Spells with M but no S components

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ISTR that when you cast a spell with no somatic component, you don't
need to have the material component in hand, just on your person (in
your component pouch, presumably) and that it vanishes from there.

Is this true, and if so, can someone supply me with an exact reference?

I'm asking because the rules for grappling say you can only cast spells
without somatic components whose material components you already have in
hand, implying that my recollection is wrong. However, it's a bit
strange that Still Spell would work like that. Not really Still, is it,
if you have to fiddle with bat poop and such...?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
8 answers Last reply
More about spells components
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > ISTR that when you cast a spell with no somatic component, you don't
    > need to have the material component in hand, just on your person (in
    > your component pouch, presumably) and that it vanishes from there.
    >
    > Is this true, and if so, can someone supply me with an exact
    > reference?

    It's not something I've ever heard of.

    > I'm asking because the rules for grappling say you can only cast
    > spells without somatic components whose material components you
    > already have in hand, implying that my recollection is wrong.
    > However, it's a bit strange that Still Spell would work like that.
    > Not really Still, is it, if you have to fiddle with bat poop and
    > such...?

    The point of Still Spell is that you don't lose the spell if you happen to
    be a teensy bit clumsy with your bat-poop-fiddling.

    --
    Mark.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mark Blunden wrote:
    >
    > Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > > ISTR that when you cast a spell with no somatic component, you don't
    > > need to have the material component in hand, just on your person (in
    > > your component pouch, presumably) and that it vanishes from there.
    > >
    > > Is this true, and if so, can someone supply me with an exact
    > > reference?

    You may be thinking of this from the FAQ:

    "Creatures that have hands indeed need at least one
    free hand to cast spells with somatic or material
    components (or both). Creatures that don't have hands
    don't need hands to cast spells...and use material
    components either by touching them (but not if they're
    in another creature's possession) or by having them
    somewhere on their bodies."

    > > I'm asking because the rules for grappling say you can only cast
    > > spells without somatic components whose material components you
    > > already have in hand, implying that my recollection is wrong.
    > > However, it's a bit strange that Still Spell would work like that.
    > > Not really Still, is it, if you have to fiddle with bat poop and
    > > such...?
    >
    > The point of Still Spell is that you don't lose the spell if you happen to
    > be a teensy bit clumsy with your bat-poop-fiddling.

    No, that is *not* the point of the feat. The point is
    avoiding arcane spell failure and being able to do
    things like cast spells while being grappled or having
    your hands tied behind your back.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > In article <1118304840.514769.122820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...
    >
    > > > >>> I'm asking because the rules for grappling say you can only cast
    > > > >>> spells without somatic components whose material components you
    > > > >>> already have in hand, implying that my recollection is wrong.
    > > > >>> However, it's a bit strange that Still Spell would work like that.
    > > > >>> Not really Still, is it, if you have to fiddle with bat poop and
    > > > >>> such...?
    > > > >>
    > > > >> The point of Still Spell is that you don't lose the spell if you
    > > > >> happen to be a teensy bit clumsy with your bat-poop-fiddling.
    > > > >
    > > > > No, that is *not* the point of the feat. The point is
    > > > > avoiding arcane spell failure and being able to do
    > > > > things like cast spells while being grappled or having
    > > > > your hands tied behind your back.
    > > >
    > > > Funnily enough, arcane spell failure is exactly what I was referring to when
    > > > I said "you don't lose the spell if you happen to be a bit clumsy" - and as
    > > > for the second part, that's exactly what's under debate here. Can you cast a
    > > > still spell with a material component if that component is in your pouch and
    > > > your hands are tied behind your back - or occupied with grappling someone?
    > >
    > > No. You need to have the material component in your hand.
    > >
    > > Normally, retrieving the component from your component pouch is part of
    > > the action to cast the spell (don't ask me how that works with
    > > Quickened spells, though). When grappling, however, you need to
    > > explicitly retrieve the component (with an opposed check), unless you
    > > have it in your hand already.
    >
    > Actually, "Retrieve a Spell Component: You can produce a spell component
    > from your pouch while grappling by using a full-round action. Doing so
    > does not require a successful grapple check."

    Whoops. My bad. I confused it with retrieving a weapon.

    > Good thing, too. I'm tempted to house rule that that's how drawing
    > weapons in a grapple works too. That way, there'd be a choice: do you
    > draw your dagger and start stabbing the giant octopus; or try to escape
    > the grapple so you can use your greatsword, but if you fail, you
    > accomplish nothing? As it is, I've never seen anyone draw a weapon in a
    > grapple; they're better off just trying to escape.

    True... and you're right, I haven't seen anyone try to retrieve a
    weapon either.

    Laszlo
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Senator Blutarsky wrote:
    > Mark Blunden wrote:
    >>
    >> Jasin Zujovic wrote:

    >>> I'm asking because the rules for grappling say you can only cast
    >>> spells without somatic components whose material components you
    >>> already have in hand, implying that my recollection is wrong.
    >>> However, it's a bit strange that Still Spell would work like that.
    >>> Not really Still, is it, if you have to fiddle with bat poop and
    >>> such...?
    >>
    >> The point of Still Spell is that you don't lose the spell if you
    >> happen to be a teensy bit clumsy with your bat-poop-fiddling.
    >
    > No, that is *not* the point of the feat. The point is
    > avoiding arcane spell failure and being able to do
    > things like cast spells while being grappled or having
    > your hands tied behind your back.

    Funnily enough, arcane spell failure is exactly what I was referring to when
    I said "you don't lose the spell if you happen to be a bit clumsy" - and as
    for the second part, that's exactly what's under debate here. Can you cast a
    still spell with a material component if that component is in your pouch and
    your hands are tied behind your back - or occupied with grappling someone?

    --
    Mark.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    >
    > > Good thing, too. I'm tempted to house rule that that's how drawing
    > > weapons in a grapple works too. That way, there'd be a choice: do you
    > > draw your dagger and start stabbing the giant octopus; or try to escape
    > > the grapple so you can use your greatsword, but if you fail, you
    > > accomplish nothing? As it is, I've never seen anyone draw a weapon in a
    > > grapple; they're better off just trying to escape.
    >
    > True... and you're right, I haven't seen anyone try to retrieve a
    > weapon either.

    Hmm. Not *my* experience. Escaping from a grapple
    doesn't prevent opponents from grappling you AGAIN.
    Drawing a light weapon and KILLING them does.

    -Bluto
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mark Blunden wrote:
    >
    > Senator Blutarsky wrote:
    > > Mark Blunden wrote:
    > >>
    > >> The point of Still Spell is that you don't lose the spell if you
    > >> happen to be a teensy bit clumsy with your bat-poop-fiddling.
    > >
    > > No, that is *not* the point of the feat. The point is
    > > avoiding arcane spell failure and being able to do
    > > things like cast spells while being grappled or having
    > > your hands tied behind your back.
    >
    > Funnily enough, arcane spell failure is exactly what I was referring to when
    > I said "you don't lose the spell if you happen to be a bit clumsy"

    You may notice that there are a great many spells with
    somatic components (and which are therefore subject to
    arcane spell failure) that do not have material
    components (and thus do not require any
    "bat-poop-fiddling").

    > and as
    > for the second part, that's exactly what's under debate here. Can you cast a
    > still spell with a material component if that component is in your pouch and
    > your hands are tied behind your back - or occupied with grappling someone?

    The FAQ is quite clear that the answer is no.

    -Bluto
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <42A8A1B6.69973594@comcast.net>, monarchy@comcast.net says...

    > > > Good thing, too. I'm tempted to house rule that that's how drawing
    > > > weapons in a grapple works too. That way, there'd be a choice: do you
    > > > draw your dagger and start stabbing the giant octopus; or try to escape
    > > > the grapple so you can use your greatsword, but if you fail, you
    > > > accomplish nothing? As it is, I've never seen anyone draw a weapon in a
    > > > grapple; they're better off just trying to escape.
    > >
    > > True... and you're right, I haven't seen anyone try to retrieve a
    > > weapon either.
    >
    > Hmm. Not *my* experience.

    You actually saw someone draw a weapon in a grapple?

    > Escaping from a grapple
    > doesn't prevent opponents from grappling you AGAIN.
    > Drawing a light weapon

    .... means they don't even have to bother, since they're still grappling
    you.

    > and KILLING them does.

    OK, killing them stops them, but how long will that take? If you had to
    draw a light weapon, it most likely isn't your weapon of choice
    (otherwise you'd be holding it already). So you're attacking with your
    secondary (at best) weapon at -4. And the monster is using grapple vs.
    grapple to damage you, which is usually a better deal for the monster
    than attack vs. AC.

    I don't think I've ever seen a situation where it seemed like a better
    idea to draw a light weapon and attack than to escape grapple and attack
    with the weapon you already have in hand.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    >
    > In article <42A8A1B6.69973594@comcast.net>, monarchy@comcast.net says...
    >
    > > > > Good thing, too. I'm tempted to house rule that that's how drawing
    > > > > weapons in a grapple works too. That way, there'd be a choice: do you
    > > > > draw your dagger and start stabbing the giant octopus; or try to escape
    > > > > the grapple so you can use your greatsword, but if you fail, you
    > > > > accomplish nothing? As it is, I've never seen anyone draw a weapon in a
    > > > > grapple; they're better off just trying to escape.
    > > >
    > > > True... and you're right, I haven't seen anyone try to retrieve a
    > > > weapon either.
    > >
    > > Hmm. Not *my* experience.
    >
    > You actually saw someone draw a weapon in a grapple?

    Seen it. Done it.

    Honestly, I'm amazed this seems so strange to you.

    -Bluto
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Components Video Games