Presentaion of Spells: To Prose or Not To Prose?

[Lanefan]

I think we should dump the components and casting time information.

[MENTION=85179]ren1999[/MENTION] Does that mean you'd want to do away with both of those concepts completely?

And if so, why?

Lanefan

 

[ren1999]

@ren1999 Does that mean you'd want to do away with both of those concepts completely?

And if so, why?

Lanefan

I want the players to try to justify how their characters are doing the spell.

They will suggest the components, what they are verbally saying, what gestures they are using, etc..

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I want text and stats. I read the text the first time to understand what the spell does. I want it to be detailed and flavorful, and cover edge cases. I then want a stats block that I can refer to quickly in play to pull out the info I need.

 

[Sunseeker]

I want the players to try to justify how their characters are doing the spell.

They will suggest the components, what they are verbally saying, what gestures they are using, etc..

I enjoy when my players get creative with how they do things in D&D....However, I never want to make my players feel like they need to impress me or justify their action. D&D covers very broad strokes, and I do reward creativity, but I never punish when a player cannot come up with something on the spot.

The carrot, not the stick I think will get players further. Spells should give a basic idea of what's needed to make the spell work. Players who go above and beyond that should be rewarded. But I worry that forcing players to justify their actions, with the possibility of not being able to have them if they are not creative enough.

 

[Lanefan]

I want the players to try to justify how their characters are doing the spell.

They will suggest the components, what they are verbally saying, what gestures they are using, etc..

Sounds good, but if those were the system rules-as-written casting would break in a heartbeat: someone's suggestion would be no components, no words, and no motions to cast the spell (in other words, you could cast from stasis, or while frozen in a block of ice) and the written rules would allow it. Fails the 'broken' test.

So, the component requirements have to be noted even just as V,S,M; and once you've noted that it's a pretty small step to noting the M and S components in the writeup; and if your players come up with better then let 'em, as long as they know there has to be something.

Lanefan

 

[Hautamaki]

I want the players to try to justify how their characters are doing the spell.

They will suggest the components, what they are verbally saying, what gestures they are using, etc..

Yes but in the heat of the moment doesn't that put players in an awkward situation where their spell casting can either conveniently ignore any possible environmental or situational restrictions, or not?

 

[eamon]

Yes but in the heat of the moment doesn't that put players in an awkward situation where their spell casting can either conveniently ignore any possible environmental or situational restrictions, or not?

Yes. It sure does. This is essentially the 4e style magic: if you're mute and grabbed (aka grappling), you can still use your wand to cast essentially anything at anyone as normal; there's no mechanical effect. I don't think this is the right way to go, especially if the fantasy components and movements actually matter (as opposed to being a stylistic affectation).

Nevertheless, I don't think this is really an issue of balance or fluff. It's perfectly reasonable to imagine magic purely of the mind (after all, psions do that already), and balance is hardly affected because (1) in practice such limitations don't occur much and (2) you can always compensate by making the spells a little weaker.

The question is: what is the fantasy we want? Should movement, materials and spoken words matter? Whatever the choice, the mechanics and the fluff should be in agreement on this. I certainly don't want fluff describing sand thrown and a spoken word of power if you need neither sand, the ability the throw, because not only is it jarring, it's also contradictory (what if the PC's tie a BBEG wizard's hands or the PC wizard is captured and gagged, can they escape with a dimension door?)

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes. It sure does. This is essentially the 4e style magic: if you're mute and grabbed (aka grappling), you can still use your wand to cast essentially anything at anyone as normal; there's no mechanical effect. I don't think this is the right way to go, especially if the fantasy components and movements actually matter (as opposed to being a stylistic affectation).

Nevertheless, I don't think this is really an issue of balance or fluff. It's perfectly reasonable to imagine magic purely of the mind (after all, psions do that already), and balance is hardly affected because (1) in practice such limitations don't occur much and (2) you can always compensate by making the spells a little weaker.

The question is: what is the fantasy we want? Should movement, materials and spoken words matter? Whatever the choice, the mechanics and the fluff should be in agreement on this. I certainly don't want fluff describing sand thrown and a spoken word of power if you need neither sand, the ability the throw, because not only is it jarring, it's also contradictory (what if the PC's tie a BBEG wizard's hands or the PC wizard is captured and gagged, can they escape with a dimension door?)

To the first part: you can try, but any ranged attack made while adjacent to an enemy provokes opportunity attacks, same if u are grappled. I do think that most spells should be reasonably able to be cast in a grapple, short of if you have to do an Irish jig to cast it. There would be a penalty, probably a percentile-based spell failure check. If you have a wand, it should reduce the check. That's just IMO.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...There would be a penalty, probably a percentile-based spell failure check. If you have a wand, it should reduce the check. That's just IMO.

I like the idea of a wand to avoid melee casting penalties. Puts a whole new slant on implements.

 

[tomBitonti]

...

The question is: what is the fantasy we want? Should movement, materials and spoken words matter? Whatever the choice, the mechanics and the fluff should be in agreement on this. I certainly don't want fluff describing sand thrown and a spoken word of power if you need neither sand, the ability the throw, because not only is it jarring, it's also contradictory (what if the PC's tie a BBEG wizard's hands or the PC wizard is captured and gagged, can they escape with a dimension door?)

The bold is in the original text, and highlights an important point. Whether "fluff" is just that, inconsequential fluff, or is mechanically active, makes a very big difference. Inconsequential fluff seems to tend to a very different style than active rules.

A preliminary question would be whether the fluff is consequential.

A followup question is how to present rules text with built in modularity.

"You cannot cast spells while grappling, or when threatened" is consistent with "you must make a concentration check to cast while grappled; if you cast while threatened, you provoke an attack" with a default case of failing the concentration check or being hit being applied.

Edit: And yet another question is the quality of the writing, in any case. But that quality depends a lot on the intent of the text: To be inconsequential fluff, or to be active rules text.