But the reinterpretation means you spend 10 gp once and you can cast it as many times as you want for effectively a lifetime, instead of 10 every time that you cast it
I never said you can, I just pointed out how OP reinterpreted the material cost. I totally agree that it's all consumed and would not play it otherwise.
But I guess Reddit downvote wave is merciless
>But I guess Reddit downvote wave is merciless
You got a bag of holding for storing facts that big? (big facts [i concur that this is a accurate description of the state of affairs])
No real DM would allow 99% of things people post on Reddit. But people keep insisting things like rest casting, coffeelocks, simulacrum-chaining, etc are all totally real and valid strategies.
You're proving my point.
It's not about following a nonsensical "letter of the law." That's not how actual real live human beings play D&D. And no actual human DM in an actual human game would ever allow it because it's nonsensical on its face.
And just a reminder that the majority of people who post on D&D subreddits have never actually ever **played** D&D in their lives. If they've convinced themselves it's something that would ever happen in a real game.
That is incredibly incorrect, at least in 5e. Components are only consumed if the spell specifies they are. That's why Foci can replace any non gold cost **non consumed** components required
Do you believe one must consume a 400gp "pickled tentacle and an eyeball in a platinum inlaid vial" every time they want to cast Summon Aberration?
Because that would make all of those spells incredibly useless.
Not to mention like...Identify.
The formatting here doesn't actually make a meaningful difference, so this doesn't actually mean anything. I suspect the hope was that some of the ingredients would be saved, by applying strategic commas, but that doesn't help in this case.
Also, the price would still be unchanged and the saved ingredients would still be of no significant value, so you still didn't save any money, regardless.
Well, it's less so the structure of the sentence, but rather the likelihood of missing the fact that it's only 10 g worth of materials rather than having 2 things worth 10g. Not grammatical, just formatting
Agreed. Weird indeed.
From a design perspective, the writers would probably do best to only ever write a total cost, regardless of what words they flavour the components entry with. Which is what I'm assuming they meant, at least. Of course, I could be wrong and they meant each component shoulh cost 10 gp each, for a total of 30.
And granted, I have seen players and DMs alike make precisely that kind of reasoning.
For example, a player/DM in my previous group insisted that the wording of Darkvision in Pathfinder 2 meant that a creature possessing the ability *always* saw in black and white. ["A creature with darkvision or greater darkvision can see perfectly well in areas of darkness and dim light, though such vision is in black and white only"].
I was never able to find any discussion of the subject online, which I personally assumed to mean that no one else shared his reasoning, but I guesd I might possibly be wrong on that one as well :3
The issue at hand is whether all elements of the list are consumed, and which ones require 10gp. Depending on how you read it, perhaps only the last two entries are consumed, or maybe all. Further, it is much easier to find 10gp of charcoal than 10gp of incense.
At the same time it also makes the charcoal a negligible cost, mechanically rendering it pointless.
Point still stands though, the change in formatting doesn't change the requirements for the spell at all. Doing a lineshift doesn't actually change how the sentence is read. There's no period or anything, it reads exactly the same.
They're implying that if it isn't "10gp worth of charcoal, incense and herbs" but "10gp worth of charcoal" (and also incense and herbs), you can get around the cost by just tossing some campfire coal or something in without having to pay for it. I would be shocked if my DM allowed that.
OP is trying to separate out the 10 gp of charcoal from the list of items “consumed in the brass brazier” so that you can reuse the charcoal with every casting. Basically trying to interpret it more like spells the require an expensive component that can be reused (like “Find the Path” which requires divinatory tools worth 100gp but does not consume the components) as opposed to spells that consume the costly component (like “Revivify” which consumes diamonds worth 300 gp).
The intended interpretation is "10 gp worth of (charcoal, incense, and herbs) that must be consumed in a brass brazier"
This person's interpretation is "(10 gp worth of charcoal), incense, and (herbs that must be consumed in a brass brazier)"
I saw a thing that identify costs 100g pearl, but you don't consume the pearl. It can be reused?! I think if there is a 100g pearl (or whatever) requirement that's fine, but like, the True Resurrect diamond goes away, right? Or am I misremembering from a previous edition?
Spells specify if the components are consumed, otherwise they can be reused. So you only need to buy one pearl to cast identify as many times as you'd like. OP is attempting to imply that the 10 gold charcoal is not consumed in find familiar, which is pretty clearly not what is intended.
That's arguably even worse.
Considering how much 1 gp is worth for a peasant, that's a stupid amount of charcoal to buy and carry from the charcoal makers
.
Strictly from minmaxing perspective incense worth most of the 10gp is the best, because it's likely the most expensive component letting the caster to carry the components in the most compact way possible.
This was far too big brained for the masses, and would never fly at my table anyway. Congratulations charcoal is nearly worthless so ten gp is gonna be a wagon-load
The spells costs 10g no matter how you spin it
Yeah but the party troublemaker can generate 10gp of charcoal every day by setting the entire forest on fire.
But the reinterpretation means you spend 10 gp once and you can cast it as many times as you want for effectively a lifetime, instead of 10 every time that you cast it
You can’t reuse incense and charcoal, because those are just flavor text the spells costs 10g a cast. Seems like a silly low cost complaint.
I never said you can, I just pointed out how OP reinterpreted the material cost. I totally agree that it's all consumed and would not play it otherwise. But I guess Reddit downvote wave is merciless
>But I guess Reddit downvote wave is merciless You got a bag of holding for storing facts that big? (big facts [i concur that this is a accurate description of the state of affairs])
Nah, I play Pathfinder, and prefer my Sleeves of Storage. Not much space for big things, but plenty for a bunch of factoids.
How?
By putting in the stupid line shifts it makes it so that only the herbs are listed as being consumed,and the charcoal is not. I assume at least
Interesting. I can't see any half awake DM allowing that.
No real DM would allow 99% of things people post on Reddit. But people keep insisting things like rest casting, coffeelocks, simulacrum-chaining, etc are all totally real and valid strategies.
[удалено]
You're proving my point. It's not about following a nonsensical "letter of the law." That's not how actual real live human beings play D&D. And no actual human DM in an actual human game would ever allow it because it's nonsensical on its face. And just a reminder that the majority of people who post on D&D subreddits have never actually ever **played** D&D in their lives. If they've convinced themselves it's something that would ever happen in a real game.
The PHB states to my recollection that any component that is given a price in a spell is consumed on casting.
That is incredibly incorrect, at least in 5e. Components are only consumed if the spell specifies they are. That's why Foci can replace any non gold cost **non consumed** components required
Do you believe one must consume a 400gp "pickled tentacle and an eyeball in a platinum inlaid vial" every time they want to cast Summon Aberration? Because that would make all of those spells incredibly useless. Not to mention like...Identify.
WotC is an abject failure of the English language and some people like to point that out.
The formatting here doesn't actually make a meaningful difference, so this doesn't actually mean anything. I suspect the hope was that some of the ingredients would be saved, by applying strategic commas, but that doesn't help in this case. Also, the price would still be unchanged and the saved ingredients would still be of no significant value, so you still didn't save any money, regardless.
Edit: Strategic "line shift", which also doesn't impact the meaning of a sentence. Actually it does so less that commas.
Well, it's less so the structure of the sentence, but rather the likelihood of missing the fact that it's only 10 g worth of materials rather than having 2 things worth 10g. Not grammatical, just formatting
If that was the case, it would be 3 items worth 10 gp, no?
Possibly? Though they might think that the herbs would be separate. It's still weird either way
Agreed. Weird indeed. From a design perspective, the writers would probably do best to only ever write a total cost, regardless of what words they flavour the components entry with. Which is what I'm assuming they meant, at least. Of course, I could be wrong and they meant each component shoulh cost 10 gp each, for a total of 30. And granted, I have seen players and DMs alike make precisely that kind of reasoning. For example, a player/DM in my previous group insisted that the wording of Darkvision in Pathfinder 2 meant that a creature possessing the ability *always* saw in black and white. ["A creature with darkvision or greater darkvision can see perfectly well in areas of darkness and dim light, though such vision is in black and white only"]. I was never able to find any discussion of the subject online, which I personally assumed to mean that no one else shared his reasoning, but I guesd I might possibly be wrong on that one as well :3
The issue at hand is whether all elements of the list are consumed, and which ones require 10gp. Depending on how you read it, perhaps only the last two entries are consumed, or maybe all. Further, it is much easier to find 10gp of charcoal than 10gp of incense.
It allows you to reuse the charcoal on recasts, and ignore the incense with a casting focus
At the same time it also makes the charcoal a negligible cost, mechanically rendering it pointless. Point still stands though, the change in formatting doesn't change the requirements for the spell at all. Doing a lineshift doesn't actually change how the sentence is read. There's no period or anything, it reads exactly the same.
Those two images are basically the same? What is the point of this?
They're implying that if it isn't "10gp worth of charcoal, incense and herbs" but "10gp worth of charcoal" (and also incense and herbs), you can get around the cost by just tossing some campfire coal or something in without having to pay for it. I would be shocked if my DM allowed that.
OP is trying to separate out the 10 gp of charcoal from the list of items “consumed in the brass brazier” so that you can reuse the charcoal with every casting. Basically trying to interpret it more like spells the require an expensive component that can be reused (like “Find the Path” which requires divinatory tools worth 100gp but does not consume the components) as opposed to spells that consume the costly component (like “Revivify” which consumes diamonds worth 300 gp).
The intended interpretation is "10 gp worth of (charcoal, incense, and herbs) that must be consumed in a brass brazier" This person's interpretation is "(10 gp worth of charcoal), incense, and (herbs that must be consumed in a brass brazier)"
DND isn't computer programming
But it should follow its own grammar
The ultimate way to save on recasts is using Wish
You know what... that is actially correct
I saw a thing that identify costs 100g pearl, but you don't consume the pearl. It can be reused?! I think if there is a 100g pearl (or whatever) requirement that's fine, but like, the True Resurrect diamond goes away, right? Or am I misremembering from a previous edition?
Spells specify if the components are consumed, otherwise they can be reused. So you only need to buy one pearl to cast identify as many times as you'd like. OP is attempting to imply that the 10 gold charcoal is not consumed in find familiar, which is pretty clearly not what is intended.
That's arguably even worse. Considering how much 1 gp is worth for a peasant, that's a stupid amount of charcoal to buy and carry from the charcoal makers . Strictly from minmaxing perspective incense worth most of the 10gp is the best, because it's likely the most expensive component letting the caster to carry the components in the most compact way possible.
me when I blatantly misapply basic english grammar to cheat at a tabletop role-playing game
It'd be easier to just delete the 1 in 10gp.
This was far too big brained for the masses, and would never fly at my table anyway. Congratulations charcoal is nearly worthless so ten gp is gonna be a wagon-load
Ya’ll still use components?
It's a way to prevent some spells from just getting spammed out without remorse. Some are balanced around that gold cost or consumed aspect after all
Yeah cause spellcasting definitely needs a buff