PDA

View Full Version : materal components



nysisobli
2009-08-07, 06:03 PM
am i the only one who still makes wizards use them?

Glimbur
2009-08-07, 06:06 PM
We have never worried about them in any game I was in, with the exception of expensive ones like diamond dust. It generally wouldn't have made a difference anyway, I haven't seen many casters without component pouches.

RTGoodman
2009-08-07, 06:08 PM
If you're talking about making your wizards list every single thing they have in their spell component pouches, then... yes. :smalltongue:

If a caster has a couple of component pouches, and makes sure to write down any other expensive components (i.e., those not covered by Eschew Materials), then I don't worry about it.

sofawall
2009-08-07, 06:10 PM
If it costs money, yes. If not, no. Spell Component pouches are wonderful things.

tyckspoon
2009-08-07, 06:20 PM
Simply use them as the rules are written, or actually care about the exact components a caster has on hand? Most people seem to play it the way the books have it, which trivializes most components: if you have (1) a spell component pouch and (2) at least one free hand to fiddle with said pouch you can cast your spell. Focuses and costly components are the only things you need to pay any real attention to.

Almost nobody actually forces their casters to list out every individual packet of mundane spell reagents they carry. It's a bookkeeping nightmare that bloats caster character sheets even further. If you really want your casters to sometimes care about getting resupplied, a supply roll system is a pretty good solution- for example, make a note of every spell that is cast during a day. When the party sets up camp for the night, throw a d20 for each spell. If you roll low enough (say, less than or equal to how many times that spell was cast) then the pouch has run out of components for that spell. The character will have to make an appropriate skill check/buy a new pouch/spend a little time gathering components [it should pretty much never take more than a bit of time to find spider web for a Web spell, for example] before he can use the spell again.

vampire2948
2009-08-07, 06:21 PM
In the campaign setting i'm writing, various types of spell component are rare or non-existant in parts of the world. Turning some of them into items worth 1gp or so per spell. [Spell component pouches do exist, but only for certain components.]

Should be a fun way of limiting any party's spellcasting ability.. perhaps.

Anyway - In regular adventures, I just make sure they all have pouches.

nysisobli
2009-08-07, 07:49 PM
but see when you make them buy every component, and they don't plan ahead, and you give them weight. It nerfs casters into the ground, maybe thats why ive never thought wizards were over powered

DragoonWraith
2009-08-07, 07:51 PM
But it "nerfs" them by making them not fun, rather than simply balanced.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-07, 07:59 PM
In the campaign setting i'm writing, various types of spell component are rare or non-existant in parts of the world. Turning some of them into items worth 1gp or so per spell. [Spell component pouches do exist, but only for certain components.]

Sounds like you'll be needing Excel, and lots of it.


but see when you make them buy every component, and they don't plan ahead, and you give them weight. It nerfs casters into the ground, maybe thats why ive never thought wizards were over powered
Summon Material Component is either a cantrip or a first level spell.

Kylarra
2009-08-07, 07:59 PM
but see when you make them buy every component, and they don't plan ahead, and you give them weight. It nerfs casters into the ground, maybe thats why ive never thought wizards were over poweredDo you also make fighters buy whetstones to sharpen their swords? Perhaps individual parts to repair armor? What about laces for their boots? Individual items of clothing? Perhaps new horseshoes for their mounts? Bedding wears down too, also leather straps on those packs they carry.

You could get into an overly simulationist mode, but that sort of game really isn't what D&D is designed for, and most (if not all) of the [costless] material components are jokes that have been played too far.

Milskidasith
2009-08-07, 08:00 PM
It doesn't nerf casters to have to waste time figuring out all that; it just makes it about as fun as playing D20 Accounting.

Hell, if I had somebody make me keep track of all the spell components I needed like that, I'd just build my character to cast Holy Word at the highest caster level possible.

Steward
2009-08-07, 08:01 PM
Well, I have a Harvard-trained accountant and two personal secretaries assisting me whenever *I* play. If you're too lazy to come prepared, why should the DM alter his interpretation of RAW?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-07, 08:02 PM
No, just take Eschew Materials.

And summon antimatter.

Milskidasith
2009-08-07, 08:03 PM
Yeah, but Eschew Materials is a terrible feat anyway, plus if they say the material components are worth around 1gp, some of them aren't going to work under the ruling of the spell.

Holy Word just requires you to be able to talk and you can break the GM's campaign on your divinely empowered knee.

erikun
2009-08-07, 08:31 PM
I almost always pick up Eschew Materials. Use that spell component pouch or the relevant stuff, or wander around town looking like a carpenter, or cast spells after being thrown into the dungeon without worrying about gathering up body parts from a dozen different types of vermin.

Weezer
2009-08-07, 10:35 PM
I usually ignore them, both as player and DM. I make an issue of having the components once they get high enough levels that most costs are pocket change except for pretty expensive components. I probably should enforce it but I'm just rather lazy.

BobVosh
2009-08-07, 11:43 PM
Far too lazy. I even use all material compenents that cost large amounts of gold cost just that. Gold.

Tempest Fennac
2009-08-08, 01:17 AM
I tend not to see much point in them, so I just assume that having a componant pouch is enough unless the componant has a price (I remember JellyPooga trying to make a houserule to make them more important and it ended up being really complicated due to the need to track individual componants.

oxinabox
2009-08-08, 02:50 AM
I let everyhting be done wit h spell compnant pounchs.
I consider most matrails to be another way of saying have a hand free, but mostly just fluff.

when i play a caster I always 2 Spell companat pouchs. just incase the DM decides one 'runs out'.
From nopw on I'm going to specipy that my spare is strappecd the the inside off my thigh.
If it's found there then...
Well they always said elves got off on weird things...

Aik
2009-08-08, 03:49 AM
They make good colour, but I don't see the point in tracking them. When my character pulls out a pebble you can be damn sure she means business though :)

Kobold-Bard
2009-08-08, 01:07 PM
Except for ones with a listed price a Spell Components pouch is fine. At least until the Caster is immobilised, grappled or otherwise unable to reach them. That's where Eschew Materials earns it's keep. Without it if your Wizard is separated form his stuff and all your Spell Mastery spells need an Owlbear's tongue or a dandelion stalk, you're just as screwed as everyone else. Hence why I always take it just in case.

bosssmiley
2009-08-08, 01:58 PM
am I the only one who still makes wizards use them?

Yes. Most material components no more than a collection of geek jokes and literary references. Anything which can be pulled from a material component pouch is flavour text. Pay the required GP & XP costs for the big ticket stuff and fluff the components as you will.

nysisobli
2009-08-08, 02:00 PM
The reason i do it, is its much easier to monitor the spells your wizard uses, if you don't want spells in your game. Without saying no. you can't have that core spell

Morty
2009-08-08, 02:06 PM
I'd have an easier time using material components if they weren't so darned silly. Literary references are fun, but not as the part of the rules. And some of them are simply headdesk-worthy, like a "tiny replica of an archery target" for True Srtike.
Material components for spells are good idea though, and it's been done better in some systems - like in WFRPG where you don't need components for spells, but having them makes it easier to cast. I'm also fine with more serious, strong spells using expensive components.
On a side note, I remember that at least one of the authors of War of The Spider Queen series was a real stickler about material components - every time the protagonist wizard cast a spell, there was a description of him throwing around, holding, etc. the components. And when his puch was taken away from him, he could only shoot magic missles around.

Zadus
2009-08-08, 02:09 PM
Spell components are a bad joke. To scry you hook up lemons via copper wire to a specially coated mirror making a magic television. Fireball has you actually making a small amount of gunpowder and Acid Arrow forces you to quickly make a small acid covered dart. There has to be more.

Its always miffed me how a wizard can pack around a bag of bat **** and still have a social circle.

Every caster is given Eschew Materials as a bonus feat in our games. Its saves a lot of grief and I flinch less.

Kylarra
2009-08-08, 02:58 PM
The reason i do it, is its much easier to monitor the spells your wizard uses, if you don't want spells in your game. Without saying no. you can't have that core spellSo you're trying to say that passive aggression is a better means than confronting the problem directly... only you aren't. "You can't find that spell component" is a slap in the face compared to "you can't have that spell". One presumes the wizard already wasted a "free slot" or money scribing the spell into their book only to have you prevent them from ever using it, the other keeps them from wasting their time.

waterpenguin43
2009-08-08, 03:51 PM
My DM just assumes that if you have a material component pouch, you have all the components without a price.

AslanCross
2009-08-08, 06:02 PM
but see when you make them buy every component, and they don't plan ahead, and you give them weight. It nerfs casters into the ground, maybe thats why ive never thought wizards were over powered

It turns wizards into accounting homework. Some people actually like accounting homework. It's not necessarily a fix.

I go with "If your material component costs nothing and you have your pouch, you're fine; you only have to keep track of M components if they have a price."

lsfreak
2009-08-08, 06:15 PM
The problem with requiring material components is that they have absolutely no relationship to how powerful a spell is. They are pure fluff, nothing more. Many of the most powerful spells, like Enervation, Time Stop, the whole Suggestion/Charm/Dominate lines, the most powerful illusions, and so on have no material components, while piddly spells (including many damage spells that are painfully weak already) do have them.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-08-08, 06:24 PM
I've told everyone I'd be a hardass about Material Components if they ever played a Wizard because I don't want anyone to play a Wizard.

Still hoping to God they never call my bluff. >_>

quick_comment
2009-08-08, 06:26 PM
Every caster is given Eschew Materials as a bonus feat in our games. Its saves a lot of grief and I flinch less.

Thats a bad idea, because now you cant have thieves steal their spell component pouches.

Kylarra
2009-08-08, 06:31 PM
Thats a bad idea, because now you cant have thieves steal their spell component pouches.A good wizard has multiple pouches anyway.

Sanguine
2009-08-08, 06:37 PM
A good wizard has multiple pouches anyway.

If you'll notice he typed pouches

Kylarra
2009-08-08, 06:51 PM
If you'll notice he typed pouches
Unless you have a small army of thieves standing around, sleight of hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/sleightOfHand.htm) is only 1 item/try, so... yeah.

Lysander
2009-08-08, 07:45 PM
What about simplifying everything by making all spells rely on the SAME component? Or giving each school of magic a different component used in all those spells? For example, illusion spells might all use a pinch of Quartz Dust as their component. So when you cast an illusion spell, reduce the contents of your Quartz Dust pouch by 1. When you're out of Quartz Dust you can cast other spells you have materials for, but not illusions.

That way material components do have some meaning, but there are only a few little things to keep track of and replenish. This would only apply to spells that don't have a more expensive component as a penalty.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-08, 10:28 PM
If you'll notice he typed pouchesDM: I steal your belt pouch. And the other belt pouch. And the one around your neck. And the Handy Haversack that holds the contents of a spell component pouch. And the pouch in your boot.

Wizard: I cast Summon Material Component.

quick_comment
2009-08-08, 10:53 PM
Wizard: I cast Summon Material Component.

Ive never seen that spell, and if anyone in any of my games really wanted to play like that....

Enemy Unseen Seer (aiding the thieves): Counterspell with battlemagic perception.

or

Enemy Thief-Archer: Fires arrows, readied to disrupt spell.

olentu
2009-08-08, 11:00 PM
Ive never seen that spell, and if anyone in any of my games really wanted to play like that....

Enemy Unseen Seer (aiding the thieves): Counterspell with battlemagic perception.

or

Enemy Thief-Archer: Fires arrows, readied to disrupt spell.

So everyone used their action stopping the wizard from summoning a material component. I would hope that said wizard does not have any material component less spells that would then be cast.

Sanguine
2009-08-08, 11:02 PM
So everyone used their action stopping the wizard from summoning a material component. I would hope that said wizard does not have any material component less spells that would then be cast.

Except they would be disrupted to.

quick_comment
2009-08-08, 11:05 PM
So everyone used their action stopping the wizard from summoning a material component. I would hope that said wizard does not have any material component less spells that would then be cast.

Thats not what happened.

A bunch of thieves stole the wizard's spell components, and when he tried to cheat, one shot him in the face.

olentu
2009-08-08, 11:11 PM
When you say tried to cheat do you mean tried to cast a level one spell from complete mage. I generally would not consider that cheating.

Kylarra
2009-08-08, 11:17 PM
DM: I steal your belt pouch. And the other belt pouch. And the one around your neck. And the Handy Haversack that holds the contents of a spell component pouch. And the pouch in your boot.

Wizard: I cast Summon Material Component.
Technically it is Summon Component.:smallbiggrin:


Thats not what happened.

A bunch of thieves stole the wizard's spell components, and when he tried to cheat, one shot him in the face.And since everyone was focused on the wizard, the druid, the cleric and the random beatstick killed all the thieves and the roving archer. :smallbiggrin:

sofawall
2009-08-08, 11:18 PM
and when he tried to cheat

So casting spell and/or trying to maintain relevancy in the face of adversity is cheating?

If you disarm your fighter and he grabs another weapon, does a hidden mage Disjoin+shatter it?

EDIT: Heh, just thought of another interpretation...

*city ambush*
DM: Thieves stole your spell components.
PC: Ok, I'll summon more, casting defensively so they don't get attacks.
DM: Umm, your spell doesn't work.
PC: Why not? Spot check.
DM: There's a... Mage, he seems to have just counterspelled.
PC: Ok, I run away and try to find somewhere that might have something I can use to cast a spell.
DM: Nothing.
PC: Nothing?
DM: Absolutely nothing that can be used as a material component.
PC: Choo choo!

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-08, 11:19 PM
Of the 376 core Wizard spells, 187 require material components. Eliminate all access to components, and he still has half his spell list. And when some of the components are things like "a pinch of dirt", it's hard to eliminate all access to them.

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 12:15 AM
So casting spell and/or trying to maintain relevancy in the face of adversity is cheating?


When it involves a clearly unbalanced spell? Yes. Your example with the fighter is completely different. The fighter is not going to find another +5 suppressing illusion bane sword in the street. He is going to find a nonmagical greatclub, which after level 10 or so basically means he is useless.

Lycanthromancer
2009-08-09, 12:16 AM
When it involves a clearly unbalanced spell? Yes. Your example with the fighter is completely different. The fighter is not going to find another +5 suppressing illusion bane sword in the street. He is going to find a nonmagical greatclub, which after level 10 or so basically means he is useless.

So, a spell that summons a (temporary) 5 gp item is "unbalanced"?

Is that more, or less, unbalanced than the first level spell that emulates a +20 weapon for a round, or a first level spell that can best epic spells?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-09, 12:20 AM
When it involves a clearly unbalanced spell? Yes. Your example with the fighter is completely different. The fighter is not going to find another +5 suppressing illusion bane sword in the street. He is going to find a nonmagical greatclub, which after level 10 or so basically means he is useless.Material Components cost <1 GP. There's an item which, by RAW, contains as many as you'll ever need for 5 GP. The spell summons 1 of those less than 1 GP items, and it's cheating?

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 12:21 AM
So, a spell that summons a (temporary) 5 gp item is "unbalanced"?

Is that more, or less, unbalanced than the first level spell that emulates a +20 weapon for a round, or a first level spell that can best epic spells?

I wouldn't call it broken but I would probably disallow it. I mean one of the VERY few tactics that are usable against a wizard is to take away his spell components. As was pointed out even that only limits his spell selection. A lot of really broken spells can still be used. But a lvl 1 spell eliminating an entire tactic? Not game breaking but..... well do wizards need any more "It doesn't work on me" methods?

Edit: Wait does it summon a new pouch or just 1 component? If it only summons one component then its not even that powerful...

AstralFire
2009-08-09, 12:25 AM
Using spell component pouch removal as a primary mechanism of keeping casters down rather than as a spice for adventure once in a blue moon bothers me. It's an off switch. Off switches should not be used a lot.

There are better ways to keep a spellcaster in check than threatening them with caster-ation. Let them keep their little sacks. Yes, I've used this pun before.

sofawall
2009-08-09, 12:26 AM
You know, most 1st level warriors don't have +anything swords. They make due with mundane.

You know, most 1st level wizard can cast level 1 spells. That's kinda what they do.

Comparing a first level spell with a +w/e the heck that sword was is kind of a silly comparison.

EDIT: I continue to find it amazing he said that spell was clearly unbalanced, and needs to be DM fiated away.

You'll note that any wizard who casts it means he has to have prepared it. Most days that's a waste. any sorcerer who casts it has to know it, which is an even bigger waste.

Yes, the wizard could have it on a scroll or a wand, but why wouldn't the mysterious army of perfect thieves take those too?

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 12:28 AM
You know, most 1st level warriors don't have +anything swords. They make due with mundane.

You know, most 1st level wizard can cast level 1 spells. That's kinda what they do.

Comparing a first level spell with a +w/e the heck that sword was is kind of a silly comparison.

Take a level 15 wizard vs a level 15 fighter. You sunder the fighter's sword. He is now useless. You destroy the wizard's spell component pouch. No big deal, he just summons his components out of thin air.

Wizards are already the most powerful, there is no need to remove a very limited tactic against them.

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 12:29 AM
Using spell component pouch removal as a primary mechanism of keeping casters down rather than as a spice for adventure once in a blue moon bothers me. It's an off switch. Off switches should not be used a lot.

There are better ways to keep a spellcaster in check than threatening them with caster-ation. Let them keep their little sacks. Yes, I've used this pun before.

I'm not saying to constanly steal their pouches. I mean if they get tossed in prison and the wizard pouch gets taken..... come to think of it his spellbook would be gone anyway so lets change this to sorcerer.

So they get tossed in prison and the sorcerer's spell pouch gets stolen. So you have it all set up for the monk to shine for a while or something and the sorcerer goes "I cast summon components" "okay back to full power" It breaks the scenario. I think the spell just takes away a disadvantage that sorcerers and wizards had that didn't need to be taken away.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-09, 12:29 AM
I wouldn't call it broken but I would probably disallow it. I mean one of the VERY few tactics that are usable against a wizard is to take away his spell components. As was pointed out even that only limits his spell selection. A lot of really broken spells can still be used. But a lvl 1 spell eliminating an entire tactic? Not game breaking but..... well do wizards need any more "It doesn't work on me" methods?There's also a feat that does it, and the Wizard can just buy more component pouches. By 3rd level, you can have basically as many as you want. 5 GP each. And then there are the components that the Wizard always has access to without the pouch(Clay and Water, drop of oil). If I played a Wizard with a theme(say, the Bigby's Hand spells), I'd make sure he had access to the component at all times. It's not that hard, just make sure he's described as wearing gloves, and he has access to his favorite spells for long enough to get more components.

Edit: Even tossed in prison, the casters keep their prepared spells. And the best ones for escape(teleport-line) have no components except verbal anyways, meaning you can use them while tied naked to a wall, and most casters keep a couple copies of those prepared at all times anyways.

sofawall
2009-08-09, 12:30 AM
You sunder a fighter's weapon, he grapples you or something.

You wreck a spell component pouch, the wizard has to waste a swift action to get the components for one spell.

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 12:31 AM
I'm not saying to constanly steal their pouches. I mean if they get tossed in prison and the wizard pouch gets taken..... come to think of it his spellbook would be gone anyway so lets change this to sorcerer.

So they get tossed in prison and the sorcerer's spell pouch gets stolen. So you have it all set up for the monk to shine for a while or something and the sorcerer goes "I cast summon components" "okay back to full power" It breaks the scenario. I think the spell just takes away a disadvantage that sorcerers and wizards had that didn't need to be taken away.

Wizards can do it too with spell mastery, or a tattoo spellbook on their bodies.

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 12:33 AM
You sunder a fighter's weapon, he grapples you or something.

You wreck a spell component pouch, the wizard has to waste a standard actionto get the components for one spell.

Lol, grappling.

Not only is it utterly useless against a vast number of enemies (anything too large, anything too small, anything with a high touch AC, etc), without improved grapple you cant even start a grapple. It would go like this.

Unarmed Fighter: Initiate grapple
Enemy: AoO, it hits, you wasted your turn.

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 12:34 AM
Wizards can do it too with spell mastery, or a tattoo spellbook on their bodies.

True but spell mastery on that is a little wastefull as a feat. The tattoed spellbook seems silly tho. I mean really. Theres only room for maybe 30 lvls worth of spells on a body. And how is the wizard going to study their back to learn spells. So that limits it to just the easily visible parts too.

AstralFire
2009-08-09, 12:34 AM
Take a level 15 wizard vs a level 15 fighter. You sunder the fighter's sword. He is now useless. You destroy the wizard's spell component pouch. No big deal, he just summons his components out of thin air.

Wizards are already the most powerful, there is no need to remove a very limited tactic against them.

Not a whole lot of the people talking right now are going to contest that a Wizard's got the edge against the Fighter. It's got about seven edges on the fighter. Plans for dealing with that issue shouldn't revolve around this tactic, and you're likely to catch most Wizards off guard with this the first time as it is, so you don't even have to worry about that spell.

Ban it if it bugs you so much; don't "arbitrary facestabbings" for someone prepping it.

tyckspoon
2009-08-09, 12:35 AM
Edit: Wait does it summon a new pouch or just 1 component? If it only summons one component then its not even that powerful...

1 component, which can't cost more than 1 gp, and lasts for 1 round, and eats your Swift action for the round to cast to boot. It's an utterly useless spell in 90% of situations- really, the only practical application is exactly what's being discussed here where the GM has said that no, you don't get to have components. Because He Said So, that's why, now shut up and don't cast anything.

sofawall
2009-08-09, 12:36 AM
As this thread is moving quickly, my edits may have been missed. Also, thought of something else.


If a wizard has prepared the spell, that's one less spell he has prepared. If the sorcerer knows the spell, that's so hilariously sub-optimal why are you worried anyway? If it's wanded or scrolled, why didn't the thieves/guards take those?

Related to permanent damage: Sure, a wizard who loses his spell component pouch now has to use 1st level spells to get his components. But when the fight/area is done, all he has to do is spend 5 gp. So stealing the pouch has little effect anyway.

Sundering a weapon costs hundreds of thousands of gold to replace, often times. That'll set you back a bit. Therefore, the two are not good examples.

EDIT:
Lol, grappling.

Not only is it utterly useless against a vast number of enemies (anything too large, anything too small, anything with a high touch AC, etc), without improved grapple you cant even start a grapple. It would go like this.

Unarmed Fighter: Initiate grapple
Enemy: AoO, it hits, you wasted your turn.

And high level wizards are reduced to half-power. No swift means no quicken. Fighters, mind you, have as many as 20 feats over their lifetime. You might as well grab grapple and trip, I mean, what else are you going to spend them on?

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 12:37 AM
1 component, which can't cost more than 1 gp, and lasts for 1 round, and eats your Swift action for the round to cast to boot. It's an utterly useless spell in 90% of situations- really, the only practical application is exactly what's being discussed here where the GM has said that no, you don't get to have components. Because He Said So, that's why, now shut up and don't cast anything.

Oh. I thought it summoned you a new temporary entire spell component pouch. So that means only like one spell huh. I suppose that is pretty useless after all. Well my arguments were based on a false assumption so I figure I'll stop arguing now....

sofawall
2009-08-09, 12:38 AM
One down...

AstralFire
2009-08-09, 12:40 AM
If the sorcerer knows the spell, that's so hilariously sub-optimal why are you worried anyway?

Given a certain style of campaign and being high enough level that you have no more use for sleep, this... might be like... the fifth spell ever a Sorcerer can use more effectively than a wizard.

Huzz-ah.

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 12:45 AM
True but spell mastery on that is a little wastefull as a feat. The tattoed spellbook seems silly tho. I mean really. Theres only room for maybe 30 lvls worth of spells on a body. And how is the wizard going to study their back to learn spells. So that limits it to just the easily visible parts too.

You dont need many spells.

According to complete Arcane, on your body, visible without a mirror, you can have a spellbook equivalent of 48 pages. Thats enough for just about anything you could need to escape.

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 12:45 AM
Given a certain style of campaign and being high enough level that you have no more use for sleep, this... might be like... the fifth spell ever a Sorcerer can use more effectively than a wizard.

Huzz-ah.

Well when I was assuming that it summoned a whole pouch I figured it'd be a great spell to learn if you were starting off higher lvl. I mean even if it did summon a whole pouch its pretty bad to get at low level....


You dont need many spells.

According to complete Arcane, on your body, visible without a mirror, you can have a spellbook equivalent of 48 pages. Thats enough for just about anything you could need to escape.

Huh. Apparently they think wizards are fat....

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 12:49 AM
Huh. Apparently they think wizards are fat....

Hand 1 page each
Forearm 3 pages each
Upper arm 3 pages each
Chest 6 pages
Abdomen 6 pages
Upper leg 5 pages each
Lower leg 5 pages each
Foot 1 page each
Face* 2 pages
Scalp* 4 pages
Back, upper* 10 pages
Back, lower* 4 pages
Leg, posterior* 4 pages each
Arm, posterior* 2 pages each

The ones with asterisks need a mirror, scrying magic or a familiar to use. (Although personally, I can see the back of my legs just fine)

sofawall
2009-08-09, 12:52 AM
Given a certain style of campaign and being high enough level that you have no more use for sleep, this... might be like... the fifth spell ever a Sorcerer can use more effectively than a wizard.

Huzz-ah.

Just because a sorcerer can use the spell better than a wizard doesn't mean it's a good spell. And in the right campaign, Fighters can be better than wizards (say, in a dead magic area for most of the time). Still not a good spell.

But a victory for the Sorcerer! Huzzah!

AstralFire
2009-08-09, 12:55 AM
Just because a sorcerer can use the spell better than a wizard doesn't mean it's a good spell. And in the right campaign, Fighters can be better than wizards (say, in a dead magic area for most of the time). Still not a good spell.

But a victory for the Sorcerer! Huzzah!

Oh, terrible spell. Terrible spell. But any small victory for the Sorcerer is, in some way, kind of like (sort of, maybe) a loss for the Wizard, right?

lsfreak
2009-08-09, 12:56 AM
Huh. Apparently they think wizards are fat....

It's more like they messed up the scale. One hand, one fingerbone, and one crossbow bolt are apparently all one page worth of writing (if my fingerbone is one page, why can't I have 5 pages of writing on one hand?). Your upper back and the front of each leg are apparently 10 pages each. And actually, it's not 48 pages, but 74 if you tattoo your entire body. The important ones for no-material-components situations (say, Orb of X, enervation, teleport, dominate person, charm person) can be covered by areas of your body that won't be seen unless you've been stripped so there's little concern when walking through the market that a magehunting guild or something randomly attacks you.

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 01:00 AM
Hand 1 page each
Forearm 3 pages each
Upper arm 3 pages each
Chest 6 pages
Abdomen 6 pages
Upper leg 5 pages each
Lower leg 5 pages each
Foot 1 page each
Face* 2 pages
Scalp* 4 pages
Back, upper* 10 pages
Back, lower* 4 pages
Leg, posterior* 4 pages each
Arm, posterior* 2 pages each

The ones with asterisks need a mirror, scrying magic or a familiar to use. (Although personally, I can see the back of my legs just fine)

I agree about the leg part.

But See unless they have rather small pages (and the iconic wizards spellbook was usually pretty big) I dont see a whole page fitting on one hand (even if i use both sides), or 11 pages fitting on my chest and stomach area. I don't see 6 on each arm, 10 on each leg, or a full one on each foot either.

I'm not doubting that thats how they wrote it of course. I'm just saying I can write a lot more on one piece of paper than can fit on my hand. Unless a wizards spellbook is about a 4x6 pad of paper.

tyckspoon
2009-08-09, 01:00 AM
Oh, terrible spell. Terrible spell. But any small victory for the Sorcerer is, in some way, kind of like (sort of, maybe) a loss for the Wizard, right?

.....noooo. Not much. Not in any meaningful way, really. You may as well say that a point in favor of a Soulknife detracts from a fish.

Anyway, the biggest fault of Summon Component really is that it's a level 1 spell, where it is competing with Mage Armor, Shield, Grease, Sleep, Color Spray, and even Magic Missile, all of which you may still consider preparing or keeping as a Spell Known even at level 20 (well, not so much Sleep and Color Spray unless you just like screwing with Commoners.) It would make an appropriate cantrip, but when compared to spells that actually do things it's just dumb.

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 01:01 AM
You really dont need all of that.

Disjunction (you can even put it as a scroll, rather than spellbook if you are lower than level 17) + greater teleport + plane shift.

Additionally, I would probably include invoke magic and dimension door, in case you are being kept in an AMF. Include light so you can test for AMF.


Steps:

1) Cast light. If it is suppressed you are in an AMF. If it works, goto step 4
2) Cast invoke magic.
3) Cast dimension door. You ought to be out of the AMF. If not, goto step 2.
4) Cast plane shift to either your personal demi plane, or whatever plane has allies.
5) Cast teleport to your base.

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 01:04 AM
You really dont need all of that.

Disjunction (you can even put it as a scroll, rather than spellbook if you are lower than level 17) + greater teleport + plane shift.

Additionally, I would probably include invoke magic and dimension door, in case you are being kept in an AMF. Include light so you can test for AMF.


Steps:

1) Cast light. If it is suppressed you are in an AMF. If it works, goto step 4
2) Cast invoke magic.
3) Cast dimension door. You ought to be out of the AMF. If not, goto step 2.
4) Cast plane shift to either your personal demi plane, or whatever plane has allies.
5) Cast teleport to your base.

Invoke magic is something that should not exist. Antimagic field shouldn't allow you to cast ANY spells....

AstralFire
2009-08-09, 01:05 AM
.....noooo. Not much. Not in any meaningful way, really. You may as well say that a point in favor of a Soulknife detracts from a fish.

Well.

It does.

And fish need all the detraction they can get.

I wasn't being serious when I made my previous post. :smallwink:

sofawall
2009-08-09, 01:08 AM
Oh, terrible spell. Terrible spell. But any small victory for the Sorcerer is, in some way, kind of like (sort of, maybe) a loss for the Wizard, right?

Seeing as how I prefer Sorcerer anyway, I'll agree with you.

Seffbasilisk
2009-08-09, 01:13 AM
Getting back to the subject of the thread:

I personally don't have my players track spell components included in a spell component pouch, because it's assumed that the components are in there, and at higher levels, they've either multiple pouches, or've dropped the minor amount of coin required to replentish thier supplies.

However, if I find a player using one spell to the nigh exclusion of all else, I will eventually have them run low, and then out, of that component...I may even force them to track that one component. In short, more book-keeping as a deterrant from being a one-trick pony.

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 01:20 AM
Invoke magic is something that should not exist. Antimagic field shouldn't allow you to cast ANY spells....

I think its pretty thematically appropriate, using the vast incomprehesible power of a 9th level spell, that has the power to warp time and space, and using it to force a much weaker spell through.

Of course, its unbalancing as heck, and should be an epic spell (because thats when you learn to draw on your own power rather than the weave), but w/e, its not like an AMF was going to stop a prepared wizard anyway.

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 01:26 AM
I think its pretty thematically appropriate, using the vast incomprehesible power of a 9th level spell, that has the power to warp time and space, and using it to force a much weaker spell through.

Of course, its unbalancing as heck, and should be an epic spell (because thats when you learn to draw on your own power rather than the weave), but w/e, its not like an AMF was going to stop a prepared wizard anyway.

Well in any game I run then yes yes it will. Anti-Magic should be just that. Thats as silly as that feat that lets you deal half damage to creatures immune to fire with your fire spells. Dark Schneider is the only one who can burn fire elementals to death!!!

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 01:29 AM
Well in any game I run then yes yes it will. Anti-Magic should be just that. Thats as silly as that feat that lets you deal half damage to creatures immune to fire with your fire spells. Dark Schneider is the only one who can burn fire elementals to death!!!

Contingency: AMF comes within 1 centimeter of me
Effect: Dimension door.

And thats in core. Outside of core you get celerity and craft contingent spell, along with the orb spells.

Seffbasilisk
2009-08-09, 01:29 AM
Did no one else notice that Invoke Magic, while being a NINTH LEVEL SPELL and all, also has a material component of a diamond worth at least 1,000gp?

Ever think you might not have that on you if you're being held somewhere? Especially in an AMF?

tyckspoon
2009-08-09, 01:30 AM
Invoke magic is something that should not exist. Antimagic field shouldn't allow you to cast ANY spells....

That would be a higher level spell, 8th or even 9th in its own right. Call it 'Null Magic Field' and, most importantly for the effect you want, state that it automatically successfully counterspells all attempted spellcasting in its area (one of the key oddities/weaknesses of Anti Magic Field is that it works only on the effects of spells and does nothing to interfere with the act of spellcasting itself.) You would probably also want to remove the possibility for Summoned creatures to remain in the field.


I wasn't being serious when I made my previous post

Neither was I. In fact, fish and Soulknives have such potent synergy that a win for either is a win for both. :smalltongue:

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 01:30 AM
Did no one else notice that Invoke Magic, while being a NINTH LEVEL SPELL and all, also has a material component of a diamond worth at least 1,000gp?

Ever think you might not have that on you if you're being held somewhere? Especially in an AMF?

You would be suprised what you can hide on yourself in prison.....

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 01:34 AM
Contingency: AMF comes within 1 centimeter of me
Effect: Dimension door.

And thats in core. Outside of core you get celerity and craft contingent spell, along with the orb spells.

Yes. Which is why I used the phrase "In any game I RUN." I am well aware that anti magic field is about as anti-magic as monk are master grapplers.

Edit: Also were I DM I would rule that the contingency spell can't sense an AMF since it can't interact with it or be dispelled so thus it would do nothing. Once again though this only applies if I was the DM...


That would be a higher level spell, 8th or even 9th in its own right. Call it 'Null Magic Field' and, most importantly for the effect you want, state that it automatically successfully counterspells all attempted spellcasting in its area (one of the key oddities/weaknesses of Anti Magic Field is that it works only on the effects of spells and does nothing to interfere with the act of spellcasting itself.) You would probably also want to remove the possibility for Summoned creatures to remain in the field.

That would actually probably be a good idea. I suppose a lvl (6? I think) spell shouldn't be nullifying level 9 spells...

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 01:37 AM
Yes. Which is why I used the phrase "In any game I RUN." I am well aware that anti magic field is about as anti-magic as monk are master grapplers.

Edit: Also were I DM I would rule that the contingency spell can't sense an AMF since it can't interact with it or be dispelled so thus it would do nothing. Once again though this only applies if I was the DM...



Permanent Arcane Sight
Contigency: I say "hgfhgdfkgdfhio"
Effect: Dimension door.

Now it doesnt fire if I am unconscious or cant speak, but it also fires whenever I want it to.

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 01:42 AM
Permanent Arcane Sight
Contigency: I say "hgfhgdfkgdfhio"
Effect: Dimension door.

Now it doesnt fire if I am unconscious or cant speak, but it also fires whenever I want it to.

Except you screw up and say "hgfhjdfkgdfhio"

Okay I'm being silly but seriously who could pronounce that right every time? Besides I'd just activate the AMF while your already within range...

Sanguine
2009-08-09, 01:48 AM
Except you screw up and say "hgfhjdfkgdfhio"

Okay I'm being silly but seriously who could pronounce that right every time? Besides I'd just activate the AMF while your already within range...

Thats why every turn you ready an action to move back 30 ft every time someone get's within ten feet of you.:smallwink:

quick_comment
2009-08-09, 01:48 AM
Thats why every turn you ready an action to move back 30 ft every time someone get's within ten feet of you.:smallwink:

You dont need to do that.

Foresight lets you know that someone is about to raise an AMF. You say your contingency safe word and teleport away.

Sanguine
2009-08-09, 01:50 AM
You dont need to do that.

Foresight lets you know that someone is about to raise an AMF. You say your contingency safe word and teleport away.

Even better.:smallbiggrin:

Xenogears
2009-08-09, 01:52 AM
And this is why I said that AMF is about as effective at nullifying a mage as a monk is at grappling. Sure both of them should be effective but thats not how it is. I still love monks though...

Seffbasilisk
2009-08-09, 01:55 AM
You would be suprised what you can hide on yourself in prison.....

I think you'd be surprised at how effective a strip/cavity search would accompany locking up a wizard of at least 17th level.

Lycanthromancer
2009-08-09, 09:22 AM
Who needs contingency, just for an antimagic field?

Shrink item + a Large tinfoil hat would do just as well. (It also portrays the archetypically paranoid wizard idea quite nicely.)