Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Spells with M but no S components

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 2:44:49 AM

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

More about : spells components

Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:38:39 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:38:40 AM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 10:17:42 AM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 12:36:47 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 5:08:22 PM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:39:38 PM

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
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 3:12:30 PM

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
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 1:33:16 AM

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
!