Want to help support the channel? Get you name listed at the end of my videos by joining my Patreon : ▶️ www.patreon.com/HowItsPlayed/ Thank me with a cup of coffee! ▶️ ko-fi.com/HowItsPlayed
with sorcerers and bards it just makes lore sense to me that they substitute material components with their gestures or instruments - that is where their magic stems from. It's weird if you are wielding magic that originates in your music to then need something like a bell and a drop of fresh spring water to cast something like Summon Fey when your lute is right there to beckon them forth. A witch or wizard using components of that nature to do that is in line with that class fantasy. Same with sorcerers, if your magic is coming from your bloodline using crow's beak and widow's tear is just not how I picture someone reaching for the magic dwelling inside their own very being. As to why those take up so much space in the core rules I cannot say, but to me it seems like an attempt to sorta bring back in line the class fantasy that was lost by simplifying the spell lists into the 4 categories we got in 2e and that all the classes share, so a cleric casting summon undead has atleast a slightly different touch than a wizard, and components and foci take up that mantle. The only scenarios where those matter are prison situations as you mentioned, or when a character is caught naked by assassins in the bathhouse or something, very situational to say the least.
In my games, guards have seen low-level adventurers for literally thousands of years and know not to leave their harmless flute or holy text with them.
Mostly. Spells no longer have listed "Somatic, Vocal, Material" components and instead use traits like Manipulate to cover them. So, you still need to do things to cast spells, they're just represented differently. Also, some spells still have costs and may require a "locus" as listed in the spell's requirements.
So a Bard using an instrument as a focus gain both the manipulate and auditory traits, not just auditory? Also, does the Bard's instrument focus get to replace other components simultaneously or just 1 of them? Can the Bard use their instrument focus on their Focus Spells (whether they are compositions or not) or Innate Spells too? I'd assume yes to Focus Spells but not to Innate Spells.
Correct... using an instrument would gain both Manipulate and Auditory. And I believe the intent is the instrument can replace all of the other components, not just one of them. And, yes, I believe they can do this substitution with Focus Spells.
It seems to me that casting classes have a more difficult time with attack spells as level increases because opponents are built to compensate for the use of martial classes magical weapons (in being able to hit said opponents rather than damage them or potency vs. striking). My guess is their diversity of spells and being able to "attack" save DCs instead of AC is the way this is compensated for magical classes, but wanted to know if there are other opinions from those reading this post.
I used to think it was an issue too. But I found that this is intentional and not some oversight. Casters have a lot of ways to affect their attack rolls if they are interested in it, spells like true strike, bless, and fear all can radically improve their ability to hit. Also casters get the luxury of targeting DC's more freely most creatures have a bad save or a weakness. Casters also have the luxury of being able to invest in mental stats meaning actions like recall knowledge, demoralize, and Bon Mot tend to be more effective in their hands. Also casters don't actually interact with multiple attack penalties much at all as a Caster normally would only be able to cast one spell a turn. Also casters would be insane if their crit chances were on par with martial characters, for example hydraulic push does Fireball damage on crits and it's a first-level spell as we go higher in level first level spells become really disposable the ideal of being able to reliably crit these types of attacks would overshadow martials. hydraulic push + true strike with martial attack rolls is a critical machine.
Furthermore, 2e is a teamwork-focused game and what better reason is there to aid someone than them investing their highest level spell slot into an attack roll
I might be understanding this wrong, a bard casting fireball with an instrument would mean deaf targets don't burn? Maybe it's not a scenario that can happen with the occult spell list though O_O
No, because Fireball has no "targets" entry (instead, it has an "area" entry). But, for example, if the bard was to use the instrument to cast Charm, the target would need to hear them (because the Charm spell has a "targets" entry).
The auditory trait description explains: “A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM.” So my interpretation of this is that a single-target attack spell like chill touch could work fine on a creature that can’t hear, whereas a GM might rule that the Charm spell cast through an instrument does require the target to hear the enchanting melody.
@@HowItsPlayed I know I'm WAY late for this, but I couldn't find for the life of me the place in the core rulebook (2e, not remaster) where it says replacing components for playing the instrument adds the auditory trait. Magic Missile is a bard spell, does that mean if I replace the somatic component for an instrument I miss the targets if they can't hear?
@@dancovich The description for the auditory trait says, "This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM." A Magic Missile is not a "sound-based effect", so it will still hit a deaf target. But if you were casting something like Charm the target would need to hear you speak to them.
You *can* cast verbal component spells even if you can't speak. Because the verbal component doesn't have the auditory trait. Just as somatic doesn't have the visual trait. If it did, focus spells like Counter Performance would be insanely OP.
I disagree. The verbal trait requires you to speak, but verbal spells do not necessarily have the Auditory trait because Auditory means a target needs to hear the effect. Core Rules page 303: "A verbal component is a vocalization of words of power. You must speak them in a strong voice, so it’s hard to conceal that you’re Casting a Spell. The spell gains the concentrate trait. You must be able to speak to provide this component."
Want to help support the channel?
Get you name listed at the end of my videos by joining my Patreon :
▶️ www.patreon.com/HowItsPlayed/
Thank me with a cup of coffee!
▶️ ko-fi.com/HowItsPlayed
One thing I thought about would be replacing a verbal component with somatic or material so that you can cast underwater without losing your breath
with sorcerers and bards it just makes lore sense to me that they substitute material components with their gestures or instruments - that is where their magic stems from. It's weird if you are wielding magic that originates in your music to then need something like a bell and a drop of fresh spring water to cast something like Summon Fey when your lute is right there to beckon them forth. A witch or wizard using components of that nature to do that is in line with that class fantasy. Same with sorcerers, if your magic is coming from your bloodline using crow's beak and widow's tear is just not how I picture someone reaching for the magic dwelling inside their own very being.
As to why those take up so much space in the core rules I cannot say, but to me it seems like an attempt to sorta bring back in line the class fantasy that was lost by simplifying the spell lists into the 4 categories we got in 2e and that all the classes share, so a cleric casting summon undead has atleast a slightly different touch than a wizard, and components and foci take up that mantle. The only scenarios where those matter are prison situations as you mentioned, or when a character is caught naked by assassins in the bathhouse or something, very situational to say the least.
In my games, guards have seen low-level adventurers for literally thousands of years and know not to leave their harmless flute or holy text with them.
Does 2e Remaster remove spell components?
Mostly. Spells no longer have listed "Somatic, Vocal, Material" components and instead use traits like Manipulate to cover them. So, you still need to do things to cast spells, they're just represented differently. Also, some spells still have costs and may require a "locus" as listed in the spell's requirements.
Any chance of getting a video on Summoning Spells? Because whoa boy, they are kind of crazy rules.
So that means that the casting of any spells that use somatic, material or focus components would trigger AoO?
Yes -- those components add the Manipulate trait to the casting and therefore would trigger Attacks of Opportunity.
So a Bard using an instrument as a focus gain both the manipulate and auditory traits, not just auditory? Also, does the Bard's instrument focus get to replace other components simultaneously or just 1 of them? Can the Bard use their instrument focus on their Focus Spells (whether they are compositions or not) or Innate Spells too? I'd assume yes to Focus Spells but not to Innate Spells.
Correct... using an instrument would gain both Manipulate and Auditory. And I believe the intent is the instrument can replace all of the other components, not just one of them. And, yes, I believe they can do this substitution with Focus Spells.
It seems to me that casting classes have a more difficult time with attack spells as level increases because opponents are built to compensate for the use of martial classes magical weapons (in being able to hit said opponents rather than damage them or potency vs. striking). My guess is their diversity of spells and being able to "attack" save DCs instead of AC is the way this is compensated for magical classes, but wanted to know if there are other opinions from those reading this post.
I used to think it was an issue too. But I found that this is intentional and not some oversight. Casters have a lot of ways to affect their attack rolls if they are interested in it, spells like true strike, bless, and fear all can radically improve their ability to hit. Also casters get the luxury of targeting DC's more freely most creatures have a bad save or a weakness. Casters also have the luxury of being able to invest in mental stats meaning actions like recall knowledge, demoralize, and Bon Mot tend to be more effective in their hands. Also casters don't actually interact with multiple attack penalties much at all as a Caster normally would only be able to cast one spell a turn. Also casters would be insane if their crit chances were on par with martial characters, for example hydraulic push does Fireball damage on crits and it's a first-level spell as we go higher in level first level spells become really disposable the ideal of being able to reliably crit these types of attacks would overshadow martials. hydraulic push + true strike with martial attack rolls is a critical machine.
Furthermore, 2e is a teamwork-focused game and what better reason is there to aid someone than them investing their highest level spell slot into an attack roll
I might be understanding this wrong, a bard casting fireball with an instrument would mean deaf targets don't burn?
Maybe it's not a scenario that can happen with the occult spell list though O_O
No, because Fireball has no "targets" entry (instead, it has an "area" entry). But, for example, if the bard was to use the instrument to cast Charm, the target would need to hear them (because the Charm spell has a "targets" entry).
The auditory trait description explains:
“A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM.”
So my interpretation of this is that a single-target attack spell like chill touch could work fine on a creature that can’t hear, whereas a GM might rule that the Charm spell cast through an instrument does require the target to hear the enchanting melody.
@@JacksonBockus thanks, this makes more sense:)
@@HowItsPlayed I know I'm WAY late for this, but I couldn't find for the life of me the place in the core rulebook (2e, not remaster) where it says replacing components for playing the instrument adds the auditory trait. Magic Missile is a bard spell, does that mean if I replace the somatic component for an instrument I miss the targets if they can't hear?
@@dancovich The description for the auditory trait says, "This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM." A Magic Missile is not a "sound-based effect", so it will still hit a deaf target. But if you were casting something like Charm the target would need to hear you speak to them.
You *can* cast verbal component spells even if you can't speak. Because the verbal component doesn't have the auditory trait. Just as somatic doesn't have the visual trait. If it did, focus spells like Counter Performance would be insanely OP.
I disagree. The verbal trait requires you to speak, but verbal spells do not necessarily have the Auditory trait because Auditory means a target needs to hear the effect. Core Rules page 303: "A verbal component is a vocalization of words of power. You must speak them in a strong voice, so it’s hard to conceal that you’re Casting a Spell. The spell gains the concentrate trait. You must be able to speak to provide this component."
Great vid.
Anus Vulkanus!
👍🥳
The material needed for summon animal is a raw steak, lol jk, or am I???