D&D General What is a "spell"? What isn't?

[DEFCON 1]

In-world I treat Spells as only things that arcane casters know, use and cast. Any other magic might be given the nomenclature of "spells" in the rulebooks for the ease of game clarification, but I don't consider them "Spells" in-game.

For instance... a High Elf's cantrip they get for free I just consider to be a magical effect they get for being highly magical creatures. It might have the name of an official "cantrip" in the rulebooks... but I find it kinda lame from a world-building perspective to consider that all High Elves have had to "learn" how to "cast one cantrip spell" (and that's all!) at one point in their lives... rather than just having some innate magical ability to do X. To me... they are magical, they can do X magical effect, and we only just USE the concept of cantrips and spells from the game rules perspective to make it easier for players to run and understand it as they play.

Likewise... the Path of the Totem Warrior can "cast" the beast sense and speak with animals "spells" but only as "rituals". But to me... thinking of them doing the exact same things that Wizards do is like really, really lame. That these barbarians "cast spells" just like Wizards. So I don't treat them like that at all. To me... these are both just natural abilities that barbarians have that produce the effects of what you would get from beast sense and speak with animals spells. But I don't see them as spells and don't treat them as spells. I basically treat them like their own individual class features that the rule book could have written out fully (like they do for other barbarian features like Rage or Unarmored Defense) but chose to just say "it's these two spells" because it saved space and explanation time in the rules.

And it's also the way I get around the whole "All Rangers are magical spellcasters" debate too. If having a Ranger that does not cast spells is important to someone... the easiest way to do it is just select those Ranger "spells" that can essentially be considered non-magical and treat their effects as if they were not spells and just Ranger class features. A Ranger can move an extra 10 feet a round? Sounds completely plausible. So let's just wipe away the fact that those 10 feet come from the Ranger "casting" the longstrider spell... and just say that this particular Ranger is particularly fast. Or that when the Ranger heals someone, they are using their knowledge of herbs and natural remedies to do so rather than "casting" cure wounds.

The Spells section is what it is just for ease-of-use. So I don't get hung up on it.

 

[Minigiant]

For instance... a High Elf's cantrip they get for free I just consider to be a magical effect they get for being highly magical creatures. It might have the name of an official "cantrip" in the rulebooks... but I find it kinda lame from a world-building perspective to consider that all High Elves have had to "learn" how to "cast one cantrip spell" (and that's all!) at one point in their lives... rather than just having some innate magical ability to do X. To me... they are magical, they can do X magical effect, and we only just USE the concept of cantrips and spells from the game rules perspective to make it easier for players to run and understand it as they play.

I personally think High Elf magic is specifically hard formulaic spells. High Elves are magically humaniods but they can't emit their magic the way a fey or dragon can.

High elves cast cantrips because they come from societies that value magic and their children are not notallowedto do much until age 100. High elves have cantrips and use bows because every single one you meet is comparatively "Old AF" compared to you and spent that time doing culturally accepted training and misc hobbies.

One a tangent, I hope that 6e finally encapsulates the concept that Elves are basically all geezer but "genetically" get "old man brain" at age 15. I mean rightnot you have level 1 elves who are 150 years who only get 4 bnus racial proficiencies and can only squeak out a bonus wizard cantrip despite your society being at least 25% magic nerds. That feels more like high elves are culturally forced to take Arcane Magic 101, Basic Archery, and Swordelfshhip 101 but nothing else instead of them all having innate magic. "Continue Arcane Magic? Nah. I'm taking Basketweaving"

 

[steeldragons]

The fiction of the world has it that a spell is a formulae -of gestures, hand signs, specific words, certain materials, symbols or diagrams, whatever the formulaw says you need to incorporate- that is used to both harness and shape the innate force of magic that pervades the game world's cosmos to a specific desired effect. As we view in science, the proof of a spell's veracity is that the effect is a reproducible reliable result.

A spell is a...a "piece" of magic, a complete "packet" or a "recipe," if you like, that can be comprehended and controlled. Something that can be learned, understood, reproduced, and passed along. Something that can be -though needn't necessarily- written down. Hence, we have spell scrolls, spell books, ancient tablets of unknown or forgotten magical languages, talismans with the symbols of power etched upon them, etc...

There are some spells which can be reproduced through different means....A cleric receives the divinely powered utterance in the tongue of the gods. A mage pours over his grimoire to ensure he has the proper hand gesture to trace the activation glyph just right. A druid has been instructed over and over in properly connecting to the natural flow of magic (that forms a foundational element of existence) to glean the unknowable syllables of the sacred druidic tongue...All three produce the same spell effect, but they are not the same words (though could be in different languages) or gestures, methods or practices.

Most spells can be thought of/are more accurately described as "incantations." The right words to make the magic you want. Perhaps any magic-worker can "cast" a circle of power, with certain colored candles, the right kind of incense, chimes/bells, and repetitive chanting to produce that spell effect, too. That's a "ritual." A ritual is just a different -often lengthy- mean for casting a spell. But they are also a "spell."

Magic can be produced is a wide variety of ways. Spells are the most commonly seen/encountered. Rituals, of course, are just another form of spells. But then there are various practices, techniques, secret traditions or mastered abilities that are equally capable of producing magic/supernatural effects...but are not, themselves, "spells."

That cleric invoking the divine power (lent from their deity) to repulse the undead? It's magic! For sure. Not a spell. The druid's shapeshifting? Magic! A supernatural power produced through some secretly passed on technique/tradition/preparation (fueled by a connection to the natural magic of the world), yes. Not a spell.

The magical abilities (indeed, their very nature) of the fae or an elemental? Supernatural power or "spell-like" ability? Yes. Magic? Absolutely. A spell? No.

Psychic powers? Not a spell. Not even "Magic" as I have stipulated for the fiction of my game world. A supernatural (or occult or eldritch, if you like) power that produces a supernatural (occult/eldritch) effect. Yes. Looks like magic, because the raw force of magic is what makes things that can/should not be possible into reality, but isn't magic. What the psychic is doing is not harnessing and directing the magical forces (arcane or natural or divine) of existence. They are not -again, in the fiction- "casting a spell" to effect their powers.

Now, the separation of "spells/no spells" is not, by any means, a hard line. A vampire, dragon, fae entity, and innumerable other types of beings/creatures have supernatural/magical powers, for sure. Some may also know/study/have accumulated spells they know how to produce. But everything magical that they can do is not a "spell."

I would even submit (were I to use the class) deem that the magical effects produced by the innately magical "Sorcerer", while they can be done with words and gestures...can be done by doing the same thing over and over...still, not a "spell" - IN THE FICTION - as I've described above. But a supernatural magical power. It is probably/would be called a spell, in world, as a simple shorthand way of discussing it. But the spell-casters would know the sorcerer's power is something "else." Whether that is viewed (by normal persons or even other magic-users) with envy, awe, fear or hatred would be an entirely different conversation.

So...yeah...long story long, that's what a spell "is/is not" in my world.

 

[Krachek]

So what do wizards and such do with all those gobs of bat guano, waving their hands around and mumbling?

Use magic! Which in DnD can be made through spell or class features, or magic item and other various rules.
if I adapt a npc wizard that I use in games in another game system to use it in 5ed does he notice the change in his usage of magic from a fiction point of view?

 

[beancounter]

Also, are the spells of a sorcerer actual spells, or inate abilities?...

 

[Minigiant]

I would even submit (were I to use the class) deem that the magical effects produced by the innately magical "Sorcerer", while they can be done with words and gestures...can be done by doing the same thing over and over...still, not a "spell" - IN THE FICTION - as I've described above. But a supernatural magical power. It is probably/would be called a spell, in world, as a simple shorthand way of discussing it. But the spell-casters would know the sorcerer's power is something "else." Whether that is viewed (by normal persons or even other magic-users) with envy, awe, fear or hatred would be an entirely different conversation.

The sorcerer is a real case where the mechanics and fiction don't match. Sorcerers cast spells but lorewise they really shouldn't.

Especially without an Arcane Origin for the Sorcerer,it's hard to say that sorcerer have magical formular written in their blood, bones, and skin. Because then Sorcerer Bones would be magic wands with arcane scribbles on them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Frankly, I don’t think there’s an in-fiction explanation that can both include all spells and exclude all magical abilities that are not spells and still be internally consistent. 5e is just too haphazard with what’s done via spell and what’s done by some other mechanic.

Now, that’s not necessarily a problem. Magic doesn’t need to be consistent or rational, that’s why it’s magic. It does, however, conflict with D&D’s lore about spells being magical formulae that manipulate the rules of the weave, which anyone can theoretically learn to reproduce with enough dedication and study. Basically, 5e wants to have a hard magic system in-universe, but the way it’s magic mechanics actually work doesn’t back that up. IMO.

 

[Minigiant]

Also, are the spells of a sorcerer actual spells, or inate abilities?...

They are innate actual formulaic spells.

Which is kinda dumb and a result of WOTC and the D&D Community not caring much about the class, taking shortcuts, and putting page space over lore.

 

[Laurefindel]

In the like of what @FitzTheRuke said, a spell is an conscious effort to use magic in order to produce a predictable effect. Conscious intention and predictable effect(s) are keyword here, regardless whether words, gestures, ingredients, or even casting time/duration are used or not.

There are few ways for characters to use magic without casting spells. Aside the effects of many magic items (which presumably required a spell to create), most use of magic without casting spells are within class or subclass features. Several effects from the wild magic table and a few warlock incantations (such as devil's sight) come to mind but even the paladin's smite or the diviner's portent abilities are considered spells as far as I'm concerned.

The principal alternative use of magic without casting spells is potion brewing, alchemy, and herbalism and by extension, the wizard's transmuter stone effects and presumably many artificer "spells" and abilities by fluff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

see I’d actually think that the opposite - Spells are learnable formula, vibrations and ritual actions that can manipulate the ‘natural’ arcane energies of the world.

whereas not-spells (spell-like abilities) are inherent powers which creatures possess due to living in a magical environment.

See, and that's the problem. When you change something in the game that was a spell into a near identical effect that is now not a spell, what's the fiction for that? How can you suddenly not interact with it as a spell, when before you could? For that matter, given how many different ways casters can conceptually learn magic, how can all those ways still be considered spells in the fiction? There's no rhyme or reason to any of it, because the designers are just concerned with the gamist conceits of the magic system.