PDA

View Full Version : PEACH feat



ivanmckilliagin
2006-05-01, 06:18 PM
Improved Eschew Materials [GENERAL]

You can cast spells w/o material components as long as they have no cost, and you can spend 1 XP for every 5 GP that a pricey Material component requires.

This feat replaces Eschew Materials as a feat selection (Eschew materials would cease to exist.)


PEACH

hyenahyena
2006-05-01, 06:28 PM
ok, ok ok, ok ok ok ok.

If its totally replacing an existing feat, like..why is it IMPROVED eschew materials? the feat its improving no longer exists according to this proposal! Maddness!

I hate that wizards need material components for spells, so the better eschew materials is the better. But, seriously, just change eschew materials 'to' this version for your games. It simply cannot be 'improved'.

It would like me having 'improved awesome spell' when the 'awesome spell' feat doesnt exist.

ivanmckilliagin
2006-05-01, 06:33 PM
so, besides that, its good?

yeh, its like having somethiing new and improved. it is either new or improved, not both... meh, still.

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-05-01, 06:44 PM
I think that works.

Should be Metamagic, though.

hyenahyena
2006-05-01, 06:45 PM
seeing as there is no listed limit to the amount of exp you can spend in place of components, how would this spell work?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/traptheSoul.htm

You would be trapping their soul in the abstract notion of experience points.

Or even this spell,
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm

you dont need the gems! Just memorise the spell! thats what, like, 5xp per corpse you want animatafied? Score!

I think there needs to be a limit on how much exp you can burn, and a limit on materials. Like, some spells just dont work without spesific materials. Sepia snake sigil would be weird if, you know, there wasnt actually a sepia snake sigil.

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-05-01, 06:52 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/traptheSoul.htm

You would be trapping their soul in the abstract notion of experience points.
The gem in which you trap a soul is a focus, not a material component... No, wait...

It's not? The gem should be a focus if it's not consumed during the casting of the spell. That's pretty poor component assignment.


Or even this spell,
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm

you dont need the gems! Just memorise the spell! thats what, like, 5xp per corpse you want animatafied? Score!
Five XP per hit die of the resultant undead. A zombie has minimum 2 HD—minimum 10 XP cost. And the undead you get aren't that good. And you can only control so many of them.

hyenahyena
2006-05-01, 07:07 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sepiaSnakeSigil.htm

ok. tell me how that would work, again? The sigil just appears from no materials? Curious!

Like, i truly like the concept for an improved eschew materials. All im saying is, there needs to be a limit, and i just dont play casters enough to think of a smart way to limit it. Cause without limit, a lot of spells which are 'meant' to be pretty hardcore to get the materials for, with this feat you can just...POW wing it and pull out this nasty spell with none of the spending gold or buying stuff.

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-05-01, 07:16 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sepiaSnakeSigil.htm

ok. tell me how that would work, again? The sigil just appears from no materials? Curious!
The book is the target, not the component. No problem.

Or you mean like, "Don't you have to draw the sigil?" Well, it is magic. Trace it with your fingers, and, yest, the sigil does just appear from nowhere. And it certainly doesn't say that the components are used to draw the sigil, anyway.

hyenahyena
2006-05-01, 07:33 PM
I think you're missing the point.

And the point is, these spells have high cost components for a reason. And the reason is that they're quite intense in effect, usually. Crushing up thousands of dollars worth of gems to cast one spell, indicates that the action involved is important.

You're points are invalid and moot. They dont actually address the problem, and if you can't see the problem with wizards being able to totally ignore materials then, yeah. You need to sit down and think harder about it.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/refuge.htm

I still just dont see how you can 'eschew' this material. Its not a focus. Its a material. What, for the cost of 750 exp you can 'just' create something made from $1500 worth of gems?

modified, cause i repeated myself lol
modified a second time, because about you sayin that the components for the sigil spell arent required in its creation. I'm not sure how you think materials for spells work, but they're always relevant to the spell. Materials are sacrificing something to get an effect. In this you're sacrificing 500gp worth of amber, a scale and mushroom spores, for an effect. The idea of REMOVING this material sacrifice, and simply sacrificing exp which is not actually a real thing, its an abstract notion of character development, is just, wrong.

Leperflesh
2006-05-01, 07:57 PM
hyena's post notwithstanding:

money is more precious than XP. On a per-level basis, if you spend XP, you earn it back faster the second time around (because your party has advanced in level). XP is also weightless and infintiely portable. Nobody can sunder your XP bag, and you keep your XP even when you're locked up in a cell with all your stuff stolen.

If you really don't like material components for spells, you need to re-work the D&D magic system so it doesn't use them... and balance things to fit that new paradigm.

-Lep

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-05-01, 08:00 PM
I think you're missing the point.

And the point is, these spells have high cost components for a reason. And the reason is that they're quite intense in effect, usually. Crushing up thousands of dollars worth of gems to cast one spell, indicates that the action involved is important.
I'm addressing the specific-case points you brought up. *You seemed to have more of a problem with spells that absolutely require the material, rather than the general idea of using XP to substitute for wealth.


You're points are invalid and moot.
Hardly. *I addressed the problems you brought up.


They dont actually address the problem, and if you can't see the problem with wizards being able to totally ignore materials then, yeah. You need to sit down and think harder about it.
You aren't exactly ignoring the materials for free. *1 XP == 5 gp is a pretty standard conversion rate used several places within the RAW. *Psions never have material components, and yet they have some powers that exactly replicate spells with costly material components. *The trade off is the psion pays XP.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/refuge.htm

I still just dont see how you can 'eschew' this material. Its not a focus. Its a material. What, for the cost of 750 exp you can 'just' create something made from $1500 worth of gems?
Once again, you phrase the question as a specific "Where does the necessary material come from?", depsite the fact you just said that's not the point. So I'm not going to answer that, because, apparently the answer to that question is not the point.


I'm not sure how you think materials for spells work, but they're always relevant to the spell. Materials are sacrificing something to get an effect. In this you're sacrificing 500gp worth of amber, a scale and mushroom spores, for an effect. The idea of REMOVING this material sacrifice, and simply sacrificing exp which is not actually a real thing, its an abstract notion of character development, is just, wrong.
And how do you suppose the normal version of Eschew Material works?

hyenahyena
2006-05-01, 08:04 PM
err, they work cause the thing you're sacrificing costs less then 1gp. And in terms of throwing fireballs and moving mountains with arcane force, substituting your will for things like 'bat guano' or 'a feather' is hardly game breaking.

But substituting THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS worth of components for something which does, not, physically, exist, is rediculous. Experience isnt an actual physical bucket that you can reach into and pull out numbers in exchange for things. Things have exp costs to keep the game balanced. Spells have material costs, to keep the game balanced.

Being able to substitute rare and precious materials for something which 'is not real' sounds nice, until you actually think about it.

edit stuff here

and another thing. This is like, just justifing based almost purely on number crunching game theory. How does this translate into the reality of the game.

What, how come this wizard can cast spells that most wizards require literally thousands of dollars of GEMS to cast, and he can just..do it for physically no cost. Like, he takes no physical damage, no nothing. He pulls this great act of arcanum, suplimenting the costs of all the materials with 'himself' and..he takes no damage? Theres no penalty?

Just as a vague suggestion. What if the person who was casting a spell that you know, would normally require thousands of dollars, had to make a save vs con damage, or even just vs being torn appart by the intense magic ripping through him.

He is using his experience in replacement of a material that would normally be used up. Thats at least got to hurt.

Steward
2006-05-01, 09:49 PM
You'd have to give up some of intelligence, of course. If I'm burning up thousands of months of knowledge, I'm probably going to get less and less capable. Pretty soon, you'll find wizards shuffling around, trying to remember how to tie their shoelaces and how to breathe because they burned up that experience casting Summon Monster, Refuge, and Astral Projection (among others).

Flawless
2006-05-01, 09:57 PM
There are many spells that have an xp-cost and they don't have the consequences you discribe either.

I think that feat is good idea, but the DM ought to have the option to exclude certain spells. He should make list of the spells that don't work with the improves eschew material component feat afore hand, so that later on players won't complain.

Aranth
2006-05-02, 02:31 AM
Perhaps for spells like "trap the soul" you can use a cheap glass replica of the gem and use your xp to make the spell work with it! :P

Wehrkind
2006-05-02, 05:12 AM
I don't know that this would be terribly overpowering, though I will admit almost all the GM's I know were a little fast and loose when it came to componants, except where crazy special spells were involved.

That might be the best way to adjucate it, as previously mentioned. Have certain spells, or even just certain spell componants within spells, not be elligable for the swap out. That way you could preserve the large tangible cost of materials for very special spells that you don't want being tossed around carelessly, but also save a lot of book keeping and hassle of dealing with random objects.

ivanmckilliagin
2006-05-02, 07:32 AM
exactly wehrkind, exactly. my f2f group is underground and about to level up. once they get these new spells, they're going to belike "HAHA i cast that spiffy new spell!" and ill say... "Wheres your material component?" "..." this was meant to counter that. so, unless anyone has any other peaches....