So me and this one person I talk to on a discord server got into a rather intense debate over component pouches, arcane foci, and RAW vs RAI. I argued that RAI was for component pouches and arcane foci to be mechanically interchangeable for the classes that can use either, and that neither can replace a component that has a listed cost, or is consumed by the spell. The person I was talking to said that a component pouch can be used to cast a few spells that an arcane focus can't. Specifically, they brought up the spell Protection from Evil and Good, and how it has a consumed component with no listed cost. They insisted that since, RAW, the component pouch description doesn't say it can't replace consumed components, only components with a listed cost, a component pouch could be used to cast this spell, at least a few times, while an arcane focus couldn't without acquiring the component separately. This resulted in a lot of back and forth over RAW vs RAI, whether or not the component has an implied cost, and him basically insisting that RAW is RAI. It reached a point where I started trying to find an official statement online via Google, but unfortunately, I had no luck. Does anyone have a link to an official statement on this rather specific issue? Or, failing that, doesn't anyone know of a way I could pose this question to someone with the authority to make an official statement on RAI? I don't think this argument is going to die down otherwise.
Oh god, I was in a long discussion about this exact same spell not too long ago on here... I don't think we really hit a consensus but it did lead to a lot of weird stuff.
I'm not trying to argue that an arcane focus can cast a spell with a consumed component, I'm saying a component pouch can't cast it either, because RAI, a component pouch doesn't provide a consumed component.
Material Component: A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting 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. I
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.
Material Component: A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting 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.
You might stick a specific component into your material component pouch for storage, to make finding "all" your components in one place easier, but RAW the off-the-rack pouch itself doesn't have any components in it that indicate a cost, or that are consumed.
Generally, don't think of a component pouch as being a pouch full of components. Think of it (the pouch itself) as a generic spell focus, since you don't even actually need to draw anything out of it to cast spells, just "access" (i.e., fondle) it.
Material Component: A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting 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.
Calling it the next sentence is a bit misleading. It is the next paragraph and isn't any longer related to casting with a pouch. The whole section isn't specifically about a pouch at all, it is about material components.
Nothing about this quote eliminates the ability of subbing in a pouch for a component.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You might stick a specific component into your material component pouch for storage, to make finding "all" your components in one place easier, but RAW the off-the-rack pouch itself doesn't have any components in it that indicate a cost, or that are consumed.
RAW the component pouch can be used in place of material components without a listed cost.
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.
The entire purpose of the component pouch or spellcasting focus is to not have to worry about tracking all the odds and ends you may or may not need for every spell you can possibly cast. Specifically trying to then track all the odds and ends you need is going to clash with the concept of what the pouch is for. If you want gritty realism, or inventory micromanagement simulator 3000, just ban these items from your games and force people to track components manually.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Wasn't really sure what Bees was disagreeing with either for that matter... just not really sure about anything at this point.
Do spells with material components need those specific components to be cast? Yes.
Can a component pouch be used in the place of those material components? Often yes, but not always:
Not when the components have a cost: "But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell." and "...material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost."
Not when the components are consumed: "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."
Wait.... I think I follow. You're saying, a component pouchdoes contain individual components, and always has any component that doesn't have a cost. So when a spell needs to consume a component with no cost (not eligible for a spell focus, needs a component), the component pouch can produce that component.
Hmm... yeah, I guess that's probably right. Calling pouches generic spell focuses isn't actually right, is it?
There are only one or two spells where the component is consumed but no cost is listed, correct? Something like snare and protection from evil and good. I would definitely rule that 25' of rope does have a value, it just depends on the type of rope that you use. I would argue that if a spell consumes a component, then your component pouch might have some of that component up until the point that it is consumed.
Wait.... I think I follow. You're saying, a component pouchdoes contain individual components, and always has any component that doesn't have a cost. So when a spell needs to consume a component with no cost (not eligible for a spell focus, needs a component), the component pouch can produce that component.
Hmm... yeah, I guess that's probably right. Calling pouches generic spell focuses isn't actually right, is it?
I'm not certain who you're replying to with this message, but in case you're responding to something I said, I'll try my best to clarify. The argument I got into on a discord server consisted of me saying that RAW had neglected to clarify a point in terms of RAI, that point being that component pouches function identically to arcane foci mechanically (both can replace material components that don't have a specified cost and aren't consumed by the spell). The person I was arguing with, however insisted that the RAW is RAI, and that a component pouch can replace consumed material components that don't have a specified cost (an example of such a component being the material component for Protection for Evil and Good). I'm looking to get an official statement on whether my interpretation, or the interpretation of the person I've been arguing with, is the actual RAI. I showed the person I was arguing with multiple screen shots of answers to this question in favor of my interpretation, several of which were from long-term DMs, but the person I'm arguing doesn't care about the general consensus on the matter, hence why I'm trying to find an official statement on what RAI actually is from someone with the authority to make an official statement.
Wait.... I think I follow. You're saying, a component pouchdoes contain individual components, and always has any component that doesn't have a cost. So when a spell needs to consume a component with no cost (not eligible for a spell focus, needs a component), the component pouch can produce that component.
Hmm... yeah, I guess that's probably right. Calling pouches generic spell focuses isn't actually right, is it?
I'm not certain who you're replying to with this message, but in case you're responding to something I said, I'll try my best to clarify. The argument I got into on a discord server consisted of me saying that RAW had neglected to clarify a point in terms of RAI, that point being that component pouches function identically to arcane foci mechanically (both can replace material components that don't have a specified cost and aren't consumed by the spell). The person I was arguing with, however insisted that the RAW is RAI, and that a component pouch can replace consumed material components that don't have a specified cost (an example of such a component being the material component for Protection for Evil and Good). I'm looking to get an official statement on whether my interpretation, or the interpretation of the person I've been arguing with, is the actual RAI. I showed the person I was arguing with multiple screen shots of answers to this question in favor of my interpretation, several of which were from long-term DMs, but the person I'm arguing doesn't care about the general consensus on the matter, hence why I'm trying to find an official statement on what RAI actually is from someone with the authority to make an official statement.
You might have some difficulty with anything resembling a concrete answer on this. It has been well and truly, deeply discussed here (and elsewhere), and people have solid entrenched views in both directions.
What is certain is that it really only matters for a very small number of spells, specifically, and each DM is ultimately going to probably have a different take on it. There is no consensus.
A spellcasting foci, such as a wand, won't work. That much is certain. But can the pouch? Some say yes, some say no, both claim it is RAW and/or RAI. This argument between you and your buddy is not likely to be resolved unless some official word comes down from on high. Which may never happen. The clarification for the fact the foci cannot do the job of a consumed component either accidently was silent on the pouch or was intentionally silent on the pouch, depending on your stance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I've come around. I'm ready to fight and die for the cause of Component Pouches freely providing consumed-but-no-price components. And yes, that would include the "holy water" in Protection from Evil and Good.
A "holy water" does not have a cost, and isn't a PHB item.
A flask of Holy Water costs 25 gp to buy, but can also be created for 25 gp worth of silver + 1 first-level slot + 1 hour by any cleric or paladin using a "special ritual" which is not a typical Ritual spell at all. There's rules for what it does when used in combat
A vial of Holy Water can be created using Ceremony cast as a Ritual or with a spell slot by clerics, with a spell slot by paladins, or as a ritual or with spell slots by any other character with access to the spell... but provides no guide as to how many vials=one flask, and has no rules describing its use.
Protection from Evil and Good requires some amount of "Holy Water," but no mention of barrels, buckets, flasks, vials, splashes, sprinkles, drop or any other unit of measurement.
This isn't like the situation presented by Snare and its "25 feet of rope." Rope, Hempen (50 feet) and Rope, Silk (50 feet) are items that provide a cost (1 gp Hemp, 10 gp Silk). It isn't explicit that 25 feet of Hemp Rope would cost half of what 50 feet costs, but we at least (1) have a reasonable basis to calculate a per-foot cost of hemp rope, (2) a reasonable basis to expect that 25 feet of rope probably still functions as an item that "has 2 hit points and can be burst with a DC 17 Strength check" (and thus, is deserving of having a currency value as an item), and (3) have a clear description in Snare that a specific amount of rope is being requested in a sufficient quantity that it should reasonably have some value. A reasonable DM or player would know exactly how much rope is required (25 feet), and could conclude that a 25 foot hemp rope is worth somewhere between 1 cp and 1 gp.
How much "holy water" exactly is required? A drop? An ounce? An ocean? What reasonable basis is there for measuring the cost of Holy Water by any unit other than "vial"/4 oz (which we know costs exactly 25 gp + 1 spell slot or Ritual Hour to produce, suggesting it sells for at least 50 gp market rate), or a "flask"/16 ounces (which we know costs 25 gp + 1 spell slot or 100 gp + 4 spell slot or Ritual Hours, but somehow has an explicit market rate of 25 gp regardless). Its already looking impossible to calculate a single per-ounce cost of "Holy Water", or any basis for thinking that Holy Water is useful enough in quantities under 16 ounces to do anything and deserve a currency value, and we also don't even know how many ounces we need, and.... screw it, "Holy Water" has no cost, unless a unit is specified (and probably, that unit needs to be at least one vial/4 ounces)!
Might a component pouch have a no-specified-cost consumed component? Sure, maybe. But it’s still consumed, and once it is, the pouch no longer has it. Remember that most spell components are not consumed; the pouch has all of them when you buy it, but it doesn’t create anything.
So, there are a couple options a GM has to make sense of this: either they can keep track of consuming and restocking these components, or they can say the pouch doesn’t include them. I do not want to bother with the former, and I doubt many other people do either.
Also, component pouches are also kept in inventory (and can be stolen), whereas arcane foci are held when used (and can be disarmed). That’s how I’ve always considered it, at least.
I am with Chicken Champ - they can be used to cast the same spells and Prot-Evil-Good is no different. Also, why can’t you just use the non-holy water component of the spell instead (powdered silver and iron) and save yourself the headache?
I've come around. I'm ready to fight and die for the cause of Component Pouches freely providing consumed-but-no-price components. And yes, that would include the "holy water" in Protection from Evil and Good.
...
A component pouch does not contain a vial of blood from a humanoid killed in the last 24 hours, which is required and consumed when summoning a Greater Demon. If you want the Demon, you must acquire the blood.
That being said, for any uncosted and insignificant ingredients like the few drops of holy water above, I would absolutely ignore that and allow the spell cast with either a pouch or a focus. Likewise, for any spell with a costed ingredient (like a specific gemstone) I consider that to be a cost of learning or preparing the spell for the first time - and after that allow it to be cast through a focus or pouch while the gem is tucked safely away in your supplies. And even for a spell with a consumed costed ingredient, I'll allow it to be cast with a focus or pouch used, as long as the cost is subtracted from the characters current treasure supply. Anything to simplify these silly component rules while not affecting balance is recommended.
Considering the absolute lack of details on the Protection from G&E spell, I'm going to ignore the problem if it ever comes up in my games. You have a stash of silver powder in your pouch and can use one grain of it, done.
Snare isn't a problem anyway, as 25 ft of rope is not an item that will be fitting in the pouch, and is a general adventuring item.
Material Component: A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting 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.
So me and this one person I talk to on a discord server got into a rather intense debate over component pouches, arcane foci, and RAW vs RAI. I argued that RAI was for component pouches and arcane foci to be mechanically interchangeable for the classes that can use either, and that neither can replace a component that has a listed cost, or is consumed by the spell. The person I was talking to said that a component pouch can be used to cast a few spells that an arcane focus can't. Specifically, they brought up the spell Protection from Evil and Good, and how it has a consumed component with no listed cost. They insisted that since, RAW, the component pouch description doesn't say it can't replace consumed components, only components with a listed cost, a component pouch could be used to cast this spell, at least a few times, while an arcane focus couldn't without acquiring the component separately. This resulted in a lot of back and forth over RAW vs RAI, whether or not the component has an implied cost, and him basically insisting that RAW is RAI. It reached a point where I started trying to find an official statement online via Google, but unfortunately, I had no luck. Does anyone have a link to an official statement on this rather specific issue? Or, failing that, doesn't anyone know of a way I could pose this question to someone with the authority to make an official statement on RAI? I don't think this argument is going to die down otherwise.
Oh god, I was in a long discussion about this exact same spell not too long ago on here... I don't think we really hit a consensus but it did lead to a lot of weird stuff.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I'm not trying to argue that an arcane focus can cast a spell with a consumed component, I'm saying a component pouch can't cast it either, because RAI, a component pouch doesn't provide a consumed component.
It's also clearly explained in the rules for
Material Component: A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting 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. I
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.
Except that you left out the very next sentence in the material component rules:
You might stick a specific component into your material component pouch for storage, to make finding "all" your components in one place easier, but RAW the off-the-rack pouch itself doesn't have any components in it that indicate a cost, or that are consumed.
Generally, don't think of a component pouch as being a pouch full of components. Think of it (the pouch itself) as a generic spell focus, since you don't even actually need to draw anything out of it to cast spells, just "access" (i.e., fondle) it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Calling it the next sentence is a bit misleading. It is the next paragraph and isn't any longer related to casting with a pouch. The whole section isn't specifically about a pouch at all, it is about material components.
Nothing about this quote eliminates the ability of subbing in a pouch for a component.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
RAW the component pouch can be used in place of material components without a listed cost.
The entire purpose of the component pouch or spellcasting focus is to not have to worry about tracking all the odds and ends you may or may not need for every spell you can possibly cast. Specifically trying to then track all the odds and ends you need is going to clash with the concept of what the pouch is for. If you want gritty realism, or inventory micromanagement simulator 3000, just ban these items from your games and force people to track components manually.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Wasn't really sure what Bees was disagreeing with either for that matter... just not really sure about anything at this point.
Are you... disagreeing with that?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wait.... I think I follow. You're saying, a component pouch does contain individual components, and always has any component that doesn't have a cost. So when a spell needs to consume a component with no cost (not eligible for a spell focus, needs a component), the component pouch can produce that component.
Hmm... yeah, I guess that's probably right. Calling pouches generic spell focuses isn't actually right, is it?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There are only one or two spells where the component is consumed but no cost is listed, correct? Something like snare and protection from evil and good. I would definitely rule that 25' of rope does have a value, it just depends on the type of rope that you use. I would argue that if a spell consumes a component, then your component pouch might have some of that component up until the point that it is consumed.
I'm not certain who you're replying to with this message, but in case you're responding to something I said, I'll try my best to clarify. The argument I got into on a discord server consisted of me saying that RAW had neglected to clarify a point in terms of RAI, that point being that component pouches function identically to arcane foci mechanically (both can replace material components that don't have a specified cost and aren't consumed by the spell). The person I was arguing with, however insisted that the RAW is RAI, and that a component pouch can replace consumed material components that don't have a specified cost (an example of such a component being the material component for Protection for Evil and Good). I'm looking to get an official statement on whether my interpretation, or the interpretation of the person I've been arguing with, is the actual RAI. I showed the person I was arguing with multiple screen shots of answers to this question in favor of my interpretation, several of which were from long-term DMs, but the person I'm arguing doesn't care about the general consensus on the matter, hence why I'm trying to find an official statement on what RAI actually is from someone with the authority to make an official statement.
You might have some difficulty with anything resembling a concrete answer on this. It has been well and truly, deeply discussed here (and elsewhere), and people have solid entrenched views in both directions.
What is certain is that it really only matters for a very small number of spells, specifically, and each DM is ultimately going to probably have a different take on it. There is no consensus.
A spellcasting foci, such as a wand, won't work. That much is certain. But can the pouch? Some say yes, some say no, both claim it is RAW and/or RAI. This argument between you and your buddy is not likely to be resolved unless some official word comes down from on high. Which may never happen. The clarification for the fact the foci cannot do the job of a consumed component either accidently was silent on the pouch or was intentionally silent on the pouch, depending on your stance.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I've come around. I'm ready to fight and die for the cause of Component Pouches freely providing consumed-but-no-price components. And yes, that would include the "holy water" in Protection from Evil and Good.
A "holy water" does not have a cost, and isn't a PHB item.
This isn't like the situation presented by Snare and its "25 feet of rope." Rope, Hempen (50 feet) and Rope, Silk (50 feet) are items that provide a cost (1 gp Hemp, 10 gp Silk). It isn't explicit that 25 feet of Hemp Rope would cost half of what 50 feet costs, but we at least (1) have a reasonable basis to calculate a per-foot cost of hemp rope, (2) a reasonable basis to expect that 25 feet of rope probably still functions as an item that "has 2 hit points and can be burst with a DC 17 Strength check" (and thus, is deserving of having a currency value as an item), and (3) have a clear description in Snare that a specific amount of rope is being requested in a sufficient quantity that it should reasonably have some value. A reasonable DM or player would know exactly how much rope is required (25 feet), and could conclude that a 25 foot hemp rope is worth somewhere between 1 cp and 1 gp.
How much "holy water" exactly is required? A drop? An ounce? An ocean? What reasonable basis is there for measuring the cost of Holy Water by any unit other than "vial"/4 oz (which we know costs exactly 25 gp + 1 spell slot or Ritual Hour to produce, suggesting it sells for at least 50 gp market rate), or a "flask"/16 ounces (which we know costs 25 gp + 1 spell slot or 100 gp + 4 spell slot or Ritual Hours, but somehow has an explicit market rate of 25 gp regardless). Its already looking impossible to calculate a single per-ounce cost of "Holy Water", or any basis for thinking that Holy Water is useful enough in quantities under 16 ounces to do anything and deserve a currency value, and we also don't even know how many ounces we need, and.... screw it, "Holy Water" has no cost, unless a unit is specified (and probably, that unit needs to be at least one vial/4 ounces)!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Might a component pouch have a no-specified-cost consumed component? Sure, maybe. But it’s still consumed, and once it is, the pouch no longer has it. Remember that most spell components are not consumed; the pouch has all of them when you buy it, but it doesn’t create anything.
So, there are a couple options a GM has to make sense of this: either they can keep track of consuming and restocking these components, or they can say the pouch doesn’t include them. I do not want to bother with the former, and I doubt many other people do either.
Why can't they be quantum pockets that literally do have everything they're allowed to have all the time? m a g i c p o u c h
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Also, component pouches are also kept in inventory (and can be stolen), whereas arcane foci are held when used (and can be disarmed). That’s how I’ve always considered it, at least.
I am with Chicken Champ - they can be used to cast the same spells and Prot-Evil-Good is no different. Also, why can’t you just use the non-holy water component of the spell instead (powdered silver and iron) and save yourself the headache?
A component pouch does not contain a vial of blood from a humanoid killed in the last 24 hours, which is required and consumed when summoning a Greater Demon. If you want the Demon, you must acquire the blood.
That being said, for any uncosted and insignificant ingredients like the few drops of holy water above, I would absolutely ignore that and allow the spell cast with either a pouch or a focus. Likewise, for any spell with a costed ingredient (like a specific gemstone) I consider that to be a cost of learning or preparing the spell for the first time - and after that allow it to be cast through a focus or pouch while the gem is tucked safely away in your supplies. And even for a spell with a consumed costed ingredient, I'll allow it to be cast with a focus or pouch used, as long as the cost is subtracted from the characters current treasure supply. Anything to simplify these silly component rules while not affecting balance is recommended.
Considering the absolute lack of details on the Protection from G&E spell, I'm going to ignore the problem if it ever comes up in my games. You have a stash of silver powder in your pouch and can use one grain of it, done.
Snare isn't a problem anyway, as 25 ft of rope is not an item that will be fitting in the pouch, and is a general adventuring item.
Oops i did yeah if it's consumed you must also have it for each casting.The Devs provided RAI for it; https://www.sageadvice.eu/material-component-and-spellcasting-focus/
@jackAbrasion If a spell’s material components are consumed, can a spellcasting focus still be used in place of the consumed component?
@JeremyECrawford A spellcasting focus can't substitute for a component that is consumed.
@Zejety Does this ruling also apply to component pouches?
@JeremyECrawford Yes. See the Player's Handbook, p. 203.