This one got me confused. By ruling on components according to PHB "A character can use a component pouch or a speIlcasting focus (found in chapter 5) 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."
I've read and compared spells that need components equal to its gold cost, and as per indication you must either have the gold to use it or have purchased the component equal to its gold cost. But how does it work regarding consumption as some material component spell description says that it will be consumed and some has no indication? DMs seem to stick to "Every time you use that spell, consume that amount of gold equal to that component regardless if it will will be consumed or not".
Do you only need to purchase the component once and you can use it indefinitely in comparison to those spells that indicated "...will be consumed" you have to buy the amount of components equal to the times you will cast it? (e.g. Chromatic Orb's component is diamond worth at least 50 gp but no word of being consumed AND Glyph of Warding's incense and powdered diamond worth at least 200 gp which the spell consumes)
If the spell description says nothing about the consumption of a material component, then that material component is not consumed, even if it has a cost. The spell consumes a component only when the description says so.
Only having the gold equivalent to the value of the component is a houserule - RAW you actually need to have the component on you to cast spells that have a defined cost (if you are able to use a focus (not all spell casters are) then you do not need to have component on you if there is no defined cost).
If a component has a defined cost, and the spell description says it is consumed, then you need one of those components for every cast of that spell.
Yeah, RAW you need to buy a 100g pearl before you can cast Identify, but the pearl is not consumed in each casting; and you need to prepurchase 25g worth of gold dust which would be consumed by each casting of Arcane Lock. Personally I don't have no time for all that nonsense. I translate this to mean you need 100g to learn Identify (or prepare it for the first time), and you lose 25g each time you cast Arcane Lock. I see no story or gameplay benefit to forcing players to keep track of that garbage.
Pretty much it's the player's job to keep track of its own inventory, including components that have gold cost. Perhaps it would be better to assume that they have the gold for it and subtract that gold according to the specification of the spell, of course taking into consideration if that gold cost will be consumed or not and let the player just update its inventory. It would be sad when the player didn't realize that he's spending 100g everytime he would use Identify when he can tell the DM that he has that component worth the right amount of gold, thus pose no problems with gold spending. I got the same problem with Warding Bond, not only did I thought I have to spend 100g (50g for ring x2) but DM stated that I have to declare it first who did I give the ring to before the spell works.
If the Devs wanted to be overly keen, they could implement a toggle similar to the Encumbrance one to enforce/ignore spell components (best left until after containers are brought in, if ever)
With this enabled, the spell would not be available to be cast unless you have the required components in your inventory/component pouch (or if it has no gold value, you have some form of focus equipped if you are able to use focus items (not all casters can)) - if the item is consumed on cast, casting the spell would remove the correct number of components from your inventory. This could create some real Oh S%$t moments when that spell you wanted to cast has run out of components.
I suspect, with the exception of AL players, the vast majority would have this set to Ignore most of the time!
My Question is does the Component Pouch always have the components required unless the material component has a cost, correct?
So if a spell says it consumes a material component, but that material component has no listed cost, then the Component Pouch is assumed to always have a supply of it?
A component pouch (or focus) won't substitute for a component that's consumed even if it has no cost listed. The only spell I know of that does this is Protection From Evil And Good, but the holy water or silver powder have an implied cost (holy water isn't free.)
Traditionally, yes the Component Pouch is assumed to possess any inexpensive (no GP value) material components required for spells. This way you can have all the bat guano, sulfur, small amounts of makeup, and glass beads among other things that you would need for such spells. Of course, some DMs might want a player to track down some of the more interesting non-consumed materials for spells (a red dragon's scale for Aganazzar's Scorcher for example) but in general such searches aren't required.
Helps prevent your party mages from having to drag an entire cart filled with random junk just to be able to cast their wide range of spells at higher levels.
A component pouch (or focus) won't substitute for a component that's consumed even if it has no cost listed. The only spell I know of that does this is Protection From Evil And Good, but the holy water or silver powder have an implied cost (holy water isn't free.)
Create Homunculus consumes clay, ash and mandrake root. Snare consumes 25ft of uncosted rope. Druid Grove consumes a particular mistletoe with no cost.
And a significant number of spells that claim not to consume their materials use a quantity of a material, or a material in a specific state, that only has meaning if that material is disposed of in the process: a sprinkling of holy water or powdered silver, a dab of ink, burning or glowing incense, make-up applied to the face, a wisp of smoke, fire or a flame, etc. Are we scraping that make-up back off and putting it back in the container after each casting? The demon summoning spells require a vial of humanoid blood killed in the last 24 hours, but it has no cost and is not consumed so I guess we can assume that all component pouches always contain recently murderer people blood.
My point here, I guess, is that this stuff doesn't make sense. Half of the components listed are little jokes, like using a cork to represent walking on water. If I had to guess I would assume that Protection from Evil and Good had a consumed material cost in earlier drafts (other spells consume the same stuff valued between 25 and 100g) but they removed the cost later while forgetting to remove the "consumed" key word - now they just don't feel like errata-ing a fix for it. DMs meanwhile are given exactly no guidance as to how much any uncosted ingredient should actually cost. If a player wanting to keep track of their ingredients wants to buy the red dragon scale for Aganazzar's Scorcher, how much do we charge for it?
I declare this is all colour and fluff (sometimes literally) and that attempting to read any RAW meaning into any of it beyond the actual costs required for some spells (which has a balancing/limiting effect) leads to annoyance and confusion for all.
Create Homunculus consumes clay, ash and mandrake root. Snare consumes 25ft of uncosted rope. Druid Grove consumes a particular mistletoe with no cost.
Snare has an implied cost; rope has an official cost and can't just be foraged out in the wild. Good catch though, didn't know about these.
The demon summoning spells require a vial of humanoid blood killed in the last 24 hours, but it has no cost and is not consumed so I guess we can assume that all component pouches always contain recently murderer people blood.
You can hand-wave the blood away with a component pouch or a focus if you just care about casting the spell, but if you want to protect yourself you need to have the blood. There's no other way to draw the circle that keeps you safe. If you declare that fluff and let players get away with easy demon summoning, a big part of the theme of the spell is lost. Summoning demons is supposed to be a really stupid thing to do, and you're not supposed to benefit from it easily.
You're right that 90% of the time the material component is fluff, and the designers give you an easy way to tell if it is: it has no cost and it's not consumed.
1) The Sage Advices are all mild-toast non-committal answers. 2) I argue my method IS RAW
"If a spell consumes its material component, you must provide that component every time you cast it." "A spell is cast using the components (V, S, or M) in the spell’s text. Being able to use a spellcasting focus means you have an alternative for the M component, provided the M has no cost specified and isn’t consumed. Using a focus isn’t required." "A spellcasting focus can't substitute for a component that is consumed." "A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
By these rules: A spell doesn't consume a material component AND the component costs zero gold you can use a Spell Focus. By these rules: A component pouch provides all the material components and other special items necessary to cast spells except when they have a specific cost. If there is no specific cost the Component Pouch can be used. That's rules as written. Nothing under it says that it can't be used for consumed components. We are already assuming it has a red dragon scale, bat guano, sulfur, fur, amber, glass, crystal rods, 3 silver pins...
One top of that the developers have been wildly inconsistent in their rulings saying that it's just a "narrative device" and if there is a mechanical cost it's listed in the spell. So which is it? Does a fireball require bat guano and sulfur or is it a narrative device?
Except there are "edge cases". Now look at Snare. It consumed 25 feet of rope. Rope is bought in 50' quantities and costs 1 gold or 10 gold... so does this spell cost 5 silver or 5 gold per use? If I'm in the jungles of Chult and wrap together a vine rope to 25 feet can I use that? The spell doesn't say the "rope" requires a cost. What constitutes "rope" for this mechanic?
My personal opinion is that going with the RAW is best for game balance. Finding the material components in order to be able to cast a spell is no different than the challenge that a melee character faces finding and buying full plate armor. It’s also no different than the group shopping for mundane equipment like crowbars or climbing kits when they’re in town in order to have pitons when they’re at the edge of a cliff that they need to climb down.
If the PC’s can’t find the components, they can’t cast the spell. If they can’t find full plate, the fighter’s AC is lower than the maximum. If they don’t have a flask of oil, their lantern will go dark at the worst possible moment.
"If a spell consumes its material component, you must provide that component every time you cast it." "A spell is cast using the components (V, S, or M) in the spell’s text. Being able to use a spellcasting focus means you have an alternative for the M component, provided the M has no cost specified and isn’t consumed. Using a focus isn’t required." "A spellcasting focus can't substitute for a component that is consumed." "A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
If you stopped taking those sentences as if they stood on their own, and must always be true, you wouldn't have a problem. That's not how the rules work. The order and context of sentences matters.
The line about consumed components comes after the line about pouches and foci. It creates an exception the previous statement.
If I'm in the jungles of Chult and wrap together a vine rope to 25 feet can I use that? The spell doesn't say the "rope" requires a cost. What constitutes "rope" for this mechanic?
A vine is a vine and a rope is a rope. If you want to fashion a rope out in the wild, bring tools, find materials, and use the crafting rules in the PH. Otherwise, bring rope.
Order and Context does matter, but also remember exceptions trump rules. page 7 of the PHB "Specific Beats General" The previous rules you cited are all from the General spell casting section, I'm citing a specific rule in the item section.
Rope: "A length of strong cord made by twisting together strands of natural fibers such as hemp or artificial fibers such as polypropylene."
The PhB currently has silk rope and hemp rope in the PhB. Which cost is acceptable? Also "vine rope" is rope, it just rope made out of the fibers of vines. It wouldn't fall under "hemp" or "silk" as it's not made specifically out of either material. That said there is no cost requirement listed for the spell to be cast. Are you arguing the spell can only use store bought components paid for with gold, even though the spell has no gold cost listed?
The previous rules you cited are all from the General spell casting section, I'm citing a specific rule in the item section.
The rules for spellcasting should trump a description for an item when it comes to casting spells.
The PhB currently has silk rope and hemp rope in the PhB. Which cost is acceptable?
They're both ropes; either one's fine. You wouldn't want to waste expensive silk rope on the spell.
Also "vine rope" is rope, it just rope made out of the fibers of vines. It wouldn't fall under "hemp" or "silk" as it's not made specifically out of either material. That said there is no cost requirement listed for the spell to be cast. Are you arguing the spell can only use store bought components paid for with gold, even though the spell has no gold cost listed?
I'm saying you need rope, and a vine is not a rope. If you manage to fashion a proper rope from vines then you can use it for the spell. I don't know if vine rope is a thing in real life and since there's no cost for that, the DM decides how long that'll take. But I can't imagine that's a situation you'll find yourself in often; if you bothered to use up one of your precious Spells Known on the spell, you'll pack rope to cast it.
"If a spell consumes its material component, you must provide that component every time you cast it." "A spell is cast using the components (V, S, or M) in the spell’s text. Being able to use a spellcasting focus means you have an alternative for the M component, provided the M has no cost specified and isn’t consumed. Using a focus isn’t required." "A spellcasting focus can't substitute for a component that is consumed." "A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
If you stopped taking those sentences as if they stood on their own, and must always be true, you wouldn't have a problem. That's not how the rules work. The order and context of sentences matters.
The line about consumed components comes after the line about pouches and foci. It creates an exception the previous statement.
The line about consumed components does come after the line about pouches and focuses, but it does not specifically create an exception to that statement. The exact text is:
"A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus 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."
Three sentences. The second sentence clearly does create an exception to the first (it has the word "but", and then the word "specific"). The third sentence is in a new paragraph, and is there to introduce new information; namely that consumed materials must be provided for each and every casting, not just once to learn or prepare the spell. It doesn't go so far as to say that these materials "provided" cannot be substituted with a pouch or focus (if they have no cost), though that is also a possible interpretation. I believe that the author didn't think that level of specificity was required, because at the time these rules were written there were actually zero spells in existence that consumed any materials without a gold cost (if we assume I am correct with my earlier theory that Protection from Evil and Good had its cost removed in a later draft). The whole section makes full sense if you assume that "consumed materials" is a subset of "materials with a cost", but without that assumption it is undeniably an ambiguous section of the rules.
I then agree with FMB that every tweet about the subject has been fairly lukewarm. No one can say exactly how much holy water is used up casting PFE&G; one tweet suggested an entire vial - which puts it at the same cost as Ceremony, which specifically consumes costed materials. I feel that too many cooks have been involved in this particular broth now, and return to my decision to write off all uncosted materials, and to abstract all costed materials directly into gold in my games. I prefer to imagine that every wizard has a subtly or dramatically different formula for their spells anyway, so tracking silver and sulphur supplies actually limits immersion in my universe.
What if you cast distort value on a component to make it worth more so you can use it for a spell ? Most components are smaller than 1foot on a side, also who determines what the value of anything is? What if you got ripped off and got a diamond for 100 gold but it's really only worth 47g, could you not actually cast chromatic orb?
also who determines what the value of anything is? What if you got ripped off and got a diamond for 100 gold but it's really only worth 47g, could you not actually cast chromatic orb?
This comes up a lot and JC has been quoted as saying that everything has an intrinsic value - as in - there's no economy simulation. If you or your DM decide to make a fluctuating economy - that's on you/them to decide how that works. Of course - there's a case or two of that being completely wrong in published adventures - but still - the general intent is that if you pay 50g for a diamond - it's a 50g diamond - nothing more nothing less.
I've always assumed what the spell actually cares about is the physical characteristics of the material, and that the price tag is just there as a proxy for quality/rarity/craftsmanship. Since the rules already seem to assume an idealized economy, it's a lot easier to tell players "a 50g diamond" than to get into the minutiae of gem purity, cuts, flaws and all that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This one got me confused. By ruling on components according to PHB "A character can use a component pouch or a speIlcasting focus (found in chapter 5) 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."
I've read and compared spells that need components equal to its gold cost, and as per indication you must either have the gold to use it or have purchased the component equal to its gold cost. But how does it work regarding consumption as some material component spell description says that it will be consumed and some has no indication? DMs seem to stick to "Every time you use that spell, consume that amount of gold equal to that component regardless if it will will be consumed or not".
Do you only need to purchase the component once and you can use it indefinitely in comparison to those spells that indicated "...will be consumed" you have to buy the amount of components equal to the times you will cast it? (e.g. Chromatic Orb's component is diamond worth at least 50 gp but no word of being consumed AND Glyph of Warding's incense and powdered diamond worth at least 200 gp which the spell consumes)
If the spell description says nothing about the consumption of a material component, then that material component is not consumed, even if it has a cost. The spell consumes a component only when the description says so.
Only having the gold equivalent to the value of the component is a houserule - RAW you actually need to have the component on you to cast spells that have a defined cost (if you are able to use a focus (not all spell casters are) then you do not need to have component on you if there is no defined cost).
If a component has a defined cost, and the spell description says it is consumed, then you need one of those components for every cast of that spell.
How to add Tooltips
Yeah, RAW you need to buy a 100g pearl before you can cast Identify, but the pearl is not consumed in each casting; and you need to prepurchase 25g worth of gold dust which would be consumed by each casting of Arcane Lock. Personally I don't have no time for all that nonsense. I translate this to mean you need 100g to learn Identify (or prepare it for the first time), and you lose 25g each time you cast Arcane Lock. I see no story or gameplay benefit to forcing players to keep track of that garbage.
Pretty much it's the player's job to keep track of its own inventory, including components that have gold cost. Perhaps it would be better to assume that they have the gold for it and subtract that gold according to the specification of the spell, of course taking into consideration if that gold cost will be consumed or not and let the player just update its inventory. It would be sad when the player didn't realize that he's spending 100g everytime he would use Identify when he can tell the DM that he has that component worth the right amount of gold, thus pose no problems with gold spending. I got the same problem with Warding Bond, not only did I thought I have to spend 100g (50g for ring x2) but DM stated that I have to declare it first who did I give the ring to before the spell works.
If the Devs wanted to be overly keen, they could implement a toggle similar to the Encumbrance one to enforce/ignore spell components (best left until after containers are brought in, if ever)
With this enabled, the spell would not be available to be cast unless you have the required components in your inventory/component pouch (or if it has no gold value, you have some form of focus equipped if you are able to use focus items (not all casters can)) - if the item is consumed on cast, casting the spell would remove the correct number of components from your inventory. This could create some real Oh S%$t moments when that spell you wanted to cast has run out of components.
I suspect, with the exception of AL players, the vast majority would have this set to Ignore most of the time!
How to add Tooltips
My Question is does the Component Pouch always have the components required unless the material component has a cost, correct?
So if a spell says it consumes a material component, but that material component has no listed cost, then the Component Pouch is assumed to always have a supply of it?
A component pouch (or focus) won't substitute for a component that's consumed even if it has no cost listed. The only spell I know of that does this is Protection From Evil And Good, but the holy water or silver powder have an implied cost (holy water isn't free.)
"If a spell consumes its material component, you must provide that component every time you cast it."
"A spell is cast using the components (V, S, or M) in the spell’s text. Being able to use a spellcasting focus means you have an alternative for the M component, provided the M has no cost specified and isn’t consumed. Using a focus isn’t required."
"A spellcasting focus can't substitute for a component that is consumed."
Traditionally, yes the Component Pouch is assumed to possess any inexpensive (no GP value) material components required for spells. This way you can have all the bat guano, sulfur, small amounts of makeup, and glass beads among other things that you would need for such spells. Of course, some DMs might want a player to track down some of the more interesting non-consumed materials for spells (a red dragon's scale for Aganazzar's Scorcher for example) but in general such searches aren't required.
Helps prevent your party mages from having to drag an entire cart filled with random junk just to be able to cast their wide range of spells at higher levels.
Snare has an implied cost; rope has an official cost and can't just be foraged out in the wild. Good catch though, didn't know about these.
Here is my problem is that.
1) The Sage Advices are all mild-toast non-committal answers.
2) I argue my method IS RAW
"If a spell consumes its material component, you must provide that component every time you cast it."
"A spell is cast using the components (V, S, or M) in the spell’s text. Being able to use a spellcasting focus means you have an alternative for the M component, provided the M has no cost specified and isn’t consumed. Using a focus isn’t required."
"A spellcasting focus can't substitute for a component that is consumed."
"A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
By these rules: A spell doesn't consume a material component AND the component costs zero gold you can use a Spell Focus.
By these rules: A component pouch provides all the material components and other special items necessary to cast spells except when they have a specific cost. If there is no specific cost the Component Pouch can be used. That's rules as written. Nothing under it says that it can't be used for consumed components. We are already assuming it has a red dragon scale, bat guano, sulfur, fur, amber, glass, crystal rods, 3 silver pins...
One top of that the developers have been wildly inconsistent in their rulings saying that it's just a "narrative device" and if there is a mechanical cost it's listed in the spell.
So which is it? Does a fireball require bat guano and sulfur or is it a narrative device?
Except there are "edge cases". Now look at Snare. It consumed 25 feet of rope. Rope is bought in 50' quantities and costs 1 gold or 10 gold... so does this spell cost 5 silver or 5 gold per use?
If I'm in the jungles of Chult and wrap together a vine rope to 25 feet can I use that? The spell doesn't say the "rope" requires a cost. What constitutes "rope" for this mechanic?
My personal opinion is that going with the RAW is best for game balance. Finding the material components in order to be able to cast a spell is no different than the challenge that a melee character faces finding and buying full plate armor. It’s also no different than the group shopping for mundane equipment like crowbars or climbing kits when they’re in town in order to have pitons when they’re at the edge of a cliff that they need to climb down.
If the PC’s can’t find the components, they can’t cast the spell. If they can’t find full plate, the fighter’s AC is lower than the maximum. If they don’t have a flask of oil, their lantern will go dark at the worst possible moment.
Professional computer geek
If you stopped taking those sentences as if they stood on their own, and must always be true, you wouldn't have a problem. That's not how the rules work. The order and context of sentences matters.
The line about consumed components comes after the line about pouches and foci. It creates an exception the previous statement.
Order and Context does matter, but also remember exceptions trump rules.
page 7 of the PHB "Specific Beats General"
The previous rules you cited are all from the General spell casting section, I'm citing a specific rule in the item section.
Rope: "A length of strong cord made by twisting together strands of natural fibers such as hemp or artificial fibers such as polypropylene."
The PhB currently has silk rope and hemp rope in the PhB. Which cost is acceptable?
Also "vine rope" is rope, it just rope made out of the fibers of vines. It wouldn't fall under "hemp" or "silk" as it's not made specifically out of either material. That said there is no cost requirement listed for the spell to be cast.
Are you arguing the spell can only use store bought components paid for with gold, even though the spell has no gold cost listed?
The rules for spellcasting should trump a description for an item when it comes to casting spells.
They're both ropes; either one's fine. You wouldn't want to waste expensive silk rope on the spell.
"A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus 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."
Three sentences. The second sentence clearly does create an exception to the first (it has the word "but", and then the word "specific"). The third sentence is in a new paragraph, and is there to introduce new information; namely that consumed materials must be provided for each and every casting, not just once to learn or prepare the spell. It doesn't go so far as to say that these materials "provided" cannot be substituted with a pouch or focus (if they have no cost), though that is also a possible interpretation. I believe that the author didn't think that level of specificity was required, because at the time these rules were written there were actually zero spells in existence that consumed any materials without a gold cost (if we assume I am correct with my earlier theory that Protection from Evil and Good had its cost removed in a later draft). The whole section makes full sense if you assume that "consumed materials" is a subset of "materials with a cost", but without that assumption it is undeniably an ambiguous section of the rules.
I then agree with FMB that every tweet about the subject has been fairly lukewarm. No one can say exactly how much holy water is used up casting PFE&G; one tweet suggested an entire vial - which puts it at the same cost as Ceremony, which specifically consumes costed materials. I feel that too many cooks have been involved in this particular broth now, and return to my decision to write off all uncosted materials, and to abstract all costed materials directly into gold in my games. I prefer to imagine that every wizard has a subtly or dramatically different formula for their spells anyway, so tracking silver and sulphur supplies actually limits immersion in my universe.
What if you cast distort value on a component to make it worth more so you can use it for a spell ? Most components are smaller than 1foot on a side, also who determines what the value of anything is? What if you got ripped off and got a diamond for 100 gold but it's really only worth 47g, could you not actually cast chromatic orb?
This comes up a lot and JC has been quoted as saying that everything has an intrinsic value - as in - there's no economy simulation. If you or your DM decide to make a fluctuating economy - that's on you/them to decide how that works.
Of course - there's a case or two of that being completely wrong in published adventures - but still - the general intent is that if you pay 50g for a diamond - it's a 50g diamond - nothing more nothing less.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I've always assumed what the spell actually cares about is the physical characteristics of the material, and that the price tag is just there as a proxy for quality/rarity/craftsmanship. Since the rules already seem to assume an idealized economy, it's a lot easier to tell players "a 50g diamond" than to get into the minutiae of gem purity, cuts, flaws and all that.