Ignoring or handwaving components is 100% legit. DMs and groups should not use so many rules that they get overwhelmed.
We do use a lot of component related stuff in our campaign because we’re such hopeless tryhards. A list of magic words for the verbal components, and costs added to the material components low-level food-and-light–giving spells such as Light and Dancing Lights. And the special ink that wizards use in their spellbook.
It’s a part of the game I really love 🤷🏻♀️
The idea is that when we’re counting torches or trying to buy a pearl or incense, our concerns are the same as the character’s concern. We are doing what they are doing. There’s something magical in that.That’s not to sell anyone else on this philosophy. I love it so we do it—don’t do it if you don’t love it. Keep it simple and keep the parts of the game that you love.
And we absolutely do use focus or component pouch for all non-costed components so we don’t have to track basic eyelashes and guano. We also use the rule from Tasha’s Cauldron that even rangers and paladins can use a focus. (That might’ve just been an oversight in the PHB.)
Interesting article, as a new DM I admit I mostly ignore components. It feels like I have enough to manage. I mostly leave it up to players if they want to make a thing of it.
word of advice from a seasoned veteran DM: paying attention to components is a great way to keep your spell casters more in line with the martial characters when it comes to utility and combat (otherwise, they’ll eventually end up stealing the show).
For instance, Revivify is a great spell - 3rd level, relatively common on spell lists, and is a great way to keep PCs alive in the early-to-mid game. But, without component requirements, it can very easily turn into a crutch for a party, where a Paladin or Barbarian will make their heroic stand every battle, simply because they know the cleric/paladin/druid/artificer/etc. has a “get out of death free” card up their sleeve.
Unless, of course, you require the 300 gp of diamonds for each use of the spell. Sure, by the time the character can cast 3rd level spells, 300 gp is relatively inexpensive. But, the specific requirement of diamonds adds in a layer of sourcing. Maybe they could only find 600 gp of diamonds in their last large city they passed through, and so now they’ve only got two Revivify spells to last them? Suddenly, that “get out of death free” card turns into a valuable resource the party has to manage. Or that small amount of diamonds they were given as a reward becomes far more valuable.
Even better is Banishment - which requires “something distasteful to the target”.
In mid-to-late game, this becomes even more prominent, with spells like “Circle of Death” requiring 500 gp worth of rare components, or Holy Aura (super powerful divine spell that gives nearby party members advantage on all saving throws, and enemies disadvantage on all attack roles against them) requiring a religious reliquary from either a saint or holy book that’s worth at lease 1000 gp.
You don’t necessarily want to restrict/punish what they can do, but you don’t want to give them a completely blank check either.
The problem with spell components is that paying attention to them generally causes them to focus as a hindrance more than anything else, which is especially problematic given the hindrances other classes SHOULD have but often don’t.
I’ve seen DM’s go full-bore on clerics as well, with a whole lot of attention paid to proper religious observances in order to maintain spell-casting-levels of favor with their deity, but while that can ALSO provide some color and fun, it can also easily be more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s hard to celebrate next tuesday’s moderately important feast that requires horsemeat boiled in the leftover pomace from cidermaking when you’re out on the road between towns in an area that doesn’t grow apples or whatever the observance is. How many moderately important observances can you ignore before the metaphysical tie between your role and your granted abilities stretches too thin?
Functionally, it’d be like forcing melee classes to properly tend to their full plate armor, something which historically required several people working for a few hours in between military engagements. Heck, just getting in and out of the armor in order to sleep requires assistance. Fighter: “Can somebody help me with my…” Cleric: “Sorry, gotta pray!” Wizard:"Will you SHUT UP, I’m trying to memorize thi…: Barbarian: throws empty mug at wizard’s head “REFILL!”
Everybody in a band knows what happens when you fail to keep the lead singer/instrumentalist happy. Is the group treading on thin ice just to keep Bard in great spirits?
etc, etc…
I like the ideas around incorporating some personalization to an individual’s spells, though. One of the things that could lend well to that is substitute components. It allows for easy hand-waving with room for a story element as you change something minor about the spell due to it using something slightly different. No bats? Several types of bird guano should do if you’re going the alchemical route, crushing fireflies into pack animal manure could work if you’re going the symbolic route, but either way the point is that someone as schooled in the ways of magic as a wizard should be able to “punt” at almost all times unless you have a specific story-based reason for not allowing something (see: Dark Sun).
One of my regrets as a player ( @reverse was DM-ing this one) was when we only had one or two (we ended up only having one, IIRC) session to do Forge of Fury and one guy wanted our characters to spend so much time in the bar before the party set out and I was thinking “at this rate, we’re not going to get to explore the dungeon” and kept pushing us forwards. Which was dumb because it took away from that player’s fun. You can’t really “do” a module anyway, it’s just a location; what really matters is our play there, and that bar talk was part of the play for that player. I was stressed since it wasn’t a normal campaign, only a few limited sessions, but I was ultimately misguided there. When I myself prep for one-shot con games I bring a much bigger sandbox than we can ever hope to explore at the con. The important thing is what the players and their characters choose to do, not them finding or seeing everything,
But I’m of two minds. One of the two big beginner mistakes is not letting time pass. I’ve seen groups—not this one, where my fear was unfounded, but other groups—that just didn’t know how to advance the diegetic clock. Their characters are stuck in a cage? Well, then nothing happens for three real-time hours until a guard comes and talks to them. They’re wandering through a forest? Well, that’s gonna be real-time, too, with every meal accounted for.
That’s not great. The fix is to let time move as slow or as fast as it needs to to answer any salient or relevant questions the players or the DM have about a situation. “It’s a six day journey there. On the fourth day as you’re deep into the forest, you here a rustling in the undergrowth. What do you do?”
I try to make this feel more like fast forwarding or time-being-told-quickly than “cutting”; some people get really uncomfy with cuts forcing them to take their eyes off their characters.
Once you’ve learned the knack for that kind of zooming in and out of time scales, you can start finding out what part of the game and the game’s world you all find most interesting. If, for your group, that means zooming over the domning & doffing & praying, that’s fine. And other groups can make different choices and that’s also great.
I’ve seen groups—not this one, where my fear was unfounded, but other groups—that just didn’t know how to advance the diegetic clock.
What? There are players who don’t do time skips? God that would be so boring. I’ve never had an issue using time skips in any DnD I’ve played.
Yeah, I don’t think those groups stick with roleplaying for very long since that’s so boring. It’s think that’s often not taught because people who get it are the ones who stick around in the hobby. I like being super explicit with the basics.
