PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Verbal and Somatic components for spells no longer needed?



Blas_de_Lezo
2010-01-20, 06:37 PM
Ok, I just realized that in PHB there isn't a word written about wizards/clerics doing gestures and pronouncing odd words to cast spells. All I found is that even the implement isn't necessary to cast spells.

So, am I forgetting something, or there are no components anymore (not verbal nor somatic), and wizards can use their powers, while tied and gagged?

Kylarra
2010-01-20, 06:42 PM
You are correct, although while Restrained (the actual condition) you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls.

Kurald Galain
2010-01-20, 07:03 PM
So, am I forgetting something, or there are no components anymore (not verbal nor somatic), and wizards can use their powers, while tied and gagged?

...technically, the rules don't prevent you from wielding a sword while tied and gagged :smallbiggrin:

Nightson
2010-01-20, 07:07 PM
"Your DM might rule that you can’t use powers in special circumstances, such as when your hands are tied." ~PHB pg.54

So basically, it's up to the DM and the players under exactly what circumstances people aren't able to use their powers.

Optimystik
2010-01-20, 07:18 PM
"Your DM might rule that you can’t use powers in special circumstances, such as when your hands are tied." ~PHB pg.54

So basically, it's up to the DM and the players under exactly what circumstances people aren't able to use their powers.

Note that this line also makes it power-specific. So if you think you can cast, say, Ghost Sound while you're tied up so the guard leaves the room to check it out, argue it out.

Dimers
2010-01-20, 07:37 PM
Just as a rough guideline, I'd be inclined to downgrade the reusability of whatever power you're trying to use. You can cast a silent, stilled Ghost Sound once per encounter ... a silent, stilled Color Spray as a daily spell ... can't cast silent, stilled Fireball at all.

Katana_Geldar
2010-01-20, 07:40 PM
Components are used for rituals, and not all of those are spells.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 07:46 PM
This is actually something I like to think about when creating 4E worlds.

Sorcerers I usually let cast by force of will; Bards are purely singing. Mostly, Wizards use Words of Power and Gestures when dramatically appropriate - though cantrips are cast with only a thought.

Ask your DM about it - there's no set rule on the matter.

Sir_Elderberry
2010-01-20, 08:00 PM
4e chopped off a lot of fluff and made crunch far more important, letting players pick fluff on their own much more. Usually this worked pretty well, but I found that the components thing is a good example of where they took off too much fluff. By giving you free reign with your spells, it's a bit hard to decide how you go about casting them and what stops you from doing so. If I were redoing it, I'd probably invent a "still" keyboard that would denote the spells you could cast with no movement. As is, I'd say it ought to be discussed with a DM first.

Decoy Lockbox
2010-01-20, 10:15 PM
The important thing to realize is that since spells are no longer crazily overpowered (for the most part), spellcasters shouldn't really have to jump through crazy hoops to cast them. On the other hand, weapon users are mostly neutralized by disarming them, so maybye it would be fair to have a mechanic for components. Though disarming a high level caster of his implement would make his spells much less dangerous, at least against equal level opponents. I doubt a level 20 wizard would need any equipment at all to scorching burst a large group of peasants to death.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 10:22 PM
The important thing to realize is that since spells are no longer crazily overpowered (for the most part), spellcasters shouldn't really have to jump through crazy hoops to cast them. On the other hand, weapon users are mostly neutralized by disarming them, so maybye it would be fair to have a mechanic for components. Though disarming a high level caster of his implement would make his spells much less dangerous, at least against equal level opponents. I doubt a level 20 wizard would need any equipment at all to scorching burst a large group of peasants to death.
I had this concern too - but remember that Weapon Users still have improvised weapons (at +2 Proficiency) and, bad comes to worst, their fists.

Still, some flavorful (and occasionally mechanical) restrictions are appropriate.

Behold_the_Void
2010-01-21, 04:46 AM
Yeah, no hard and fast rules.

I actually rather like that, it lets you refluff as you wish. My Psion Telepath currently has visual displays akin to the Lunatic Eyes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89gJrrnkCw) (1:15).

Inyssius Tor
2010-01-21, 04:50 AM
improvised weapons (at +2 Proficiency)

...? ........

BobTheDog
2010-01-21, 09:06 AM
I had this concern too - but remember that Weapon Users still have improvised weapons (at +2 Proficiency) and, bad comes to worst, their fists.

Still, some flavorful (and occasionally mechanical) restrictions are appropriate.

Improvised attacks have +0 proficiency, unless you have some means to change that. I'd suggest any melee type that plans (or expects) to be arrested/disarmed/bound/etc. to get a Belt of the Brawler (lets you make improvised/unarmed attacks as if you used a club).

imperialparadox
2010-01-21, 09:24 AM
I'd prefer to re-introduce at least some verbal and/or somatic gestures to spellcasting, because, without such, it raises an interesting question:

What to do with a captured spellcaster?

In 3.5 you could bind a spellcaster and take away his components, rendering him helpless. In 4.0, with the (likely rare) situation of a PC spellchunker being captured, knowing that a spellcaster - unlike an unarmed melee - can pose a very real threat, wouldn't his captors be more likely to kill said spellcaster rather than taking a risk?

I'd have to look at the books again, I think blindfolding solves some of this, but I don't remember if it solves all of it.

Kurald Galain
2010-01-21, 10:42 AM
a spellcaster - unlike an unarmed melee - can pose a very real threat,
I think that an unarmed and even tied up melee character can also remain a very real threat. Most weapon powers would work with an unarmed strike, such as a kick or a headbutt. That includes such powers as Come And Get It (fighter 7) or Knockout (rogue 9). Furthermore, a tied up warlord could likely use both Inspiring Word and Knight's Move normally.

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 10:51 AM
Furthermore, you start to run into the same problem 3.5 did - how do you restrain a psionic character?

Putting everyone on a level playing field is a welcome sacrifice of verisimilitude for game balance.

Evard
2010-01-21, 11:02 AM
Under certain conditions i go around what the actual rules say. These powers are how these characters do it well. They are feats of incredible actions that take concentrations and practice.... If i practice throwing a ball 100 miles per hour with my right arm and never with my left, when i do throw with my left arm do you think I'll hit 100mph? No. So if a character is tied up or grappled or in some other type of restraint they can make a melee basic attack with a penalty but nothing like encounter or daily. Letting a fighter use a power by headbutting while grappled that he would normally use with a sword makes no sense since he would not have been trained to "use his head". For a basic attack yes, for anything else no.

Status effects like blind i can see being able to use any powers at a negative to hit and dmg. If i throw a baseball while blinded i probably wont hit but if i do i'll hit the most armored place on the creature -_-;;;... the ball will still go 100 mph but with no control.

Hzurr
2010-01-21, 11:06 AM
Don't forget that spellcasters (of all sorts) have to have an implement to cast their spells. If a wizard doesn't have a wand, orb or staff; he's as effective as a fighter who has no weapons or armor.

Yakk
2010-01-21, 11:10 AM
So, in order to be bound and captured, you have to be defeated.

Being defeated in 4e is being reduced to 0 HP (remember, HP isn't damage).

Once defeated, the combat engine of 4e has shut down. You are now in non-combat territory.

Non-combat 4e is about skills and skill challenges.

In a world with relatively common magic, people will have methods to deal with capturing spellcasters -- or will kill them rather than capture them.

Maybe binding the hands and feet of a spellcaster in cold iron prevents them from casting. Maybe you just need to prevent their fingers from waggling, or prevent them from speaking.

The DM should set it up as a skill challenge. In order to get a ghost sound off while you are bound and trapped, the player might have to make an Arcana Check. And maybe a stealth check to avoid being seen doing it. At higher levels, the bindings placed on you will be more extensive...

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 11:11 AM
Don't forget that spellcasters (of all sorts) have to have an implement to cast their spells. If a wizard doesn't have a wand, orb or staff; he's as effective as a fighter who has no weapons or armor.

What? Implements typically provide a bonus, but aren't necessary.

"It’s not necessary to have an implement in order to use a power that has the implement keyword."

DabblerWizard
2010-01-21, 12:22 PM
Ok, I just realized that in PHB there isn't a word written about wizards/clerics doing gestures and pronouncing odd words to cast spells. All I found is that even the implement isn't necessary to cast spells.

So, am I forgetting something, or there are no components anymore (not verbal nor somatic), and wizards can use their powers, while tied and gagged?

Some wizard powers have the keyword "implement". For those that do, I would rule that the wizard could not cast the spell unless they were wielding their staff, orb, wand, tome, etc.

Following this line of thought, one way to limit a spellcaster's power output is to take away their implement.

[Edit]

This might count as the equivalent to tying up a wizard in 3.5

Mando Knight
2010-01-21, 12:30 PM
Some wizard powers have the keyword "implement". For those that do, I would rule that the wizard could not cast the spell unless they were wielding their staff, orb, wand, tome, etc.

Following this line of thought, one way to limit a spellcaster's power output is to take away their implement.
Incorrect. PHB p.157: "Without an implement, a wizard can still use his or her powers."

The "implement" keyword only notes that the power gains the enhancement bonus of a magic implement to its attack and damage rolls, and to any other effects if specified. Note that all of the cantrips and utility powers lack the implement keyword.

Blas_de_Lezo
2010-01-21, 01:26 PM
So basically we have here a very big problem, and WotC just washed their hands... :smallannoyed:

Theodoric
2010-01-21, 01:28 PM
So basically we have here a very big problem, and WotC just washed their hands... :smallannoyed:
I don't see how putting things up to the DM is that much of a bad thing, though...

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-21, 02:10 PM
So basically we have here a very big problem, and WotC just washed their hands... :smallannoyed:
Welcome to 4e - WotC doesn't need to tell you the DC for tying a knot, it doesn't need to tell you how you cast spells. If your DM doesn't have an answer, then just default to 3.5 rules - you need words and gestures.

Honestly, it isn't like they forgot to make sure their Diplomacy rules don't allow 3rd level bards to rule the world or something :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 02:20 PM
Welcome to 4e - WotC doesn't need to tell you the DC for tying a knot, it doesn't need to tell you how you cast spells. If your DM doesn't have an answer, then just default to 3.5 rules - you need words and gestures.

I'd rather say you didn't - otherwise, why not just stick with Psions when they come out?

Better to keep everyone on equal footing.


Honestly, it isn't like they forgot to make sure their Diplomacy rules don't allow 3rd level bards to rule the world or something :smalltongue:

har har :smalltongue:

Yakk
2010-01-21, 02:32 PM
So basically we have here a very big problem, and WotC just washed their hands... :smallannoyed:
Huh? What problem?

In order to figure out how to prevent someone from casting a spell, make a Streetwise or Arcana check. Divine, I'd probably make it a Religion check. Primal, a Nature check. Psionics .. not sure.

If someone is preventing you from casting spells, then it will be some kind of skill challenge or opposed skill check.

Where, exactly, is the very big problem?

How a given DM narrates "prevent someone from casting spells after you have them defeated and/or surrendered" is not a "very big problem".

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-21, 02:35 PM
Huh? What problem?

In order to figure out how to prevent someone from casting a spell, make a Streetwise or Arcana check. Divine, I'd probably make it a Religion check. Primal, a Nature check. Psionics .. not sure.

If someone is preventing you from casting spells, then it will be some kind of skill challenge or opposed skill check.

Where, exactly, is the very big problem?

How a given DM narrates "prevent someone from casting spells after you have them defeated and/or surrendered" is not a "very big problem".Except there may well be no way short of keeping them unconscious, which makes things like interrogating them harder. We just don't know. And how do you reconcile your method with Psions, who have always been able to use their powers while bound and gagged, meaning now the power sources are unbalanced?

Doug Lampert
2010-01-21, 02:42 PM
What to do with a captured spellcaster?
...
I'd have to look at the books again, I think blindfolding solves some of this, but I don't remember if it solves all of it.

My PCs have been captured twice. Both times the captors used tied up (I give a -2 to all attacks) and head covered (blind gives a -5 assuming you can localize the target at all).

If the PCs really want to start a fight, not knowing who's arround, knowing that the OpForce was able to get them to surrender in the first place, and knowing that they are at -7 to attacks and that they grant everyone in the world combat advantage, knowing that none of them have implements or armor or any other items, and knowing that they will have real trouble even targetting the right square.... Feel free. Go for it. I won't stop them. Sure, any power you can offer even a feeble justification for works great. I'm good.

Strangly they haven't bothered. They take similar precautions with dangerous captives that they take prisoner.

Heck, when one group of enemies took off the blindfolds and untied their legs so they could travel on their own they STILL didn't think it was worth trying anything with none of them having their gear, with their hands still tied and all of them tied together at the neck, and only three guards to five higher level PCs.

Of course the guards were well spread out with crossbows and the guards were mounted. Of course when the guards were severely distracted (fatally in one case), the PCs got free in the resulting confusion and got the dead guy's crossbow into the ranger's hands.

But the players were perfectly willing to let their characters be dragged in for trial by a group that wouldn't have been a decent speed-bump if they'd been loose on the basis that talking their way out when they got there would be a lot easier and safer than fighting.

Yakk
2010-01-21, 03:10 PM
Except there may well be no way short of keeping them unconscious, which makes things like interrogating them harder. We just don't know. And how do you reconcile your method with Psions, who have always been able to use their powers while bound and gagged, meaning now the power sources are unbalanced?
There may be no way.

Or maybe there is a way.

Ask the DM, who should say roll the dice.

And, as Doug mentioned, taking a -7 penalty to all attacks sure sucks (blindfolded and bound), and exists by RAW. Losing all weapons, even at mid-heroic, sucks (total of -9 to hit) for players.

That would make an interesting fight -- a party of mid-paragon PCs, bound, blindfolded, and made to fight against a late-heroic encounter!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-21, 03:13 PM
I'd rather say you didn't - otherwise, why not just stick with Psions when they come out?

Better to keep everyone on equal footing.
Well, Martial users are at a disadvantage then - if you can't use your arms, you can't attack.

Actually, the blindfolding idea solves most problems. Additionally, you can work up some fluff for restraining Psions and other "innate" casters - perhaps a particular poison makes it impossible to concentrate when ingested.

These are opportunities, not problems! :smallsmile:

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 03:24 PM
Well, Martial users are at a disadvantage then - if you can't use your arms, you can't attack.

Generally, it's harder to tie up Muscly McFighter or Slippery Roguington than Harry Potter and Ron Weasley from Wizarding College. That is their innate balance for relying more heavily on their weapons.

So it is the casters who need the boost here, rather than the other way around, especially our spindly psions.

Doug Lampert
2010-01-21, 04:06 PM
There may be no way.

Or maybe there is a way.

Ask the DM, who should say roll the dice.

And, as Doug mentioned, taking a -7 penalty to all attacks sure sucks (blindfolded and bound), and exists by RAW. Losing all weapons, even at mid-heroic, sucks (total of -9 to hit) for players.

That would make an interesting fight -- a party of mid-paragon PCs, bound, blindfolded, and made to fight against a late-heroic encounter!

Sounds about right for "interesting" but winnable. Assuming you don't have too many weapon users/heavy armor types, and that a couple of actions will get you out of the ropes and then let you take off the blindfold.

If you can't get out of the blindfolds then if the opponents have a ranged character with decent stealth you're DOOMED! DOOMED I SAY! (Pick a random spot, and target it at -7 hoping the stealthy guy is there. Meanwhile he's sneak attacking you. This is why you really shouldn't try to fight your way out unless you have to.)

"I magic missile the ropes then action point to remove the blindfold!" is likely the wizard's best opening move if the DM will let him target the ropes. (Its explicitely a DM call in the rules as to whether a power that doesn't include objects in the target's line can target objects).

Anyone remember what the HP of ropes are in the DMG (if they're even listed).

But as I mentioned, the other side managed to capture them in the first place. IME that means the other side has (potentially) overwhelming forces available. Your mid paragon PCs DIDN'T get tied up without their gear by a single high heroic encounter so they've got no chance at all until the big bad leaves them with only the henchthings as guards.

The PCs don't escape until the OpForce does something to give them an opportunity (which is likely to happen if they want to keep the prisoners for any length of time, people don't stay alert forever).

Master_Rahl22
2010-01-21, 05:35 PM
The Wheel of Time series has forkroot tea that dulls the senses of any channeler (magic user) and weakens the drinker's ability to channel (use magic) with enough of it knocking a magic user unconscious. There was the suggestion about being bound in cold iron to disrupt the flow of magical energy or whatever. I fail to see how "It's up to the DM" is a problem, and in fact I like it better that way. Now he doesn't have to say, "Look I know the PHB says this, but in MY world..." He can just set it up how he wants it and if it's common knowledge let the players know, and if not there are Knowledge checks.

Shadow_Elf
2010-01-21, 08:51 PM
tl;dr, but before everyone jumps at "not being able to disarm casters", remember that an implement is almost as important to a caster as a weapon is to a melee fighter.

Monks and assassins, on the other hand, truly cannot be disarmed. Their weapon enchantments are placed on mundane objects and/or directly on their soul, so an assassin can fight with whatever's on hand and a monk can beat you to death with a kitten if he so chooses, even while disarmed, bound, gagged and/or blindfolded.

tbarrie
2010-01-21, 09:13 PM
Incorrect. PHB p.157: "Without an implement, a wizard can still use his or her powers."

He started with "I would rule...". How can he be incorrect, unless he doesn't know his own mind?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-21, 09:17 PM
He started with "I would rule...". How can he be incorrect, unless he doesn't know his own mind?
Technically, he should say "I would houserule" since he's contradicting RAW :smalltongue:

Yakk
2010-01-21, 09:30 PM
Level 30 spellcaster with a bag of ultimate darkness on his head, tied with cords made out of starstuff.

Has 28 int.

No implement expertise feats work.

To hit is a mere +17.

With the +6 implement and implement expertise and no bag over his head, it works out to +33 to hit.

That's a -16 to hit for being tied up, unequipped and blinded.

That seems pretty harsh!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-21, 10:01 PM
Level 30 spellcaster with a bag of ultimate darkness on his head, tied with cords made out of starstuff.
Is there really a Bag of Ultimate Darkness?

...is it wrong that I want one?

Yakk
2010-01-21, 10:14 PM
Is there really a Bag of Ultimate Darkness?

...is it wrong that I want one?
The bag of ultimate darkness is much like a normal bag, but despite the fact that level 30 wizards can shoot frikken lazer beams out of their frikken eyes, the wizard is still blinded.

Until he generates enough successes in the "escape your bonds" skill challenge, of course.

DabblerWizard
2010-01-22, 12:47 PM
He started with "I would rule...". How can he be incorrect, unless he doesn't know his own mind?

Thank you for pointing this out tbarrie.

Just to be clear, I was suggesting that implements should be required for arcane spell casting. I believe that it would partially solve the "component" problem suggested by the OP by setting a reasonable but effective limitation on spellcasting capability.

All wizard powers that are not cantrips or utility powers have the "implement" key word. (I checked up to level 16 powers in the phb 1)

So, if you used my homebrew rule, wizards would be limited without their arcane implement. This is a small step towards restoring a restriction akin to the component limitation.

Some of you might think this is an unfair restriction, but notice that the Fighter (and other marital classes) has a similar limitation. With the exception of utility exploits, all fighter attacks (at least up to level 16) have the keyword "weapon".

Let me point out that the definition of unarmed, is "without weapon". Using that definition, I would rule that a fighter could not use their class attack powers without a proper weapon, fists not included.

I'll be interested to see how WOTC handles monk powers in PHB 3.




Technically, he should say "I would houserule" since he's contradicting RAW :smalltongue:

These are mere semantics, Oracle_Hunter.

Mando Knight
2010-01-22, 01:27 PM
Let me point out that the definition of unarmed, is "without weapon".

And when you fight with your fists, your fists are weapons (which are, conveniently enough, defined as "Instruments or other means of causing harm"). Problem solved. (RAW support: PHB p216, "A simple unarmed attack is treated as an improvised weapon.")

DabblerWizard
2010-01-22, 02:10 PM
And when you fight with your fists, your fists are weapons (which are, conveniently enough, defined as "Instruments or other means of causing harm"). Problem solved. (RAW support: PHB p216, "A simple unarmed attack is treated as an improvised weapon.")

This is permissible in a RAW sense, but fluff wise, it can be quite silly.

Inyssius Tor
2010-01-22, 02:20 PM
This is permissible in a RAW sense, but fluff wise, it can be quite silly.

Examples?

I certainly can't think of any.

Mando Knight
2010-01-22, 02:34 PM
Examples?

I certainly can't think of any.

Counter-example: every single unarmed martial art. Ever.

Blackfang108
2010-01-22, 02:46 PM
Counter-example: every single unarmed martial art. Ever.

Additon to the counter-example: including those that don't exist.

Bagelz
2010-01-22, 05:03 PM
simple answer is - there are no components to spells in 4e BECAUSE THERE ARE NO "SPELLS". There are powers, and There are rituals. would you impose verbal components on a rogue or ranger? would you impose somatic components on a weapon attack?
think of an implement as a weapon. and always, always remember rule 0 - fun trumps all.

Blackfang108
2010-01-22, 05:14 PM
simple answer is - there are no components to spells in 4e BECAUSE THERE ARE NO "SPELLS". There are powers, and There are rituals. would you impose verbal components on a rogue or ranger? would you impose somatic components on a weapon attack?
think of an implement as a weapon. and always, always remember rule 0 - fun trumps all.

isn't the somatic Component of a Weapon attack the attempt to impale your opponent with it?