Timeline for What is the expected way to acquire costly material components?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2021 at 18:31 | answer | added | SeriousBri | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 18, 2019 at 1:48 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 18, 2019 at 1:23 | answer | added | user37158 | timeline score: 11 | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 22:28 | answer | added | Upper_Case | timeline score: 16 | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackRPG/status/1174065565276811269 | ||
| Sep 17, 2019 at 18:42 | history | edited | jwodder | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Mention AL
|
| Sep 17, 2019 at 18:40 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | OK, good, might want to add the AL thing in your sources for answers part. As to "component's store" that looks like a 20th century anachronism sliding into the some kinda medieval/rennaisance assumption for this game and this edition. (Just like "magic item shops" were a poor fit for the setting in some previous editions ... ) Keep it in if you like, I'll not comment on that further. | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 18:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 17, 2019 at 18:45 | |||||
| Sep 17, 2019 at 18:01 | comment | added | jwodder | @KorvinStarmast: The store thing was just an idea I had. It's thereotically possible to answer the question using only what's written in published sourcebooks; designer intent is only relevent to this question if said designers have made public statements about it, which I would expect to be on-topic. I'm asking as a DM. Yes, the AL approach is of interest to me. | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 17:58 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | Follow up thought for you: is the Adventurer's League approach to this of interest to you? | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 17:53 | history | edited | KorvinStarmast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 22 characters in body
|
| Sep 17, 2019 at 17:41 | comment | added | Upper_Case | Got it. If no one answers for a bit I might add my thoughts, but they're more of a failsafe answer (divining designer intent from how the systems broadly are laid out), and so don't really meet the criteria in your question with the added "material component" mention criterion. | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 17:37 | comment | added | jwodder | @Upper_Case: I would expect a reference to at least make explicit mention of spell components in general or of a specific spell's costly components (like the mention of the plane shift fork). The treasure tables being examples isn't explicit enough, especially since spell components don't fit into any of the listed treasure categories (except gems, which doesn't cover everything). However, if you can construct an argument out of mere implications, I wouldn't downvote it. | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 17:29 | comment | added | Upper_Case | How explicit to material components do you need a reference for an answer to be? For example, random treasure tables in the DMG aren't presented as exhaustive, they're examples. Much of 5e treasure is abstracted to currency value anyways, and since the cost of the components is explicitly presented it might be argued that cost-bearing components aren't actually their own category of loot (which might not have provoked an official comment). | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 17:24 | history | edited | jwodder | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 17, 2019 at 17:04 | comment | added | Sdjz | This question was discussed in this meta post | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 17:01 | history | asked | jwodder | CC BY-SA 4.0 |