Trying to Understand Spell Components

[AureusFulgens]

So every spell can have five different types of components: verbal, somatic, material (non-costly), material (costly and not consumed), and material (costly and consumed). But I haven't been able to figure out any general philosophy behind how they were assigned. There are some patterns, mind you... but there are a number of seemingly random entries in each category. And some decisions seem dubious.

For example, which spells are verbal-only?

A number of enchantments and social spells.
Three cleric healing spells (Healing Word, Mass Healing Word, Prayer of Healing).
Most of the Paladin and Ranger damaging spells, including the full line of Smites, along with two of the four SCAG melee cantrips (and the other two have only a weapon as a requirement).
Divine Word, and three of the four Power Word spells - but, inexplicably, not Power Word Heal, which has a somatic component. We could also categorize Wish here, since it being a single word of power is apparently part of its flavor.
Nearly every teleportation spell - short range (the three Step spells and Dimension Door), and long range (Word of Recall and Teleport), as well as the offensive spell Scatter.
And a dozen or so inexplicable choices: two damaging spells that are not enchantments (Immolation and Guardian of Faith), plus Blindness/Deafness, Blur, Circle of Power, Contact Other Plane, Earthbind, Faerie Fire, Guardian of Nature, Knock, Time Stop, and Warding Wind.

This list also has an asymmetric effect on different classes, with Druids and Rangers taking the biggest hit (six and five spells respectively, and that's with a significant boost from the Xanathar supplement), while other classes are generally more in the 10-20 range.

One would hope that binding a caster's hands and taking his focus/components would reflect a good way to neutralize them, though not leave them powerless, but it doesn't wind up working out that way, considering that nearly every class besides Druids and half-casters has an option to teleport away, Bards retain the option to enchant their captors into next week, and Paladins can still headbutt-Smite or unleash a wave of divine destruction.

The nonverbal spells, conversely, are an almost entirely random-seeming list:

Eight cantrips (Control Flames, Shape Water, and Mold Earth; Minor Illusion and Friends; Primal Savagery and Thunderclap; and True Strike)
Five illusions (Illusory Script, Hypnotic Pattern, Mislead, Mental Prison, and Illusory Dragon - one can grant that illusions are a sensible choice for this category)
Six other damaging spells (Absorb Elements, Catapult, Ice Knife, Mind Spike, Steel Wind Strike, and Psychic Scream - notice that none of these are from the PHB)
And five miscellaneous entries which make varying amounts of sense (Snare, Beast Sense, Catnap, Counterspell, Demiplane).


Costly spells make a bit more sense - the consumed-component spells are almost all spells that there's a legitimate reason to want players to not be able to cast often.

Raising the dead, Cloning oneself, making a Simulacrum
Creating permanent structures like Continual Flames, Mighty Fortresses, or Teleportation Circles
Performing Ceremonies or Heroes' Feasts
Hallowing, Warding, or Locking an area
Nondetecting or Sequestering a person
Imprisoning or Binding creatures
Awakening trees
Becoming Invulnerable
Doing that Arcane Programming nonsense with Magic Mouth
Seeking Legend Lore, gaining Truesight, and Divining answers from gods
And (more dubiously) creating Illusory Scripts, Astrally Projecting, creating a Magic Circle, performing a Greater Restoration, and Finding one's Familiar.

But the set of spells that require a one-time purchase are a little harder to explain. For some, the fluff makes sense, e.g. needing a Chest to make Secret, or the materials for a Homunculus. But why in the blessed name of Corellon do you need a 50gp jewel to cast Chromatic Orb?

Among the remaining spells (those with Somatic components, primarily, though a very small number are only V,M), there seems to be no pattern which spells have or do not have material components.

Essentially, one gets the idea that very little thought was put into what went into various categories. Does anyone have any idea if there's more rhyme or reason to them?

(There's a practical problem in re-doing the spellcasting components rules that motivated this line of though for me, but I thought that was best relegated to a separate thread.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Very little thought was put into components. Because mostly they're a legacy of old editions. I'd bet if you checked pre-existing spells against old editions, you'd find a nearly 1:1 relationship between the components they had then and now.

99% of the time (except stealth and expensive ones) they're handwaved (pun intended) anyway, so...

[Tanarii]

Technically, there also exist non-costly but consumed M components. Those cannot be replaced by using a focus.

The only spell I know of off the top of my head that has that is Snare from XtGE. It's technically costly, in that it consumed 25ft of rope, so generally 1/2 a gp. But that means you need 25ft of rope to cast the spell. That's cheap, but heavy if you want to cast it a lot. Or more costly but lighter if you use silk rope.


Very little thought was put into components. Because mostly they're a legacy of old editions. I'd bet if you checked pre-existing spells against old editions, you'd find a nearly 1:1 relationship between the components they had then and now.Pretty sure some thought went into the Paladin Smite spells being V-only, so they're easy to use with a Shield.

I'm not sure how much went into EKs generally being better off with a 2H weapon, since most Wizard cantrips are V/S. Possibly that's fully intentional. Of course, if you have access to the SCAG cantrips that makes a big difference.

I think the one that most often throws players for a loop is Cleric and Paladin players trying to cast Cure Light Wounds being V/S, so if they carry a shield they have to put their weapon away to cast it. Otoh Cleric players tend to be more conscious of that than other casters, since they often have to deal with it with their spell list.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Very little thought was put into components. Because mostly they're a legacy of old editions. I'd bet if you checked pre-existing spells against old editions, you'd find a nearly 1:1 relationship between the components they had then and now.

99% of the time (except stealth and expensive ones) they're handwaved (pun intended) anyway, so...

This. In fact, some are outright jokes the original developers came up with. For example, See Invisibility costs a pinch of silver powder and talc. As in, you throw a bit of dust in the air and watch it stick to someone invisible. That's the joke.

[AureusFulgens]

This. In fact, some are outright jokes the original developers came up with. For example, See Invisibility costs a pinch of silver powder and talc. As in, you throw a bit of dust in the air and watch it stick to someone invisible. That's the joke.

Someone pointed that out to me. The components for Fireball are the components for a little bit of gunpowder, the components for Lightning Bolt are for making static electricity, Flesh to Stone involves making concrete (and waiting three rounds for it to set, during which time the target can make more saves), Detect Thoughts involves literally giving someone a penny for their thoughts, or alternatively getting their two cents... it's pretty bloody funny. But not something I'm attached to mechanically.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

it's pretty bloody funny. But not something I'm attached to mechanically.

Oh, of course! I don't think anybody has actually followed them since....2e? At least, I really only want players to keep track of the expensive components.

[ad_hoc]

My favourite 5e one is Infernal Calling's 999gp ruby.

[KorvinStarmast]

My favorite one was 1e's gold fish/carp that one had to swallow to cast the spell.
And in this edition, the bit of copper wire for sending ... :smallwink:

[ciarannihill]

Someone pointed that out to me. The components for Fireball are the components for a little bit of gunpowder, the components for Lightning Bolt are for making static electricity, Flesh to Stone involves making concrete (and waiting three rounds for it to set, during which time the target can make more saves), Detect Thoughts involves literally giving someone a penny for their thoughts, or alternatively getting their two cents... it's pretty bloody funny. But not something I'm attached to mechanically.

Oh god I had no idea about these little jokes and it's amazing.


EDIT: Aside from that, speaking of components: I watched a video by ZeeBashew about Goodberry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHapG6kXUg) making a game of his that involved survival less challenging by it's very nature and a simple change to it's components (making it consume it's material) made the entire campaign more engaging.

Curious if other spells that people sometimes take umbrage with can't be modified in a similar way instead of outright banning them -- Healing Spirit springs to mind, having no material component RAW you could add a consumable one that isn't perhaps expensive, but is finite. Like a small carved totem or something, maybe even something a PC could produce on rest days in preparation for an adventure. Just a spitball off the top of my head while spell components are on the mind.

[TheFryingPen]

Components are a pretty important factor for gishes (especially if you want to use a shield + 1 handed weapon) and any caster wanting to go unnoticed.

You can cast V only spells without a free hand, but S spells require you to drop/sheath your weapon. (V) S M spells can be cast with a focus weapon (like staffs or through features like sword bard, Pact Weapon invocation). S spells without M components still require a free hand though.

One thing that makes this pretty clear is the Shield spell, you can't ever use it without a weapon and shield in your hands (unless you got war caster). So if you want to be able to cast it you have to leave a hand free (likely the one which'd hold your weapon, because shield takes an action to don/doff) and then you can't take opportunity attacks. Some goes for Absorb Elements. This also shows in the design of the EK weapon bond feature imo, since it allows you to quickly recover your weapon in case it gets lost doing this.

Thanks to V and S components, you can also disarm a caster by binding and gagging him.


About control flames:
This spell very much suits a sneaky character since you can "disable" light sources. Not having a V component which would alert enemies makes a lot of sense. V components generally prevent spells from being used while sneaking (unless you want to use it to start a fight).


Using M components can also have an impact on RP. It requires to always have a focus or component pouch with you, which means you are potentially outing the PC as a spellcaster, which might cause NPC's to be more careful / suspicious about you. If something strange is going on in a village / town, you'd always suspect the foreign caster first. But I agree that the kind of materials you have to use is basically just for flavor.


tl;dr:
V components affect your sneakiness
S components affect your hand-resources
M components affect S components (focus), RP and limit some spells through cost

[Tanarii]

But I agree that the kind of materials you have to use is basically just for flavor.It has game impact if you lose your focus and/or your component pouch. After a fight in water with a character using a component pouch, I even had a DM rule I had to check each M component to see if they were something that might be ruined by submersion. It was a bit fiddly, but in general I'm cool with that kind of ruling. Especially since he depending on me just using reasonable judgement on my part and clearly expected my buy-in to the concept.

[TheCleverGuy]

One thing that makes this pretty clear is the Shield spell, you can't ever use it without a weapon and shield in your hands (unless you got war caster). So if you want to be able to cast it you have to leave a hand free (likely the one which'd hold your weapon, because shield takes an action to don/doff) and then you can't take opportunity attacks.

Doesn't the Shield spell use your reaction anyway? If you cast it, you wouldn't be able to take opportunity attacks that round anyway, since you only get one reaction.

[jas61292]

Doesn't the Shield spell use your reaction anyway? If you cast it, you wouldn't be able to take opportunity attacks that round anyway, since you only get one reaction.

Yes, but the limitation is about the ability to prepare for these things. If you are a sword and shield kinda guy, but don't have warcaster, you need to sheath your sword at the end of your turn if you want to be able to use the shield spell. But if you do so, you cannot use your sword for an opportunity attack, should that be the situation that arises instead.

Now, that said, unlike an earlier post implied, you can still make an opportunity attack in such a situation, but you would not be able to use your sword, likely limiting you to an unarmed strike, which will usually be significantly weaker.

[Tanarii]

Yes, but the limitation is about the ability to prepare for these things. If you are a sword and shield kinda guy, but don't have warcaster, you need to sheath your sword at the end of your turn if you want to be able to use the shield spell. But if you do so, you cannot use your sword for an opportunity attack, should that be the situation that arises instead.

Now, that said, unlike an earlier post implied, you can still make an opportunity attack in such a situation, but you would not be able to use your sword, likely limiting you to an unarmed strike, which will usually be significantly weaker.
Most DMs I've played with (and I as a DM) allow a player to drop their weapon to use a Shield spell. If they really want to. Of course, you just disarmed yourself. Not a disaster in 5e, especially if it's not a magic weapon that you can survive losing to someone else just taking off the ground before your next turn. But not, like, the best thing in the world either. :smallamused:

[TWrecks]

Honestly, I’d love to see spellcasting get the streamlined treatment they gave to the advantage / disadvantaged system. Verbal Somatic Material along with all the interactions with offhands, component pouches, focuses just is silly.

The system has gotten convoluted and imbalanced to some degree. Streamline this casting system and make some tweaks to spells that are completely under tuned.

[Crl1981]

Material components at least I am totally fine with spellcaster foci, however I believe all Rituals, cast as Rituals should Require everything. This would be great for adventure hooks to get the components for the party to cast things like “wish”. While not having the mage walking around looking under beds to find spiderwebs to cast his web spell.

[Spiritchaser]

I think a careful reconsideration of which spells need verbal components would be useful, but I can’t see it ever happening in an official capacity.

Right now, unless you happen to be a sorcerer with subtle spell, any spell with a verbal component is nearly certain to break stealth. In some cases that’s good, in some cases it’s interesting and in some cases it should probably change.

Pass without trace, Invisibility, greater Invisibility, mage hand, modify memory, seeming, charm person, alter self, darkness, silence and probably many others could use a review on this point.

Clearly many should, when all is said and done, retain the verbal component, but I can’t help but feel that the current balance point assigns V to too many.

[Garfunion]

You can still cast a (S)spell while wielding a two-handed weapon. You just put the weapon on your shoulder holding it with one hand and cast with the other hand. Your not going to use your action to attack, you’ve already spent it. Now if you are holding a different item in each hand, then you need to “drop” one to cast spells.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/02/2-weapon-casting/amp/

[DarkKnightJin]

Oh god I had no idea about these little jokes and it's amazing.


EDIT: Aside from that, speaking of components: I watched a video by ZeeBashew about Goodberry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHapG6kXUg) making a game of his that involved survival less challenging by it's very nature and a simple change to it's components (making it consume it's material) made the entire campaign more engaging.

Curious if other spells that people sometimes take umbrage with can't be modified in a similar way instead of outright banning them -- Healing Spirit springs to mind, having no material component RAW you could add a consumable one that isn't perhaps expensive, but is finite. Like a small carved totem or something, maybe even something a PC could produce on rest days in preparation for an adventure. Just a spitball off the top of my head while spell components are on the mind.

I saw that video, and it's a simple change that means a simple 1st level spell doesn't negate a part of the intended story for the campaign.

The DM for my Cleric has made a blanket ruling that the spells that conjure something (Create or Destroy Water, and Create Food and Water, more specifically) require the caster knowing of a place to conjure said stuff -from-.

We/I solved that by asking the guy tasked with keeping our 'base' clean and helping us out when we need some to put out a bunch of food by the well in our home's courtyard.

Which I did because we were going on a fairly long trip through a desert.
I solved the 'material component' for my spell with a bit of RP. Which was kinda fun, even if it was probably a bit superfluous in the grand scheme of things.

[Dr. Cliché]

Something else that strikes me, which really doesn't seem right, is that the components are the same regardless of spellcasting class.

Wizards using bat guano and such for spells just seems silly to me. More than that, it's weird to me how their spellbook is apparently so key to their casting, but isn't actually used when they cast a spell. You'd think that it would least act as a Focus for them or something. Or that, rather than having somatic components, they instead have to hold their spellbook open and read from it.

On a similar note, I'd have thought that a Warlock's casting (at least for non-Cantrip spells) would depend on their Pact feature. So, rather than having material components, they instead need to have their familiar within arm's reach or else be holding their Pact Weapon or Book of Shadows.

Sorcerers seem like they really shouldn't need material components. They should, if anything, be able to act as their own focus. Even verbal components seem a bit odd, given how their magic is described.
"My ancestors were dragons, their magical power flows through my veins!"
"Show us, great sorcerer. Show us your magical prowess."
"Very well, I shall give you a minor demonstration of my power and.. oh. Er, this is a little embarrassing... does anyone happen to have a pinch of sand that's coloured red, yellow and blue?"

Bards at least get to use a Musical Instrument as their focus. Although, rather depressingly, they can't substitute playing said instrument for a spell's verbal/somatic components. Once again, if they don't use a focus, most of the material components seem to have nothing to do with bards or music. But then I find 5e's Bards very strange in general.

Druids seem like the right class to using bat guano and other very natural components for spells... but then they've also got spells requiring stuff like diamond dust or gem-encrusted bowls. Doesn't really seem very druid-y to me. Their focuses are even stranger. I'd have thought that a druid's focus would need to be something that they had a very personal/spiritual relationship with, maybe something with connections to their Druid Circle (branches from the tallest tree in a Land Druid's home forest, the teeth from a Moon Druid's favourite animal or first kill). Instead, it seems like you can just buy half a dozen druidic focuses from the fantasy equivalent of Poundland. :smallconfused:

Cleric focuses probably make the most sense (being holy symbols), but the requirements of material components without it is still very weird to me.
Fighter - "Mathias, we need to find our friend. Can you use your magic to locate him?"
Cleric - "I'm sorry friends. With my holy symbol lost so too is the means by which I can invoke my Lord's divine power."
Rogue - "Hey, if it'll help, I've got a bit of fur from a bloodhound."
Fighter - "How could that possibly help?"
Cleric - "Ah, perfect! With this bit of fur, my divine connection is restored!"
Rogue - "Er, I thought you could maybe resurrect the bloodhound, but I guess this works too."

[Tanarii]

Wizards using bat guano and such for spells just seems silly to me. Why? It's been part of D&D magic-users / wizards for forty years.

OTOH, at least in 5e you can use a focus if you don't like that kind of wizardry.

[Dr. Cliché]

Why? It's been part of D&D magic-users / wizards for forty years.

Last I checked, having something be stupid for a long time doesn't make it any less stupid. :smallconfused:



OTOH, at least in 5e you can use a focus if you don't like that kind of wizardry.

Granted, but the material components still seem very out of place. And, quite honestly, the Arcane Focuses aren't much better.

[JackPhoenix]

Granted, but the material components still seem very out of place. And, quite honestly, the Arcane Focuses aren't much better.

More out of place than eye of the newt and toe of the frog?

[Tanarii]

What baseline are you using to judge "stupid" and "out of place".

I mean, I grew up with D&D, so material components for wizards seems totally normal to me. :smallamused:

But also in keeping with the lore of a scholarly wizard who pores over arcane tomes with a laboratory full of dribbly candles and skulls and alchemical glass tubes bubbling and vials of questionable things, and a raven familiar in the corner trying to figure out how to get the lid off the jar with eyeballs floating in it.

[Dr. Cliché]

More out of place than eye of the newt and toe of the frog?

For Hags and Druids? No.

For wizards as presented in D&D? Yes.


What baseline are you using to judge "stupid" and "out of place".

Minor point but I initially said 'silly'. Because I do think it's silly that wizards have to carry pouches of bat guano and such around with them. :smalltongue:

When I say that they're out of place it's because (to my mind) they don't gel at all with the manner in which wizards supposedly research and learn spells.



I mean, I grew up with D&D, so material components for wizards seems totally normal to me. :smallamused:


I also grew up with D&D and I can't say I ever thought the material component system ever seemed normal. Especially not when I sit down and think about it.



But also in keeping with the lore of a scholarly wizard who pores over arcane tomes with a laboratory full of dribbly candles and skulls and alchemical glass tubes bubbling and vials of questionable things, and a raven familiar in the corner trying to figure out how to get the lid off the jar with eyeballs floating in it.

But this is my point - if wizards actually did that, I'd be less objectionable to their material components. If their magic was based on them drawing a magic circle, placing appropriately-dribbly candles around it, throwing strange objects into a fire etc. then I'd be fine with it. Instead, all they're ever shown doing is writing stuff down in a book. And then some bat guano gets used somehow.

To be clear, I have a similar issue with druids. I'm fine with them using components like bat guano, but it's weird that they also have spells which require diamond dust, gem-encrusted bowls and the like. It seems like the skull/pelt/heart of a rare animal would make more sense.

[ImproperJustice]

It’s all another reason why I think having an arcane focus is a step in the right direction.

I know shape water being somatic only was a life saver for my EK when he fell in a watery pit and was able to create an ice flow which he then used a current to push himself towards the surface on.

Side note: Anyone remember the old days where a wizard that wanted to cast Spider Climb needed to consume a live spider?
Could you imagine practicing that at wizard school until you got it right?

[Dr. Cliché]

Side note: Anyone remember the old days where a wizard that wanted to cast Spider Climb needed to consume a live spider?
Could you imagine practicing that at wizard school until you got it right?

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Further food for thought - wizards are supposed to be researching spells, right? So wouldn't there have to be a group of wizards consuming all manner of different spiders to find out which one works best?

[JackPhoenix]

For Hags and Druids? No.

For wizards as presented in D&D? Yes.

Minor point but I initially said 'silly'. Because I do think it's silly that wizards have to carry pouches of bat guano and such around with them. :smalltongue:

When I say that they're out of place it's because (to my mind) they don't gel at all with the manner in which wizards supposedly research and learn spells.

If anything, wizards are the ones for whom it makes most sense: they don't have innate magic or get some more powerful entity or force to do stuff for them. They are normal people with the correct knowledge. Combining bat guano and sulphur fits right in there: while you wouldn't be able to make it explode off-hand, that's where the magic gets involved: you use it to enhance the natural properties of black powder's components to get the Fireball you want. Magic in Conan stories is a nice example: there's some genuine magic, but various drugs and alchemy gets passed under that label by the uniniated.

Sorcerers using the components are a problem, but then, sorcerers shouldn't be using pre-set spell list in the first place, and instead build the desired effect on the spot... making metamagic exclusive to them is the step in the right direction, but it doesn't get far enough IMO.

And if you wonder why clerics use the same components as everyone else... if you're in FR, blame Mystra, it was her idea that the same spell works the same way no matter who you are. And again, religious rituals using seemingly random stuff not directly related to the religion isn't anything new... see catholic wine and holy wafers.


To be clear, I have a similar issue with druids. I'm fine with them using components like bat guano, but it's weird that they also have spells which require diamond dust, gem-encrusted bowls and the like. It seems like the skull/pelt/heart of a rare animal would make more sense.

Why? Gems are part of the natural world, and gems having power is common fantasy trope. As for manufactured objects, golden sickles are part of druidic image... what's the difference between golden sickle and jewelled vessel? Or new-agers and their crystals and various shiny baubles. "Natural magic" isn't, and never was, just about (ab)using animals and plants.

edit:
Further food for thought - wizards are supposed to be researching spells, right? So wouldn't there have to be a group of wizards consuming all manner of different spiders to find out which one works best?

That's likely. Remember, not all wizard traditions are the same, and components were developed over time. Original Fireball may have been 6th level spell for the sorcerer who used it first... then someone who was really interested in learning magic found out that if he does the right gesture, it'll take less energy (5th level slot). Few centuries later, someone randomly discovered the correct combination of words or tone while casting knocks it down to 4th level spell... and then magicians in far-away land who regularly used bat crap in their magic out of tradition, if not for practical reasons, found out than when they tried to cast the spell they've learned from that visiting colleague from a different land, it's even easier if they use bat crap and sulphur together. That knowledge spread out, and now it's staple 3rd level spell. The original version was forgotten, because you can do the same effect much more effectively.

Now, 5e doesn't have mechanical support for this (3.5e did, with metamagic removing certain components, and increasing the spell's level), but the principle still holds.

[Dr. Cliché]

My apologies. I forgot that D&D is a flawless game. It has flawless verisimilitude and every last thing makes perfect sense.

I will know better next time than to question the wisdom of the Holy Player's Handbook.

[Tanarii]

It has flawless verisimilitude and every last thing makes perfect sense.
Given they were jokes originally ... as is a huge chunk of D&D traditions, calling them "silly" actually isn't unreasonable at all.

So yeah, sorry I came at you like that. My bad.

[Unoriginal]

D&D is silly. It's not ONLY silly, but it is silly, and it has been from the start. You have brains with legs, murder carpets, official books written by alien crime lords, and, yes, weird spell components.

Trying to remove the silliness of the brew that is D&D is like trying to remove the corniness of Star Wars or the optimism of Superman.

[ImproperJustice]

My apologies. I forgot that D&D is a flawless game. It has flawless verisimilitude and every last thing makes perfect sense.

I will know better next time than to question the wisdom of the Holy Player's Handbook.

What lead you to that conclusion?
Flipping through most of the posts here the consensus is that material components are kinda silly and mostly based on the history of the game.

There really isn’t a formula for spell design, at least as far as components go.
I think your free to tweak components in your game as much as you like and I doubt it would have much impact on gameplay.

[PhoenixPhyre]

D&D is silly. It's not ONLY silly, but it is silly, and it has been from the start. You have brains with legs, murder carpets, official books written by alien crime lords, and, yes, weird spell components.

Trying to remove the silliness of the brew that is D&D is like trying to remove the corniness of Star Wars or the optimism of Superman.

I agree. One of the big things I didn't like about the Star Wars prequels is that they took themselves way too seriously. Star Wars (and D&D) thrive on weird and corny and bad inside jokes. It's an essential part of their DNA.

[Ganymede]

Honestly, I’d love to see spellcasting get the streamlined treatment they gave to the advantage / disadvantaged system. Verbal Somatic Material along with all the interactions with offhands, component pouches, focuses just is silly.

The system has gotten convoluted and imbalanced to some degree. Streamline this casting system and make some tweaks to spells that are completely under tuned.

Yeah, I agree.

Just say a spellcaster must speak clearly and wiggle around a focus. Done.

[AureusFulgens]

Honestly, I’d love to see spellcasting get the streamlined treatment they gave to the advantage / disadvantaged system. Verbal Somatic Material along with all the interactions with offhands, component pouches, focuses just is silly.

The system has gotten convoluted and imbalanced to some degree. Streamline this casting system and make some tweaks to spells that are completely under tuned.


EDIT: Aside from that, speaking of components: I watched a video by ZeeBashew about Goodberry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHapG6kXUg) making a game of his that involved survival less challenging by it's very nature and a simple change to it's components (making it consume it's material) made the entire campaign more engaging.

Curious if other spells that people sometimes take umbrage with can't be modified in a similar way instead of outright banning them -- Healing Spirit springs to mind, having no material component RAW you could add a consumable one that isn't perhaps expensive, but is finite. Like a small carved totem or something, maybe even something a PC could produce on rest days in preparation for an adventure. Just a spitball off the top of my head while spell components are on the mind.


Material components at least I am totally fine with spellcaster foci, however I believe all Rituals, cast as Rituals should Require everything. This would be great for adventure hooks to get the components for the party to cast things like “wish”. While not having the mage walking around looking under beds to find spiderwebs to cast his web spell.


Yeah, I agree.

Just say a spellcaster must speak clearly and wiggle around a focus. Done.

All of this kind of gets into the underlying reason I started this thread, namely that I'm working on crafting a modified system of spell components for the adaptation of Breath of the Wild that I mentioned elsewhere. I'm thinking of starting a separate thread to get into the weeds of how that would work, leaving this as more of a theoretical discussion thread about how spell components work/are intended to work.

But my intention was to simplify the system into "requires a focus" and "doesn't require a focus." This thread has been bringing up a lot of things that would be eliminated by using that system, as detailed here...

Components are a pretty important factor for gishes (especially if you want to use a shield + 1 handed weapon) and any caster wanting to go unnoticed.

You can cast V only spells without a free hand, but S spells require you to drop/sheath your weapon. (V) S M spells can be cast with a focus weapon (like staffs or through features like sword bard, Pact Weapon invocation). S spells without M components still require a free hand though.

One thing that makes this pretty clear is the Shield spell, you can't ever use it without a weapon and shield in your hands (unless you got war caster). So if you want to be able to cast it you have to leave a hand free (likely the one which'd hold your weapon, because shield takes an action to don/doff) and then you can't take opportunity attacks. Some goes for Absorb Elements. This also shows in the design of the EK weapon bond feature imo, since it allows you to quickly recover your weapon in case it gets lost doing this.

Thanks to V and S components, you can also disarm a caster by binding and gagging him.


About control flames:
This spell very much suits a sneaky character since you can "disable" light sources. Not having a V component which would alert enemies makes a lot of sense. V components generally prevent spells from being used while sneaking (unless you want to use it to start a fight).


Using M components can also have an impact on RP. It requires to always have a focus or component pouch with you, which means you are potentially outing the PC as a spellcaster, which might cause NPC's to be more careful / suspicious about you. If something strange is going on in a village / town, you'd always suspect the foreign caster first. But I agree that the kind of materials you have to use is basically just for flavor.


tl;dr:
V components affect your sneakiness
S components affect your hand-resources
M components affect S components (focus), RP and limit some spells through cost



Essentially, you'd lost a lot of the little subtleties that TheFryingPen mentions here. There are spells you can cast without moving, or without talking, which are separate; spellcasters with weapons are affected differently... Of course, a lot of tables just plain ignore these, so it's not likely that a lot of tables would miss them. But I like the tactical implications, and I'd miss the potential for enforcing them.

If we had the Silent Spell and Still Spell feats in existence in 5e, that could help. It could be an option to selectively make one spell silent if the situation calls for it. But in turn, that steps on the Sorcerer's conceptual toes in 5e. So, essentially, I'm tugging at the threads of a rather complex system that's intertwined with a lot of aspects of the game, and there's the potential to accidentally unravel things I didn't mean to if I pull the wrong way.

I've also been thinking about removing several classes of spells from the standard spell list and instead tethering them to magic items that allow a limited number of castings - area-effect damaging spells being a big group that I'd like to give this treatment. I suppose this would accomplish the same thing as consumable material components.

[Jophiel]

Someone pointed that out to me. The components for Fireball are the components for a little bit of gunpowder...
Not as bad as the 1e Unearthed Arcana cantrip "Firefinger" where you produce a lick of flame from your finger by saying "Zippo" :smalltongue:

To be fair, you could also say "Ronson" or "Dunhill" depending on your preferred brand