I am calm. I'm just emphasizing how much I dislike the idea of a reagent-based system, and why. If you want to limit use of powerful spells by requiring an inventory item,
there's already a simpler alternative: high-powered spells can only be found on scrolls, not from spellbooks.
That will keep players from using rare scrolls on every pack of crabs, it can't be exploited by resting, and it's less needlessly complex than a reagent-system. You know exactly what the scroll is for, and you only need the scroll, you don't need to hunt down 2-3 rare components to cast the spell. It can even be set to appear only in specific places a limited number of times.
Calm down.
Your pro-cd position can be opposed with the exact same arguments: It's so long noone will ever use it.
As for the "save for later" complex, reagents aren't worse than any other limitation. Cooldown wouldn't change anything in this regard.
No, it isn't the same thing. Rare-item reagents say "you can cast this spell up to X times in the entire game, no matter how long you play". Long-cooldown times say "you can only cast this spell X times per game day".
If I cast "Bob's Ragent-requiring Nuke" X times in the game, I'll never be able to use it again - ever. If I cast "Dave's cooldown-requiring Zapper" X times a day, I'll either have to make do with what other spells I have, or wait until the cooldown expires, but I will be able to use it again. That's a clear difference.
It would be even worst. The system would be equally exploitable trough rest and the developers should make crazy considerations about timing while designing a dungeon or a quest. A per-day limit would be 10 time less problematic. There are better solutions, though.
A 1-use-per-day spell system is simply a 14,400 turn cooldown, and can be exploited in exactly the same way as a 600 turn cooldown. But yes, there are better solutions.
This is a game where you will end up with an inventory full of stuff no matter how magic works.
Sorry, but that is not an good argument for adding even more.
