View Full Version : 3.x Spell's gold cost

2010-03-09, 10:40 PM
Such as True Seeing costing 250gp to cast. Has always seemed a bit silly to me for many spells. It's not like you can really abuse true seeing (I don't think?) What are your houserules like? Do you ignore any of the costs?

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-09, 11:08 PM
The spell does quite a bit, it defeats many illusion reveals the true nature of
polymorphed creatures and other transmuted beings. You can also see into the Ethereal plane. It has very many utility uses and is quite powerful versus illusionists. It has a material cost so you don't just whip it out at any time without thought or care.

Typically I don't care about material components unless it has a listed cost, But the spell component pouch covers that Or is some how rare. If a spell said something like the claw from a dragon or the blood of a lycanthrope. I'd have to ask how he got such a thing.

But say a pinch of salt and a grasshopper leg, thats just flavor.

2010-03-09, 11:40 PM
i don't mind the costs associated with some spells. it puts a stop on PC's throwing them around with abandon. permanency comes to mind.

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-10, 12:19 AM
I think it makes spellcasters care about their resources a little bit. The non-cost ones should generally just be handwaved but if the party stops in a town and doesn't pick up the 5,000g worth of reagents the wizard needs for certain utility spells, I believe that the PCs should suffer through and learn from their poor planning as much as they should suffer if the warrior forgot to buy new armor or get his sword enchanted.