I get into a lot of trouble when I post in this forum, I almost always get some element wrong, so don't consider me any kind of expert on the Rules As Written and take what I say with a grain of salt.
The short version is that to cast Protection from Evil and Good you either need a pinch of powdered silver and iron, or a Flask of Holy water. I'll pretty much ignore the powered silver and iron and think of it as part of the price of whatever focus you use. If you have a Flask of Holy Water, I'll also ignore it, since those are pretty easy to get, and I won't track just how much water you use out of it. The only time it matters to me, is if you use your Flask of Holy Water against a target. You'll still get the full effect, but I'll make you buy another one if you want to cast the spell again with one.
The long version is If you cast a spell with a material component:
If there is no listed price, a focus of any kind should satisfy the requirement, so you can use a Component Pouch or whatever.
If there is a listed price, you buy it, and can store it inside your Component Pouch, and when you cast the spell all you have to do is touch the pouch.
If the component is consumed by the casting, if there is a listed price, you have to pay it, and if you store it in the Component Pouch when you cast the spell, and touch the outside of the Pouch, the component inside the Pouch will vanish, the Pouch itself remains.
If there is no listed price, you have to get it somehow, but once you have it, you can put it in your Component Pouch and when you cast the spell you can touch the outside of the Pouch, the component inside the Pouch will vanish, the Pouch remains.
So the way it all works out is that by RAW, you have to have any component listed by the spell, but most DMs will handwave things that have no listed price, because nobody really wants to figure how many balls of guano you have or whatever. If it does have a price and it's easy to obtain it will also be handwaved, and be considered as taken care of by the cost of the Pouch itself. Things that are difficult to obtain is a judgement call. Usually if there is a price listed it will be handwaved again unless you abuse it. It's up to the DM how expensive the item needs to be before it is considered difficult to obtain, and you can store such things in your pouch once you have them and use them time and again. Most DMs will handwave that too. It's only with things that are difficult to obtain, have no listed price, and are consumed by the casting that you really need to worry about how many you have, and if you want to store them in your Pouch, they will vanish, the Pouch will remain behind, and you'll have to get more if you run out, however it is you get them.
If you need a antique silver coin from a particular era that gets consumed by the casting, I'll make you go get one. I'll keep track of each and every cast, so you probably should grab a lot of them. Otherwise, I'll pretty much ignore all spell components unless I think you're abusing the rules, and you can store them however you like as long as you have them on you.
You don’t need a flask of holy water, just a sprinkle of it. Your component pouch doesn’t need to hold a flask of holy water either. If you know a spell that requires an unspecified amount of holy water, and it oh have a component pouch, it is assumed that you always keep a tiny little bit of holy water in it, just enough to cast the spell as often as needed. If you use a focus instead of a pouch, you don’t need any holy water at all, the focus does the job for you.
Barring some errata or Sage Advice ruling on this I'm unaware of, the bolded is entirely DM interpretation.
Also, for the rest of the statement, why then specify that the component is consumed if there is an easy way for nearly every spellcaster to bypass it's consumption? I fully understand and support a pouch containing the non-consumable items you use for casting, but if something is consumed, then that is a resource that should be finite and managed just like any other, and I don't feel I'm wrong for making my players actually acquire more and track what they have. It's not like this is a resource that can just be "found" either. either you are consciously making or buying holy water or buying or refining and grinding the iron/silver to dust. It's not like the "forked twig" type component that could be found willy-nilly in the wilderness that you can assume they pick up as needed.
From the Rules (see the bolded). If the item has to be provided each time, then it by default can't just "be in the component pouch" as the first time you cast it, it would disappear and no longer be in the pouch.
Material (M)
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.
Yes, the caster must provide those components for each casting, but for each casting the component pouch (or focus) provides those components. The first paragraph not mentioning the need to provide the component for each casting makes no sense otherwise.
A Component Pouch is not a magic item, and I will not accept that it conjures non-valued consumable components to be used at will, nor that it contains infinite quantities of non-valued consumable components. Either it provides it (once) when you purchase it and you must replenish it for subsequent castings, or it doesn't provide it at all, and you must find the component separately.
If they intended it to conjure consumable components or hold infinite number of them, then it should be called a common magic item and removed from the mundane equipment list.
It is assumed that the character regularly restocks such items without needing to explicitly state having done so. It is intended to do away with that bookkeeping, not require that bookkeeping. If you want to track all of that then you would opt to use neither a focus nor a component pouch. That’s when you have to track every pinch & sprinkle. By using a component pouch it precludes having to track anything that does not list a specific gp cost in the spell’s description.
I don't care about tracking non-consumable components, but the components in the spell in question are both 1) unvalued and 2) consumable which raises the question of 1) how much is required and 2) how is it replenished. I absolutely think that players should track and have to replenish consumable components, and leave the rest to their foci/pouches. and I think that the DM gets to decide "how much" is required. If I say a flask, then it's a flask (at my table). If you say a sprinkle, then it's a sprinkle (at your table). but either way, i think it is a cop out to ignore the fact the components are consumed.
You don’t need a flask of holy water, just a sprinkle of it. Your component pouch doesn’t need to hold a flask of holy water either. If you know a spell that requires an unspecified amount of holy water, and it oh have a component pouch, it is assumed that you always keep a tiny little bit of holy water in it, just enough to cast the spell as often as needed. If you use a focus instead of a pouch, you don’t need any holy water at all, the focus does the job for you.
That is not correct
The PHB says
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 chapter 5, “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.
I admit there is somecontradiction in that, "if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component" implies that if there is no cost component you can use a spell focus but "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." implies that you must have the component itself for each casting. I have always assumed the the later takes presidence and you can not use a spell focus to cast protection from evil and good but I can see it can be interpreted the other way.
However the SAC makes it clear.
If a spell’s material components are consumed, can a spellcasting focus still be used in place of the consumed component?
No. A spellcasting focus can be used in place of a material component only if that component has no cost noted in the spell’s description and if that component isn’t consumed.
We still don't know how much is consummed you might need 100 flasks of holy water to or it might be so little you can cast the spell 100 times from a single flask, but is it clear that you do need some Holy water of silver and iron powder and you can not use a focus instead.
You don’t need a flask of holy water, just a sprinkle of it. Your component pouch doesn’t need to hold a flask of holy water either. If you know a spell that requires an unspecified amount of holy water, and it oh have a component pouch, it is assumed that you always keep a tiny little bit of holy water in it, just enough to cast the spell as often as needed. If you use a focus instead of a pouch, you don’t need any holy water at all, the focus does the job for you.
Barring some errata or Sage Advice ruling on this I'm unaware of, the bolded is entirely DM interpretation.
Also, for the rest of the statement, why then specify that the component is consumed if there is an easy way for nearly every spellcaster to bypass it's consumption? I fully understand and support a pouch containing the non-consumable items you use for casting, but if something is consumed, then that is a resource that should be finite and managed just like any other, and I don't feel I'm wrong for making my players actually acquire more and track what they have. It's not like this is a resource that can just be "found" either. either you are consciously making or buying holy water or buying or refining and grinding the iron/silver to dust. It's not like the "forked twig" type component that could be found willy-nilly in the wilderness that you can assume they pick up as needed.
It is assumed that the character regularly restocks such items without needing to explicitly state having done so. It is intended to do away with that bookkeeping, not require that bookkeeping. If you want to track all of that then you would opt to use neither a focus nor a component pouch. That’s when you have to track every pinch & sprinkle. By using a component pouch it precludes having to track anything that does not list a specific gp cost in the spell’s description.
I don't care about tracking non-consumable components, but the components in the spell in question are both 1) unvalued and 2) consumable which raises the question of 1) how much is required and 2) how is it replenished. I absolutely think that players should track and have to replenish consumable components, and leave the rest to their foci/pouches. and I think that the DM gets to decide "how much" is required. If I say a flask, then it's a flask (at my table). If you say a sprinkle, then it's a sprinkle (at your table). but either way, i think it is a cop out to ignore the fact the components are consumed.
You don’t need a flask of holy water, just a sprinkle of it. Your component pouch doesn’t need to hold a flask of holy water either. If you know a spell that requires an unspecified amount of holy water, and it oh have a component pouch, it is assumed that you always keep a tiny little bit of holy water in it, just enough to cast the spell as often as needed. If you use a focus instead of a pouch, you don’t need any holy water at all, the focus does the job for you.
That is not correct
The PHB says
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 chapter 5, “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.
I admit there is somecontradiction in that, "if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component" implies that if there is no cost component you can use a spell focus but "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." implies that you must have the component itself for each casting. I have always assumed the the later takes presidence and you can not use a spell focus to cast protection from evil and good but I can see it can be interpreted the other way.
However the SAC makes it clear.
If a spell’s material components are consumed, can a spellcasting focus still be used in place of the consumed component?
No. A spellcasting focus can be used in place of a material component only if that component has no cost noted in the spell’s description and if that component isn’t consumed.
We still don't know how much is consummed you might need 100 flasks of holy water to or it might be so little you can cast the spell 100 times from a single flask, but is it clear that you do need some Holy water of silver and iron powder and you can not use a focus instead.
We know for a fact it isn’t a whole flask because if it were, then I the spell’s description would state “25gp worth of holy water,” which it does not. Therefore, it cannot be a flask of holy water. It doesn’t matter how much what quantity of something costs elsewhere, it only matters if that quantity has a monetary value listed in the spell’s description.
And I can go to any church I want and dip a little tiny vial into the holy water, and have a vial of holy water free of charge. Sooo… what’s to stop any PC from doing the same?
I tell ya what, go become a DM for the AL and start insisting players pay 25gp every time they cast that spell and when you get thrown out on your ear for imposing your houserule on the subject then you come back and let me know how that worked out for ya.
PS- Crawford doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground half the time, that’s why they need UA, so we can point out all of his boneheaded mistakes before print. So you can keep quoting SAC all you want, but SAC ≠ RAW.
Luckily, most spells correctly state the cost of consumed components and very few (current count: 1) didn't get proofread.
As others have pointed out: we know holy water has a monetary value. Silver and iron also have fixed values according to their weight (5gp per lb of silver (coin weight also follows this), 1sp per lb of iron).
The spell doesn't specify the amount of the needed components, but we can easily assume they are equal in value and 1 dose of holy water costs 25gp.
You don’t need a flask of holy water, just a sprinkle of it. Your component pouch doesn’t need to hold a flask of holy water either. If you know a spell that requires an unspecified amount of holy water, and it oh have a component pouch, it is assumed that you always keep a tiny little bit of holy water in it, just enough to cast the spell as often as needed. If you use a focus instead of a pouch, you don’t need any holy water at all, the focus does the job for you.
Barring some errata or Sage Advice ruling on this I'm unaware of, the bolded is entirely DM interpretation.
Also, for the rest of the statement, why then specify that the component is consumed if there is an easy way for nearly every spellcaster to bypass it's consumption? I fully understand and support a pouch containing the non-consumable items you use for casting, but if something is consumed, then that is a resource that should be finite and managed just like any other, and I don't feel I'm wrong for making my players actually acquire more and track what they have. It's not like this is a resource that can just be "found" either. either you are consciously making or buying holy water or buying or refining and grinding the iron/silver to dust. It's not like the "forked twig" type component that could be found willy-nilly in the wilderness that you can assume they pick up as needed.
It is assumed that the character regularly restocks such items without needing to explicitly state having done so. It is intended to do away with that bookkeeping, not require that bookkeeping. If you want to track all of that then you would opt to use neither a focus nor a component pouch. That’s when you have to track every pinch & sprinkle. By using a component pouch it precludes having to track anything that does not list a specific gp cost in the spell’s description.
I don't care about tracking non-consumable components, but the components in the spell in question are both 1) unvalued and 2) consumable which raises the question of 1) how much is required and 2) how is it replenished. I absolutely think that players should track and have to replenish consumable components, and leave the rest to their foci/pouches. and I think that the DM gets to decide "how much" is required. If I say a flask, then it's a flask (at my table). If you say a sprinkle, then it's a sprinkle (at your table). but either way, i think it is a cop out to ignore the fact the components are consumed.
You don’t need a flask of holy water, just a sprinkle of it. Your component pouch doesn’t need to hold a flask of holy water either. If you know a spell that requires an unspecified amount of holy water, and it oh have a component pouch, it is assumed that you always keep a tiny little bit of holy water in it, just enough to cast the spell as often as needed. If you use a focus instead of a pouch, you don’t need any holy water at all, the focus does the job for you.
That is not correct
The PHB says
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 chapter 5, “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.
I admit there is somecontradiction in that, "if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component" implies that if there is no cost component you can use a spell focus but "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." implies that you must have the component itself for each casting. I have always assumed the the later takes presidence and you can not use a spell focus to cast protection from evil and good but I can see it can be interpreted the other way.
However the SAC makes it clear.
If a spell’s material components are consumed, can a spellcasting focus still be used in place of the consumed component?
No. A spellcasting focus can be used in place of a material component only if that component has no cost noted in the spell’s description and if that component isn’t consumed.
We still don't know how much is consummed you might need 100 flasks of holy water to or it might be so little you can cast the spell 100 times from a single flask, but is it clear that you do need some Holy water of silver and iron powder and you can not use a focus instead.
We know for a fact it isn’t a whole flask because if it were, then I the spell’s description would state “25gp worth of holy water,” which it does not. Therefore, it cannot be a flask of holy water. It doesn’t matter how much what quantity of something costs elsewhere, it only matters if that quantity has a monetary value listed in the spell’s description.
It doesn't say the component has any value at all, but if a fixed amount is worth x, then a fraction of that amount has to be worth a fraction of x. So just because the rule doesn't state a value, a value exists, and the DM can decide that value (and even decide that value exceeds 25 gp, because the absence of direction is not direction)
And I can go to any church I want and dip a little tiny vial into the holy water, and have a vial of holy water free of charge. Sooo… what’s to stop any PC from doing the same?
The fact that there may not be any churches in the immediate area, or iron, or silver for that matter (the DM decides if there are) If my players are exploring a 1000 year old ruined underground necropolis filled with undead, I have the right to say they can't just pop into the non-existent church for a cup of holy water.
I tell ya what, go become a DM for the AL and start insisting players pay 25gp every time they cast that spell and when you get thrown out on your ear for imposing your houserule on the subject then you come back and let me know how that worked out for ya.
A consumed component inherently has value, because it is consumed. If you have to replace it, then you are either finding it, making it, or buying it. All of those have a cost (in either time, effort, money, or some combination of all three). Even if it is just a sprinkle required, that sprinkle will need to be replaced, and will have value (1 cp to top off the flask? maybe, again it is up to the DM)
Also, I don't play AL, don't plan to play AL, and can do what I want; I'm the DM. As long as I'm consistent and communicative, then it's fine.
PS- Crawford doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground half the time, that’s why they need UA, so we can point out all of his boneheaded mistakes before print. So you can keep quoting SAC all you want, but SAC ≠ RAW.
RAW is incomplete here. You are interpreting just as much as me when you say the requirement is only a sprinkle, and you are interpreting when you say the component pouch description overrides the requirement of providing new holy water for every casting. A fully RAW-backed argument here is impossible because the equation is incomplete.
The spell doesn't specify the amount of the needed components, but we can easily assume they are equal in value and 1 dose of holy water costs 25gp.
I mean, you can make that assumption, but it seems very silly to me.
One spell, Ceremony, has a listed value of 25 gp for a consumed component. Another spell of the same level, Protection from Evil and Good, consumes the exact same component but does not list a value. The simplest assumption is that the latter doesn't use enough to bother assigning a value, not that the two are equal. If they'd wanted the two to be equal, they would have made them equal.
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)
so therefore, it is reasonable to extrapolate that a “vial of holy water” would only cost 6gp,2sp,5cp (or 625cp).
1 teaspoon is 0.167 of an ounce. Meaning that 4 oz = 24 teaspoons, or 1 tsp of Holy Water would cost 2sp,6cp (or 26cp) the smallest measuring spoon on my handy dandy ring of plastic Betty Crocker measuring spoons is 1/4 tsp
So 1/4 tsp of holy water would cost 6.5cp (and you always round down in D&D) so 6 cp.
A sprinkle would likely be half that volume, so only 3 cp worth at most.
There, since it doesn’t specify any exact quantity, if “a sprinkle” ain’t good enough for ya, there’s a “a double sprinkle” for 6cp at most.
You wanna make your players spend 25gp every casting, that’s on you. I wouldn’t pay it, so you just made a spell from “marginally useful” to “as useless as True Strike.” 👏 (I’m not even gonna charge them the 3cp worth.)
However, the most compelling reason why I say it can not possibly require an entire 25gp flask of holy water, or an equivalent amount of powdered metal, is because the PHB has been through how many errata are this point and it hasn’t been addressed 1ce?!? That would be a simple errata, way more simple than either of the “blade” Cantrips that got changed. Way more simple than the rewrites to the entire Artificer class. Way more simple than even the Bladesinger subclass. All it would take is the addition of “25gp worth of” to that material component description. And they haven’t done it in all these years. Why’s that do you think?
A lack of any actual errata to RAW is more compelling than the compiled tweets of anyone, even the illustrious Mr. Crawford.
A consumed component inherently has value, because it is consumed. If you have to replace it, then you are either finding it, making it, or buying it. All of those have a cost (in either time, effort, money, or some combination of all three). Even if it is just a sprinkle required, that sprinkle will need to be replaced, and will have value (1 cp to top off the flask? maybe, again it is up to the DM)
As a player, if the DM's ruling on this was that you had to buy (or make) a flask of holy water but that it contained enough for 2,500 casts of Protection from Evil and Good, I would be OK with that. That's a lifetime supply.
If the ruling was that it required a full 25 gp flask every time I cast it, I'd look for another campaign.
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)
It doesn't say the component has any value at all, but if a fixed amount is worth x, then a fraction of that amount has to be worth a fraction of x. So just because the rule doesn't state a value, a value exists, and the DM can decide that value (and even decide that value exceeds 25 gp, because the absence of direction is not direction)
If a fixed amount has a fixed value, how do you determine how much value to give a quantity deemed so small that they didn't even present a fractional value?
And I can go to any church I want and dip a little tiny vial into the holy water, and have a vial of holy water free of charge. Sooo… what’s to stop any PC from doing the same?
The fact that there may not be any churches in the immediate area, or iron, or silver for that matter (the DM decides if there are) If my players are exploring a 1000 year old ruined underground necropolis filled with undead, I have the right to say they can't just pop into the non-existent church for a cup of holy water.
There certainly aren't places to pick up things like arrows. do you count arrows and track that only half are recovered?
I tell ya what, go become a DM for the AL and start insisting players pay 25gp every time they cast that spell and when you get thrown out on your ear for imposing your houserule on the subject then you come back and let me know how that worked out for ya.
A consumed component inherently has value, because it is consumed.
This is absolutely an assertion of opinion. We are talking about a game where everything of value with mechanical significance has that value stated.
...
RAW is incomplete; clearly, as DxJxC already stated. Nothing here will be anything more than opinion. My opinion is that I'm glad I don't play with a DM that nickels and dimes me for spells that don't even have a costly component.
One spell, Ceremony, has a listed value of 25 gp for a consumed component. Another spell of the same level, Protection from Evil and Good, consumes the exact same component but does not list a value. The simplest assumption is that the latter doesn't use enough to bother assigning a value, not that the two are equal. If they'd wanted the two to be equal, they would have made them equal.
The point of a consumable component is that it gets consumed, and the atomic measure of Holy Water (Flask) is one flask. This is a problem for Protection from Evil and Good (as well as a few other spells, such as Snare) because the component cost is rather substantial given the utility and level of the spell, so it frequently gets house ruled, but there's no really coherent interpretation other than "it takes a flask".
To everyone who has responded to my post, I'd love your answer to the following: If there is no value to the component, why is it consumable at all?
And really, I originally stated that the component was worth 25 gp because that is the only RAW consumable version of the component we have reference to. If I was negotiating with a player and they thought that cost too steep (though oddly enough I've never had a player cast that spell in 3+ years of DMing), I could probably be talked down to saying you only needed a fraction of a flask to cast (though I'd still say probably 10 uses per flask or so). What I can't wrap my head around though is the idea that a consumable (and honestly fairly rare, considering other non-valuable components are things like leaves and twigs and guano) component should be effectively infinite to the point that the fact that it is consumed doesn't matter. It should matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print.
(and for the record, bless actually does require a sprinkling of holy water, which is not consumed, so playing devils advocate why would the writers not use that as a basis for the component description if it was only a sprinkle required?)
And, for those who have cast aspersions on my DM ability or my table: If you would quit the table over a disagreement over a single spell's component, you must quit a lot of tables, because surely every table has something of that level you disagree with. I've never had a player quit my table, and consider myself a fairly player-friendly DM. But again, I just don't see allowing infinite (or effectively so) castings of a spell with a consumable component, without the players actually bothering to replace the component consumed. That seems like cheese to me.
so therefore, it is reasonable to extrapolate that a “vial of holy water” would only cost 6gp,2sp,5cp (or 625cp).
1 teaspoon is 0.167 of an ounce. Meaning that 4 oz = 24 teaspoons, or 1 tsp of Holy Water would cost 2sp,6cp (or 26cp) the smallest measuring spoon on my handy dandy ring of plastic Betty Crocker measuring spoons is 1/4 tsp
So 1/4 tsp of holy water would cost 6.5cp (and you always round down in D&D) so 6 cp.
A sprinkle would likely be half that volume, so only 3 cp worth at most.
There, since it doesn’t specify any exact quantity, if “a sprinkle” ain’t good enough for ya, there’s a “a double sprinkle” for 6cp at most.
You wanna make your players spend 25gp every casting, that’s on you. I wouldn’t pay it, so you just made a spell from “marginally useful” to “as useless as True Strike.” 👏 (I’m not even gonna charge them the 3cp worth.)
However, the most compelling reason why I say it can not possibly require an entire 25gp flask of holy water, or an equivalent amount of powdered metal, is because the PHB has been through how many errata are this point and it hasn’t been addressed 1ce?!? That would be a simple errata, way more simple than either of the “blade” Cantrips that got changed. Way more simple than the rewrites to the entire Artificer class. Way more simple than even the Bladesinger subclass. All it would take is the addition of “25gp worth of” to that material component description. And they haven’t done it in all these years. Why’s that do you think?
So, my question to you is, how much does the spell use, relative to a flask? What is reasonable to you? 10, 100, 1000 uses? If the spell consumes the water, at some point you are going to run out, so when is that? I'm open to negotiation, but "infinite" is off the table (because that's just cheese)
A lack of any actual errata to RAW is more compelling than the compiled tweets of anyone, even the illustrious Mr. Crawford.
Believe it or not, I don't think I've quoted or referenced SAC in this thread at all, at least not as evidence of my argument (though I did ask if there was anything on your side to back up yours)
To everyone who has responded to my post, I'd love your answer to the following: If there is no value to the component, why is it consumable at all?
"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."
And really, I originally stated that the component was worth 25 gp because that is the only RAW consumable version of the component we have reference to. If I was negotiating with a player and they thought that cost too steep (though oddly enough I've never had a player cast that spell in 3+ years of DMing), I could probably be talked down to saying you only needed a fraction of a flask to cast (though I'd still say probably 10 uses per flask or so). What I can't wrap my head around though is the idea that a consumable (and honestly fairly rare, considering other non-valuable components are things like leaves and twigs and guano) component should be effectively infinite to the point that the fact that it is consumed doesn't matter. It should matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print.
(and for the record, bless actually does require a sprinkling of holy water, which is not consumed, so playing devils advocate why would the writers not use that as a basis for the component description if it was only a sprinkle required?)
Copy editing? Inability to use a focus? Those are the two most obvious answers to the question.
And, for those who have cast aspersions on my DM ability or my table: If you would quit the table over a disagreement over a single spell's component, you must quit a lot of tables, because surely every table has something of that level you disagree with. I've never had a player quit my table, and consider myself a fairly player-friendly DM. But again, I just don't see allowing infinite (or effectively so) castings of a spell with a consumable component, without the players actually bothering to replace the component consumed. That seems like cheese to me.
No, It isn't just the GP component cost of a 1st level spell...
To everyone who has responded to my post, I'd love your answer to the following: If there is no value to the component, why is it consumable at all?
"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."
so how much should the caster provide? And at what point does that equal a flask or vial that must be replaced?
And really, I originally stated that the component was worth 25 gp because that is the only RAW consumable version of the component we have reference to. If I was negotiating with a player and they thought that cost too steep (though oddly enough I've never had a player cast that spell in 3+ years of DMing), I could probably be talked down to saying you only needed a fraction of a flask to cast (though I'd still say probably 10 uses per flask or so). What I can't wrap my head around though is the idea that a consumable (and honestly fairly rare, considering other non-valuable components are things like leaves and twigs and guano) component should be effectively infinite to the point that the fact that it is consumed doesn't matter. It should matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print.
(and for the record, bless actually does require a sprinkling of holy water, which is not consumed, so playing devils advocate why would the writers not use that as a basis for the component description if it was only a sprinkle required?)
Copy editing? Inability to use a focus? Those are the two most obvious answers to the question.
So...a mistake, or limiting use of a focus (why would anyone use a focus at all in this game if the component pouch is this mechanically superior?)
And, for those who have cast aspersions on my DM ability or my table: If you would quit the table over a disagreement over a single spell's component, you must quit a lot of tables, because surely every table has something of that level you disagree with. I've never had a player quit my table, and consider myself a fairly player-friendly DM. But again, I just don't see allowing infinite (or effectively so) castings of a spell with a consumable component, without the players actually bothering to replace the component consumed. That seems like cheese to me.
No, It isn't just the GP component cost of a 1st level spell...
I'm not sure how this is a response to anything I wrote.
To everyone who has responded to my post, I'd love your answer to the following: If there is no value to the component, why is it consumable at all?
"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."
so how much should the caster provide? And at what point does that equal a flask or vial that must be replaced?
Enough for the spell to work. How much does the spell ask for?
And really, I originally stated that the component was worth 25 gp because that is the only RAW consumable version of the component we have reference to. If I was negotiating with a player and they thought that cost too steep (though oddly enough I've never had a player cast that spell in 3+ years of DMing), I could probably be talked down to saying you only needed a fraction of a flask to cast (though I'd still say probably 10 uses per flask or so). What I can't wrap my head around though is the idea that a consumable (and honestly fairly rare, considering other non-valuable components are things like leaves and twigs and guano) component should be effectively infinite to the point that the fact that it is consumed doesn't matter. It should matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print.
(and for the record, bless actually does require a sprinkling of holy water, which is not consumed, so playing devils advocate why would the writers not use that as a basis for the component description if it was only a sprinkle required?)
Copy editing? Inability to use a focus? Those are the two most obvious answers to the question.
So...a mistake, or limiting use of a focus (why would anyone use a focus at all in this game if the component pouch is this mechanically superior?)
Good question. A component pouch is mechanically superior, and I don't see why you would want a focus instead. Also, yes this game has inconsistencies that must be mistakes. Is this one? Probably. But it still has the mechanical effect that you must provide the components.
And, for those who have cast aspersions on my DM ability or my table: If you would quit the table over a disagreement over a single spell's component, you must quit a lot of tables, because surely every table has something of that level you disagree with. I've never had a player quit my table, and consider myself a fairly player-friendly DM. But again, I just don't see allowing infinite (or effectively so) castings of a spell with a consumable component, without the players actually bothering to replace the component consumed. That seems like cheese to me.
No, It isn't just the GP component cost of a 1st level spell...
I'm not sure how this is a response to anything I wrote.
It isn't specifically a response to your text, it is a statement on why I wouldn't enjoy playing at your table.
To everyone who has responded to my post, I'd love your answer to the following: If there is no value to the component, why is it consumable at all?
"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."
so how much should the caster provide? And at what point does that equal a flask or vial that must be replaced?
Enough for the spell to work. How much does the spell ask for?
an undefined amount between 0 and "all of it that ever is, was, or will be", leaving it open to DM interpretation
And really, I originally stated that the component was worth 25 gp because that is the only RAW consumable version of the component we have reference to. If I was negotiating with a player and they thought that cost too steep (though oddly enough I've never had a player cast that spell in 3+ years of DMing), I could probably be talked down to saying you only needed a fraction of a flask to cast (though I'd still say probably 10 uses per flask or so). What I can't wrap my head around though is the idea that a consumable (and honestly fairly rare, considering other non-valuable components are things like leaves and twigs and guano) component should be effectively infinite to the point that the fact that it is consumed doesn't matter. It should matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print.
(and for the record, bless actually does require a sprinkling of holy water, which is not consumed, so playing devils advocate why would the writers not use that as a basis for the component description if it was only a sprinkle required?)
Copy editing? Inability to use a focus? Those are the two most obvious answers to the question.
So...a mistake, or limiting use of a focus (why would anyone use a focus at all in this game if the component pouch is this mechanically superior?)
Good question. A component pouch is mechanically superior, and I don't see why you would want a focus instead. Also, yes this game has inconsistencies that must be mistakes. Is this one? Probably. But it still has the mechanical effect that you must provide the components.
And, for those who have cast aspersions on my DM ability or my table: If you would quit the table over a disagreement over a single spell's component, you must quit a lot of tables, because surely every table has something of that level you disagree with. I've never had a player quit my table, and consider myself a fairly player-friendly DM. But again, I just don't see allowing infinite (or effectively so) castings of a spell with a consumable component, without the players actually bothering to replace the component consumed. That seems like cheese to me.
No, It isn't just the GP component cost of a 1st level spell...
I'm not sure how this is a response to anything I wrote.
It isn't specifically a response to your text, it is a statement on why I wouldn't enjoy playing at your table.
Why not? you know literally nothing else about me or my table. I might help you develop a homebrew class (I've done that), or homebrew magic items (I've done lots of that) for your character, I might offer a whole homebrew ruined city to explore and scenarios where it is possible to convince an insane(ly lonely) demon to have tea with you (he did still try to kill them after) and fight your favorite SCPs (all homebrewed to be as close to the source material as possible). I might allow you to solve a problem for which I've developed the most likely scenarios of solutions of being a heist, an infiltration, or a social encounter and instead let you do all 3 at once (splitting the party to do so, my players said it's the best session they've ever had and no one felt left out). I might let you recruit an army and run 3 straight sessions of combat in a war against the mob, culminating in a showdown between you, the BBEG, a hostage about to be dropped, and a 400 foot fall (the party racked up a body count of about 85 in about 20 minutes of "game time" play (10+ hours of real time). Don't cast aspersions on me just because I made one spell a little expensive, theoretically (because I'm pretty damn easy to negotiate with IRL)
To everyone who has responded to my post, I'd love your answer to the following: If there is no value to the component, why is it consumable at all?
And really, I originally stated that the component was worth 25 gp because that is the only RAW consumable version of the component we have reference to. If I was negotiating with a player and they thought that cost too steep (though oddly enough I've never had a player cast that spell in 3+ years of DMing), I could probably be talked down to saying you only needed a fraction of a flask to cast (though I'd still say probably 10 uses per flask or so). What I can't wrap my head around though is the idea that a consumable (and honestly fairly rare, considering other non-valuable components are things like leaves and twigs and guano) component should be effectively infinite to the point that the fact that it is consumed doesn't matter. It should matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print.
(and for the record, bless actually does require a sprinkling of holy water, which is not consumed, so playing devils advocate why would the writers not use that as a basis for the component description if it was only a sprinkle required?)
And, for those who have cast aspersions on my DM ability or my table: If you would quit the table over a disagreement over a single spell's component, you must quit a lot of tables, because surely every table has something of that level you disagree with. I've never had a player quit my table, and consider myself a fairly player-friendly DM. But again, I just don't see allowing infinite (or effectively so) castings of a spell with a consumable component, without the players actually bothering to replace the component consumed. That seems like cheese to me.
Now we are getting into utility and the like.
Something can have value but no obvious cost. What is the value of air to you? If you have no air, you die. However the supply of air is such that you almost certainly do not have to pay for air.
Again the point of that second paragraph regarding components is, if you do not have a component pouch or casting focus, you need to actually supply the ingredients the old fashioned way, namely collect them and inventory them, expending them as you cast.
And as for holy water, if the smallest measure of holy water is a flask, why does it not always do max damage when it hits? Shouldn't it all hit or all miss, if no quantity less than a flask is possible?
Not all the holy water might get on the creature in question, or it might hit the creatures clothing or armor and not deal the same damage. Water splashing is pretty chaotic after all. And I said i originally stated the smallest unit is the flask, because that the smallest unit given for a consumable version of that item. I've also said I'm open to negotiation (about 5 times now), so long as the end result is not zero (since that defeats the purpose of the component being consumable)
I'd also ask your question in reverse, how can a 1/4 full flask of holy water ever do max damage?
If a character in your campaign has an oil lamp, do you rule that the lamp burns a full flask of oil every round, simply because the lamp cannot possibly hold less than an oil flask worth of oil? Same question regarding a water skin.
No, because those items give rates for which the item in question is consumed (6 hours / flask for the lamp, 1 gallon /day for the water skin (2 if it is hot), so 12 hours per skin (since it holds 4 pints). No rates are given for the use of holy water with the spell in question, so it is up to the DM to decide how much the spell uses.
Good question. A component pouch is mechanically superior, and I don't see why you would want a focus instead.
A component pouch does not let you do anything that a focus does not let you do. If you assume a consumable component can be provided by a component pouch, it can also be provided by an arcane focus -- Material Components is actually clearly if incoherently stated
A component pouch or spellcasting focus can replace any material components that have no listed cost. This does not say anything about consumable components.
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
As such, the actual way it work, based on RAW, is that you can use a spellcasting focus or component pouch in place of a consumable component with no listed price -- and the entire focus or pouch is consumed by doing so. Which probably means people actually cast Protection from Evil and Good using a Crystal or Amulet, and Snare with a Sprig of Mistletoe.
(though oddly enough I've never had a player cast that spell in 3+ years of DMing)
That’s probably because you charge 25 gp for a spell that should be effectively free. Not having a casting cost and being consumed is kinda the opposite, yet equivalent of having a price listed but not being consumed. I stand corrected it is required, but the amount used is negligible. So, if ♾ is “unacceptable,” then (♾➖1️⃣). Or an amount > (#️⃣➕1️⃣) where #️⃣ = the number of times they cast the spell.
Barring some errata or Sage Advice ruling on this I'm unaware of, the bolded is entirely DM interpretation.
Also, for the rest of the statement, why then specify that the component is consumed if there is an easy way for nearly every spellcaster to bypass it's consumption? I fully understand and support a pouch containing the non-consumable items you use for casting, but if something is consumed, then that is a resource that should be finite and managed just like any other, and I don't feel I'm wrong for making my players actually acquire more and track what they have. It's not like this is a resource that can just be "found" either. either you are consciously making or buying holy water or buying or refining and grinding the iron/silver to dust. It's not like the "forked twig" type component that could be found willy-nilly in the wilderness that you can assume they pick up as needed.
I don't care about tracking non-consumable components, but the components in the spell in question are both 1) unvalued and 2) consumable which raises the question of 1) how much is required and 2) how is it replenished. I absolutely think that players should track and have to replenish consumable components, and leave the rest to their foci/pouches. and I think that the DM gets to decide "how much" is required. If I say a flask, then it's a flask (at my table). If you say a sprinkle, then it's a sprinkle (at your table). but either way, i think it is a cop out to ignore the fact the components are consumed.
That is not correct
The PHB says
I admit there is somecontradiction in that, "if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component" implies that if there is no cost component you can use a spell focus but "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." implies that you must have the component itself for each casting. I have always assumed the the later takes presidence and you can not use a spell focus to cast protection from evil and good but I can see it can be interpreted the other way.
However the SAC makes it clear.
We still don't know how much is consummed you might need 100 flasks of holy water to or it might be so little you can cast the spell 100 times from a single flask, but is it clear that you do need some Holy water of silver and iron powder and you can not use a focus instead.
We know for a fact it isn’t a whole flask because if it were, then I the spell’s description would state “25gp worth of holy water,” which it does not. Therefore, it cannot be a flask of holy water. It doesn’t matter how much what quantity of something costs elsewhere, it only matters if that quantity has a monetary value listed in the spell’s description.
And I can go to any church I want and dip a little tiny vial into the holy water, and have a vial of holy water free of charge. Sooo… what’s to stop any PC from doing the same?
I tell ya what, go become a DM for the AL and start insisting players pay 25gp every time they cast that spell and when you get thrown out on your ear for imposing your houserule on the subject then you come back and let me know how that worked out for ya.
PS- Crawford doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground half the time, that’s why they need UA, so we can point out all of his boneheaded mistakes before print. So you can keep quoting SAC all you want, but SAC ≠ RAW.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Luckily, most spells correctly state the cost of consumed components and very few (current count: 1) didn't get proofread.
As others have pointed out: we know holy water has a monetary value. Silver and iron also have fixed values according to their weight (5gp per lb of silver (coin weight also follows this), 1sp per lb of iron).
The spell doesn't specify the amount of the needed components, but we can easily assume they are equal in value and 1 dose of holy water costs 25gp.
It doesn't say the component has any value at all, but if a fixed amount is worth x, then a fraction of that amount has to be worth a fraction of x. So just because the rule doesn't state a value, a value exists, and the DM can decide that value (and even decide that value exceeds 25 gp, because the absence of direction is not direction)
The fact that there may not be any churches in the immediate area, or iron, or silver for that matter (the DM decides if there are) If my players are exploring a 1000 year old ruined underground necropolis filled with undead, I have the right to say they can't just pop into the non-existent church for a cup of holy water.
A consumed component inherently has value, because it is consumed. If you have to replace it, then you are either finding it, making it, or buying it. All of those have a cost (in either time, effort, money, or some combination of all three). Even if it is just a sprinkle required, that sprinkle will need to be replaced, and will have value (1 cp to top off the flask? maybe, again it is up to the DM)
Also, I don't play AL, don't plan to play AL, and can do what I want; I'm the DM. As long as I'm consistent and communicative, then it's fine.
RAW is incomplete here. You are interpreting just as much as me when you say the requirement is only a sprinkle, and you are interpreting when you say the component pouch description overrides the requirement of providing new holy water for every casting. A fully RAW-backed argument here is impossible because the equation is incomplete.
I mean, you can make that assumption, but it seems very silly to me.
One spell, Ceremony, has a listed value of 25 gp for a consumed component. Another spell of the same level, Protection from Evil and Good, consumes the exact same component but does not list a value. The simplest assumption is that the latter doesn't use enough to bother assigning a value, not that the two are equal. If they'd wanted the two to be equal, they would have made them equal.
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)
OKay, let’s go to the looney bin together.
1 flask of holy water costs 25 gp.
1 flask holds 1 pint of liquid. A pint is 16 oz.
1 vial holds 4 oz, or 1/2 cup
so therefore, it is reasonable to extrapolate that a “vial of holy water” would only cost 6gp,2sp,5cp (or 625cp).
1 teaspoon is 0.167 of an ounce. Meaning that 4 oz = 24 teaspoons, or 1 tsp of Holy Water would cost 2sp,6cp (or 26cp) the smallest measuring spoon on my handy dandy ring of plastic Betty Crocker measuring spoons is 1/4 tsp
So 1/4 tsp of holy water would cost 6.5cp (and you always round down in D&D) so 6 cp.
A sprinkle would likely be half that volume, so only 3 cp worth at most.
There, since it doesn’t specify any exact quantity, if “a sprinkle” ain’t good enough for ya, there’s a “a double sprinkle” for 6cp at most.
You wanna make your players spend 25gp every casting, that’s on you. I wouldn’t pay it, so you just made a spell from “marginally useful” to “as useless as True Strike.” 👏 (I’m not even gonna charge them the 3cp worth.)
However, the most compelling reason why I say it can not possibly require an entire 25gp flask of holy water, or an equivalent amount of powdered metal, is because the PHB has been through how many errata are this point and it hasn’t been addressed 1ce?!? That would be a simple errata, way more simple than either of the “blade” Cantrips that got changed. Way more simple than the rewrites to the entire Artificer class. Way more simple than even the Bladesinger subclass. All it would take is the addition of “25gp worth of” to that material component description. And they haven’t done it in all these years. Why’s that do you think?
A lack of any actual errata to RAW is more compelling than the compiled tweets of anyone, even the illustrious Mr. Crawford.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As a player, if the DM's ruling on this was that you had to buy (or make) a flask of holy water but that it contained enough for 2,500 casts of Protection from Evil and Good, I would be OK with that. That's a lifetime supply.
If the ruling was that it required a full 25 gp flask every time I cast it, I'd look for another campaign.
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)
If a fixed amount has a fixed value, how do you determine how much value to give a quantity deemed so small that they didn't even present a fractional value?
There certainly aren't places to pick up things like arrows. do you count arrows and track that only half are recovered?
This is absolutely an assertion of opinion. We are talking about a game where everything of value with mechanical significance has that value stated.
RAW is incomplete; clearly, as DxJxC already stated. Nothing here will be anything more than opinion. My opinion is that I'm glad I don't play with a DM that nickels and dimes me for spells that don't even have a costly component.
The point of a consumable component is that it gets consumed, and the atomic measure of Holy Water (Flask) is one flask. This is a problem for Protection from Evil and Good (as well as a few other spells, such as Snare) because the component cost is rather substantial given the utility and level of the spell, so it frequently gets house ruled, but there's no really coherent interpretation other than "it takes a flask".
To everyone who has responded to my post, I'd love your answer to the following: If there is no value to the component, why is it consumable at all?
And really, I originally stated that the component was worth 25 gp because that is the only RAW consumable version of the component we have reference to. If I was negotiating with a player and they thought that cost too steep (though oddly enough I've never had a player cast that spell in 3+ years of DMing), I could probably be talked down to saying you only needed a fraction of a flask to cast (though I'd still say probably 10 uses per flask or so). What I can't wrap my head around though is the idea that a consumable (and honestly fairly rare, considering other non-valuable components are things like leaves and twigs and guano) component should be effectively infinite to the point that the fact that it is consumed doesn't matter. It should matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print.
(and for the record, bless actually does require a sprinkling of holy water, which is not consumed, so playing devils advocate why would the writers not use that as a basis for the component description if it was only a sprinkle required?)
And, for those who have cast aspersions on my DM ability or my table: If you would quit the table over a disagreement over a single spell's component, you must quit a lot of tables, because surely every table has something of that level you disagree with. I've never had a player quit my table, and consider myself a fairly player-friendly DM. But again, I just don't see allowing infinite (or effectively so) castings of a spell with a consumable component, without the players actually bothering to replace the component consumed. That seems like cheese to me.
So, my question to you is, how much does the spell use, relative to a flask? What is reasonable to you? 10, 100, 1000 uses? If the spell consumes the water, at some point you are going to run out, so when is that? I'm open to negotiation, but "infinite" is off the table (because that's just cheese)
Believe it or not, I don't think I've quoted or referenced SAC in this thread at all, at least not as evidence of my argument (though I did ask if there was anything on your side to back up yours)
"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."
Copy editing? Inability to use a focus? Those are the two most obvious answers to the question.
No, It isn't just the GP component cost of a 1st level spell...
so how much should the caster provide? And at what point does that equal a flask or vial that must be replaced?
So...a mistake, or limiting use of a focus (why would anyone use a focus at all in this game if the component pouch is this mechanically superior?)
I'm not sure how this is a response to anything I wrote.
Enough for the spell to work. How much does the spell ask for?
Good question. A component pouch is mechanically superior, and I don't see why you would want a focus instead. Also, yes this game has inconsistencies that must be mistakes. Is this one? Probably. But it still has the mechanical effect that you must provide the components.
It isn't specifically a response to your text, it is a statement on why I wouldn't enjoy playing at your table.
an undefined amount between 0 and "all of it that ever is, was, or will be", leaving it open to DM interpretation
Why not? you know literally nothing else about me or my table. I might help you develop a homebrew class (I've done that), or homebrew magic items (I've done lots of that) for your character, I might offer a whole homebrew ruined city to explore and scenarios where it is possible to convince an insane(ly lonely) demon to have tea with you (he did still try to kill them after) and fight your favorite SCPs (all homebrewed to be as close to the source material as possible). I might allow you to solve a problem for which I've developed the most likely scenarios of solutions of being a heist, an infiltration, or a social encounter and instead let you do all 3 at once (splitting the party to do so, my players said it's the best session they've ever had and no one felt left out). I might let you recruit an army and run 3 straight sessions of combat in a war against the mob, culminating in a showdown between you, the BBEG, a hostage about to be dropped, and a 400 foot fall (the party racked up a body count of about 85 in about 20 minutes of "game time" play (10+ hours of real time). Don't cast aspersions on me just because I made one spell a little expensive, theoretically (because I'm pretty damn easy to negotiate with IRL)
Not all the holy water might get on the creature in question, or it might hit the creatures clothing or armor and not deal the same damage. Water splashing is pretty chaotic after all. And I said i originally stated the smallest unit is the flask, because that the smallest unit given for a consumable version of that item. I've also said I'm open to negotiation (about 5 times now), so long as the end result is not zero (since that defeats the purpose of the component being consumable)
I'd also ask your question in reverse, how can a 1/4 full flask of holy water ever do max damage?
No, because those items give rates for which the item in question is consumed (6 hours / flask for the lamp, 1 gallon /day for the water skin (2 if it is hot), so 12 hours per skin (since it holds 4 pints). No rates are given for the use of holy water with the spell in question, so it is up to the DM to decide how much the spell uses.
A component pouch does not let you do anything that a focus does not let you do. If you assume a consumable component can be provided by a component pouch, it can also be provided by an arcane focus -- Material Components is actually clearly if incoherently stated
As such, the actual way it work, based on RAW, is that you can use a spellcasting focus or component pouch in place of a consumable component with no listed price -- and the entire focus or pouch is consumed by doing so. Which probably means people actually cast Protection from Evil and Good using a Crystal or Amulet, and Snare with a Sprig of Mistletoe.
That’s probably because you charge 25 gp for a spell that should be effectively free. Not having a casting cost and being consumed is kinda the opposite, yet equivalent of having a price listed but not being consumed. I stand corrected it is required, but the amount used is negligible. So, if ♾ is “unacceptable,” then (♾➖1️⃣). Or an amount > (#️⃣➕1️⃣) where #️⃣ = the number of times they cast the spell.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting