Spell requirements - Use or leave out of campaign

[Tawnos76]

Opening up a discussion about the use of Spell components.

There are some actual written campaigns that have the players searching for these so there is need at times for these in a campaign.
The Arcane Age modules comes to mind as searching for the parts to the Level 12 Karsus spell requires very specific and dangerous components for the party to acquire.

I can see their need in higher level spells to keep some control over the players and keep magic from being to overpowered in a campaign.

However myself and the groups I have done often leave these out for either lower level spells or for spells a Magic User had known for many years.
Often times when just starting out it can hamper a player always having to get supplies for level 1-3 spells all the time. Although; I can see the reason for this as it would be the same as ignoring the Archery user with having to keep count of their arrows.

Often times it is for speed reasons in a campaign to either leave these out or forget to use them or just being lazy.

I also have found reason that if a player has used a spell for many years of his characters time them it should become more like a cantrip to them and be easier to cast and almost second nature at least for the low level spells.

[garhkal]

Using components, is one of those things that some players (and DM's) ignore, as they see it more as 'papers and paychecks'.. TOO much book keeping.
BUT TO ME, use of and tracking of components, is a BIG REIGN in on mages and priests power..
BUT then you get to 'what does a mage really SPEND that 30gp/mo/level, living expenses on, if he's cloistered up in a tower, or on the road, eating tac and normal rations?? What does anyone else spend that 'monthly living costs' on??

SO to ME, if a spell has a component that's rather common, and LESS than 10gp, such as "a small ball of wax, or pinch of sand", THEIR LIVING EXPENSE costs, assuming THEY ACTUALLY DO PAY IT, counts as them 'stocking up ON SAID components... Usually 10 castings for EACH SPELL in their repotoir, a month..
IF ITS value is 10gp or more, OR IS harder to get "the sweat of a giant, the scale of a dragon, a blessed piece of cloth from a monk", THEN THEY MUST track how many they have.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

I go the opposite way. I see it as far too much "papers and paychecks".

First, imagine how many spell components a 12th level wizard must have, with 21 spells memorized and each requiring one or more physical components. Now imagine having to sort and carry all those components for just one day's worth of spell casting. Now consider an extended adventure where the PCs are exploring a wilderness or a dungeon or whatever. The wizard would have to carry multiples and multiples of multiple components in order to even be able to participate - otherwise, after the first day or two, he's out of spells for the rest of the adventure.

Second, imagine having to catalog how many multiples of each of the components the wizard is carrying with him. Then consider how much tracking of info the DM must to in order to make sure the player isn't sneaking in a few multiples of spell components. I track all uses of each PCs' magic items (that have charges or one use items such as potions or scrolls or beans in a bag of beans), or I allow them to track it but I watch them record each use on their PC sheet, so that there are no "extra" dozen arrows or any "extra" potions of healing or any "extra" beads of force being used. No way would I ever want to have to keep track of that stuff, nor would the player.

Third is the issue of damage. A lot of spell components are fragile and can be destroyed easily, which means the wizard now cannot cast spells and so he becomes virtually useless as spellcasting is his main function.

Fourth, there must always be shops from which to purchase certain components, while other components can only be gotten through adventuring (certain glands from monsters, etc.). This is very, very inconvenient and slows the game and makes things too complicated for my tastes. I call this the "pain in the ass factor".

Then there's the issue of price and time. A true seeing spell requires rare mushroom powder, saffron and fat. It costs 300 gp per casting and takes 1-6 months for the components to age before they can be used to cast a spell. I don't know about the rest of you, but if it takes my wizard 1-6 months (for an average of 3 months) and 300 gp just to prepare one spell, I'm gonna just play a fighter!

I don't see it reigning in the wizard's power, because I don't fret over "game balance" in that sense. I have literally never seen a game become "unbalanced" because of removing the spell component requirement, just as I've never seen or even heard of a game becoming "unbalanced" by taking out demi-human level limits. Wizards have the hardest time surviving of all the classes, even at higher levels. At low to mid levels they only have a few spells to cast, after which they can't do much besides hide, if they want to survive (unlike clerics who can run out of or forgo spells and simply engage in melee). Spell components only compounds that difficulty.

The only aspect I like when it comes to spell components is the roleplaying aspect of having to obtain certain rare components, perhaps having to visit and pay an alchemist, or haggle with the local herbalist, etc. Or being betrayed by enemy sources who sell adulterated components, etc. Those things can be fun now and then, but the fun is absolutely offset by the hassles that come with using spell components.

[garhkal]

I go the opposite way. I see it as far too much "papers and paychecks".

First, imagine how many spell components a 12th level wizard must have, with 21 spells memorized and each requiring one or more physical components. Now imagine having to sort and carry all those components for just one day's worth of spell casting. Now consider an extended adventure where the PCs are exploring a wilderness or a dungeon or whatever. The wizard would have to carry multiples and multiples of multiple components in order to even be able to participate - otherwise, after the first day or two, he's out of spells for the rest of the adventure.

With the # of spells he can access, that do NOT have components though, its on HIM IF all he takes IS ONES that have/require components.

Second, imagine having to catalog how many multiples of each of the components the wizard is carrying with him. Then consider how much tracking of info the DM must to in order to make sure the player isn't sneaking in a few multiples of spell components. I track all uses of each PCs' magic items (that have charges or one use items such as potions or scrolls or beans in a bag of beans), or I allow them to track it but I watch them record each use on their PC sheet, so that there are no "extra" dozen arrows or any "extra" potions of healing or any "extra" beads of force being used. No way would I ever want to have to keep track of that stuff, nor would the player.

Hence why i 'assume' they stock up, on items that are low Cost, VIA paying their normal living expenses.. IF THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT, then they DO need to hunt them down.

Third is the issue of damage. A lot of spell components are fragile and can be destroyed easily, which means the wizard now cannot cast spells and so he becomes virtually useless as spellcasting is his main function.

And what of the fighter, who had his armor burned off from an acid attack, or a thief who had his tools broken? ARE they also now 'useless'? EVERYONE can lose gear...

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

With the # of spells he can access, that do NOT have components though, its on HIM IF all he takes IS ONES that have/require components.

I don't think that's a very good argument, because it's basically telling the wizard to only take spells that don't use components, which is very limiting. It would destroy the class, using that argument. It's sort of like blaming the victim.

"Oh, you don't want to spend 300 gp and wait six months to create the true seeing spell? Then don't pick that spell!"

Problem is, that spell might be essential to have, the party may be going on an adventure where it's needed. They can't just put the mission off for half a year in order to prepare a spell.

Hence why i 'assume' they stock up, on items that are low Cost, VIA paying their normal living expenses.. IF THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT, then they DO need to hunt them down.

To me, it's a double edged sword - but dull on both sides. If you do the bookkeeping and detail everything, it becomes a massive hassle. If you just assume they stock up and deduct it from their monthly costs, that's redundant because it's already figured into each class, so it serves no purpose and adds nothing to the game. The only reason Gary put components into the game was because (and I am noticing this a lot lately with Gygax) he feared spellcasters. He really was scared of a lot of shit in his own game - demi-humans, wizards, etc. So he thought that using components would keep wizards from becoming too powerful or dominant, which is as much a myth as the demi-human level limits.

So either way, I see no use for them. Aside from some adventuring and roleplaying aspects, which add flavor, they really are more of a pain than they're worth.

And what of the fighter, who had his armor burned off from an acid attack, or a thief who had his tools broken? ARE they also now 'useless'? EVERYONE can lose gear...

That's not a good analogy though. A fighter who loses his armor can still fight - he just has a weaker AC. A thief who loses his lock picks can still backstab, hide in shadows, climb walls, etc. A wizard who loses his spell components cannot cast spells and cannot ever cast them again until he obtains his components, which could take months. So he's reduced to burning up charges in any wand or magic item he might have (if he even has any). After that, he can't do much. Wizards cast spells, that's their primary function. Without that, the class isn't effective.

[garhkal]

I don't think that's a very good argument, because it's basically telling the wizard to only take spells that don't use components, which is very limiting. It would destroy the class, using that argument. It's sort of like blaming the victim.

I've actually HAD players do just that.. Wanted to search through all the spells that didn't have Material components, to focus their caster on. OR ones who wanted lots of "Touch based spells"..

Problem is, that spell might be essential to have, the party may be going on an adventure where it's needed. They can't just put the mission off for half a year in order to prepare a spell.

THEN GET A bloody scroll.

[Tawnos76]

It does add a lot of bookkeeping that I find mostly unnecessary. It also can depend on the DM and the group. I did DM a group where they wanted to keep track of all their items even the fighters and rangers. It added more time but they were a group that enjoyed the bookkeeping so kept track of rations, torches, arrows, and items for spellcasting. Even when they rested the Archer would make arrows for himself or to sell in town to make money.
I have also DMed a group that just wanted to go more into delving and adventuring so did not keep track of all those as they wanted the pure action and a good story to follow.

More of my games have come across without level limits and for the most part spell components. Even if I am in a game that does not require them for the low level spells I usually like to have them search or buy for those super high level or powerful spells/prayers that are not commonly used (Wish, Resurrection).

I like to DM and have the world I want to play in but will also meta game where needed to to the group so that they also have a great time. Most of the time it is hard enough just knowing how long it takes to cast the spell when you have a mage with lots of spells to go through.

[garhkal]

Also, a while back i did a project of going through the PHB, Tome of magic and players option; spells and magic, and made a nice chart of ALL the spells in there, that do NOT NEED a material component.

For 1st level spells, we have a total of 45 spells.. OF that 15 do not need components.
For 2nd level, we have 43 total spells.. 16 don't need components..
So for 1st level, 33% are not needing components, just from the PHB, and of those who DO need components, most are NOT costly (unlike true seeing's pricy gems, or stone skins pricey diamond dust)..
As you go up in level, the % of those not needing components, gets higher...


PS if anyone wants me to send the PDF of that nice list, send me a PM.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

I've actually HAD players do just that.. Wanted to search through all the spells that didn't have Material components, to focus their caster on. OR ones who wanted lots of "Touch based spells"..

That leaves out tons of spells though. No armor, color spray, enlarge, find familiar, grease, identify, light, read magic, protection from evil, sleep, spider climb, invisible servant, wall of fog, etc. That's just from 1st level spells. Off the top of my head, also no darkness, invisibility, web, Melf's acid arrow, fireball, lightning bolt, flame arrow, invisibility, Melf's minute meteors, hold person, polymorph other, wall of fire/stone/force/ice, stoneskin, conjure elemental, monster summoning, force cage, true seeing...there are hundreds of others - mostly very useful or commonly used spells.

A wizard who cannot or does not use spells that require material components simply isn't much of a wizard. He's a very weak, watered down imitation of a wizard.

THEN GET A bloody scroll.

You've gotta be kidding me.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

Also, a while back i did a project of going through the PHB, Tome of magic and players option; spells and magic, and made a nice chart of ALL the spells in there, that do NOT NEED a material component.

For 1st level spells, we have a total of 45 spells.. OF that 15 do not need components.
For 2nd level, we have 43 total spells.. 16 don't need components..
So for 1st level, 33% are not needing components, just from the PHB, and of those who DO need components, most are NOT costly (unlike true seeing's pricy gems, or stone skins pricey diamond dust)..
As you go up in level, the % of those not needing components, gets higher...

Yeah, I did notice a long time back that the higher level spells don't require material components as often as lower level spells do, which is helpful. I never counted them up, but it seems like (at least at 8th & 9th level) very few require material components. The fact of which by itself negates any concern for wizards becoming too powerful because of removing material components.

But looking at the math, if you cut out spells that require material components, not only are you cutting out 67% of all spells, but you also have to look at which spells require material components - virtually all of the most useful and most often used spells.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Tawnos wrote:

It does add a lot of bookkeeping that I find mostly unnecessary. It also can depend on the DM and the group. I did DM a group where they wanted to keep track of all their items even the fighters and rangers. It added more time but they were a group that enjoyed the bookkeeping so kept track of rations, torches, arrows, and items for spellcasting. Even when they rested the Archer would make arrows for himself or to sell in town to make money.

Most of my players were the same way. They kept strict track of arrows, rations, etc. - which I like, because it serves both to keep some semblance of realism (no "unending supply" of arrows and torches as if by magic), and to create additional challenges. If the party is going underground and only has x amount of torches, they can't stay there too long. They have to account for that limitation. I think it makes the game far more fun. Especially when archers run out of arrows.

I have also DMed a group that just wanted to go more into delving and adventuring so did not keep track of all those as they wanted the pure action and a good story to follow.

As long as they have a ranger or druid on the team, I sort of hand-wave rations because we just assume they hunt during downtime at night and/or preserve some meat and pick berries and what not along the way. Usually during downtime, one or more players will announce they are foraging for food or fishing, hunting, etc. But when it comes to torches, arrows, etc. I insist on keeping track.

More of my games have come across without level limits and for the most part spell components. Even if I am in a game that does not require them for the low level spells I usually like to have them search or buy for those super high level or powerful spells/prayers that are not commonly used (Wish, Resurrection).

I've never used level limits myself, or spell damage caps for that matter. I've only occasionally used spell components and the times I did it, it became a hassle. I do like the idea of needing to assemble material components when first creating a new spell or scroll, since it gives them something to work on.

I like to DM and have the world I want to play in but will also meta game where needed to to the group so that they also have a great time. Most of the time it is hard enough just knowing how long it takes to cast the spell when you have a mage with lots of spells to go through.

Same here. I will hand wave non-essential things to keep the fun going.

[garhkal]

That leaves out tons of spells though. No armor, color spray, enlarge, find familiar, grease, identify, light, read magic, protection from evil, sleep, spider climb, invisible servant, wall of fog, etc. That's just from 1st level spells. Off the top of my head, also no darkness, invisibility, web, Melf's acid arrow, fireball, lightning bolt, flame arrow, invisibility, Melf's minute meteors, hold person, polymorph other, wall of fire/stone/force/ice, stoneskin, conjure elemental, monster summoning, force cage, true seeing...there are hundreds of others - mostly very useful or commonly used spells.

So for first level, we have, Burning hands, change self, Chill touch, erase, Gaze reflection, shield, shocking grasp, spook, magic missile, feather fall, charm person, hold portal hypnotism, and Cantrip.. That's not a weak/watered down mage... THREE OF THOSE SPELLS are standard fair (magic missile, charm person and shield)...

For level 2 we have, Cont light, blur, fog cloud, knock, forget, mirror image, misdirection, spectral hand, ray of enfeeblement, whispering wind, wizard lock, Blindness and alter self.. That certainly doesn't seem like a weak mage either...

And for level 3 spells, we have delude, blink, dispel magic, phantom steed, feign death, Spectral force, Vampiric touch, and explosive runes. Sure it's the SMALLEST list, but they still don't make a wimpy mage..

Adding in spells from the Tome of magic, AND Spell's and magic players option book, we get
for L1 - Fist of stone, fire burst, lasting breath, and 2 wild mage spells..
Detect phase, ray of fatigue, detect secret passages and portals, and expeditous retreat..

For L2, we add in just one spell from POS&M, Detect poison, and Detect chaos, insataible thirst and past life, from the Tome.. Not much there i will admit.

BUT 3rd level, gains spirit armor (a great improvement for the regular armor spell), Wizard sight, Far reaching 1 (one of the meta-magic spells), Watery double, and Minor Malison.. Good for cursing the die rolls of enemies, all from the tome, then you add in Lance of disruption..

I can EASILY make a workable, NON WATERED down, NON "Gimped" mage from that..

You've gotta be kidding me.

No i am not. I've had several games, because the party lacked a class (CLERIC) they went with someone with a SPELL ON A SCROLL, because they thought they needed it. OR if the mage failed his chance to know roll FOR that spell.. Or because the mage in the party isn't high enough FOR that spell that they "May need"...

Most of my players were the same way. They kept strict track of arrows, rations, etc. - which I like, because it serves both to keep some semblance of realism (no "unending supply" of arrows and torches as if by magic), and to create additional challenges. If the party is going underground and only has x amount of torches, they can't stay there too long. They have to account for that limitation. I think it makes the game far more fun. Especially when archers run out of arrows.

So if you're OK with arrows, rations and the like being tracked, WHY NOT spell components??

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

So for first level, we have, Burning hands, change self, Chill touch, erase, Gaze reflection, shield, shocking grasp, spook, magic missile, feather fall, charm person, hold portal hypnotism, and Cantrip.. That's not a weak/watered down mage... THREE OF THOSE SPELLS are standard fair (magic missile, charm person and shield)...

For level 2 we have, Cont light, blur, fog cloud, knock, forget, mirror image, misdirection, spectral hand, ray of enfeeblement, whispering wind, wizard lock, Blindness and alter self.. That certainly doesn't seem like a weak mage either...

And for level 3 spells, we have delude, blink, dispel magic, phantom steed, feign death, Spectral force, Vampiric touch, and explosive runes. Sure it's the SMALLEST list, but they still don't make a wimpy mage..

But they actually are very wimpy compared to wizards who can actually cast fireball, lightning bolt, Melf's acid arrow, fireball, lightning bolt, flame arrow, invisibility, Melf's minute meteors, hold person, polymorph other, wall of fire/stone/force/ice, stoneskin, conjure elemental, monster summoning, force cage, true seeing, etc.

I don't use much from Tome of Magic so I'm not really familiar with those spells. In any case, any wizard deprived of all the spells using material components is severely handicapped compared to a wizard who can use them. Perhaps not useless, but absolutely and without question inferior in power.

No i am not. I've had several games, because the party lacked a class (CLERIC) they went with someone with a SPELL ON A SCROLL, because they thought they needed it. OR if the mage failed his chance to know roll FOR that spell.. Or because the mage in the party isn't high enough FOR that spell that they "May need"...

My point is that making the scroll would take even longer than getting the spell itself. First, the wizard must prepare the spell, because he must be able to cast the spell in order to write it to the scroll. So for true seeing, we're talking 3-6 months to prepare the spell before he can even cast it onto the scroll. Then, after all that time and expense, there is the chance the scroll goes bad, which sucks even worse because all that time and gold spent making the spell, added to the time and expense of writing it to the scroll, is an even larger investment of time and money and may not even work when cast!

So if you're OK with arrows, rations and the like being tracked, WHY NOT spell components??

Because they're so easy to track, for one thing. Simply check off the boxes for rations on the PC sheet. It's effortless. You can use the blank boxes to count arrows or torches as well. Tracking material components becomes a matter of tracking dozens, perhaps hundreds of items. For lightning bolt you need a piece of amber (or a glass rod or crystal) and a bit of fur. For a fireball you need lump of bat guano and some sulfur. For Melf's minute meteors you need a bead made of nitre, pine tar and sulfur plus a hollow tube of gold. For a dig spell you need a tiny bucket and shovel. Evard's black tentacles requires a piece of squid or giant octopus tentacle.

For a host of other spells, we need: dust, black silk, granite and diamond dust, a crystal prism and piece of phosphor, bat fur, bone powder or a bone shard, grains of sand, a soft glove, incense, clay, mineral spheres, metal bars, a miniature wooden chest, a silver whistle, sesame seeds, smoky quartz, cylinders connected with copper wire, sheet iron, silver pins, etc.

The contingency spell alone requires material components for the companion spells plus quicksilver, an eyelash from various monsters, and a statuette of a white elephant!

I can't see how anyone can keep track of all that without a computer and a spreadsheet - especially if the wizard has some spells memorized multiple times. A mid level wizard may need to catalog as many as 100 different material components.

On top of all that, we have the issue of item saving throws. A wizard gets hit with a fireball or falls off a cliff or gets hit with black dragon acid breath - he fails his saving throw and now has to roll item saving throws for each item individually because different substances get different saving throws. It would become a nightmare doing that.

A fighter gets hit with magical fire and fails his saving throw so he has to make a few item saves. Wooden shield would need a 7 or higher and his sword and armor (let's say he has chain mail) needs a 6 or higher. Not a big deal. Easy and quickly done in a matter of seconds.

A wizard getting hit by that magical fire would have to make item saving throws for fur (19), iron sheet (16), tiny bucket and shovel (2), soft glove (6), glass rod (4), etc. He'd have to make anywhere from 50 to 100 item saves. Worst yet, what is the item saving throw value for squid tentacle? Amber? Nitre? Sulfur? Clay? Which category do we use for those? They're not even listed on the chart!

To me, I don't see any advantage to using material components. Too much to track, too much time spent rolling items saves (only after spending even more time trying to figure out what saving throw value most items use!), too much time spent acquiring them, too much crap to carry.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong to use them. I just personally don't see much use for them. I see them as more effort and hassle than they're worth and they really serve no purpose. Aside from, as I mentioned earlier, the roleplaying aspect of dealing with unscrupulous dealers who may (for example) be selling diamond dust that is cut with quartz dust (or worse yet, is substituting Herkimer diamond powder - which is a type of quartz - for actual diamond dust). Or the aspect of having to adventure to obtain the eyelash of an ogre or something. But even those cases - the former (though very fun to use and interesting) can't be used often or it becomes tedious and predictable so it must be used sparingly. And the latter becomes a real hassle because, unless the wizard already knows which spells he'll eventually wish to cast and becomes a monster parts collector, the entire party must accompany him on quests to track down monsters and fight them to obtain rare substances (parts). That can be fun occasionally, but if he has to do that all the time, the game grinds to a halt because he's constantly going on monster parts hunts.

[garhkal]

But they actually are very wimpy compared to wizards who can actually cast fireball, lightning bolt, Melf's acid arrow, fireball, lightning bolt, flame arrow, invisibility, Melf's minute meteors, hold person, polymorph other, wall of fire/stone/force/ice, stoneskin, conjure elemental, monster summoning, force cage, true seeing, etc.

So illusionists and Enchanters, WHICH BY THE BOOK Lack a god # of those above spells you ilsted, must also by YOUR logic "BE WIMPS, and thus are inferior mages?"

My point is that making the scroll would take even longer than getting the spell itself. First, the wizard must prepare the spell, because he must be able to cast the spell in order to write it to the scroll. So for true seeing, we're talking 3-6 months to prepare the spell before he can even cast it onto the scroll. Then, after all that time and expense, there is the chance the scroll goes bad, which sucks even worse because all that time and gold spent making the spell, added to the time and expense of writing it to the scroll, is an even larger investment of time and money and may not even work when cast!

WHO said THEY are the ones making it?

On top of all that, we have the issue of item saving throws. A wizard gets hit with a fireball or falls off a cliff or gets hit with black dragon acid breath - he fails his saving throw and now has to roll item saving throws for each item individually because different substances get different saving throws. It would become a nightmare doing that.

Then simplyfy it. IF THE pouch (or robe) holding it, goes up, so do all the items in the pouch..

A fighter gets hit with magical fire and fails his saving throw so he has to make a few item saves. Wooden shield would need a 7 or higher and his sword and armor (let's say he has chain mail) needs a 6 or higher. Not a big deal. Easy and quickly done in a matter of seconds.

What of his backpack, belt with pouches holding his potions, arrows and quiver...

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

So illusionists and Enchanters, WHICH BY THE BOOK Lack a god # of those above spells you ilsted, must also by YOUR logic "BE WIMPS, and thus are inferior mages?"

Well no, illusionists can be quite potent, in fact. But as I've proved in the past, they are nowhere near as powerful as wizards of the same level. That line from the 1E PHB where Gygax claims that illusionists can be as potent or even more potent than wizards of the same level is absolutely, objectively untrue. That doesn't mean that illusionists can't be damned lethal - they are! But just not as powerful as wizards of the same level.

So in the same way, a wizard who does not have access to spells that require material components is by no means a wimp - he can be quite potent. But nowhere near as powerful and nowhere near as useful as a wizard who has access to spells using material components.

WHO said THEY are the ones making it?

Well sure, they can possibly find a scroll with a true seeing spell. I'm not necessarily precluding that possibility. But that would be a relatively rare thing, finding a scroll with a 6th level spell on it, and it would be a one-shot use. It would suspend disbelief to keep finding scrolls with true seeing on it. So eventually he's going to have to prepare the spell himself, which is insanely time consuming - far more so if he wants to scribe it onto a scroll.

Then simplyfy it. IF THE pouch (or robe) holding it, goes up, so do all the items in the pouch..

I would argue that doing so would merely compounds the problem or at least doesn't significantly alleviate the problem. For example, a 12th level wizard has 21 spells memorized. Let's say 15 of them have material components. If each spell has its components grouped in a single pouch (i.e. all the components for fireball are in one pouch, all the components for hold person in another pouch, etc.), he's carrying 15 pouches on his person (almost like Batman!). That's still 15 saving throws he has to make each time item saving throws are necessary. And think about this issue...if we look at the scores for each category of item saving throws for leather and average them we get an average roll of 7, meaning that, on average, he will lose 35% (1/3rd) of all his spells each time he needs to make item saving throws. That's it. He's screwed. He cannot simply find replacement components out in the wilderness or while exploring a dungeon, etc.

Worse yet, for some categories (say magical fire), the saving throw is much higher. In this case, 13 or higher. That means he loses 65% (or 2/3rds) of all his spells. Compare that to a fighter who has only a 30% chance of losing his armor or weapon to a breath weapon. Most fighters carry multiple weapons, so even if they lose one sword, they have a second sword or a battle ax or whatever, to fight with. It rarely impairs the fighter. But if a wizard loses 2/3rds of his spells, that's a huge problem.

What of his backpack, belt with pouches holding his potions, arrows and quiver...

He may lose those as well. But the difference is that fighters usually carry more than one weapon, so losing one of them doesn't impair his ability to function within his class. Or at least not as significantly as losing 2/3 of his spells impairs the wizard. The fighter can easily acquire a lost sword from a fallen foe, and finding discarded weapons in a dungeon is common place. But no way is a wizard (12th level) who loses 13 or 14 of his 21 memorized spells going to find spells to replace all that, on scrolls or otherwise, unless you have a Monty Haul campaign.

I'd argue that a wizard who loses 14 of his 21 spells (leaving him with just 7 spells, and not the ones he might hope to retain) is nowhere near as devastated as a fighter losing one of his multiple weapons. A 12th level fighter gets 3 attacks every 2 rounds regardless of whether he is carrying a single weapon or multiple weapons. So losing one or two of his three or four weapons is nothing like losing 14 of 21 spells. You can't really compare the two. The wizard is far more depleted than the fighter.