|
have the common stuff easy to buy and have them keep track of each use they bought. small spiders and whatnot should be easy to replenish, snake tongues would be a lot harder unless he had someone hunting on his behalf once they're out of components, too bad
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Big Black Brony posted:How do you handle tracking of spell components for casters? Like if my warlock needs a snake tongue or whatever it may be. I'm asking as a dm, and I don't feel he needs to take time to always find spiders and random stuff for low spells. I understand some of the very rare components for higher grade spells, but what do I do about the little things? You don't. As the PHB says on page 203, you can completely ignore material components without an explicit cost if you have a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (e.g. a wand, holy symbol). Material components are included because of ~TRADITION~ and the rules for pouch/focus were then put in place so you can just ignore them, while still paying lip service to the idea that you are good ol' D&D just like grandpa used to play. What you do about the little things? You ignore them. Utterly. This is not even a common sense houserule, it is explicitly what the game itself wants you to do. (Observe how every single goddamn spellcasting class starts with default equipment which includes a focus and/or a pouch. The game considers this to be mandatory equipment for your Warlock.) Edit: Or you can do what Mastershakeman suggested, which is an exercise in horrendous bean-counting purely for the sake of horrendous bean-counting. It also doesn't actually answer your question because it still leaves you at a loss on how to cost things like snake tongues. You could invent all those costs easily, I'm sure, but why do you even have to do that? You have better things to spend your time on. Sage Genesis fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:have the common stuff easy to buy and have them keep track of each use they bought. small spiders and whatnot should be easy to replenish, snake tongues would be a lot harder unless he had someone hunting on his behalf Each type of terrain should have a master list of spell components that can be gathered there. Spellcasters have to specialize in the type of terrain to gather, and we can all agree that spellcasters can't master every terrain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
As Sage Genesis said, spell components in 5e aren't really a thing anymore until or unless you explicitly go out of your way as a DM to create a situation where you say that the caster cannot access them for whatever reason. There's a rhyme and reason to spell components and costs for previous editions of the game (specifically AD&D), but that kind of structure doesn't exist in 5e.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Yeah, the only time you pay attention to spell components is for role playing, or if the wizard has his spell pouch confiscated. (In which case you get to watch the wizard try to scrape together some copper and some spider webs, for a message cantrip and web spell. It was actually a lot of fun, and my guy wears copper earrings now.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
lifg posted:Yeah, the only time you pay attention to spell components is for role playing, or if the wizard has his spell pouch confiscated. (In which case you get to watch the wizard try to scrape together some copper and some spider webs, for a message cantrip and web spell. It was actually a lot of fun, and my guy wears copper earrings now.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Big Black Brony posted:How do you handle tracking of spell components for casters? Like if my warlock needs a snake tongue or whatever it may be. I'm asking as a dm, and I don't feel he needs to take time to always find spiders and random stuff for low spells. I understand some of the very rare components for higher grade spells, but what do I do about the little things? Component pouch, arcane focus and the like replace components with no cost
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Mewnie posted:edit: like, the DM cannot comprehend that it'd work in any kind of terrain. "Hunters don't master every terrain." In the real world survivalists, special forces, and Everest climbing rich guys do this all the time. Hell some American states boast about being able to hunt/hike multiple environments as apart of tourism marketing. Tell your DM to stop being a shut in nerd
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Ok, I didn't really read over all the phb, so I missed that. But I like the component scraping portion, if he loses his pouch in a prison or however. I'm keeping that in mind for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:In the real world survivalists, special forces, and Everest climbing rich guys do this all the time. Hell some American states boast about being able to hunt/hike multiple environments as apart of tourism marketing. Tell your DM to stop being a shut in nerd I'd find it hard to believe if some survivalist were to overspecialize in say deserts only to then go "The hell am I supposed to do?!" upon entering a forest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Bear Grylls and the Survivorman guy utterly die when they are confronted with an environment that they did not select as their Favored Terrain™. Fake edit: no amount of piss-drinking could save Bear Grylls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
hell, I even house rule in greydust which is an equal cost replacement for components with a value so you don't need to keep track of rubies and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Doesn't the PHB even say that players can just use GP instead of keeping track of components with monetary costs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
wisdomHNOX posted:Doesn't the PHB even say that players can just use GP instead of keeping track of components with monetary costs? They should just replace the component pouch with a magical piggy bank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Would legit play a Wizard who dumps money into a Bottomless Coinpurse whenever he has to cast. Like that one Final Fantasy 10 summon that you had to bribe every round.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:Would legit play a Wizard who dumps money into a Bottomless Coinpurse whenever he has to cast. Like that one Final Fantasy 10 summon that you had to bribe every round. Yojimbo was a true OD&D hero. He only did it for the treasure. And he was a save-or-die spell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
I don't think components jibe very well with modern games. I could see it in classic dungeon crawl games where every little thing is an attrition-resource but not in campaign arcs sprawling over multiple kingdoms. Part of the problem is that spells already are limited resources, so cross-referencing limited resource versus limited resource is needlessly punishing to players. Because it would be incredibly annoying to have the right spell prepared for the right situation and still not be able to cast it, it will result in excessive beancounting on the part of the player, who naturally doesn't want to ever be caught in a situation where See Invisible is actually useful but he's all out of frog butts. And because of that you can be sure the player will spend every waking moment buying frogs or having his ranger buddy flay frog butts for him whenever they get the chance. The same thing applies to bat guano and snake tongues - they are things that are reasonably easy to get ahold of it you want to but consume more time than they do money. I'm all for limiting wizards but components don't limit them, they mire them in endless busywork that actually makes them more the center of attention rather than less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I played a pretty fun Pathfinder all Wizards game, where the gimmick was that a wizard got two schools only. Because it took place at a wizard college, so we effectively had our Majors [Specialist school, full access] and our Minor [secondary school, limited to -2 under highest spell level, so if you had 6th level spells, you could cast 4th level ones of your minor]. It was a super fun game of wizard college adventuring, where in the professors sent us into school created dungeons and forced us to use our wits and spells to pass tests. I definitely felt less powerful being limited to two schools, but that wasn't a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Keeping track of spell components was never a thing. Non-costing spell components always existed purely for the sake of flavor - and by and large were honestly there more to be extremely terrible jokes more then anything else. Passwall requires you to take out some sesame seeds. Darkvision required you gesture with carrots. Hideous laughter required you throw a tiny tart pie. You cast Tongues by building a tiny tower of babel. Etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Gort posted:Likewise clerics should be split up by deity type - a cleric of the desert god should be utterly different to the cleric of the sea god, and so on. Turn Undead is one of those things that we got in 5e because of tradition, but even 3.5 had a bunch of feats and poo poo to let you use that resource for something else. :weforgot: Again, it's a case of "if 5e was a refinement of 4e" whereby classes had defined roles, but you cleaned up the cruft and made some classes into Archetypes instead of their own thing (Avenger being rolled into Paladin in 5e being the only example that actually made it in) then this edition could have been a nice, tight, accessible game. As it is, level 1 is basically a pretty low entry point, but then the learning curve is basically a sheer 100ft cliff face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
If I were to reimplement spell component costs, I'd like do it in such a way that, within the same spell level, some spells are free, some spells cost a "reasonable" amount, and some spells are exceptionally expensive. So your Magic Missiles would be free, but Tenser's Floating Disk would cost something, and Hypnotism and Sleep would be at a premium. The problem with this kind of thinking is: 1. Evaluating the "power level" of a spell so that you can assign a cost to it is something that you'd only really be able to do in hindsight. Crowdsource enough opinions and you could do it for 3rd Ed, but that's a 16 year-old game with 16 years of play and discussion behind it. 2. You would need to have some kind of formalized and intended "wealth level" so that you know exactly what a "reasonable" cost is, vis-a-vis an "expensive" cost. Having to track the actual items that you need as spell components, rather than just flat gold costs, would be a sop to world-building: if you say that Burning Hands requires a pinch of phosphate, and you find yourself in a town making a living off a bat cave, maybe you can justify the Wizard getting to cast it for free or at a significant discount, since phosphates are cheap over there. The converse being that if you need a small icicle to cast Chill Touch, that may well be impossible to procure in the Deserts of Harash'ash. Having thought through all this, a somewhat less-book-keepy and straightforward way to capture this sort of flavor would be to reimplement two old-school rules: 1. You cannot cast the same spell more than once per day (originally you cannot memorize the same spell more than once, but spell memorization isn't a thing in 5e anymore) 2. Any "named spell", such as Melf's Acid Arrow or Leomund's Tiny Hut, can never be learned via leveling up, and must be found via adventuring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Spell Components has come up in Out of the Abyss, apparently there's no snow so I can't cast Simulacrum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Spell components are a great way for wizards to more thoroughly dominate the game play experience. When they aren't casting spells, they get to use up game time to roleplay gathering crap to cast more spells.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
create a big chart of spell components and make the wizard roll for what they found during a short rest
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Bar like 3 great spells per level. Let the party find an <Item> of <Banned Spell> Make the item something only the Fighter and Rogue are proficient in. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Can you Wish for a Ring of Wishes? Edit: Wish says no. This is bullshit, Mearls!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:create a big chart of spell components and make the wizard roll for what they found during a short rest I think you can abstract this by making certain spells scroll-only. For the greatest and most dangerous spells are only known to the secret society of the Great Nerf.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:Spell components are a great way for wizards to more thoroughly dominate the game play experience. When they aren't casting spells, they get to use up game time to roleplay gathering crap to cast more spells.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Bad Seafood posted:Yeah, the real problem with casters (IMO) has never been how powerful they are, but how many options they have. It's like being given a deck of cards to play with while everyone has to choose a specific boardgame (and not all boardgames are created equal either). More like the caster is playing Netrunner while everyone else gets either Blackjack or Solitaire. The Board Game thread would resent your allegations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
You've missed my point, I think. There are plenty of complex boardgames, just as there are simple ones. The thing is, every boardgame has its own set of rules, and even if those rules allow for a lot of flexibility in some contexts, you're still stuck playing variations of "One" game - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's another matter. But with a deck of cards you can play Solitaire. Or Blackjack. Or Poker. Or War. Or Bridge. Or Rummy. Or build a house. Or do magic tricks. Or play one of dozens if not hundreds of other card games that have existed. Or invent your own. You can play by yourself or with a group. With a single deck of cards you have access to a vast array of games and most of their variations. A fighter can dish out damage and tank. A paladin can dish out damage and tank (better), and can also heal and buff. A wizard can dish out damage, (summon a) tank, heal, buff, debuff, control, and handle a bunch of other utilities. They can also do a lot of this with subpar stats. That's what I mean by options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Ah, I get you; I was thinking in terms of the inherent options given by the material as opposed to the panoply of potential uses. I would counter that, in terms of the material and not the rules, one could get a lot of different uses out of something like Heroscape figurines or even a chessboard, if not quite as many as cards. That's a bit beside the point, I suppose. On an entirely different note, has anyone been trying out the 5e modules? I've got a friend who's planning on running one, I think Strahd, and am wondering how well they tend to play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:On an entirely different note, has anyone been trying out the 5e modules? I've got a friend who's planning on running one, I think Strahd, and am wondering how well they tend to play. Strahd is quite good, because it lends itself well to railroading (what with being caught in Barovia etc). Steer clear of the Tyranny of Dragon books, they're garbage and require massive reworking to be good/fun. Storm Kings Thunder has some good setpieces, but struggles at the start with giving a reason why anyone should give a poo poo about the overarching story. Out of the Abyss was really fun, same deal as Curse of Strahd (easy to railroad without feeling like on tracks) due to being stuck in the underdark. Only issue was half way through with "why the hell would we want to go back there, when we just got out?" Princes of the Apocalypse was a hot mess. Once again, some cool set pieces, the temples were good by themselves, but it suffers from a book trying to pretend to be open world/sandbox. Takes a fair bit of effort to make work, but can be worth it if the DM wants a project.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:On an entirely different note, has anyone been trying out the 5e modules? I've got a friend who's planning on running one, I think Strahd, and am wondering how well they tend to play. I thought the Barovia modules kind of sucked rear end. Curse of Strahd the book was cool for gothic horror but that's not my cup of tea. The modules from that season were boring and didn't immerse players in the spooky vampire poo poo. I've had much more fun playing this season's modules as well as OotA and SKT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:I thought the Barovia modules kind of sucked rear end. Curse of Strahd the book was cool for gothic horror but that's not my cup of tea. The modules from that season were boring and didn't immerse players in the spooky vampire poo poo. I've had much more fun playing this season's modules as well as OotA and SKT. Oh this makes me realise I should clarify. I'm only talking about the published books, not the adventurer's league stuff. I have not played them except for the first season (which also blew rear end).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:Spell components are a great way for wizards to more thoroughly dominate the game play experience. When they aren't casting spells, they get to use up game time to roleplay gathering crap to cast more spells. finally, the ranger butcher kit that ive been waiting for all this time
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Is there a good thread for getting started or is this pretty much the place to be? I've played other less rigid sets of rules like White Wolf's Adventure!, PBTA, etc. but never D&D. A mutual friend wants to push me into a particular group and through him I have access to any of the books I might need, but stuff that would help for getting started would be cool. As far as classes, I'm normally given to wanting to be a fast-talking bullshitter, but in a game with more combat focus I don't know what speaks to me. I wouldn't want that to push me into being a rogue or bard just for the rare occasions when we need a silver tongue. Paladins and warlocks seem neat? I was never interested in paladins before until I saw rad Sacred Oath options by the guy who made the Communist Paladin homebrew (and some other cool ones,) but I don't know how the average group looks on those homebrew options. edit: It looks like the Charlatan background covers plenty of the bullshitter stuff I love and dovetails neatly with Warlock? Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
Play bard and take illusion spells contingent on a chat with your FM about illusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
My favorite part of d&d is daydreaming about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:edit: It looks like the Charlatan background covers plenty of the bullshitter stuff I love and dovetails neatly with Warlock? This thread is a good place to get started if you're playing 5th edition D&D, though it tends to be fairly cynical of the rules and features. A warlock with charlatan background would work nicely since deception and spellcasting work off of the charisma stat. You would bonus well as Warlock, Paladin or Sorcerer since they all cast spells off of Cha, rogues and bards can be excellent with it as well as inspiring leader type fighters. Warlock is a nice toolkit and you'll always have Eldritch Blast to cast for damage without having to worry about spell slots. Depending on the game it can be easy to min/max making yourself an Eldritch Blast machine gun. I would recommend taking Pact of the Tome and considering picking up a couple cantrips from the Bard spell list like Message or Friend and Vicious Mockery. Fighting with words is always fun. If you had additional questions, post them up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Additionally, try to take the disguise self invocation and the actor feat eventually. Warlock and charlatan go really well together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:10
|
|