Spell Components: Do they serve a purpose?

[Frog Dragon]

I've been working on an overhaul of the magic system by dividing the spell lists into spheres and only granting access to a small number of spheres, thereby limiting the variety accessible by a single caster.

Then I ran into spell components again. They're honestly kind of dumb. They seem to be designed as jokes. Like having to MacGyver up a TV set to cast scrying. Because that is hilarious. Hahahahhowblgublwaffles.

Because even low level characters can buy multiple pouches without seriously denting their WBL, the inexpensive ones can probably be ignored. But what about the expensive ones? Would there be any unintended consequences if a wizard didn't have to rub oddly expensive grease into their eyes every time they cast true seeing?

Are there spells with which the removal of components would seriously matter (raise dead line comes to mind)?

[Ranting Fool]

Well I've scrapped everything that doesn't have a "Gold worth" cost for players. And then for everything other then Raise Dead I've houserulled that all gems can be ground down to "Gem Dust" so for spells like circle of death ( i think it's 100gp worth of gems) they just use gem dust rather then each gem it calls for :smalltongue:

I like the gems for making undead being unique because then it adds some minor plot points from time to time.

"Yay we've killed evil mc evil! but all his gems are Undead making ones... if we sell them then we know they will be used for making dead type things oh noes!" :smallbiggrin:

I see spell components such as "a tiny spider" or "A pinch of dirt" to be a logistic pain and so scrapped it:smallamused:

[Garwain]

Spell components are a way to create a drawback for using a 'potent' spell. Some cost gold, others xp. You could replace the usage cost by something else that comes in limited amounts. Or remove it all together if you feel that gold and xp are so easy to find that they become unlimited.

[molten_dragon]

There seem to be a couple of balancing factors that tie into spell components.

One being that if the wizard doesn't have his spell components pouch, he cannot cast spells. This comes up very rarely in most games.

The other being that expensive material components are a balancing factor against spamming some spells over and over. This probably isn't a big deal either, since there aren't many spells whose material component cost is so high that a mid-level party can't cast it as many times as they want to. The one exception I can think of is the various resurrection spells, which personally I think are extremely overpriced.

All in all, I can't see any huge problems coming out of just removing material components altogether.

[Gem_Knight]

One other reason for having spell components is that they can be knocked away from you while you try to cast a spell. Someone with a held action or if the caster doesn't cast defensively and provokes AoO, can chose to "disarm" the caster of his precious material components and this basically cause the caster to have to start the spell over again- maybe even failing the spell and costing them the attempt (I forget exactly how the rules work on this but I know I saw something about it somewhere...)

I think the suggestion to replace it with something comparable (more universal components perhaps, or more F and less M components...) but expensive material components should still exist for some spells...

[Orran]

Some of the best spells have expensive material components, such as true seeing, stoneskin, and forcecage. For a sorcerer, this makes taking them as a spell known somewhat unwise.
Fortunately, with other spells such as heart of earth, prying eyes (greater), and shadow evocation (greater), these can be somewhat bypassed. I think this is a reasonable way to make powerful spells available earlier, if you have the resources.

[hoverfrog]

Other than the gold cost they are just flavour. Maybe useful to justify how a spellcraft check succeeds or maybe so that players can choose alternative spell components for minor enhancements. Also why else have the Eschew Materials feat (Pathfinder grants this to sorcerers at 1st level).

[Person_Man]

In theory non-casters can Sunder a spell component pouch or holy symbol, which prevents casters from casting most spells unless they have the Eschew Materials feat. (You can also use Sleight of Hand to take it with a DC 20 Skill check if your target isn't currently holding it).

But if you actually do this in a game, then your PCs or DM may begin to adopt elaborate counter measures - Wizards who buy and carry 20 spell component pouches, and clerics who cover their armor and are tattooed with holy symbols.

Having said that, removing spell components (especially costly components and xp) makes casters stronger. So if you choose to do so, you should consider some other nerf. For example, you could also eliminate the "casting defensively" rules, so that casting a spell while threatened by an enemy always provokes an attack of opportunity, which could possibly disrupt the spell. (Which was the rule in 2nd edition, which is why casters tended to hand back in combat and act like artillery).

[Answerer]

Expensive material components serve a (small, in most cases) purpose.

Trivial material components are, and always have been, a very weak joke.

[Terazul]

Expensive material components serve a (small, in most cases) purpose.

Trivial material components are, and always have been, a very weak joke.

Correct.
Lightning bolt? You rub a rod with a piece of fur (static!).
See invisibility? You throw silvered talc powder into the air to cover them.
Hideous Laughter? You throw tiny tarts at them and wiggle a feather in the air, and they laugh at the absurdity of it.
Scrying? You make a TV. Like really.

Material components without a cost are mostly jokes like this.

[Chromascope3D]

Correct.
Lightning bolt? You rub a rod with a piece of fur (static!).
See invisibility? You throw silvered talc powder into the air to cover them.
Hideous Laughter? You throw tiny tarts at them and wiggle a feather in the air, and they laugh at the absurdity of it.
Scrying? You make a TV. Like really.

Material components without a cost are mostly jokes like this.

Spider Climb: Glue spiders to your hands and feet.

[Frog Dragon]

My main nerf for the variant casting system this is for is the sphere system. It doesn't really reduce the amount of spells available to a single caster, but it reduces variety available to one caster. For example, you want to pull scry&die? You could take Eyes/Knowledge and Teleportation. That leaves you with a single sphere choice, and the free sphere dictated by your caster class (Basically just includes staples like dispels and such). And covering both offense and defense in a single sphere would be difficult.

This nerf ought to drop casters to the fuzzy zone between T2 and T3, especially since I've culled stuff like Time Stop, Glitterdust, Black Tentacles and Solid Fog.

The idea I had for anything with which the material component is integral is to cull it from the spheres and turn it into a ritual. I am trying to figure out how many spells would I have to ritualize. Would animate dead be too powerful without having to stuff the corpse's head full of black onyx? Stuff like that.

[Tyndmyr]

Then I ran into spell components again. They're honestly kind of dumb. They seem to be designed as jokes. Like having to MacGyver up a TV set to cast scrying. Because that is hilarious. Hahahahhowblgublwaffles.

Correct. They are a terrible form of joke, and add little to the game.

They do, however, add some minor difficulty to things such as casting while grappled.


Are there spells with which the removal of components would seriously matter (raise dead line comes to mind)?

In general, I don't track any spell component that eschew materials would ignore(under a gold). I have never regretted this.

[Anxe]

Spell components get a lot more important if you actually enforce the little ones and don't allow the spell component pouch. For example, Protection from Evil requires "A little powdered silver with which you trace a 3-foot -diameter circle on the floor (or ground) around the creature to be warded." Silver would undoubtedly cost some money to get and tracing a circle around a creature would be much more difficult to do in combat when the caster and the target are dodging blows from goblins. But we ignore that part of the spell as well as ignoring the seemingly infinite amount of silver within the spell component pouch as long as the silver is only used to cast this spell.

Regardless, it looks like you're focused on eliminating even the GP cost components. Animate dead is one that works fine with the cost removed. It does make the spell more powerful. Now a necromancer can go to a graveyard, animate as much as he can command, tell those skellies to attack the nearby town, animate more, and give the more the same command. The original skellies will still follow the original command. The necromancer also increased his army size by a little bit or a lot depending on how many animates he prepped and how big the graveyard is. I don't think this is really gamebreakingly powerful though because its just skeletons and zombies.

Raise Dead could do without the component cost as it is already taking a payment from the person losing a level. You'd wanna keep the cost on True Rez though.

Stoneskin can do without the component cost. I suppose scrying could do without the cost for the focus as well. I think it could work for a lot of spells. You'd probably still want to keep XP costs in place though. Hell, you could just convert all GP costs to XP costs with the 5 to 1 rule and call it a day.

[Urpriest]

One thing to keep in mind is that if you ever import PF spells, they tend to have material components instead of XP components.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

In general, I don't track any spell component that eschew materials would ignore(under a gold). I have never regretted this.This is how my group operates. Occasionally spell components will be mentioned (such as the wizard who refluffed the tarts Hideous Laughter calls for as cupcakes) but that's about the extent of it.

[Gnome Alone]

Every group I've ever played in has also just ignored the cheap spell components. Basically free Eschew Materials for everyone, cuz who cares?

[nightwyrm]

There's also plenty of spells without Material requirements that wizards can cast without a component pouch. They're really nothing more than a joke.

In addition, if you think about stuff like 100gp cost of pearls for the identify spell, you'd get weird pearl-pegged economies.

[Tathum]

For me...

It's all about flavor. I think spell components add a bit of RP flair that I really enjoy. Most of the people I play with are very much for the same kind of play, but there are a few min/max'ers in the group that are just about rolling the dice and don't even really like talking to the other players in the game, let alone taking a moment to scrape up some bat crap off the cave floor for their next fireball.

Sometimes magic SHOULD be messy...

[Voidling]

For me...

It's all about flavor. I think spell components add a bit of RP flair that I really enjoy. Most of the people I play with are very much for the same kind of play, but there are a few min/max'ers in the group that are just about rolling the dice and don't even really like talking to the other players in the game, let alone taking a moment to scrape up some bat crap off the cave floor for their next fireball.

Sometimes magic SHOULD be messy...

haha true :smallbiggrin:

[NichG]

One case you may not have considered is the small subset of spells where availability is a serious issue. For instance, I think Ice Assassin requires part of the target to be used. You can't generally go to the store and buy 'a part of the BBEG' or 'a part of Kord', so accessibility of this can be a plot point. For a more common spell where this matters, Plane Shift technically requires you to have a specifically attuned tuning fork specific to the target plane. Making these tuning forks requires you to be on that plane. The practical effect is, there can be planes that the party cannot trivially plane shift to if these planes have not been explored sufficiently for their tuning forks to be common. In a very isolated setting where planar travel is rare, getting even one of these tuning forks may be a big deal.

[jackattack]

Has no one's character ever been captured? Or imprisoned? Or robbed? Or someplace where low-level material components weren't common?

When your party wakes up and every last one of them is chained to an oar dressed in a loincloth, those silly material components become really vital.

Or when you go to a masked ball at the palace, where cobwebs and bat guano are in desperately short supply.

Or when you are up against the Thieves' Guild, and they keep filching your belt pouches.

Loss/lack of material components can become a plot point, and no amount of preparation is proof against an imaginative DM who wants to push a spell caster out of his comfort zone and demonstrate just how he relies on that pouch full of fiddly bits.

[TuggyNE]

One case you may not have considered is the small subset of spells where availability is a serious issue. For instance, I think Ice Assassin requires part of the target to be used. You can't generally go to the store and buy 'a part of the BBEG' or 'a part of Kord', so accessibility of this can be a plot point. For a more common spell where this matters, Plane Shift technically requires you to have a specifically attuned tuning fork specific to the target plane. Making these tuning forks requires you to be on that plane. The practical effect is, there can be planes that the party cannot trivially plane shift to if these planes have not been explored sufficiently for their tuning forks to be common. In a very isolated setting where planar travel is rare, getting even one of these tuning forks may be a big deal.

An unfortunate flaw in the wording of the standard rules surfaces here: those components, as well as the artifact required for apocalypse from the sky and the untouched flower teleport through time needs, have no listed price (for obvious reasons), and are therefore treated as though they were free for the purpose of being present in a spell component pouch. That's right, your 5gp pouch has an artifact or three in it!

So I would strongly support removing all free/joke spell components, and revising the rules so the pouches no longer supply endless quantities of anything.

(It occurs to me that perhaps my homebrew spells should avoid material components as well... *wanders off to fix them*)

[nightwyrm]

When your party wakes up and every last one of them is chained to an oar dressed in a loincloth, those silly material components become really vital.


Then you'd be happy to know that the Knock spell is a verbal only spell. :smallbiggrin:


Or when you go to a masked ball at the palace, where cobwebs and bat guano are in desperately short supply.

So is charm person.

[Water_Bear]

Has no one's character ever been captured? Or imprisoned? Or robbed? Or someplace where low-level material components weren't common?

When your party wakes up and every last one of them is chained to an oar dressed in a loincloth, those silly material components become really vital.

Or when you go to a masked ball at the palace, where cobwebs and bat guano are in desperately short supply.

Or when you are up against the Thieves' Guild, and they keep filching your belt pouches.

Loss/lack of material components can become a plot point, and no amount of preparation is proof against an imaginative DM who wants to push a spell caster out of his comfort zone and demonstrate just how he relies on that pouch full of fiddly bits.

One reason my Sorcerers always pick up Eschew Materials and spend as much of their WBL as possible on magical tattoos (a 3.0 variant rule; they're something like 20% more expensive than normal items but slot-less and tattoo-tastic). Being captured by DM Fiat is bad enough, but losing all of my class features and magic items? Not unless they want to flay my character alive first. :smalltongue:

As a DM I might do this, but it seems kind of mean-spirited. I've had players who lost their Spell Component pouches and forced them to check each spell if it had material components, but it was always their idiocy rather than me yanking their chains. I love the Plane Shift thing though; no-one ever writes those Focii down on their sheets, so there's always a scramble to find a shop whenever the PCs want to go to another plane.

[Gamer Girl]

In Ye Old Days(D&D before 3x), Spell Components were great. Just try and imagine this: A spell caster had to keep track of each and every spell component. They could not just buy a 'everything but the kitchen sink' pouch. They had to find and keep each component.


But this was, of course, one of the big things 3X fixed. Just too many people complained as they had a character that could not cast a spell for lack of components. So 3X made them useless.

Yet, oddly, spell components are a great way to balance spells. Just think, what if every spellcaster did not automatically have every cheap spell component in a single bag.....

[ericgrau]

But if you actually do this in a game, then your PCs or DM may begin to adopt elaborate counter measures - Wizards who buy and carry 20 spell component pouches, and clerics who cover their armor and are tattooed with holy symbols.

Having said that, removing spell components (especially costly components and xp) makes casters stronger. So if you choose to do so, you should consider some other nerf...
Ah but a low strength wizard carefully budgets his carrying capacity down to the half pound. This may not be noticeable if your DM doesn't track things like food and, well, spell components, but otherwise it's a serious issue for the 2 lb. spell component pouch. Even a handy haversack is 5 lbs. and not everything can be stored in there unless you can spare the move action for it. Spell components in particular but other things too like your metamagic rod or worn magic items.

The thing with defenses is that they must be always on, whereas if an attacker sees that he can't do something it costs him little to switch tactics or switch targets. Maybe next your spellbook gets stolen, and now you need to blow hundreds or thousands of gp on backups. And then comes something else and you need to blow more resources and that sets you back even more....

If the nitty gritty is tedius I can understand not wanting to track it. But it's a bigger issue than you might think and ya there should be something significant to counterbalance the power boost.

[Slipperychicken]

Yes, they are literally a joke. Little jokes at the end of spell descriptions, which are usually ignored in-game.

If a master enchanter BBEG is casting Hideous Laughter on you, and the DM is trying to play him up as a serious villain, do you want to mention that hes throwing tiny tarts at you while waving a feather in the air?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, they are literally a joke. Little jokes at the end of spell descriptions, which are usually ignored in-game.

If a master enchanter BBEG is casting Hideous Laughter on you, and the DM is trying to play him up as a serious villain, do you want to mention that hes throwing tiny tarts at you while waving a feather in the air?

You sir, are unfamiliar with the proper application of ye olde tickle torture. Waving feathers give me the heebee jeebees.

[Aegis013]

An unfortunate flaw in the wording of the standard rules surfaces here: those components, as well as the artifact required for apocalypse from the sky and the untouched flower teleport through time needs, have no listed price (for obvious reasons), and are therefore treated as though they were free for the purpose of being present in a spell component pouch. That's right, your 5gp pouch has an artifact or three in it!

So I would strongly support removing all free/joke spell components, and revising the rules so the pouches no longer supply endless quantities of anything.

(It occurs to me that perhaps my homebrew spells should avoid material components as well... *wanders off to fix them*)

Yeah, the non-price listed components that a reasonable DM would probably tell you aren't gonna be in the pouch are the only thing that might be noteworthy if you remove all the non-cost components. Ice Assassin seems like a pretty big offender in that regard.

I'd personally consider, changing it so that the invaluable (cannot be priced) components must be found/obtained, but xp/gp components could be paid for with xp/gp of the casters choosing using the 1 xp = 5 gp rule of thumb. Part of this though is that I just really do not like xp cost components. I'd gladly give up gold though, just my opinion.

My fluff would be something along the lines of, wealth effects people's innate perceptions of a person (not necessarily any individual) and the result of all of these perceptions focused on this one thing has caused that thing to allow a person with the knowledge or skill to manipulate the Weave or whatever magic source you're using.

[Roderick_BR]

As was said, just a way to "disarm" casters. It's worth a feat (Eschew Materials) to get hid of the trivial ones. Just take it in account.

[Tyndmyr]

An unfortunate flaw in the wording of the standard rules surfaces here: those components, as well as the artifact required for apocalypse from the sky and the untouched flower teleport through time needs, have no listed price (for obvious reasons), and are therefore treated as though they were free for the purpose of being present in a spell component pouch. That's right, your 5gp pouch has an artifact or three in it!

So I would strongly support removing all free/joke spell components, and revising the rules so the pouches no longer supply endless quantities of anything.

(It occurs to me that perhaps my homebrew spells should avoid material components as well... *wanders off to fix them*)

Yeah, by strict rules, those are kind of crazy.

That said, those are things that my otherwise lenient group would normally track.


In Ye Old Days(D&D before 3x), Spell Components were great. Just try and imagine this: A spell caster had to keep track of each and every spell component. They could not just buy a 'everything but the kitchen sink' pouch. They had to find and keep each component.

And this resulted in inventory sheets that looked like the world's rattiest, lengthiest grocery list. God help you if you wanted to craft items, too.

[Cieyrin]

I've seen it suggested that spell component pouches be exhaustible like Healer's Kits and that they need to be replenished, which I think is a reasonable consideration if realism is wanted but you don't want to keep a grocery list. Because, c'mon, if the archer has to track arrows, the gun wielder her gun powder and bullets, the wizard can do a bit of book keeping of their own.

I've also had players who liked to keep track of spell components and went out of their way to go searching for stuff as their own personal minigame. Ye olde 2E Player's Option: Spells and Magic had a rather detailed section on pricing and searching for components that could be adapted to later systems fairly easily with the integration of skill checks that fairly nicely covers that.

Really, it's up to player and DM taste on how much emphasis they want to place on spell components but the non-priced ones are pretty much fluff and, as such, are there to give players a roleplaying tool, so instead of saying you're casting Jump, you say you pull out a cricket leg and, after rubbing it between your hands, swallow it and crouch. Instead of saying you're casting Silence, you put a finger to your lips and shush those around you.

[roguemetal]

Like a few of those above me, when I DM I tend to eschew low cost materials for the party, but for flavor and world building reasons I usually include them for other casters in the world. In this way, there are certain means of telling what kind of a caster someone might be based on the materials present around them. Likewise it is assumed each player does in fact present the materials of the spell, even if I don't ask them to have them explicitly. Certain spells however, I am incredibly anal on them having the material components for, in ways that actually balance the spells.

For example, I require the polymorph 'cocoon' to be approximate to the size of the character, and the 'forked rod' for planeshift must be of the specific metal and without impurities.

Likewise, if a shrouded man smells of kalimari, it's possible he has an evard's black tentacles up his sleeve, alerting the party to the caster's presence.

[Zeful]

Has no one's character ever been captured? Or imprisoned? Or robbed? Or someplace where low-level material components weren't common?

When your party wakes up and every last one of them is chained to an oar dressed in a loincloth, those silly material components become really vital.

Or when you go to a masked ball at the palace, where cobwebs and bat guano are in desperately short supply.

Or when you are up against the Thieves' Guild, and they keep filching your belt pouches.

Loss/lack of material components can become a plot point, and no amount of preparation is proof against an imaginative DM who wants to push a spell caster out of his comfort zone and demonstrate just how he relies on that pouch full of fiddly bits.

No, because that breaks the "gentlemen's agreement" thus is bad DMing. So is anything that meaningfully nerfs spellcasters for that matter.

[Azoth]

I am of the same mind as Cieyrin. My players and I agree that a spell component pouch is good for about a week. After that you need to resupply. It has led to some interesting times in dungeons to say the least.

*prepaires to be called many mean things*

As a DM I target spell component pouches, spell books, quivers, and the like fairly regularly with intelligent enemies. Not because I am a **** or trying to ruin the fun. My players and I both enjoy semi-gritty realistic campaigns.

There have been several times that wizards have had a serpent tongue arrow put through their spell component pouch spilling the contents all over the ground. A few times unwary wizards had dragon breath arrows shot into their spell books ruining their ability to prepair certain spells until they could rescribe them.

Archers have had quivers spill arows, bows snapped in two, and on rare occasion just the string severed.

Rogues have been pinned to the dirt or walls with arrows. Their bags ripped open spilling gear/loot/coins as the flee.

Even the fighter has met with a sundering adamantine warhammer and lost his weapon/shield/armor.

Granted these situations have my players carrying backup gear just in case this happens, but really it has never caused too major an issue. Hell my players have adapted some of these strategies themselves and I don't penalize them because the fighter sundered that awesome sword the BBEG had. It is an option, and one meant to be used.

The fact that these things are there to kept track of, while it can be annoying, are there to add another area of the game to be used. If used properly they can be fun and add new challenges that aren't always forseen.

*For those that say it is unfair to do anything to even temporarily nerf a caster because of a "gentleman's aggreement"*

Sometimes God needs to take a back seat.

When you play a character who can and will regularly trivialize an entire dungeon with only a few spells, and others aren't, giving up the spotlight and letting someone else have it is fine.

Oh no for one fight I have to rely on the big dumb guy with a sword to save ME! How dreadful and wrong this is! He should be sitting in the corner polishing my loot while I handle it since he is just a glorified pack mule...after all!

Get over it. A little inconvience won't kill you. Honestly, I feel more casters need to have some fear put into them regularly to remind them they are vulnerable mortals like every other character out there.

[Zale]

In Ye Old Days(D&D before 3x), Spell Components were great. Just try and imagine this: A spell caster had to keep track of each and every spell component. They could not just buy a 'everything but the kitchen sink' pouch. They had to find and keep each component.

Yet, oddly, spell components are a great way to balance spells. Just think, what if every spellcaster did not automatically have every cheap spell component in a single bag.....

That sounds like Hell.

Lawful Evil, Headache Producing Hell.

I'd just take the feat and be done with it. Keeping track of twenty different kinds of components is just to much. Not to mention pricing each one. Unless you think it makes more sense to be able to carry twenty live spiders, dozens of springs, loads of sulfer and bat guano and the Gods only know what else.

[Gamer Girl]

That sounds like Hell.

Lawful Evil, Headache Producing Hell.

I'd just take the feat and be done with it. Keeping track of twenty different kinds of components is just to much. Not to mention pricing each one. Unless you think it makes more sense to be able to carry twenty live spiders, dozens of springs, loads of sulfer and bat guano and the Gods only know what else.

It's more like keeping track of 100 components and their quantities. But it was a huge nerf to casters. Unlike 3x and Pathfinder, where casters rule, using spell Components really knocked them down a peg.

If you want a good caster nerf, spell components work great.

And the 'hell' really.....well, I've seen spell casting players with massive printed up spell cards, combo pages, skill tricks, summoning lists and so on. So really, if a player can take the time to do all that, they can track spell components. And it's not so different then a 'Monty' type player keeping track of all her magic items, active spells, allies, summoned creatures and so forth.

[NichG]

Another use I remembered that hasn't been mentioned here: there are replacement/additional components that oomph up a spell in particular specific ways listed in Complete Mage and a few other sources I think. For instance, there was one that buffed up any Strength boosts from spells by a little bit, another one that automatically applied Extend to one school of spells, etc.

[Sponson]

Another use I remembered that hasn't been mentioned here: there are replacement/additional components that oomph up a spell in particular specific ways listed in Complete Mage and a few other sources I think. For instance, there was one that buffed up any Strength boosts from spells by a little bit, another one that automatically applied Extend to one school of spells, etc.

I just took a gander at that because I was intrigued. And man those optional spell components are awesome. Do you know of any other sources with more alternate spell components?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I just took a gander at that because I was intrigued. And man those optional spell components are awesome. Do you know of any other sources with more alternate spell components?

BoVD, BoED, and I think A&EG. Maybe CC, but don't quote me on that one.

oh, I think Dragon Magic or RotD had a few too.

[ericgrau]

No, because that breaks the "gentlemen's agreement" thus is bad DMing. So is anything that meaningfully nerfs spellcasters for that matter.

I don't think that's avoiding cruelty. I think it's coddling the spellcaster. Stealing the wizard's spellbook and so on is a staple of fantasy, and I think it adds tactical depth to the plot. If you remove too many such things the session distills down to a video game grind.

I'd say it's a balance between adding interesting plot elements and needless bookkeeping. Ideally you'd keep all the mechanics yet come up with a well organized system where it isn't tiresome to track them.

What's a greater nerf is houserules where the DM says the spellcaster is screwed no matter what, because after all "casting is OP and broken". Basically you ruin their day without any element of challenge or fun to it. I'd rather just keep the weakness and all the tactics involved in guarding it.

[TuggyNE]

It's more like keeping track of 100 components and their quantities. But it was a huge nerf to casters. Unlike 3x and Pathfinder, where casters rule, using spell Components really knocked them down a peg.

If you want a good caster nerf, spell components work great.

While I do not wholly disagree that removing the necessity of tracking spell components contributed to the brokenly good state of spellcasting in 3.x, I actually don't think adding it back in would be an effective nerf. Why not? Because it's yet another "proper preparation makes all the difference" aspect of being a high-op caster — anyone willing to use divinations to figure out their spell selections will assuredly also use them to figure out component buying; anyone who stuffs seventeen layers of protection on their spellbooks will also have multiply redundant pouches (generally, they already do). In short, changing the rule helped change the mentality, but you can't reverse it so trivially.


And the 'hell' really.....well, I've seen spell casting players with massive printed up spell cards, combo pages, skill tricks, summoning lists and so on. So really, if a player can take the time to do all that, they can track spell components. And it's not so different then a 'Monty' type player keeping track of all her magic items, active spells, allies, summoned creatures and so forth.

The atrocious complexity of spellcasting is arguably more a bug than a feature; adding to it, simply because "it's already bad and people don't mind too much right?" is foolish. There are ways to nerf the overpowered aspects of spellcasting without increasing bookkeeping, alienating players, or requiring highly specific types of plots. However, none of those ways that I know of are really "easy", per se.

(Also, what do you mean by "Monty"?)

[Venusaur]

Being pedantic about spell components gets to be pretty lame when the party wants to do something, but the wizard has to run around trying to find bat guano, tarts, and calamari. It wastes valuble game time, and is boring. Attacking a spellbook is usually bad, because it is unrealistic. In a fight to the death, why would you attack a spellbook that isn't useful until the next day?

[Zeful]

I don't think that's avoiding cruelty. I think it's coddling the spellcaster. Stealing the wizard's spellbook and so on is a staple of fantasy, and I think it adds tactical depth to the plot. If you remove too many such things the session distills down to a video game grind.

I'd say it's a balance between adding interesting plot elements and needless bookkeeping. Ideally you'd keep all the mechanics yet come up with a well organized system where it isn't tiresome to track them.

What's a greater nerf is houserules where the DM says the spellcaster is screwed no matter what, because after all "casting is OP and broken". Basically you ruin their day without any element of challenge or fun to it. I'd rather just keep the weakness and all the tactics involved in guarding it.

Stealing a wizards spell book is also one of the hallmarks of "Bad DMing" as to put it simply: "Class abilities are sacrosanct". You will find very, very few people who would consider such an act to be allowable.


(Also, what do you mean by "Monty"?)Monty Haul; campaigns or adventures that are terribly easy just to give people monies and shineys

[Gamer Girl]

Why not? Because it's yet another "proper preparation makes all the difference" aspect of being a high-op caster — In short, changing the rule helped change the mentality, but you can't reverse it so trivially.

Like anything, it depends how you do it. The Causal Gamer and DM will just say ''Oh my spellcaster has a Spell Component Planet in his pocket''. But try a more Detailed Game. A spellcaster can only have so much of each component, both on your person and at home. And even with all types of extra dimensional spaces, you can still only hold so much. But even better, you can only get so much. Sure a spellcaster could steal a whole beach and get a ton of sand, but how many adder stomachs could you reasonably come across. You could buy a couple(maybe a dozen?) a the magic shop, then maybe go hunting or hire hunters to get say 100 more. But, of course, if you kill say 10 adders every couple of weeks for a year or two...guess what soon there will be no adders to kill. So you can't really stockpile everything. And even more so, not everything lives everywhere. You won't find many turtles in a desert and you can't find things like corn worldwide.

[Water_Bear]

...

But try a more Detailed Game. A spellcaster can only have so much of each component, both on your person and at home. And even with all types of extra dimensional spaces, you can still only hold so much. But even better, you can only get so much.

...


Sometimes you need to back off the detail a bit though. A 3.5 Wizard, even at low levels, is already probably keeping track of;

Charges on Wands and other Magic Items.
Coinage (Copper, Silver, Gold and Platinum) as well as miscellaneous Trade Goods and Art Objects
Crafting Alchemical and/or Magic Items.
Encumbrance, since they typically have low strength and a lot of loot.
Familiar, an entire separate creature with it's own statblock and possibly Magic Items of it's own.
HP and other stats likely to change around frequently.
Magic Items, at least five or so.
Mundane items with RP and mechanical benefits like Courtier's Clothing or drugs.
Non-trivial Spell Components (i.e. Black Onyx), Focus components, and optional material components. Plus keeping their Spell Component Pouch safe.
Preparing spells every day, either from scratch or more likely a small set of 'theme' lists (Combat, Utility, Social) made in advance by the player.
Rations (Prestidigitation and Rope Trick eliminate the need for soap or tents)
Statblocks of summoned monsters, and spell descriptions in general.
Their Spellbook, which is massive and needs to constantly protected and is updated frequently.


Making them keep track of "about 100" distinct spell components and their quantities on top of that is incredibly sadistic, because it isn't just more busy-work for the Wizard but also more time the whole game grinds to a halt when the Wizard has to go shopping for spell components in addition to everything else.

Don't get me wrong; the Wizard has a lot of power, more than enough to make up for a little book-keeping. But requiring more prep-time does not weaken the Wizard; they thrive on preparation. If anything, forcing them to keep track of all of their trivially expensive spell components individually will just make them a Munchkin-only class or make Eschew Materials a feat tax.

[TuggyNE]

Like anything, it depends how you do it. The Causal Gamer and DM will just say ''Oh my spellcaster has a Spell Component Planet in his pocket''. But try a more Detailed Game. A spellcaster can only have so much of each component, both on your person and at home. And even with all types of extra dimensional spaces, you can still only hold so much.

I'm pretty sure you specifically misunderstood me. I said that high-op casters, those who thrive on detail and preparation, will be able to handle this better than a casual gamer, who will be swamped by the additional workload.

Now, if you're simultaneously railing against powergamers and casual gamers (one for abusing their power, the other because ... they don't want to engage in mindless busywork?), then I'm afraid I can't help you. I see nothing wrong with casual players at all.


But even better, you can only get so much. Sure a spellcaster could steal a whole beach and get a ton of sand, but how many adder stomachs could you reasonably come across. You could buy a couple(maybe a dozen?) a the magic shop, then maybe go hunting or hire hunters to get say 100 more. But, of course, if you kill say 10 adders every couple of weeks for a year or two...guess what soon there will be no adders to kill. So you can't really stockpile everything. And even more so, not everything lives everywhere. You won't find many turtles in a desert and you can't find things like corn worldwide.

The term "planar metropolis" comes to mind; Sigil, or the City of Brass, or even a city with a stable portal to one of those, is likely to be well-supplied by the traders of a thousand Prime Materials. There need not be any shortage of supplies. (That's leaving out the fact that, honestly, a single Prime has pretty impressive resources on its own. Or did you think teleport will never be used for shopping runs?)


Making them keep track of "about 100" distinct spell components and their quantities on top of that is incredibly sadistic, because it isn't just more busy-work for the Wizard but also more time the whole game grinds to a halt when the Wizard has to go shopping for spell components in addition to everything else.

Don't get me wrong; the Wizard has a lot of power, more than enough to make up for a little book-keeping. But requiring more prep-time does not weaken the Wizard; they thrive on preparation. If anything, forcing them to keep track of all of their trivially expensive spell components individually will just make them a Munchkin-only class or make Eschew Materials a feat tax.

Yes, thank you, you stated my point more effectively than myself I think. Especially the last two sentences.

[Augmental]

Archers have had quivers spill arows, bows snapped in two, and on rare occasion just the string severed.

Rogues have been pinned to the dirt or walls with arrows. Their bags ripped open spilling gear/loot/coins as the flee.

Even the fighter has met with a sundering adamantine warhammer and lost his weapon/shield/armor.

You do give them higher-than-average WBL to compensate for having to buy new equipment, right? The rules do assume you have magic items, after all.


The fact that these things are there to kept track of, while it can be annoying, are there to add another area of the game to be used. If used properly they can be fun and add new challenges that aren't always forseen.

If used improperly, the players get killed after having all their magic items sundered. You know, with what the whole Christmas Tree Effect thing mentioned earlier.


*For those that say it is unfair to do anything to even temporarily nerf a caster because of a "gentleman's aggreement"*

Sometimes God needs to take a back seat.

When you play a character who can and will regularly trivialize an entire dungeon with only a few spells, and others aren't, giving up the spotlight and letting someone else have it is fine.

Oh no for one fight I have to rely on the big dumb guy with a sword to save ME! How dreadful and wrong this is! He should be sitting in the corner polishing my loot while I handle it since he is just a glorified pack mule...after all!

Get over it. A little inconvenience won't kill you. Honestly, I feel more casters need to have some fear put into them regularly to remind them they are vulnerable mortals like every other character out there.

That depends on your optimization level. If playing at low- or mid-optimization levels, then yes, casters should be reminded that they're mortal just like the guy with the sword. At high-optimization levels, however, they shouldn't be - because it's not true anymore. Casters are on an entirely different level from the fighter at high-optimization.

[Frog Dragon]

My motivation here is mostly convenience. Spell components, especially expensive ones, are a pain in the ass. I don't think they're exactly comparable to arrows, because the arrows are obvious (though in my current game, we haven't bothered tracking mundane, bog-standard arrows either. They're in Stormreach, and the GP cost is a drop in the ocean).

But yeah, realizing that you might just need arrows to shoot with a bow is somewhat more intuitive than realizing that you need a 250gp fat mixture to rub into your eyes to cast True Seeing. That little "M" superscript is easy to miss or forget, and as far as I remember, it's not even consistently present in all spells that require expensive material components.

So basically I want to houserule the components away because I think they're annoying (either because they require tracking, or because they are stupid MacGyver jokes).

[Person_Man]

Well, you could go the Harry Potter route and require that every caster have an implement that they use to cast. This can be a wand, a holy symbol, a weapon, a shield, or whatever the PC wants. But it must be something that they hold (not wear). If you want to go for a further nerf on casters, you could say that they can only have 1 valid implement at a time, and that they have to focus on a new one for a minute in order to get it to function, or make implements themselves rare and/or expensive and/or limited in some other way.

Either way, that way casters can still be "disarmed" from their magic and put in realistic peril when imprisoned, but not more seriously then any other class which requires a weapon to be useful.

[Slipperychicken]

DM: You have to track spell components and I'll target your spellbook and component pouch. :smallamused:

[I take Eschew Materials, Eidetic Spellcaster ACF, Collegiate Wizard, and Domain Wizard]

Me: Problem? :smallbiggrin:

DM: :smallfurious:

[Zeful]

DM: You have to track spell components and I'll target your spellbook and component pouch. :smallamused:

[I take Eschew Materials, Eidetic Spellcaster ACF, Collegiate Wizard, and Domain Wizard]

Me: Problem? :smallbiggrin:

DM: :smallfurious:

Me As DM: Collegiate Wizard and Domain Wizard were on the list of banned material, as were pretty much every Wizard/Cleric/Druid ACF, so why'd you think that would fly?

[Answerer]

Tracking individual material components would make me walk away from a game permanently. The mere suggestion that trivial material components should be important for anything would make me strongly doubt a DM's skill and knowledge.

This is not about balance. A Wizard can keep track of things and be just as powerful, or take Eschew Material Components and be done with it. Balance has nothing to do with it.

It's about accounting. That's not a game, that's a chore. I don't play games so that I can do chores. It's not fun, it's not interesting, and almost anything would be a better use of my time.

All my own opinion, of course. I realize people have stated a preference for it. But I notice a disturbing trend among these that seem to suggest that someone else is playing the Wizard.

[Slipperychicken]

Tracking individual material components would make me walk away from a game permanently. The mere suggestion that trivial material components should be important for anything would make me strongly doubt a DM's skill and knowledge.

This is not about balance. A Wizard can keep track of things and be just as powerful, or take Eschew Material Components and be done with it. Balance has nothing to do with it.

It's about accounting. That's not a game, that's a chore. I don't play games so that I can do chores. It's not fun, it's not interesting, and almost anything would be a better use of my time.

You make the point perfectly. I second this.

[zorenathres]

I tend to DM games on more hazardous (post apocalyptic) worlds, making a lot of spell components gathered from living creatures impossible to acquire (the sun is so hot most creatures cannot survive in the wastelands). Insect cocoons & the fur from a bat can be pretty hard to come by when most animals are extinct.

Eschew materials has always been the way to go for my groups, for more costly components however, I still use those, so long as acquiring them is not entirely impossible.

[Cieyrin]

Tracking individual material components would make me walk away from a game permanently. The mere suggestion that trivial material components should be important for anything would make me strongly doubt a DM's skill and knowledge.

This is not about balance. A Wizard can keep track of things and be just as powerful, or take Eschew Material Components and be done with it. Balance has nothing to do with it.

It's about accounting. That's not a game, that's a chore. I don't play games so that I can do chores. It's not fun, it's not interesting, and almost anything would be a better use of my time.

As I said, costless components are fluff and the acquisition of such for use in spells are generally fluff as well. It depends on the group and the campaign whether such details should matter. If it gets in the way of your fun, then don't worry about it and find like-minded players to play with or at least a like-minded DM. This is a game and we're doing it for our enjoyment and some games are more for the action than the details. That's perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged. There isn't a single way of playing this game that is 'Correct' and the rest are not. I know I gloss over some details when I play that others may hold up as important (familiars, anyone?), spell components are just one of those features that get that treatment. A good chunk of the time, it doesn't matter what components a spell has, it's when situations that it matters (you're trying to be stealthy and all your spells have verbal components, etc.) that it comes up at all.

[PersonMan]

I don't think that's avoiding cruelty. I think it's coddling the spellcaster. Stealing the wizard's spellbook and so on is a staple of fantasy, and I think it adds tactical depth to the plot. If you remove too many such things the session distills down to a video game grind.

It all comes down to playstyle. If your group doesn't like stopping everything not time-sensitive to go back to the town/home base and resupply because someone broke all their stuff and isn't big on continuing a quest with subpar gear, it's probably a good idea to leave out 'yes, these guys are built to break your stuff' encounters.

Besides, things like spellbook theft are generally a one-time thing, since anyone with an internet connection can just google 'dnd 3.5 how to protect my spellbook' or ask someone or come up with solutions themselves. Things like having their micro-sized spellbook inside a fake tooth or something come to mind. What has stealing the book brought? An annoying (to one or more players) sidequest and a few notes and a spell less.

With the right group it can be fun ('I need to manage my spells carefully, I only have X, Y and Z left from yesterday!') but if they aren't expecting it it will probably lead to 'well...this sucks. I want to play a mage, not some guy who can't do anything because his stuff is gone'.

If I were to include sundering, theft, etc. in my game I'd say so at the beginning and, if anyone didn't have countermeasures, specifically mention it. Yes, I do get a bit of sadistic pleasure when I 'catch' someone without a backup or something, but it's not worth the loss of fun in my opinion. Sort of like how you say 'hey, man, you should wear shin guards' if someone needs them, not stay quiet and then kick them in the shins later on.

[ericgrau]

Ya surprises suck regardless of what they are. Always be upfront. I've seen 1000 annoyances from completely different rules too. I'm mostly saying if you want to remove some aspect of challenge then at least counterbalance it a little. And if you remove every such thing it devolves into an uninteresting hack-and-slash video game. But it's true that surprise challenges which are impossible to prepare for and that leave PCs helpless are never fun. Keeping the players guessing about enemy plans is a great thing, but keeping them guessing on how to read the DM's mind on how the universe works not so much.

[Deepbluediver]

If people actually had to stock certain components and limit what spells they could cast depending on what they had available, it might seriously limit the versatility of spellcasting. It would also turn D&D every wizard into an accountant, and a boring one at that.

The spell-component pouch and Eschew Materials feat specifically remove the need to keep track of exactly what you have, by basically assuming you always have what you need, wether it's 5 pounds of bat guano to cast Fireball 100 times, or 50 entirely different spells.
I see no problem in simply removing any spell component with a cost of less than about 5g, as some other posters have said.

If you want to keep spell components in the game in a meaningful way, then I have two suggestions: The first is the optional variant of using special components in place of increasing a spell's level when applying metamagic. The rules can be found on the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/metamagicComponents.htm). I think it's intended as a replacement for traditional metamagic, since most primary casters are already on the overpowered side of broken, but it's something to consider if you trust your players to not abuse it.

The other thing would be to homebrew some sort of system that gave a reason for actually using components in spells: for example, you can cast a spells without components, but using them increases the spell save DC or even let's you cast the spell without preparing it ahead of time. Again, not that wizards really need to be more powerful and tracking every component might get tedious, but would be an option if you want to go that route.

[Cieyrin]

If people actually had to stock certain components and limit what spells they could cast depending on what they had available, it might seriously limit the versatility of spellcasting. It would also turn D&D every wizard into an accountant, and a boring one at that.

Wizards already are, as their spellbooks are limited by what they research and DM fiat on what scrolls and spellbooks are available for purchase, to be found or taken as spoils.

[jaybird]

Keeping track of individual spell components sounds like one of those 2E ideas people are nostalgic for in theory, but hate in practice. Let's be honest, most Wizard players already come to the table with the biggest binder of papers, forcing them to keep track of another layer will just discourage casuals even more, leaving behind the experienced, the masochistic, and the munchkin.

It won't actually lower the optimization ceiling on casters, but it'll drop the already low optimization floor to rock bottom.

[TuggyNE]

forcing them to [deal with the nerf attempt under discussion] will just discourage casuals even more, leaving behind the experienced, the masochistic, and the munchkin.

It won't actually lower the optimization ceiling on casters, but it'll drop the already low optimization floor to rock bottom.

I might save this template for later use :smalltongue:; it's a good rebuttal of probably at least half the attempts to nerf T1 casters. :smallwink:

[Zeful]

I might save this template for later use :smalltongue:; it's a good rebuttal of probably at least half the attempts to nerf T1 casters. :smallwink:

Everyone with sense already stopped bothering when it became clear that casters were the communities "special babies" and that anything approaching fixing the system (which requires dismantling the entire broken spell system) would be shouted down because of it.

[Zale]

Everyone with sense already stopped bothering when it became clear that casters were the communities "special babies" and that anything approaching fixing the system (which requires dismantling the entire broken spell system) would be shouted down because of it.

Let's be honest.

What was suggested doesn't nerf casters. They're still as strong as ever. That would just force them to jump through hoops to do anything.

The people who want to be uber-powerful will put up with it.

The people who just want to play a magic user and throw fireballs? They'll just give up.

Ideally, a nerf would actually remove a caster's ability to overshadow everyone else without removing every ounce of fun from playing.

[Slipperychicken]

Let's be honest.

What was suggested doesn't nerf casters. They're still as strong as ever. That would just force them to jump through hoops to do anything.

It's not even jumping through hoops, or making the caster's job in-character any harder. It's just mindless OOC paperwork, plus wasting 15-30 minutes of everyone's time purchasing bat poop. Literally, the only thing the proposed change accomplishes is making the game less fun.


It's not balancing to say "Sure, you can play this unbalanced character, but only if you fill out this stack of forms first, and grind the game to a halt so you can update it". It's just boring.


Me? I'd just make another spreadsheet, and would barely notice. I'm already juggling inventory, two spellbooks, a memorization table, active effects, campaign-notes, and a character bio. Because I have the patience and spare time for that. It would, however, make play impossible for a newbie or casual gamer, who's still struggling to understand roleplaying and the d20 mechanic.

[Water_Bear]

Everyone with sense already stopped bothering when it became clear that casters were the communities "special babies" and that anything approaching fixing the system (which requires dismantling the entire broken spell system) would be shouted down because of it.

Please. If you want a good fix of the spellcasting system, you just have to get off your high horse and spend a few seconds looking around.

WotC? They made the much more reasonable and incredibly fun Psionics system, which can easily be substituted for Magic and in so doing eliminates the entire 1st tier.

3rd party publishers? For a few years everyone and their grandma made a game system using the d20 OGL, and a lot of them are top notch. Read some reviews and find one you like.

Homebrew? The forums here are full of interesting ideas and concepts, mainly because people will shoot down ideas which are ridiculous and unwieldy.

If people play D&D 3.5 with full-powered casters, that is what they enjoy. They are, for the most part, mature adults who don't feel the need to whine because other people aren't deferring to their favorite play-style. Don't like it? Find one of the dozens of excellent fixes out there or play another system.

Also, I cannot stop giggling whenever I see "Troll in the Playground" next to some poster's flame-bait-y comment. Very approrpriate. :smallamused:

[TuggyNE]

Everyone with sense already stopped bothering when it became clear that casters were the communities "special babies" and that anything approaching fixing the system (which requires dismantling the entire broken spell system) would be shouted down because of it.

Others have already answered most of this, but I wanted to expand on an aspect in which you're entirely correct: fixing the system does require dismantling the spell system, for the most part. That is precisely why I am so critical of attempted quick fixes that fail to realize the full scope of the problem. Anyone who attempts to fix 3.x spellcasting should be prepared to spend weeks or months on the project; it is not for the faint of heart. However, fortunately, there have already been some substantial efforts made to rework spells. The one I favor the most is probably Ernir's Vancian to Psionics translation, which rather neatly (and very thoroughly) converts all spells to a psionic form — except, of course, for the ones that are removed for balance reasons.

[Analytica]

I don't mind components as a balancing tool, nor as flavour in and of themselves. What I do mind are components that make my wizard seem like a clown.

A flavourful way might be having to continually search for animal, vegetable and mineral ingredients as you adventure, regularly spend time with a portable alchemy lab to render them into refined forms, then ritually sacrifice them as incenses while preparing spells, to get the various specialized essences that each spell needs.

Making gunpowder in your hand by mixing guano and coal each time you attack simply doesn't match my visual associations to mages wielding arcane fire as a weapon.

[Deepbluediver]

@Cieyrin, Jaybird & others
I want to be real clear about this upfront: I am not suggesting, in any way, that it would be a good idea to force casters to track every owl feather and porcupine quill they use in their spells. I'm sorry if my post made you think I was saying it would be an improvement.

I fully stand behind the posters saying that "quick fixes" for magic systems aren't really fixes because of the entire way D&D uses magic, and how it integrates with EVERYTHING else, is far too complex to be fixed simply. It's like claiming you have a "simple fix" for a nuclear reactor.
Without extensive homebrewing or banning, you just need to trust your players to not go crazy and attempt to crack the world open like an egg.


I have already attempted to rewrite the rules for functional and balanced magic system; if the OP wants to read it for ideas, the link is in my extended sig.
Here is a brief summary of the most basic and important part (IMO):
Every spell requires that the player roll to succesfully cast, just like an attack or skill check. The DC for the roll is roughly 10+twice the spell level for non-target specific spells, and spell level+spell resistance for spells that require a specific target. Also, every creature gets a basic level of spell resistance, similar to AC.
All of this is aimed at giving spells a chance to fail, which I think was one of the biggest problems with magic being to good in 3.5.

[Flickerdart]

Now I have an idea for a DIY Wizard who prepares his components at the same time he'd memorizing spells. Baking some tarts for Hideous Laughter, frying up some bacon for Grease...

[ericgrau]

There's a difference between partially defensible weaknesses and ruining the game only for the bottom few. Readied actions, silence, sundering and so on provide new challenges and make the game more fun without being 100% certain nor requiring an uber-optimizer to figure out how to stop them. As long as the DM is up front and says "Hey, I'll mess with your stuff", it adds depth not removes it. High optimization will ruin the game regardless; it's only an issue worth paying attention to when only high optimizers can play at all. This is not the case when the solution is to grab backups, get cover against ranged attacks, walk out of the silence (Veteran player: "Hey new player, walk out of the silence!") etc. Anyone can be forewarned and know how to deal with it with about 1 sentence of information given at character creation or on the fly. For many success is random both for the attack and the counter. It gets exciting, and "cruel" DMs are some of the really fun ones (to a point).

OTOH completely revamping the entire magic system is, to be blunt, downright insane. Unless I see a page of math formulas and a log with 100 hours of playtesting I don't trust it enough to do more than skim it. But usually problems with these systems often don't even require such a careful analysis and I can tell right away with some rough numbers or knowledge of other rule X that there's a problem. These are the systems that usually require a high optimizer to even play at all. These are the systems that I've seen in a dozen threads where some poor inexperienced caster is in a campaign and wondering why he's nerfed so hard he can't do anything. I love homebrew for providing new and interesting options but every time I see someone try to "rebalance" something in an afternoon now I mostly just stay away from that part of the homebrew forums.

[Flickerdart]

Removing components doesn't suddenly make it impossible to shut down mages with readied actions, you know. Just whack them in the face instead of the hands, and now they've got to make a ridiculous Concentration check.

[Rubik]

Has no one's character ever been captured? Or imprisoned? Or robbed? Or someplace where low-level material components weren't common?

When your party wakes up and every last one of them is chained to an oar dressed in a loincloth, those silly material components become really vital.

Or when you go to a masked ball at the palace, where cobwebs and bat guano are in desperately short supply.

Or when you are up against the Thieves' Guild, and they keep filching your belt pouches.

Loss/lack of material components can become a plot point, and no amount of preparation is proof against an imaginative DM who wants to push a spell caster out of his comfort zone and demonstrate just how he relies on that pouch full of fiddly bits.I prepared Explosive Runes this morning by taking levels in psion. Eat that!

[Deepbluediver]

OTOH completely revamping the entire magic system is, to be blunt, downright insane. Unless I see a page of math formulas and a log with 100 hours of playtesting I don't trust it enough to do more than skim it. But usually problems with these systems often don't even require such a careful analysis and I can tell right away with some rough numbers or knowledge of other rule X that there's a problem. These are the systems that usually require a high optimizer to even play at all. These are the systems that I've seen in a dozen threads where some poor inexperienced caster is in a campaign and wondering why he's nerfed so hard he can't do anything. I love homebrew for providing new and interesting options but every time I see someone try to "rebalance" something in an afternoon now I mostly just stay away from that part of the homebrew forums.

That seems like kind of a high standard to hold homebrewers to. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems like you are disregarding any system that can't guarantee a perfect balance of magic and melee, which would be a tall order, I think, even for WotC.
How much effort do you want to see put into a new system for magic before you would be willing to play a game using it?

[Rubik]

That seems like kind of a high standard to hold homebrewers to. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems like you are disregarding any system that can't guarantee a perfect balance of magic and melee, which would be a tall order, I think, even for WotC.
How much effort do you want to see put into a new system for magic before you would be willing to play a game using it?I think the point is that the system is so incredibly flawed that you'd have to rewrite nearly the entire thing.

That, or just choose a tier range and be done with it.

[Ernir]

OTOH completely revamping the entire magic system is, to be blunt, downright insane.
This is hilarious because I started my revamp right around the time I started to withdraw from the pills.