 gp)
Pseudoephedrine and Sir Wulf have points I agree with.
The pathfinder mechanic pointed out by Hautamaki sounds interesting.
Overall, I think “material components” should be a spell field (a listed pre-requisite for certain spells), but specifics (“grass clippings, etc) should be left for compaign settings).
Specific low value components should be dropped. Specifying them removes a chance for flavor (different mages make spell work in different, cool ways). The only case is valued material components. Even then I am tempted to suggest putting in some of the 1E balancing — e.g. casting this spell requires one week of bed rest afterwards. This is very good for spells like Raise Dead (which could also, ala 1E cost a point of CON). This makes powerful spells that do amazing things infrequent to cast and removes the link between spell power and wealth. The more one can make gold part of the atmosphere and less part of the power of the characters, the better.
That’s actually an option I should have mentioned: Instead of removing all components, instead assume that all spells require verbal, somatic, and material components (with the latter being specified only if they’re valuable).
Good thoughts all the way round!
I dislike the old silly components. Requiring gunpowder to make a Fireball for example annoys me because either gunpowder is possible, and why aren’t there gunpowder weapons, or you somehow draw a line and call everything more advanced than X “magic” while hinting that it’s actually sufficiently sophisticated technology.
Also, it’s bookkeeping, and not very interesting. I’d much rather have say, Knowledge(Arcana) rolls to acquire components “in the wild”, while acquiring them in towns should be trivial. So this roll would only come into play when you lose your pouch of magic components and want to cast a spell.
Also, I don’t like specific spell components because they can get in the way of alternate settings, where some of those components may turn out to be very rare, which causes unexpected game effects (normal spells suddenly becoming very hard to cast).
It would be nicer to leave it vague what exactly these components are, and allow for multiple different components that are all sufficient to power a given spell, thus allowing regional/cultural differences in wizardry without needing a lot of game mechanics.
That said, I actually like Verbal and Somatic components. Using spells without Somatic components, or a Still Spell feat, to cast spells while wearing armor, enables a melee-wizard style, which is kinda expensive/limited, but not entirely unfeasible. In short, balanced.
Also, there’s Silence spells vs. Silent Spell feats.
V, S components also play a role in determining how obvious spellcasting is to bystanders, which is particularly important with Illusions and Mind-affecting spells, for all sorts of intrigues.
Like others, I have found that needing to track a different “eye of newt”-style esoteric component for each spell is too much work for essentially no reward. Even the material components with listed costs become just another thing to lug around past a certain level of wealth.
Somewhere in the Alexandrian’s archives is an article describing the “Create Water” spell in earlier versions of D&D. It used to be a higher-level spell, so that parties had to worry about water until their cleric could reasonably conjure enough for everyone. I could support a similar system for material components (or even other spell components): they’re important to the plans of low-level characters, but become obsolete at higher levels.
The Epic Level Handbook had two feats that did this: Eschew Materials and Ignore Material Components. Eschew Materials required a metamagic feat and let you cast spells without the material components that were assumed to be in your spell pouch (those without a price listed). Ignore Material Components was an epic feat (it had a skill requirement that for any full caster corresponded to being 22nd level) and let you material components of any cost, but still not foci.
Psionics had a system of “displays” – things that happened (like fancy sounds or colorful pyrotechnics) when you manifested powers. The mechanical effect of these was minimal, but the interesting part was that you could make a Concentration check to suppress the display.
tl;dr: Material components can make the game more interesting at low levels, but I’d like to see a way that a sufficiently powerful or wealthy caster can ignore them.
As a side note, I imagine that many DMs have tried taking away a caster’s spell components in much the same way as one might take away a fighter’s sword: to prevent players from fighting their way out of trouble, often as part of a railroaded plot involving being captured. Is this important enough to be a part of any discussion of balance?
Re: Taking the components away.
Possibly. And it’s not always the players.
The Maiden Voyage module from Atlas Games features a plot in which a criminal spellcaster is being transported for trial. He’s had his spell components taken away, but he tricks an NPC guard into bringing him an hourglass (which gives him the dust he needs for a sleep spell). (This is a really good module, BTW: Check it out. It’s also where I playtested the dead sea serpent encounter I wrote for En Route.)
I’ve had similar stuff come up about a half dozen times in the past decade. Sometimes it’s the spellcaster getting stuck without his component bag (or having it confiscated). Sometimes it’s the PCs trying to prevent somebody else from casting spells.
Interesting tactic nobody has ever tried but maybe should: Using disarm to take away a spellcaster’s component bag in the middle of combat.
So, yes, there is some potentially interesting play to come from this. But it’s certainly not a high density of play.
On a similar note, though, there is an upshot from eliminating components of all sorts: The silence no longer interferes with spellcasting. (This was true in 1974, too, so I don’t consider it automatically an unacceptable loss.)
Count me as one more vote for “unless otherwise noted, all spells require spoken words, complex gestures with a free hand, and some material component which can be bought at trivial cost in any civilized settlement.” Rather than specifying a specific component for any given spell, there could be ‘good enough’ substitutes… some other sort of alkaline rock dust in place of chalk, two herbs mashed together in place of one that shares properties with both of them, etc., with some skill check, maybe DC 10+spell level, to identify such a substitute given an appropriate environment to scrounge from.
Speaking of environment, that might make an interesting fourth component. Spells that can only be cast at particular geomantic foci, or at the moment the sun touches the horizon, or while the caster is airborne.
When is this book going to be available for sale? It looks really good.
Do your archers keep track of how many arrows they have? If not, then ignore material components. But if you do keep track of arrows (and torches and rations and other expendables) then it’s only fair the casters keep track of their ammunition as well. We keep track of all components as simple hash marks next to the spell representing “doses” for each casting. Purchasing mundane components usually only takes a couple of minutes and procuring rare/expensive ones often offers great RP opportunities. But the biggest reason to include components is to help balance the greater power that casters enjoy at higher levels. And as many have pointed out, even mundane components can become rare in the wrong environments. I understand it’s a matter of playstyle whether you want the extra bookkeeping, but even the smallest components have mass and volume in great quantities. And it’s hard to assume an unlimited supply of anything everywhere.
@Andrew: Hopefully very soon. I’ve had a couple of artists flake on me (including one who was working on a piece which I’m contracturally obligated to include in the book), but as soon as the art is done the book will be available for sale.
My goal is to get things set-up so that people can pre-order print copies and get immediate access to the PDF. (Or just order a PDF copy if that’s all they want.)
I can’t remember a campaign where we managed to track spell components for more than a session before giving it up as too much bookkeeping. As a result we also dropped Verbal and Somatic components.
Now I think there’s probably a need to use these in moderation, without them taking over the game. If your magic user is tied and/or gagged, you need to know what they can and can’t cast. If there’s a need for a small subset of spells to require some component for the purposes of balance, then having only a small set of spells with material components may not be too burdensome. If all spells have material components, then I bet the majority will ignore them completely.
Speaking of material components…
Some good stuff here: http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2012/01/articles-of-dragon-living-in-material.html
And here: http://jrients.blogspot.com/2012/02/dremelzas-front-room.html
Haven’t heard anything on this project in a while. Any updates? Timelines? Estimated cost?
I have to agree that in 30+ years of playing D&D spell components were fun to read in spell descriptions, but fell away in actual play. Even the “age ten years, or “lose a point of constitution” didn’t fit with wish spells and the like around.
I agree that some people live to track that stuff just like individual arrows and how beat up your armor is.
Sir Wulf’s idea (comment #11) appears to be the best of both worlds. A paragraph explaining the different ways they might add flavor at the expense of record-keeping and then a word, good piece amt in the spell descriptions and people can do what they want in their game.
Using expensive items to balance a spell – that seems pretty tough. At a certain point, money doesn’t necessarily matter to characters (imagine James Bond being told his VISA card had been declined), but this always can vary by campaign. Being fatigued for a week is a good start, but depending in the game, this often gets hand waved as well, “so we spend another week in town, now what?”
I believed the 1ed books referred to components being almost always consumed in casting, so Johnny DM’s (#20) idea of “component hashmarks” and tracking castings like arrows seems workable as well – and perhaps mentioned as another option to run your campaign.
All the above being said, however, EVERY player I’ve had immediately wants to know what components, verbal, somatic and/or material are required the instant their characters were captured and bindings described.
I like the idea of a generic system option (a la Sir Wulf’s) with minimal explanation in the spell description, coupled with a short discussion of how this might influence your game. Borrowing, in a way, the “trappings” concept from Savage Worlds.