We have all had it happen:a party member gets petrified and the cleric uses greater restoration, doesn't have 100gp worth of diamond dust. (Just an example) what do you do in this scenario? Do you say "no,you don't have the components,so your friend stays a statue"? No,cause that's no fun for anyone! I recommend,rather then tell them no,simply reduce the gold hord from the next boss. For example,if you had planned on giveing the party 1k gold for killing the boss,but on the way there they used 300gp worth so spell components they didn't have,the treasure ends up only being 700gp. The best part is,they likely won't even know you changed the amount of gold they would have gotten,but you know the scales are balanced.

This is how I would work it. What are your thoughts?

Edit: to clear up a misunderstanding,I would obviously tell them that the material components are needed,but in cases like say,rumblecusp,I feel that it would be better on a story level to hand waive it and just have them pay the gold cost with their future gold,rather theit current gold. (If you don't understand the rumblecusp reference, dont Google it,if you do,don't spoil it.)

I tell them “I’ll let it work this time, but from now on you have to start keeping track of this stuff or it won’t work next time.”

I would agree with IamSposta if they said they cast it, and you didn't check if they had the component, and it was an honest oversight.

But that's not what you're describing. You're describing a situation where they didn't plan ahead, need the spell, don't have the component, and both the DM and the Players realize it.

In that case, IMHO, If they don't have the component, they don't get to cast the spell. 

You say that you'd let them cast the spell, "cause that's no fun for anyone".  However, you don't know what they'd do. There might be a whole other adventure finding a diamond, or a Cleric who can cast the spell. Maybe they end up hiring the local brigands to help them lug back the statue of their friend to town to be restored. Or any number of creative Player solutions to their situation.

The role of the DM is not to solve situations for the Players. Part of the Player fun - IMHO and for many people I know ( although possibly not everyone ) - is solving problems, and finding creative solutions for tricky situations. If you just hand wave a problem away, you're taking that from the Players.

"The best part is,they likely won't even know you changed the amount of gold they would have gotten,but you know the scales are balanced" - sorry, but this is exactly opposite of the way I think it should be. If Players don't know there are consequences for their choices, they won't learn to change their behavior. It doesn't matter if the DM knows the scales are balanced, but it's crucial that Players know there are consequences for their actions, and that the world to work consistently and predicatively for them. Are you planning on removing the requirement for the spell component entirely? Or are you saying "sometimes you need it, and sometimes you don't" - in which case how do your Players make meaningful choices when things work sometimes and sometimes not?

I'm of the opinion that you run the world according to the rules you have in play ( whatever you and your Players have agreed to ), and trust in their ability to find their own solutions. Don't play the game for them.

Edit: One possible issue that you probably should deal with is what do you do with the Player forced to sit out the game because their Character is petrified. In such a case, I'd issue them temporary control of some NPC, so they can still play, and step back into their Character's shoes when they get restored. 

I try not to do things like petrify or curse unless I'm sure the party has access to both the spell and the components for it.

But in some cases you can't help these sorts of things and it may be that they had the spell & components and used them for something else unexpected. In that case I would probably follow what IamSposta suggests above, although it would highly depend on the circumstance. For instance, I am far less forgiving if I think the party was being careless than if I screwed up and put in a bad guy that was too powerful.

Quote from DnDNewper >>

We have all had it happen:a party member gets petrified and the cleric uses greater restoration, doesn't have 100gp worth of diamond dust. (Just an example) what do you do in this scenario? Do you say "no,you don't have the components,so your friend stays a statue"?

 Yes? Why did you put in a monster with a petrified attack and not just include a cure in loot if you weren't willing to deal with someone being a statue?

Oh, I let them know in session 0 that stuff like petrification and PC death we’re on the table. I won’t do it to a party of Level 1s, but if they’re 5th level and up and haven’t prepared for the “just in case” then that’s on them. I curate an interesting world full of people, places, and things, each often with their own agendas and abilities. Stuff like basilisks exist, you’ve been warned, “Caveat Player” so to speak.

 Yes? Why did you put in a monster with a petrified attack and not just include a cure in loot if you weren't willing to deal with someone being a statue?

Welllll.... speaking for myself, I don't like to put the cure for the thing that just hit them in the loot of the monster that hit them with it. That just seems a little too... not sure "on the nose" is the right metaphor but it is definitely too much of a coincidence. Why would a basilisk have a restoration scroll or diamond dust in his loot, for example?

I will usually seed these things into the loot ahead of time if possible... If the petrifying monster is on level 3 of the dungeon, they might find a restore scroll or a 100 gp value diamond or whatever they need in the level 2 or level 1 loot of that dungeon (just to use a simple example). Now... if they happen to miss the loot for some reason (not searching the room) or use that for something else (e.g., use greater restore when lesser will do because "let's save the spell slots"), then that is their problem. I gave them an out and they missed or misused it.

Quote from BioWizard >>

 Yes? Why did you put in a monster with a petrified attack and not just include a cure in loot if you weren't willing to deal with someone being a statue?

 

Welllll.... speaking for myself, I don't like to put the cure for the thing that just hit them in the loot of the monster that hit them with it. That just seems a little too... not sure "on the nose" is the right metaphor but it is definitely too much of a coincidence. Why would a basilisk have a restoration scroll or diamond dust in his loot, for example?

 My point wasn't that the loot should always be there. My point was that, if you're unwilling to leave a PC petrified for a bit, you should put it in the loot.

@IamSposta

I'd be totally fine putting the basilisk in the adventure, for a 1st level Party, but I would never surprise them with it. There would be enough clues salted into the adventure that they're going to realize that it's there.

Then it's up to them to find a way around or through it, and make provisions to deal with its abilities. Or not. But it's their choice.

I'm totally fine creating completely unbalanced situations for a Party to deal with - but I would never ask them to do it blindly. 

I've seen some impressively creative and successful tactics for dealing with situations way above a Party's abilities "on paper" - things I'd never have seen had I baked an obvious solution into the game for them from the beginning.

I think either option is fine. Either don't use costly components or do enforce spell component costs- but do so consistently. If costs for things don't matter if you really need them, then why bother preparing in advance? Then, if you do enforce costs, players will complain. On the other hand, if you don't enforce costs most of the time, then suddenly do for certain spells, then it feels like you're punishing players for something you never set them up to care about.

I personally don't like many of the spell component costs in 5e. I feel like a lot of them are balanced around a 3.5e economy and don't make a ton of sense in 5e, which is generally more fluid. However, what I do like is having spell component materials. Generally, if the spell has a generic cost like diamond dust, I waive it, but for a spell like clairvoiance that has flavorful material components, I like to have them in for fluff. Whether I make players pay for it depends on how much I care about the economy of the campaign. Some players really like bookkeeping. Others want to tell stories. Some parties track every gold piece and sell every shortsword or dagger they loot, and others just sort of say "Do we get any treasure for killing the dragon?" Particularly expensive or powerful spells (like resurrection spells) might have an enforced cost because that's circumventing a narrative moment (a character death) and so forcing the party to pay for that heightens the narrative tension- though I don't particularly like resurrection after more than a few combat rounds anyway, since I think it kills the story impact of death, though I do recognize that sometimes it can fix having bad dice for a night. Having to do bookkeeping to see who has enough GP to go to town to buy diamond dust to un-statue the paladin is not helping the narrative- there's no risk or tension of not doing it in a timely manner other than being down the paladin (which sucks for the player who can't do anything). Now, part of that is that I personally don't think restoration spells should have material costs, just like  healing spells don't, and that's a personal argument for those particular spells. But generally I feel like enforcing some of the more draconian or obscure spell materials or costs feels like I'm punishing the party for using those spells, and I don't like that.

So, to summarize my opinion, I personally don't often enforce material costs (though I like to have the materials used as part of the spell for fluff, I don't usually make players pay for it unless it makes sense), but I believe that it's more important to be consistent and either make everyone pay for spells all the time or never charge for spells instead of making it "Well, this would suck for the story, so the chests miraculously have exactly what you need" or "I'm going to waive the cost this time", which makes it feel like the cost doesn't matter yet still hangs over the party's head.

Quote from Vedexent >>

@IamSposta

I'd be totally fine putting the basilisk in the adventure, for a 1st level Party, but I would never surprise them with it. There would be enough clues salted into the adventure that they're going to realize that it's there.

Then it's up to them to find a way around or through it, and make provisions to deal with its abilities. Or not. But it's their choice.

I'm totally fine creating completely unbalanced situations for a Party to deal with - but I would never ask them to do it blindly. 

I've seen some impressively creative and successful tactics for dealing with situations way above a Party's abilities "on paper" - things I'd never have seen had I baked an obvious solution into the game for them from the beginning.

 Parties in campaigns I DM usually hit level 2 before the end of the first session, level 3 by the end of the third session.

I would dribble out diamond dust leading up to the encounter, 20 gp worth here, 40 there, enough so they could have their 100 gp worth by the time the basilisk rolled around, as long as they didn’t sell it off. It makes it less obvious what’s happening, (if you find exactly 100 gp of diamond dust, you can make a pretty good guess what’s coming soon) but an experienced player should know to save it up and keep track. 
The bigger problem can be if it’s the cleric that gets petrified and there’s no one else who can cast the spell. 

Or Willowshade Oil, or if a PC has proficiency with Herbalism Kit, then maybe just willowshade.

I'm a bit tempted to change all of Lesser Restoration, Remove Curse, and Greater Restoration to "Material: a substance specific to the the condition being removed, which is consumed in the casting. Unless otherwise noted, appropriate materials can be harvested from the corpse of the creature that applied the condition, or another similar creature". Thus, if you want to remove petrified, you just have to kill the basilisk, harvest the materials from its corpse, and cast the spell. If you didn't kill the monster, or it didn't leave a corpse for whatever reason, it may be side-quest time.

Maybe I'm just too harsh, but I do warn them up front about Spell Components that have a listed cost.  I expect them to take a focus instead of a component pouch for most things so they don't have to dig around for an eye of newt's eyelash or whatever, but if it lists that you need a 100 GP Pearl to cast the spell, they have to show that.  And if they don't look up what is needed for some important contingency plans (Diamonds for Revivify for example), then they need to get creative with the consequences.  And nope... I'm not seeding spell components too often in dungeons.  There will be some things in there that could help... but I'm not giving them an answer, especially for things that they should be doing outside of game time.  And if someone has to sit there for some time while everyone else tries to figure out how to save them... that's fine.  We talk about it ahead of time... and I've certainly done my share of waiting when combat went too long to cast revivify on my PC and they had to figure out how to get me to town in time enough to find someone high enough level to cast a spell that would work.  

I guess partly I don't buy into much of the modern Video Game mentality for tabletop games.  I mean, we sat down and meditated to help mana regenerate fast enough in Norrath... there was plenty of downtime.  I see games like Warcraft going for faster and faster with less and less leveling just so everyone gets to end game as fast as possible.  I really don't subscribe to that mentality.  I believe the adventure is in the journey, not the destination.  Taking away the steps of the journey to help speed along the end game does not promote a better story for me.  And to be fair, if someone has some time where they can't participate at the table because of petrification or death... they are going to get some extra time focused on their character in the healing portion of getting them out of that state.  There can be balance.  There can be growth... and there can be stories that live longer because we took the patience to engage in them.  And if a player can learn to be prepared for a deadly consequence by learning in a frustrating circumstance, then not only does the player of the injured character grow, but so does the spell caster and by the same token, I feel that I do to some degree as well.  I do remind them when they are in town and looking for magical supplies and trinkets if there is anything else they might need, like spell components.

Quote from Grayfax >>

Maybe I'm just too harsh, but I do warn them up front about Spell Components that have a listed cost.  I expect them to take a focus instead of a component pouch for most things so they don't have to dig around for an eye of newt's eyelash or whatever, but if it lists that you need a 100 GP Pearl to cast the spell, they have to show that.

 
There’s no difference in what spell components the PC needs on hand with the Focus or the Spell Component pouch - both of them make the trivial components irrelevant and the PC still needs to buy the GP-cost components beforehand. The difference is the Component Pouch is kept in inventory (and able to be stolen) and the Focus is kept in hand (and able to be disarmed).

I don't think that's actually harsh.

I don't see not wanting to build obvious "in your face" solutions directly into an adventure design as a case of "punishing dumb Players for not thinking ahead". I see it as a case of having faith in my Players to come up with creative ( sometimes wacky ) solutions when the obvious solution isn't available for them, and finding adventure and cool story moments in implementing those solutions.

Perhaps I have been atypically blessed with competent Players.

I usually give them a pass the first time it occurs, or the first few times if they’re brand new players. After that, they have to have the component to cast the spell. I do remind them to possibly pick up spell components when they’re shopping, so if they don’t have the components it’s because of a choice they made instead of forgetfulness.

Quote from Xalthu >>

I would dribble out diamond dust leading up to the encounter, 20 gp worth here, 40 there, enough so they could have their 100 gp worth by the time the basilisk rolled around, as long as they didn’t sell it off. It makes it less obvious what’s happening, (if you find exactly 100 gp of diamond dust, you can make a pretty good guess what’s coming soon) but an experienced player should know to save it up and keep track. 
The bigger problem can be if it’s the cleric that gets petrified and there’s no one else who can cast the spell. 

 THIS. I have a few new players in my campaign and even the most experienced players were only moderately so. The first time I planned an encounter that I was reasonably sure had a possibility of killing one of them, I made sure to work a diamond worth 300gp (revivify) into a treasure haul they found a few encounters prior. The cleric put it together, and after that encounter I talked to the party about components and their importance, and they've been much more conscious about keeping the important components on them ever since. 

Depends on the components and the general feel of the campaign.

But usually, if they're in a position to get all the components before going into the dungeon just by spending money, I just treat it as a GP cost. I prefer to assume that the spellcaster of the party has bought whatever spell components are needed for all their spells -  If they've got 2000 gold, no need to track that 200 of that is diamond dust, and one 100gp pearl, and so on. Same as how past first level or so I don't make people track nonmagical ammunition, because come on, everyone can buy as many arrows as they need, it's just boring accounting.

If the cost actually IS a significant cost (i.e. more money than the players have, or something they would not have been able to access in this campaign without a quest) then sure, track the components. In that case probably they don't have the component without a specific quest to get it.