I'm confident that RAI is that you need to actually provide the component even though it has no listed cost, but RAW doesn't say that.
It doesn't?
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component (PHB p.203)
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Anyone else just want to agree that the rules aren't really clear on this subject and to just go with whatever their DM says?
Because I feel like everything worth being said was said a while ago and now people are just arguing with tangential hypotheticals...
Because this is the Rules and Mechanics section and therefore we are, in theory, discussing what RAW is, rather than what our homebrew ideas on the subject are.
Some of the discussion is getting pretty off from RAW. Like fractions of a consumable.
If the component is supposed to be infinitely renewable why is it consumed? And why do components without a cost listed in the spell always have costs elsewhere in the rules?
If it is assumed that we can always refill a component pouch with as much of a component as we need passively, then does that mean we passively accumulate an infinite supply of holy water over time? Or an infinite length of rope (for snare)?
It is much easier to assume that this is one more of many poorly defined rules than it is to assume that adventurers passively collect an endless supply of precious metals from the ground.
And it being that this is a poorly written rule, it is up to your DMs to decide if the spells consume a costly component or don't consume a costly component. And there is nothing left to debate.
You fundamentally do not understand the entire purpose of the component pouch or the foci. They exist to eliminate the need to track this garbage that would otherwise clutter up your inventory sheet and require tracking, time, mental energy, that some people just. Do. Not. Find. Fun.
If you don't want to entirely skip component tracking, just eliminate the component pouch or foci from your game, or choose not to equip your character with one and track how many uses of cricket legs you got in your pocket.
But, by RAW, the pouch/foci eliminates the need to get this granular. Does it makes sense when you try to analyze it from a granular tracking perspective??? Of course not. It is a hand-wave device whose entire purpose is to not look at it this granularly.
The pouch/foci does eliminate this issue for about 95% of material component spells where the component isn't consumed, and I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with that. Most people additionally accept that you have to provide items of value, which covers most of the remainder. At issue here are the very limited number of spells that require components to be consumed, but don't provide a value for those components. That is approximately 5 spells (the two demon summoning ones, snare, PfE&G, maybe one or two others). This is not the burden you seem to think it is on players to additionally track the materials for those spells.
The M component for summon lesser demons is not consumed at all. There is no consumed component, nor is there a specified value, so it can totally be replaced with either a pouch or a focus.
Again, it is consumed, explicity in the spell text, if you use the vial to make the protective circle. Please read the full spell description, it is plain as day there.
As part of casting the spell, you can form a circle on the ground with the blood used as a material component. The circle is large enough to encompass your space. While the spell lasts, the summoned demons can’t cross the circle or harm it, and they can’t target anyone within it. Using the material component in this manner consumes it when the spell ends.
Anyone else just want to agree that the rules aren't really clear on this subject and to just go with whatever their DM says?
Because I feel like everything worth being said was said a while ago and now people are just arguing with tangential hypotheticals...
Because this is the Rules and Mechanics section and therefore we are, in theory, discussing what RAW is, rather than what our homebrew ideas on the subject are.
Some of the discussion is getting pretty off from RAW. Like fractions of a consumable.
If the component is supposed to be infinitely renewable why is it consumed? And why do components without a cost listed in the spell always have costs elsewhere in the rules?
If it is assumed that we can always refill a component pouch with as much of a component as we need passively, then does that mean we passively accumulate an infinite supply of holy water over time? Or an infinite length of rope (for snare)?
It is much easier to assume that this is one more of many poorly defined rules than it is to assume that adventurers passively collect an endless supply of precious metals from the ground.
And it being that this is a poorly written rule, it is up to your DMs to decide if the spells consume a costly component or don't consume a costly component. And there is nothing left to debate.
You fundamentally do not understand the entire purpose of the component pouch or the foci. They exist to eliminate the need to track this garbage that would otherwise clutter up your inventory sheet and require tracking, time, mental energy, that some people just. Do. Not. Find. Fun.
If you don't want to entirely skip component tracking, just eliminate the component pouch or foci from your game, or choose not to equip your character with one and track how many uses of cricket legs you got in your pocket.
But, by RAW, the pouch/foci eliminates the need to get this granular. Does it makes sense when you try to analyze it from a granular tracking perspective??? Of course not. It is a hand-wave device whose entire purpose is to not look at it this granularly.
The pouch/foci does eliminate this issue for about 95% of material component spells where the component isn't consumed, and I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with that. Most people additionally accept that you have to provide items of value, which covers most of the remainder. At issue here are the very limited number of spells that require components to be consumed, but don't provide a value for those components. That is approximately 5 spells (the two demon summoning ones, snare, PfE&G, maybe one or two others). This is not the burden you seem to think it is on players to additionally track the materials for those spells.
Again, the two demon summoning spells are irrelevant since they do not consume components at all. Snare specifies the required value of the rope in question, so also not an issue. And this spell specifically does not list a required minimum value, so also not an issue. You’re the one making up all these issues out of nothing.
If you want to be protected, yes. However you are not obligated to do so. You may be suicidal for some reason. Or you may have summoned them to practice your new anti demon fighting style.
Narrative is not RAW.
Edit: If a component is consumed, you need to provide it with each casting, however you can use the pouch or focus as a substitute for the component and thus for that need, as long as there is no indicated cost. Seems pretty clear to most.
Absolutely not. The consumed component for summon lesser demons has an expiration date. I don't know any DM on this planet who would assume a PC in normal circumstances is just casually murdering someone once a day to fill their pouch with the required component during "downtime" (the blood must be from a slain humanoid within the last 24 hours, so pricking their finger won't work). I would, at best, allow this to be cast from a focus (but not a pouch) without actually having the component in question, but this spell cast from a focus would never be able to make the circle to protect themselves since that would consume a component they wouldn't have.
I don't track this in my game. I give 0 care to tracking non-cost listed materials if the players have a pouch or foci. The whole point is so we spend game time focused on interesting things instead of focused on inventory management. I do not even let the thought cross my mind when they're casting spells if "they have the components" it is a waste of mental energy.
Now you know one. I bet there are others.
Then you miss the whole point of that component, which is to require a player to commit a profane act (or at least kill something) to be able to cast the spell and protect themselves from its effects. If that's what you want in your game, then enjoy your conflict and consequence house-ruled free demon summoning. I'll stick to RAW.
Sposta, yes they F-ing do. Read the G-D spell description. This has been stated 5 times now.
As part of casting the spell, you can form a circle on the ground with the blood used as a material component. The circle is large enough to encompass your space. While the spell lasts, the summoned demons can’t cross the circle or harm it, and they can’t target anyone within it. Using the material component in this manner consumes it when the spell ends.
The M component for summon lesser demons is not consumed at all. There is no consumed component, nor is there a specified value, so it can totally be replaced with either a pouch or a focus.
Again, it is consumed, explicity in the spell text, if you use the vial to make the protective circle. Please read the full spell description, it is plain as day there.
That is irrelevant to being able to use a focus or pouch. The description for the component itself does not state “which the spell consumes.” It also says “can” create a circle, not that you must. Going by your logic that vial of blood is completely optional in its entirety.
The M component for summon lesser demons is not consumed at all. There is no consumed component, nor is there a specified value, so it can totally be replaced with either a pouch or a focus.
Again, it is consumed, explicity in the spell text, if you use the vial to make the protective circle. Please read the full spell description, it is plain as day there.
That is irrelevant to being able to use a focus or pouch. The description for the component itself does not state “which the spell consumes.” It also says “can” create a circle, not that you must. Going by your logic that vial of blood is completely optional in its entirety.
The component is required for any casting of the spell. If you don't opt to make the circle, you don't consume the component, and you can replace it with the focus (I'd say no on the pouch, because of the requirements of sourcing the component). If you do, the component is consumed. [REDACTED]
Notes: Civility is respected from and towards all our users
I found another in-depth discussion of this very question here. If you want to make the case that the rules are contradictory, then you may have a leg to stand on, even though I think the rule is pretty clear. But the conclusion you come up with (consuming the component pouch itself) is not supported by RAW or RAI that I can see.
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
So, starting off we have this section where we talk about material components. Read it again, and really be open to what it is saying and how it is saying it. Notice the structure of these two paragraphs.
Let's look at this line:
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell.
This idea is pretty straightforward, instead of material components, you can simply use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus. This idea will have some restrictions, certainly, but at this point we haven't discussed them. So, at this point in the reading, we can simply replace material components with a pouch/foci. Okay. This was a permissive statement and opened an option to us.
Immediately next in this text... is a restriction on that idea. Notice it starts with "But". It also follows it immediately in the same paragraph. It is a direct continuation of our current thought, and it is providing an exclusionary restriction to the permission it just gave us.
But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
So, while yes, we can simply use a pouch/foci instead of providing the material component, we cannot substitute in this way if that component has a cost. This is a clearly stated and structured restriction, it parses easily, and everyone I believe agrees.
But then our paragraph ends. We're moving on to a new idea. (That is sorta what paragraphs are in case some of yall didn't pay a ton of attention in literature or writing class.)
The new paragraph starts off with:
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
This right here is where some of yall are getting twisted up at. Notice a distinct lack of exclusionary restrictive phrasing. A lack of continuation from previous strings of thought. This is an entirely new idea, and to be taken at face value. There is no "And if that component" or "But if that spell" Or anything of the sort. We're on an entirely new paragraph! This is not a continuation...
No, this is a distinct idea. And, what is it telling us?
Remember, we are in the material Component section of the rules here... not the component/foci rules. This sentence (and this paragraph) are addressing Material Components here. All this sentence does is clarify what it means when we see "which the spell consumes" in a spell entry. If you got actual material components in hand, and the spell says that it consumes them, they're gone and you need new components "for each casting of the spell". This isn't a complex idea. It almost seems too common sense to even need to explain. But in the PHB it sometimes cover some pretty basic stuff, and this is one of those super common sense ideas: if the spell says it consumes a component, you don't got that component anymore for subsequent castings and need a new one. Real simple.
What it isn't doing, here, is saying that you cannot substitute a pouch/foci for this component. That exclusion doesn't exist. This sentence isn't talking about pouch/foci at all. We moved on. That's old hat, we left that topic a paragraph ago.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But, by RAW, the pouch/foci eliminates the need to get this granular. Does it makes sense when you try to analyze it from a granular tracking perspective??? Of course not. It is a hand-wave device whose entire purpose is to not look at it this granularly.
The pouch/foci does eliminate this issue for about 95% of material component spells where the component isn't consumed, and I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with that. Most people additionally accept that you have to provide items of value, which covers most of the remainder. At issue here are the very limited number of spells that require components to be consumed, but don't provide a value for those components. That is approximately 5 spells (the two demon summoning ones, snare, PfE&G, maybe one or two others). This is not the burden you seem to think it is on players to additionally track the materials for those spells.
It is only an issue if you invent a restriction that the pouch/focus cannot be used in place of those components. Thankfully that doesn't appear in the rules text. So it is only an issue for people who invent that restriction.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Then you miss the whole point of that component, which is to require a player to commit a profane act (or at least kill something) to be able to cast the spell and protect themselves from its effects. If that's what you want in your game, then enjoy your conflict and consequence house-ruled free demon summoning. I'll stick to RAW.
From a narrative perspective, I agree with you 100 percent -- if a player wants to summon demons, we're going to be going to some dark places in the story. (If someone's in a murderhobo campaign though, they're probably killing humanoids every day anyway, so the requirement is pretty trivial.)
But that's not RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I found another in-depth discussion of this very question here. If you want to make the case that the rules are contradictory, then you may have a leg to stand on, even though I think the rule is pretty clear. But the conclusion you come up with (consuming the component pouch itself) is not supported by RAW or RAI that I can see.
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
In my opinion, if it was not the case, they could have left the sentence about consuming components out entirely, as the situation would be handled by the preceding sentence about using a component pouch in lieu of having the actual material components needed for the spell. Besides, if a spell calls for a raven feather, which the casting consumes, and we assume a component pouch has all spell components, then suddenly we would need to track the fact that a raven feather is missing from the component pouch. It suspends disbelief, adds unnecessary complexity and resource management, and is never explicitly specified as such, so why should we treat it as such?
I found another in-depth discussion of this very question here. If you want to make the case that the rules are contradictory, then you may have a leg to stand on, even though I think the rule is pretty clear. But the conclusion you come up with (consuming the component pouch itself) is not supported by RAW or RAI that I can see.
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
In my opinion, if it was not the case, they could have left the sentence about consuming components out entirely, as the situation would be handled by the preceding sentence about using a component pouch in lieu of having the actual material components needed for the spell. Besides, if a spell calls for a raven feather, which the casting consumes, and we assume a component pouch has all spell components, then suddenly we would need to track the fact that a raven feather is missing from the component pouch. It suspends disbelief, adds unnecessary complexity and resource management, and is never explicitly specified as such, so why should we treat it as such?
Yeah, it's definitely not the best way to handle what they were going for. I think if you're going to require a character to have a specific item to cast a spell, you might as well just give it a cash value in the spell itself, even if it's only 1cp. I find it interesting that the specific wording in the rules is that a focus can't be used in place of something that has a "cost". It doesn't necessarily state that it has to have monetary value, just that it needs to cost something to acquire. I think the blood from Summon Demon or whatever is a good example... the component has a stated Cost outside of monetary value, and therefore doesn't create the same confusion as something like the spell that kicked this whole conversation off.
I found another in-depth discussion of this very question here. If you want to make the case that the rules are contradictory, then you may have a leg to stand on, even though I think the rule is pretty clear. But the conclusion you come up with (consuming the component pouch itself) is not supported by RAW or RAI that I can see.
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
In my opinion, if it was not the case, they could have left the sentence about consuming components out entirely, as the situation would be handled by the preceding sentence about using a component pouch in lieu of having the actual material components needed for the spell. Besides, if a spell calls for a raven feather, which the casting consumes, and we assume a component pouch has all spell components, then suddenly we would need to track the fact that a raven feather is missing from the component pouch. It suspends disbelief, adds unnecessary complexity and resource management, and is never explicitly specified as such, so why should we treat it as such?
Those two sentences are separated by a paragraph split. They're not connected ideas. The topic being discussed is Material Components and therefore the sentence about consumed components needing be provided is only clarification about those components in a general sense regarding the topic of material components only. It is in no way a continuation of the previous paragraph about pouches or foci.
All it is saying is that if the spell consumes a raven feather, you'd need another raven feather for a second casting. This is simply a basic explanation of that common sense notion of what 'is consumed" means, and is only talking about material components, it is not adding a restriction to component/foci use cases.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I found another in-depth discussion of this very question here. If you want to make the case that the rules are contradictory, then you may have a leg to stand on, even though I think the rule is pretty clear. But the conclusion you come up with (consuming the component pouch itself) is not supported by RAW or RAI that I can see.
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
In my opinion, if it was not the case, they could have left the sentence about consuming components out entirely, as the situation would be handled by the preceding sentence about using a component pouch in lieu of having the actual material components needed for the spell. Besides, if a spell calls for a raven feather, which the casting consumes, and we assume a component pouch has all spell components, then suddenly we would need to track the fact that a raven feather is missing from the component pouch. It suspends disbelief, adds unnecessary complexity and resource management, and is never explicitly specified as such, so why should we treat it as such?
Those two sentences are separated by a paragraph split. They're not connected ideas. The topic being discussed is Material Components and therefore the sentence about consumed components needing be provided is only clarification about those components in a general sense regarding the topic of material components only. It is in no way a continuation of the previous paragraph about pouches or foci.
All it is saying is that if the spell consumes a raven feather, you'd need another raven feather for a second casting. This is simply a basic explanation of that common sense notion of what 'is consumed" means, and is only talking about material components, it is not adding a restriction to component/foci use cases.
Yes, but the link at the start of this quote chain links to quotes from the writers of the rulebook stating what their intent was, even if they did a bad job of conveying it. Their intent was that consumed items could not be substituted for a focus, even if the way they wrote it down didn't convey that accurately.
If your goal is to understand how something is meant to work within the game, then you have one answer. This answer has been adequately communicated in the six pages of this thread. If your goal is to attack the rule and figure out a way to read it in a particular way to get around something, then you have a conversation in which I am not particularly interested in participating.
I found another in-depth discussion of this very question here. If you want to make the case that the rules are contradictory, then you may have a leg to stand on, even though I think the rule is pretty clear. But the conclusion you come up with (consuming the component pouch itself) is not supported by RAW or RAI that I can see.
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
In my opinion, if it was not the case, they could have left the sentence about consuming components out entirely, as the situation would be handled by the preceding sentence about using a component pouch in lieu of having the actual material components needed for the spell. Besides, if a spell calls for a raven feather, which the casting consumes, and we assume a component pouch has all spell components, then suddenly we would need to track the fact that a raven feather is missing from the component pouch. It suspends disbelief, adds unnecessary complexity and resource management, and is never explicitly specified as such, so why should we treat it as such?
Those two sentences are separated by a paragraph split. They're not connected ideas. The topic being discussed is Material Components and therefore the sentence about consumed components needing be provided is only clarification about those components in a general sense regarding the topic of material components only. It is in no way a continuation of the previous paragraph about pouches or foci.
All it is saying is that if the spell consumes a raven feather, you'd need another raven feather for a second casting. This is simply a basic explanation of that common sense notion of what 'is consumed" means, and is only talking about material components, it is not adding a restriction to component/foci use cases.
Yes, but the link at the start of this quote chain links to quotes from the writers of the rulebook stating what their intent was, even if they did a bad job of conveying it. Their intent was that consumed items could not be substituted for a focus, even if the way they wrote it down didn't convey that accurately.
... from that link from Jeremy Crawford:
The cost isn't a concern for that spell, only that you have some of the material for the spell to consume. It's a narrative device: sprinkling holy water or the powder.
It is a narrative device.
Mechanically, the pouch replaces the need to micromanage it.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I found another in-depth discussion of this very question here. If you want to make the case that the rules are contradictory, then you may have a leg to stand on, even though I think the rule is pretty clear. But the conclusion you come up with (consuming the component pouch itself) is not supported by RAW or RAI that I can see.
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
In my opinion, if it was not the case, they could have left the sentence about consuming components out entirely, as the situation would be handled by the preceding sentence about using a component pouch in lieu of having the actual material components needed for the spell. Besides, if a spell calls for a raven feather, which the casting consumes, and we assume a component pouch has all spell components, then suddenly we would need to track the fact that a raven feather is missing from the component pouch. It suspends disbelief, adds unnecessary complexity and resource management, and is never explicitly specified as such, so why should we treat it as such?
Those two sentences are separated by a paragraph split. They're not connected ideas. The topic being discussed is Material Components and therefore the sentence about consumed components needing be provided is only clarification about those components in a general sense regarding the topic of material components only. It is in no way a continuation of the previous paragraph about pouches or foci.
All it is saying is that if the spell consumes a raven feather, you'd need another raven feather for a second casting. This is simply a basic explanation of that common sense notion of what 'is consumed" means, and is only talking about material components, it is not adding a restriction to component/foci use cases.
The issue with this is that your interpretation here basically confers magic item status to a component pouch, as it is either 1) conjuring non-valuable material components after they are consumed, or 2) have infinite space in which to store consumable non-valuable material components for a lifetime of casting. Either way does not align with the presentation of the pouch as a mundane item in the rules.
Remember, a component pouch is explicitly stated as holding the actual material components. it is not a "substitution" in the same way as a focus but a storage system that can be easily accessed for casting. If you know the pouch to be mundane as described, then the only other way that you can argue this without tracking consumed components is the typical "the PC just finds this stuff and restocks during downtime or as part of their daily routine", but that breaks down when you consider the nature of these components. How do you restock (or at least reliably restock) holy water/powdered metal? that stuff can't just be found in nature, nor can the 25' of rope needed for snare, nor (especially so) the blood of a humanoid slain in the last 24 hours? the first would require access to a church or temple, a blacksmith, or other spells, the second a general store (or raw material and a bit of crafting time), the third a fresh corpse (probably one you have killed or witnessed the death of, so you can confirm freshness).
I mean, if you want to handwave casual murder as a "downtime" activity with no consequences I'm sure you could in your game, but I just don't see why it is a problem for you if other DMs don't want that. And remember, even for those of us DMs who would make you track the components for these particular spells, 95% of the time, your pouch will have what you need, always, because those components for most spells aren't consumed, and its only in these special instances where there is an issue.
I found another in-depth discussion of this very question here. If you want to make the case that the rules are contradictory, then you may have a leg to stand on, even though I think the rule is pretty clear. But the conclusion you come up with (consuming the component pouch itself) is not supported by RAW or RAI that I can see.
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
In my opinion, if it was not the case, they could have left the sentence about consuming components out entirely, as the situation would be handled by the preceding sentence about using a component pouch in lieu of having the actual material components needed for the spell. Besides, if a spell calls for a raven feather, which the casting consumes, and we assume a component pouch has all spell components, then suddenly we would need to track the fact that a raven feather is missing from the component pouch. It suspends disbelief, adds unnecessary complexity and resource management, and is never explicitly specified as such, so why should we treat it as such?
Those two sentences are separated by a paragraph split. They're not connected ideas. The topic being discussed is Material Components and therefore the sentence about consumed components needing be provided is only clarification about those components in a general sense regarding the topic of material components only. It is in no way a continuation of the previous paragraph about pouches or foci.
All it is saying is that if the spell consumes a raven feather, you'd need another raven feather for a second casting. This is simply a basic explanation of that common sense notion of what 'is consumed" means, and is only talking about material components, it is not adding a restriction to component/foci use cases.
The issue with this is that your interpretation here basically confers magic item status to a component pouch, as it is either 1) conjuring non-valuable material components after they are consumed, or 2) have infinite space in which to store consumable non-valuable material components for a lifetime of casting. Either way does not align with the presentation of the pouch as a mundane item in the rules.
Nope. Is a Potion of Healing magical? It rapidly heals grievous wounds. But is it magical?
How's that work. Explain it in biological detail for me how wounds can rapidly close without magic being involved, I want scientific breakdown of this process.
No. It works because it works. You narratively fill in the blanks any way you want to bend the narrative to the mechanics.
The spell component pouch is mechanics. It allows you to not have to ever worry about thinking about this garbage. If the question comes up "where are your components coming from" the answer is just "This pouch" and then you move on to something more interesting.
You are really, really, really overanalyzing this. It isn't a magic item, it is just a pouch with an unspecified but sufficient number of unspecified but sufficient components for your unspecified spell list.
Unspecified being the operative word here because its a waste of time and energy to go into it all.
Remember, a component pouch is explicitly stated as holding the actual material components. it is not a "substitution" in the same way as a focus but a storage system that can be easily accessed for casting. If you know the pouch to be mundane as described, then the only other way that you can argue this without tracking consumed components is the typical "the PC just finds this stuff and restocks during downtime or as part of their daily routine", but that breaks down when you consider the nature of these components.
No you justify it by not even trying to figure it out. Seriously. Stop.
Like, there are millions of details we don't need to know the exact specific answers to about millions of interaction going on around us all the time. The answer for the pouch is just don't try to count the unspecified nebulous number of unspecified components in it. And then you're good.
How do you restock (or at least reliably restock) holy water/powdered metal?
You restock by never asking your players to restock and just assume they have everything because that's what the pouch is, the components they need for their spell, and you worry about something cooler.
that stuff can't just be found in nature, nor can the 25' of rope needed for snare, nor (especially so) the blood of a humanoid slain in the last 24 hours?
k, just don't worry about it. Why is the villian a villian, that's more important. Who hurt him, what's his motivations? And... what was the name of that tavernkeeper with the funny accent? Oh, should we bring in a reoccurring NPC this session? Hmm, which one...
Oh wait no, lets all sit down and overanalyze my player's inventory sheets and make sure they have the exact grams of bat guano they need, how much of this fine sand is going to be lost over time? Rose petals won't last forever, lets track the cycles of the moon since they restocked this stuff too, certainly this stuff has expiries! /s
the first would require access to a church or temple, a blacksmith, or other spells, the second a general store (or raw material and a bit of crafting time), the third a fresh corpse (probably one you have killed or witnessed the death of, so you can confirm freshness).
Just handwave it and move on to something actually interesting.
I mean, if you want to handwave casual murder as a "downtime" activity with no consequences I'm sure you could in your game, but I just don't see why it is a problem for you if other DMs don't want that.
You really don't understand. You're not handwaving murder, you're handwaving spell component management itself. It doesn't matter if the spell required a freakin Holy Avenger which it consumed, if it doesn't have "a listed price" in the "spell's entry" then your component pouch has whatever it is and you don't have to worry about it, don't worry about how it got there, or anything. It's there move on. What is it? Doesn't matter move on. How' it get there? Doesn't matter move on. That just isn't where your focus is, it is on why the princess was kidnapped, or why the mage school denied your reenrollment. Or the activity of the orc tribes on the frontier. Or the map to the dragon's hoard. or anything else more interesting than calculating if a vial of holy water can be split in 10 ways or if maybe it can be split in 20 way or if it can't be split at all.
And remember, even for those of us DMs who would make you track the components for these particular spells, 95% of the time, your pouch will have what you need, always, because those components for most spells aren't consumed, and its only in these special instances where there is an issue.
Anyone can homebrew their games however they like. More power to you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The pouch/foci does eliminate this issue for about 95% of material component spells where the component isn't consumed, and I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with that. Most people additionally accept that you have to provide items of value, which covers most of the remainder. At issue here are the very limited number of spells that require components to be consumed, but don't provide a value for those components. That is approximately 5 spells (the two demon summoning ones, snare, PfE&G, maybe one or two others). This is not the burden you seem to think it is on players to additionally track the materials for those spells.
Again, it is consumed, explicity in the spell text, if you use the vial to make the protective circle. Please read the full spell description, it is plain as day there.
Again, the two demon summoning spells are irrelevant since they do not consume components at all. Snare specifies the required value of the rope in question, so also not an issue. And this spell specifically does not list a required minimum value, so also not an issue. You’re the one making up all these issues out of nothing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then you miss the whole point of that component, which is to require a player to commit a profane act (or at least kill something) to be able to cast the spell and protect themselves from its effects. If that's what you want in your game, then enjoy your conflict and consequence house-ruled free demon summoning. I'll stick to RAW.
Sposta, yes they F-ing do. Read the G-D spell description. This has been stated 5 times now.
That is irrelevant to being able to use a focus or pouch. The description for the component itself does not state “which the spell consumes.” It also says “can” create a circle, not that you must. Going by your logic that vial of blood is completely optional in its entirety.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The component is required for any casting of the spell. If you don't opt to make the circle, you don't consume the component, and you can replace it with the focus (I'd say no on the pouch, because of the requirements of sourcing the component). If you do, the component is consumed. [REDACTED]
Okay, so this seems to confirm my theory... the intent of the authors was that consumed items with no stated value still need to be acquired in some way and can't be substituted by a focus or component pouch. Even Protection from Evil and Good is meant to just require a sprinkle of Holy Water and isn't intended to consume an entire bottle for each use.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Let's break down the language used.
So, starting off we have this section where we talk about material components. Read it again, and really be open to what it is saying and how it is saying it. Notice the structure of these two paragraphs.
Let's look at this line:
This idea is pretty straightforward, instead of material components, you can simply use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus. This idea will have some restrictions, certainly, but at this point we haven't discussed them. So, at this point in the reading, we can simply replace material components with a pouch/foci. Okay. This was a permissive statement and opened an option to us.
Immediately next in this text... is a restriction on that idea. Notice it starts with "But". It also follows it immediately in the same paragraph. It is a direct continuation of our current thought, and it is providing an exclusionary restriction to the permission it just gave us.
So, while yes, we can simply use a pouch/foci instead of providing the material component, we cannot substitute in this way if that component has a cost. This is a clearly stated and structured restriction, it parses easily, and everyone I believe agrees.
But then our paragraph ends. We're moving on to a new idea. (That is sorta what paragraphs are in case some of yall didn't pay a ton of attention in literature or writing class.)
The new paragraph starts off with:
This right here is where some of yall are getting twisted up at. Notice a distinct lack of exclusionary restrictive phrasing. A lack of continuation from previous strings of thought. This is an entirely new idea, and to be taken at face value. There is no "And if that component" or "But if that spell" Or anything of the sort. We're on an entirely new paragraph! This is not a continuation...
No, this is a distinct idea. And, what is it telling us?
Remember, we are in the material Component section of the rules here... not the component/foci rules. This sentence (and this paragraph) are addressing Material Components here. All this sentence does is clarify what it means when we see "which the spell consumes" in a spell entry. If you got actual material components in hand, and the spell says that it consumes them, they're gone and you need new components "for each casting of the spell". This isn't a complex idea. It almost seems too common sense to even need to explain. But in the PHB it sometimes cover some pretty basic stuff, and this is one of those super common sense ideas: if the spell says it consumes a component, you don't got that component anymore for subsequent castings and need a new one. Real simple.
What it isn't doing, here, is saying that you cannot substitute a pouch/foci for this component. That exclusion doesn't exist. This sentence isn't talking about pouch/foci at all. We moved on. That's old hat, we left that topic a paragraph ago.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It is only an issue if you invent a restriction that the pouch/focus cannot be used in place of those components. Thankfully that doesn't appear in the rules text. So it is only an issue for people who invent that restriction.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
From a narrative perspective, I agree with you 100 percent -- if a player wants to summon demons, we're going to be going to some dark places in the story. (If someone's in a murderhobo campaign though, they're probably killing humanoids every day anyway, so the requirement is pretty trivial.)
But that's not RAW.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In my opinion, if it was not the case, they could have left the sentence about consuming components out entirely, as the situation would be handled by the preceding sentence about using a component pouch in lieu of having the actual material components needed for the spell. Besides, if a spell calls for a raven feather, which the casting consumes, and we assume a component pouch has all spell components, then suddenly we would need to track the fact that a raven feather is missing from the component pouch. It suspends disbelief, adds unnecessary complexity and resource management, and is never explicitly specified as such, so why should we treat it as such?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah, it's definitely not the best way to handle what they were going for. I think if you're going to require a character to have a specific item to cast a spell, you might as well just give it a cash value in the spell itself, even if it's only 1cp. I find it interesting that the specific wording in the rules is that a focus can't be used in place of something that has a "cost". It doesn't necessarily state that it has to have monetary value, just that it needs to cost something to acquire. I think the blood from Summon Demon or whatever is a good example... the component has a stated Cost outside of monetary value, and therefore doesn't create the same confusion as something like the spell that kicked this whole conversation off.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Those two sentences are separated by a paragraph split. They're not connected ideas. The topic being discussed is Material Components and therefore the sentence about consumed components needing be provided is only clarification about those components in a general sense regarding the topic of material components only. It is in no way a continuation of the previous paragraph about pouches or foci.
All it is saying is that if the spell consumes a raven feather, you'd need another raven feather for a second casting. This is simply a basic explanation of that common sense notion of what 'is consumed" means, and is only talking about material components, it is not adding a restriction to component/foci use cases.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, but the link at the start of this quote chain links to quotes from the writers of the rulebook stating what their intent was, even if they did a bad job of conveying it. Their intent was that consumed items could not be substituted for a focus, even if the way they wrote it down didn't convey that accurately.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
If your goal is to understand how something is meant to work within the game, then you have one answer. This answer has been adequately communicated in the six pages of this thread. If your goal is to attack the rule and figure out a way to read it in a particular way to get around something, then you have a conversation in which I am not particularly interested in participating.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
... from that link from Jeremy Crawford:
It is a narrative device.
Mechanically, the pouch replaces the need to micromanage it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The issue with this is that your interpretation here basically confers magic item status to a component pouch, as it is either 1) conjuring non-valuable material components after they are consumed, or 2) have infinite space in which to store consumable non-valuable material components for a lifetime of casting. Either way does not align with the presentation of the pouch as a mundane item in the rules.
Remember, a component pouch is explicitly stated as holding the actual material components. it is not a "substitution" in the same way as a focus but a storage system that can be easily accessed for casting. If you know the pouch to be mundane as described, then the only other way that you can argue this without tracking consumed components is the typical "the PC just finds this stuff and restocks during downtime or as part of their daily routine", but that breaks down when you consider the nature of these components. How do you restock (or at least reliably restock) holy water/powdered metal? that stuff can't just be found in nature, nor can the 25' of rope needed for snare, nor (especially so) the blood of a humanoid slain in the last 24 hours? the first would require access to a church or temple, a blacksmith, or other spells, the second a general store (or raw material and a bit of crafting time), the third a fresh corpse (probably one you have killed or witnessed the death of, so you can confirm freshness).
I mean, if you want to handwave casual murder as a "downtime" activity with no consequences I'm sure you could in your game, but I just don't see why it is a problem for you if other DMs don't want that. And remember, even for those of us DMs who would make you track the components for these particular spells, 95% of the time, your pouch will have what you need, always, because those components for most spells aren't consumed, and its only in these special instances where there is an issue.
Nope. Is a Potion of Healing magical? It rapidly heals grievous wounds. But is it magical?
How's that work. Explain it in biological detail for me how wounds can rapidly close without magic being involved, I want scientific breakdown of this process.
No. It works because it works. You narratively fill in the blanks any way you want to bend the narrative to the mechanics.
The spell component pouch is mechanics. It allows you to not have to ever worry about thinking about this garbage. If the question comes up "where are your components coming from" the answer is just "This pouch" and then you move on to something more interesting.
You are really, really, really overanalyzing this. It isn't a magic item, it is just a pouch with an unspecified but sufficient number of unspecified but sufficient components for your unspecified spell list.
Unspecified being the operative word here because its a waste of time and energy to go into it all.
No you justify it by not even trying to figure it out. Seriously. Stop.
Like, there are millions of details we don't need to know the exact specific answers to about millions of interaction going on around us all the time. The answer for the pouch is just don't try to count the unspecified nebulous number of unspecified components in it. And then you're good.
You restock by never asking your players to restock and just assume they have everything because that's what the pouch is, the components they need for their spell, and you worry about something cooler.
k, just don't worry about it. Why is the villian a villian, that's more important. Who hurt him, what's his motivations? And... what was the name of that tavernkeeper with the funny accent? Oh, should we bring in a reoccurring NPC this session? Hmm, which one...
Oh wait no, lets all sit down and overanalyze my player's inventory sheets and make sure they have the exact grams of bat guano they need, how much of this fine sand is going to be lost over time? Rose petals won't last forever, lets track the cycles of the moon since they restocked this stuff too, certainly this stuff has expiries! /s
Just handwave it and move on to something actually interesting.
You really don't understand. You're not handwaving murder, you're handwaving spell component management itself. It doesn't matter if the spell required a freakin Holy Avenger which it consumed, if it doesn't have "a listed price" in the "spell's entry" then your component pouch has whatever it is and you don't have to worry about it, don't worry about how it got there, or anything. It's there move on. What is it? Doesn't matter move on. How' it get there? Doesn't matter move on. That just isn't where your focus is, it is on why the princess was kidnapped, or why the mage school denied your reenrollment. Or the activity of the orc tribes on the frontier. Or the map to the dragon's hoard. or anything else more interesting than calculating if a vial of holy water can be split in 10 ways or if maybe it can be split in 20 way or if it can't be split at all.
Anyone can homebrew their games however they like. More power to you.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.