Balancing bad mechanics

[Red Fel]

So, the idea is: Balancing spells and spellcasters by enforcing material components. With the basic rules of:

• The spellcasters must keep track of each individual material component and it's use. So if it says ''a pinch'' of dust, they would keep track of ''25 pinches'' of dust.
• The game has Old School flavor, so a character can stock up on material components, but they can't go crazy and have like 1,000 hawk feathers. And their are no extra-deminsional bags of cheating.
• The player can restock, but only if it is not disruptive to the game.
• Material components from creatures other then vermin or animals, have a gold cost of more then one.

This list is contradictory. Here, in a nutshell, is why:

• You have specifically required that spellcasters must stock up on and track their material components, but cannot store excessive amounts of them, and must generally pay substantial amounts of money for them.
• You have also specifically required that this detailed tracking, which therefore also requires extensive shopping and accounting for the cost of each item, cannot be disruptive to the game.

That leaves you with several possible results.

• A player does not play a spellcaster. Consider the class effectively banned.
• A player plays a spellcaster but does not track material components. He is in violation of the tracking requirement.
• A player plays a spellcaster and tracks his components, but stocks them in excessive amounts via extradimensional storage as a matter of convenience. He is in violation of the excessive storage preclusion.
• A player plays a spellcaster, tracks his components, and only stocks up on finite amounts of each. Each time he is in town, he spends time going over his list of components to determine how many of each he will need, as well as the cost of each. He has to spend time on this, because this is a time-consuming activity. He is in violation of the non-disruptive requirement.
• A player plays a spellcaster, tracks his components, stocks up on finite amounts of each, and is proactive enough to provide a list of required components and costs immediately upon arrival in town. He is rewarded for adhering to the rules with a bill, requiring a not-insubstantial dent to be made in his coffers.
• A player throws up his hands in frustration and plays a non-caster. Consider the class effectively banned.

Please tell me which of these players is being unreasonable. Your position - that you only game with reasonable players, and that reasonable players would adhere to the rules you've set out - assumes that anyone who responds in a manner described above is being unreasonable.

I agree that the ones who violate the first two rules - not tracking components when it's required, using extradimensional storage when it's banned - are being unreasonable. But what about the one who has to take time to buy things? You've told him he has to shop, and simultaneously told him he cannot take the time to do so. And what about the one who adheres to all of the rules? How is it reasonable that he meets this high bar and is taxed for his efforts?

Grod's rule is sensible, although I might suggest working on the title a bit better. (How do you intend to sell copies?) Basically, you will scare away the reasonable players and encourage the unreasonable ones to try to find a work-around. And if, as you say, you don't play with unreasonable players, that leaves you with nobody willing to play a caster. In an attempt to balance the mechanics, you have rendered them sufficiently undesirable and onerous as to deter people from spellcasting altogether.

[eggynack]

Grod's rule is sensible, although I might suggest working on the title a bit better.

I actually kinda like it as Grod's rule, or perhaps Grod's law, to call in vaguely religious connotations, or at least vaguely Adventure Time religious connotations. It's a thing that makes less sense as a fallacy, as it's kinda its own idea, rather than a refutation of a commonly used argument that is incorrect. I mean, sure, I bet folks balance stuff by making it annoying all the time, but they probably don't usually actively think about it in that way.

[Curmudgeon]

The purpose of this rule change is to address a problem: spellcasters deal with most every problem with a single standard action. Material components are supposed to restrict spellcasting in some cases, but in practice they do not.

Here's one alternative way to go about this:

• Spell component pouches do not exist.
• Eschew Materials becomes a +1 level metamagic feat, applied to each spell exactly like Silent Spell and Still Spell.

The result of this would be that spellcasters either have to pay the +1 level metamagic cost, or they need as many move actions to retrieve stored items as there are components listed for the spell. So Endure Elements (no material components) would be unchanged; Fireball (1 component) would require an extra move action to cast; and Flaming Sphere's components ("a bit of tallow, a pinch of brimstone, and a dusting of powdered iron") would add 3 move actions before the casting can begin.

We can keep the assumption that spellcasters gather their components "off screen" and have what they need (unless kidnapped and stripped of their gear); the bookkeeping of individual components really doesn't add any fun to the game. But if we've already got components written into individual spells, just counting them and using that as spell overhead will drop spellcasting power down a notch by hitting casters where it matters: in the action economy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I actually kinda like it as Grod's rule, or perhaps Grod's law, to call in vaguely religious connotations, or at least vaguely Adventure Time religious connotations. It's a thing that makes less sense as a fallacy, as it's kinda its own idea, rather than a refutation of a commonly used argument that is incorrect. I mean, sure, I bet folks balance stuff by making it annoying all the time, but they probably don't usually actively think about it in that way.

I'll accept Grod's Law.

[eggynack]

The purpose of this rule change is to address a problem: spellcasters deal with most every problem with a single standard action. Material components are supposed to restrict spellcasting in some cases, but in practice they do not.

Here's one alternative way to go about this:

• Spell component pouches do not exist.
• Eschew Materials becomes a +1 level metamagic feat, applied to each spell exactly like Silent Spell and Still Spell.

The result of this would be that spellcasters either have to pay the +1 level metamagic cost, or they need as many move actions to retrieve stored items as there are components listed for the spell. So Endure Elements (no material components) would be unchanged; Fireball (1 component) would require an extra move action to cast; and Flaming Sphere's components ("a bit of tallow, a pinch of brimstone, and a dusting of powdered iron") would add 3 move actions before the casting can begin.

We can keep the assumption that spellcasters gather their components "off screen" and have what they need (unless kidnapped and stripped of their gear); the bookkeeping of individual components really doesn't add any fun to the game. But if we've already got components written into individual spells, just counting them and using that as spell overhead will drop spellcasting power down a notch by hitting casters where it matters: in the action economy.

That's kinda an odd way to do it, as I don't think spells are currently balanced around this factor. I mean, really, why would flaming sphere need three move actions to cast? It's pretty mediocre already. With this house rule, I'd think the best way to work it would be to alter the material components themselves, such that more powerful spells actually do have more components. I don't think that any rule that nerfs confusion more than polymorph (assuming the three nut shells count as separate items for this) is one that should be taken all that seriously.

[flare'90]

The purpose of this rule change is to address a problem: spellcasters deal with most every problem with a single standard action. Material components are supposed to restrict spellcasting in some cases, but in practice they do not.

Here's one alternative way to go about this:

• Spell component pouches do not exist.
• Eschew Materials becomes a +1 level metamagic feat, applied to each spell exactly like Silent Spell and Still Spell.

The result of this would be that spellcasters either have to pay the +1 level metamagic cost, or they need as many move actions to retrieve stored items as there are components listed for the spell. So Endure Elements (no material components) would be unchanged; Fireball (1 component) would require an extra move action to cast; and Flaming Sphere's components ("a bit of tallow, a pinch of brimstone, and a dusting of powdered iron") would add 3 move actions before the casting can begin.

We can keep the assumption that spellcasters gather their components "off screen" and have what they need (unless kidnapped and stripped of their gear); the bookkeeping of individual components really doesn't add any fun to the game. But if we've already got components written into individual spells, just counting them and using that as spell overhead will drop spellcasting power down a notch by hitting casters where it matters: in the action economy.

In 3.0 wasn't Eschew Materials actually a +0 metamagic feat?

Also, isn't simpler to say that retrieving any number of stored material components is a move action and be done with it, rather than count how many material components are needed?

[Brookshw]

Ya know, I really didn't take jedi's comment regarding the extradimensional bag cheating literally, more that he's just referencing the infinite ammo spell pouch in a coy way.

Interesting thoughts by curmudgeon though I'd suggest components be in "spell ammo" packets so its one move per spell.

Can't say an ammo limit is that bad personally, didn't bother me as a player in older editions.

It doesn't really balance things much though.

[Curmudgeon]

Also, isn't simpler to say that retrieving any number of stored material components is a move action and be done with it, rather than count how many material components are needed?

It is simpler. It's further away from the OP's goal of keeping track of individual components, but I'd prefer the simpler approach myself.

[Brookshw]

So how about quick draw?

[eggynack]

Y'know, I actually think the magic component crystal method of doing this might be enough to maintain the integrity of this rule set without being horribly insane. You have eight separate varieties of magic crystals, each of which can be commonly and easily found in some regions of the world. Maybe tie it to the environment, with maybe deserts providing illusion (cause mirages), and maybe beach regions providing transmutation (cause tides mean a constant state of flux), and so on. You impose the arbitrary limit on crystals you can keep in one place, because having enough crystals of one type near you when you use magic will cause them to explode, cause magic. Let's set the limit at 99, or maybe 49, cause it has a classy RPG feel, but other setups will work as well. You could also have several varieties of crystal in some locations, or maybe in all locations, but presumably not all of them.

I think that solves most of the problems with the mechanic. You don't need to keep track of every component for every spell, cause there's only eight of them to keep track of, and notably, even less for something like a beguiler or focused specialist (this might be a little imbalancing, but meh, crazy elven generalist domain wizard is probably better anyway), which helps with the nerfing crap casters problem. The lower your spell versatility, the easier this is. There is no solo questing required, because these crystals flow like water wherever they're available. The arbitrary limit is a bit less arbitrary, owing to how arbitrary magic is already. Overall, I think that you'd be able to get a reasonably unannoying material component system out of the deal, and if you tweak it some, you'd probably get something like marginally increased balance.

[Curmudgeon]

So how about quick draw?

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action.

If the spell component happens to be a weapon, Quick Draw applies.

[squiggit]

Lastly, mundane characters are naturally subject to numerous logistical challenges regarding equipment weight, ammunition, etc., and it isn't terribly unfair to subject others to the same standard.

That seems more like a good argument for not making characters track mundane ammunition and other such trivialities than giving spellcasters a spreadsheet/one less feat too.

[flare'90]

If the spell component happens to be a weapon, Quick Draw applies.

On top of my mind this would work for Ring of Blades, which require a dagger. If a component could be treated as an improvised weapon you could quick draw it.

[Brookshw]

If the spell component happens to be a weapon, Quick Draw applies.

The quick draw rules were written under the assumption drawing spell components was not a move action. Should that be reconsidered and extended to spell components if we were to go this route?

[Boci]

Why don't the people who advocate this more realistic take on spell components post their system, or PM it to a couple of us? They keep saying "its not much effort" "its worth it" "its a good edition to the game". Well then show us the product.

[jedipotter]

So the question is, which is it? Do they enjoy it, in which case the spell components are just adding more RP of a sort that they like and won't actually prevent people from doing the same stuff with magic that has you concerned? Or do they dislike it, in which case you're actively making your game less fun for your players?

Both and neither? I have two set permanent groups going back years. Group 1 loves my ''1E feel'' and Group 2 has grown to like it. No problems there. I get a bit of infamy, as people talk about my games. They will tell the story of how they fought a single black dragon for five hours, were down to like two hit points each, and just barely managed to kill it. Then they will talk to others where the characters took on whole mountains full of dragons in like twenty minutes. All the players in my game had a fun time, even ''Dragonbait'' Andy who had his character killed six times by the dragon. The players of the million dragon slaughter had some fun, but it does not seem to be as much as my game....and they will ask ''why was one dragon so hard? My warblade necroplitain ninja-wizard of Ill Omen killed like 12 dragons a round?'' I'll explain my game is different. They will keep slaughtering all the monsters from A to Z, and keep hearing crazy fun stories from my game. Then they might ask for me to run a game for them, that is where ''new'' players come from....

What. Just WHAT? Extradimensional storage, which everyone and their mother has, is cheating?! Of all the things on this list, I find this the most egregiously bad. I have not ever had a character over fifth level without at least a Handy Haversack. Having one of the defining items of D&D, a Bag of Holding, is cheating. What.

Yep, no storage. They do not exist.

Why? Some magical beasts are just as common, as are many monstrous humanoids and humanoids. So why do they cost more?

So you can't overcome them with a single feat , obviously. The rules here are a bit bad. A humanoid brain, gorgon's blood, and an oni eyelash are all ''free'' components as the writers could not bother to put a cost by them. I fix that. I get a laugh thinking someone plays the game with a spell component pouch full of humanoid brains...lol

[Boci]

So can we see the full write up?

[TheIronGolem]

Yep, no storage. They do not exist.

He didn't ask you to confirm whether or not they exist in your game, which he obviously already understood they don't.

He asked you if you really consider them to be cheating. And do remember that this is a context where you implied that it's "cheating" in any game, not just yours where you ruled them out.

[Synar]

I'll accept Grod's Law.

Well, when I reference it, I will call it Grod's rule anyway

[eggynack]

He asked you if you really consider them to be cheating. And do remember that this is a context where you implied that it's "cheating" in any game, not just yours where you ruled them out.

It pretty much implies any context just through the use of the term "Cheating". In particular, it's not so much cheating to use an item that doesn't exist as it is a non-object. The idea of this being cheating doesn't even make sense. I'm pretty sure that jedipotter just doesn't know what cheating means, because it doesn't seem like he's used the term correctly once. I guess that in his universe, it just means, "Things I don't like."

[TheIronGolem]

It pretty much implies any context just through the use of the term "Cheating". In particular, it's not so much cheating to use an item that doesn't exist as it is a non-object. The idea of this being cheating doesn't even make sense. I'm pretty sure that jedipotter just doesn't know what cheating means, because it doesn't seem like he's used the term correctly once. I guess that it his universe, it just means, "Things I don't like."

I suspect so, yes. It would certainly be consistent with his usage of the term that I've seen in the past.

[Curmudgeon]

If a component could be treated as an improvised weapon you could quick draw it.

No, I don't think so. A random item only becomes an improvised weapon when you use it as such in combat.

Improvised Weapons

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.

When you're just retrieving an item, it's either an actual weapon and Quick Draw applies or it's not and QD doesn't apply. Otherwise you could claim that anything is a (potentially) improvised weapon, like a pinch of <whatever> could be tossed into someone's eyes. The rules require use in combat; "could be" doesn't count.

[AuraTwilight]

Both and neither? I have two set permanent groups going back years. Group 1 loves my ''1E feel'' and Group 2 has grown to like it. No problems there. I get a bit of infamy, as people talk about my games. They will tell the story of how they fought a single black dragon for five hours, were down to like two hit points each, and just barely managed to kill it. Then they will talk to others where the characters took on whole mountains full of dragons in like twenty minutes. All the players in my game had a fun time, even ''Dragonbait'' Andy who had his character killed six times by the dragon. The players of the million dragon slaughter had some fun, but it does not seem to be as much as my game....and they will ask ''why was one dragon so hard? My warblade necroplitain ninja-wizard of Ill Omen killed like 12 dragons a round?'' I'll explain my game is different. They will keep slaughtering all the monsters from A to Z, and keep hearing crazy fun stories from my game. Then they might ask for me to run a game for them, that is where ''new'' players come from....

I'm pretty sure you're engaging in hyperbole to establish contrast, but I think everyone can agree that any game that involves killing 12 dragons every 6 seconds is an outlier that doesn't really represent 3.x games in a statistically meaningful way.

It's like you honestly believe there is no middle ground between people digging in the dirt for a breadcrumb of power Hackmaster-style and super-omnipotent Mega-Godmode Optimizing.

[Brookshw]

No, I don't think so. A random item only becomes an improvised weapon when you use it as such in combat. When you're just retrieving an item, it's either an actual weapon and Quick Draw applies or it's not and QD doesn't apply. Otherwise you could claim that anything is a (potentially) improvised weapon, like a pinch of <whatever> could be tossed into someone's eyes. The rules require use in combat; "could be" doesn't count.

I dont agree with the evidence you've provided. Used in combat does not equal used as part of an attack. A healing potion drank in combat is still used in combat.

[Curmudgeon]

I dont agree with the evidence you've provided. Used in combat does not equal used as part of an attack. A healing potion drank in combat is still used in combat.

Use in combat as a weapon is what's required for something to qualify. Quaffing a potion isn't using it as a weapon.

[Boci]

Use in combat as a weapon is what's required for something to qualify. Quaffing a potion isn't using it as a weapon.

But using a potion as an improvised weapon means it qualifies. So just have a craft contingency programmed amnesia that triggers when you QD the potion makes you forget to attack with with it, and then you can draw it as a free action, forget to attack, shrug, drink it.

[Curmudgeon]

But using a potion as an improvised weapon means it qualifies.

It qualifies as a weapon upon use as such in combat, as per the rules. It doesn't start qualifying before then.

[Boci]

It qualifies as a weapon upon use as such in combat, as per the rules. It doesn't start qualifying before then.

Fair enough.

[eggynack]

It qualifies as a weapon upon use as such in combat, as per the rules. It doesn't start qualifying before then.

That doesn't really make sense unless you're arguing that no improvised weapon can ever qualify for quick draw.

[Elderand]

That doesn't really make sense unless you're arguing that no improvised weapon can ever qualify for quick draw.

Which is exactly what he is doing.