Community Proposal : Material Component Spell Costs

[DaloLorn]

Now someone might say that in PnP you can rest only 1x a day, which naturally limits spellcasting, but you also usually only have one fight a day if at all.

It's a little more nuanced than this, TBH, and partly depends on the DM. You may have more than one fight a day, but those fights are probably tailored to deplete a smaller chunk of your spellbook than BG. One or two spells, tops, unless it's a bossfight; as opposed to five spells to kill a stray minion.

I broadly tend to agree with my reading of your last post, though: The SRD largely fails to justify this proposal, and its merits are obscured by the fact that we're out of the loop on a lot of it.

I can definitely see it working, and even being a net improvement after all is said and done... but it's a pretty big risk, and should be approached with caution.

Honestly, this kind of fundamental change shouldn't be posted to public discussion before some level of staff consensus has been agreed on. Now you're just making us think that this is actually something staff in general is for. At least with Goat posting, it is a little bit more clear that this doesn't have staff consensus.

Eeeh, there's been a lot of times I've felt that the community response to an idea diverged wildly from the staff response, so I'm all for this sort of thing as a non-binding discussion - basically a way to collect ammo for any staff discussion that might still be needed. I kinda wish I'd done more of it; maybe then I'd have actually done something.

[Deathgrowl]

That's not how it works. If you start posting about potential changes publicly, you set the expectation that something is going to change. Your intention may be that it's "non-binding", but that's not how it's seen. This kind of approach is horrible for player morale, because it is going to end in disappointment for one "side" of the discussion every time: You've as staff raised a potential change that make - say - 50% excited and 50% anxious. If the change doesn't happen, those who were excited will be disappointed. They don't return to pre-suggestion morale state. If the change does happen, the people who didn't want it will be disappointed.

This kind of approach only causes damage.

[DaloLorn]

And the "let's just never do anything" approach doesn't?

The man is trying to come up with improvements. This change is perhaps not one such improvement, but in all my years on staff, the team has never been large enough (nor involved enough in discussion) to reliably make that distinction in a timely manner.

This might seem like a tangent, but over the past decade, I've seen PWs and PW-like environments run in all kinds of ways:

• The SWG emulator Empire in Flames openly admits to a dictatorial administration, with a "take it or leave it" approach where Halyn is open to suggestions but is the ultimate arbiter on what does or doesn't service his vision of the game. This is also common in various other modding communities, but there's a key difference in that anyone with the right knowhow can make a submod or spinoff, so it's not as applicable as the EiF example.
• BG during my tenure has tried to figure out a democratic system, but only ended up bogging itself down in an endless pile of zombie proposals, formally neither rejected nor approved until someone like Rhifox tries to ram their idea through with the mindset that it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission (because it really (do-me) was), and that things can be tweaked or reverted if they're not accepted by the community.
• Legends, another SWG emulator, has the community periodically elect a Galactic Senate which defines a direction for future development. By all indications, PotM works something like this, too... and for all my disagreements with their staff, I can't deny that they get things done.

You'll notice each of the non-BG examples runs a lot more smoothly than we do. Therefore, either Goat or someone needs to step up to drive the server to their own vision, or the broader community needs a voice. Our "one staffer, one vote" system has proven adequate only for the purpose of locking us in stasis.

[selhan]

I dont play a pure mage, but my main character does have some spells, and needing special components to be able to cast some of my spells would be in "My" opinion, One more added thing to the game that "I" would feel would be annoying if not frustrating to me. Yeah I myself has been waiting on hopes and prayers to where my class gets a proper spellbook, but I was informed such a thing surely isnt happening anytime soon due to the amount of work it will have to take.

And to think I would have to scavenge the server or spend coins just to shoot a spell off is meh. One less enjoyable feature to me. Again my opinion. I would agree to some others that an pve rework surely needs to start with the mobs. A mage that faces mobs or bosses where 50% of their spells are useless has surely got to be annoying.

Previously last year killing "Alt Crafters" had some benefits by canceling out non rping characters, but it also had a slight diminishing return killing off crafting alts that did provide rp and not to mention it got more difficult trying to find crafters (Wands). For me, it was also one of the contributing factors that I dungeon less since last year. When it took me a week just to find someone to make me 1 wand, I decided okay time to use my wands less. And now to think I would need components and coins to use said wands makes me think ..okay might as well retire from dungeons completely. Just my honest opinion. But as I said its only one of the contributing factors.

And since I have rarely gone to a dungeon since last year, I did have to resort to rp in trying to make coins, which I did find a means but not everyone would have the same rp reasons/ alignment etc to do likewise. I spend most of my coins on Rp alone. Having to spend to get 1 more str point or 1 point more of AC or protection from mind spells is yeah...eww.

Far as Persistent spells , I been on servers where that is a thing and HEAVYILY used and abused. Imagine True Strike persistent haste, etc? Nuff said. I'd go with increase durations instead like someone else mention. But likewise as some others mention , rework seems to make more sense starting with the environment and not class options which is also I would assume a great undertaking. At least with starting with mobs, if incase the project / work gets cut mid way, we dont have broken class builds walking around.

Just my mundane common sense

[DaloLorn]

Far as Persistent spells , I been on servers where that is a thing and HEAVYILY used and abused. Imagine True Strike persistent haste, etc? Nuff said. I'd go with increase durations instead like someone else mention.

I've got nothing useful to say to the rest, but regarding Persistent Spell, there's a few things I feel are worth noting:

• Spell Restrictions: Not every extendable low-level spell needs to be eligible for Persistent Spell. True Strike is a particularly weird example to worry about here: It's not even extendable, so who in their right mind would make it persistable?
• Cost and Magnitude: The vanilla metamagic costs 6 spell levels and extends to 24 hours. But we can change both of those at our leisure! Maybe make it just a super-Extend (e.g. quadrupling or decupling spell the duration of an affected spell) instead of setting it to a flat 24 hours? Maybe make it cheaper? More expensive? There's no shortage of options.
• Technical Concerns: ... Aren't we already using all our metamagic slots, though? It might be hard to squeeze Persistent Spell back into the game in the first place...

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Hidden: show

And the "let's just never do anything" approach doesn't?

The man is trying to come up with improvements. This change is perhaps not one such improvement, but in all my years on staff, the team has never been large enough (nor involved enough in discussion) to reliably make that distinction in a timely manner.

This might seem like a tangent, but over the past decade, I've seen PWs and PW-like environments run in all kinds of ways:

• The SWG emulator Empire in Flames openly admits to a dictatorial administration, with a "take it or leave it" approach where Halyn is open to suggestions but is the ultimate arbiter on what does or doesn't service his vision of the game. This is also common in various other modding communities, but there's a key difference in that anyone with the right knowhow can make a submod or spinoff, so it's not as applicable as the EiF example.
• BG during my tenure has tried to figure out a democratic system, but only ended up bogging itself down in an endless pile of zombie proposals, formally neither rejected nor approved until someone like Rhifox tries to ram their idea through with the mindset that it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission (because it really (do-me) was), and that things can be tweaked or reverted if they're not accepted by the community.
• Legends, another SWG emulator, has the community periodically elect a Galactic Senate which defines a direction for future development. By all indications, PotM works something like this, too... and for all my disagreements with their staff, I can't deny that they get things done.

You'll notice each of the non-BG examples runs a lot more smoothly than we do. Therefore, either Goat or someone needs to step up to drive the server to their own vision, or the broader community needs a voice. Our "one staffer, one vote" system has proven adequate only for the purpose of locking us in stasis.

This. Some people forget that we're not developing a PW for a handful of colored forum names.

EDIT:
Oh, and as I've said repeatedly for several years now, and even spoke with Goat about recently (to which he ostensibly agreed): This is once again starting in the wrong end. Fix the environment before starting to make character option changes.

The environment corrections are already underway, Ravial has already begun character corrections, and is separate of these proposals. Starting various conversations with people that the changes impact while other tasks are being completed will allow enough time to have passed for community response for the next set of things to make changes for.

Honestly, this kind of fundamental change shouldn't be posted to public discussion before some level of staff consensus has been agreed on. Now you're just making us think that this is actually something staff in general is for. At least with Goat posting, it is a little bit more clear that this doesn't have staff consensus.

Quite frankly to me personally, it's just causing me anxiety thinking my favourite class is going to get shafted even harder in PvE.

proposal,noun, pro·​pos·​al prə-ˈpō-zəl 1: an act of putting forward or stating something for consideration

It's in the title. Players have pitched various concepts to me, I'm throwing them to the community to discuss. If it's something the majority is in agreement of it's then valuable to discuss staff side on if/how regarding implementation. We're not here to post an opinion and lock a thread, or shove a proposal out into the wild without player input. Getting input first tells the community we're respecting their responses specific to whatever's plated, and most of the pros and cons are hashed out well before it lands on the staff discussion side. This is not the Armageddon you're narrating. If the community thinks one of these proposals is in bad faith of the theme of the PW, by all means shoot the concept down, it's fine. At least we'll have that input and can put to rest any similar concept for a time.

[ValerieJean]

I have been in support of component cost for some time, especially if it helps to bring balance to the PvE Monsters letting other classes shine that normally do not right now. If it goes to both an actual component and gold or one or the other, fine with that also.

Make it so!

[Aspect of Sorrow]

I have been in support of component cost for some time, especially if it helps to bring balance to the PvE Monsters letting other classes shine that normally do not right now. If it goes to both an actual component and gold or one or the other, fine with that also.

Make it so!

Just not physical items, preventing the inventories from turning into a hot mess.

[DaloLorn]

This. Some people forget that we're not developing a PW for a handful of colored forum names.

I mean, even if we were developing a PW for a single colored forum name (i.e. using the EiF approach with Goat as the supreme overlord until he retires), I think it would result in a less dysfunctional environment than what we've had in the last few administrations. That environment might not be to the taste of everyone on the PW, myself included... but it would have a vision, and it would have a decent shot at executing that vision.

It's not necessarily the approach I'd take - I think I'm partial to the community-driven options like the Senate or what you've been doing with these threads - but it'd still be an upgrade.

I have been in support of component cost for some time, especially if it helps to bring balance to the PvE Monsters letting other classes shine that normally do not right now. If it goes to both an actual component and gold or one or the other, fine with that also.

Make it so!

I'm pretty wary of physical items at this point. Bags are coming, but they're coming at an exorbitant rate (and without weight reductions), so the system should be aware of how tight people's inventories can get.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Hidden: show

As for "RP" and "pointless" spellcasting everywhere, and this is a personal opinion obviously, I like high magic, I love mages, I like doing pointless stuff magic just for the effect because it's fun. I dunno how many ppl play mages just so they could weigh every spell they cast deciding if it makes them broke or if they gonna have to spend the next day running around collecting ingredients. Even DnD sourcebook barely handles spell components, half the spells material components are meant to be a joke/pun. If you ask me should the spells that in sourcebook cost money have that cost replicated like in PnP then I'll say sure, if you ask me should all spells that use material components, that were not supposed be minded in 99% of situations and mostly amount to fluff, have a cost, I will say no. Now someone might say that in PnP you can rest only 1x a day, which naturally limits spellcasting, but you also usually only have one fight a day if at all.

The bare minimum I imagine would be that if you don't have a "physical" material component, that it defaults to just taking its value from your pocket at the time its casted. That way those have are of the heavier RP lean with meandering about picking weeds can apply their spent time with that, and those like me who couldn't care less about those weeds would just have the cost of the weed subtracted from my pocket at the time of the cast. Those "physical" manifestations should just be numbers in an item bag like we have for gems.

[DaloLorn]

Yeah, a component pouch with a very hefty maximum capacity does sound like a fair compromise between having physical components and having gold costs. I might want to be more aggressive about selecting the component pouch, though: The current specialty bag system requires the player to manually select a bag when they want to access it, and only allows one bag to be selected at a time.

You'd probably want to recycle chunks of that codebase to write a new component pouch system, as opposed to using the specialty bag system directly...

[MasterSilke]

In general, I do not have much of an issue with a cost being applied to spells that include material components. And if this was implemented, I would much prefer the method of having the cost of components subtracted from the character's gold in order to avoid tedious micro-managing of components. However, the question "should there be a material cost?" is much different than "what is the material cost?" If this were to be pursued, what degree of cost would be expected? Because theoretically it could be something so small that it is a mere pittance and practically speaking can be ignored, or it could be exorbitant to the point one needs to take out a loan to cast his/her epic spell. And it seems to me that a key concern of those wary of this change is that the cost might ere more on the exorbitant side than the pittance side.

[Deathgrowl]

proposal,noun, pro·​pos·​al prə-ˈpō-zəl 1: an act of putting forward or stating something for consideration

Wow, really? You're going the passive-aggressive route?

Your posts all in all simply displays exactly another thing I've been warning about, and Goat also mentioned recently in a chat with me: Making too big changes (or too many), too quickly.

I'll bow out.

[selhan]

Idk, however I try to look at this "proposal" I just dont see it bringing "Fun" to the table. And I dont even play a serious mage. For me this server was about Rp, I do have a wizard in my list, use to be for low level play to team up with new players on the server and craft wands. But lost interest with the crafting price, and thinking about paying to cast spells just leans more to the thought of *rcr* the wizard to something martial.

If it makes me feel like that, I can imaging pure mages or spell slingers that play the class as a main character. Not coitizing the proposal just my honest opinion on it. I dont see it bringing "Fun". I see it doing otherwise.

[DaloLorn]

In general, I do not have much of an issue with a cost being applied to spells that include material components. And if this was implemented, I would much prefer the method of having the cost of components subtracted from the character's gold in order to avoid tedious micro-managing of components. However, the question "should there be a material cost?" is much different than "what is the material cost?" If this were to be pursued, what degree of cost would be expected? Because theoretically it could be something so small that it is a mere pittance and practically speaking can be ignored, or it could be exorbitant to the point one needs to take out a loan to cast his/her epic spell. And it seems to me that a key concern of those wary of this change is that the cost might ere more on the exorbitant side than the pittance side.

Well put. It could work, but the balancing required to make it a tradeoff instead of a nuisance is so transformative that I can't begin to picture what the resulting gameplay will be.

I do think AoS is capable of such transformations, mind you, or else my own reactions would be more to the tune of "absolutely not" than "this is a scary idea and I dunno if you'll get it right".