Are you a refluffer?

[ForceUser]

Why? When something works exactly the same, why should they look completely different? I can understand the reasoning that divine magic would look different depending on the deity. But why should arcane magic not be "cut and dry"?
Why do you insist that there are dozens of completely different spells out there which yet do exactly the same thing? That doesn't add any "coolness" but is imo just lame. Instead call magic missile a magic missile and let everyone see that it is a magic missile which every respectable wizard can cast instead of saying its a "weird glowing stuff. By the way it works exactly as a magic missile, no difference at all".

It just comes down to the way you want to present magic in your world. There's nothing wrong with having magic be a science with predictable causes and effects, and there's nothing wrong with it being something vast, unquantifiable and user-defined. I prefer the latter approach because my players and I all enjoy describing unique spell effects to make our characters more fun for us---when my group's cleric casts healing word, an arc of red lightning leaps from him to the person being healed, who feels an electric shock as wounds are zapped away. It's cool, it's visual, and it fits the portfolio of a cleric of a storm god. The fact that it looks nothing like the placid waves of watery magic that emanate from the shaman's companion when he channels a heal through it makes no difference mechanically. It's just for effect. Anyone can figure out that both are healing spells, and meanwhile the players of those two characters can feel like their PCs are distinct.

 

[Derren]

It just comes down to the way you want to present magic in your world. There's nothing wrong with having magic be a science with predictable causes and effects, and there's nothing wrong with it being something vast, unquantifiable and user-defined. I prefer the latter approach because my players and I all enjoy describing unique spell effects to make our characters more fun for us---when my group's cleric casts healing word, an arc of red lightning leaps from him to the person being healed, who feels an electric shock as wounds are zapped away. It's cool, it's visual, and it fits the portfolio of a cleric of a storm god. The fact that it looks nothing like the placid waves of watery magic that emanate from the shaman's companion when he channels a heal through it makes no difference mechanically. It's just for effect. Anyone can figure out that both are healing spells, and meanwhile the players of those two characters can feel like their PCs are distinct.

In D&D magic is science. All spells and magic items always work the same way, always require the same components and are always of the same rank. If you want unquantifiable magic play Ars Magica where wizards can create spells on the fly.

There is no difference between your storm clerics healing word and the same spell from any other cleric. Its laughable that "healing lightning" would perform in the absolute same way like normal healing. At best players ignore it. At worst they try to "use" the new fluff to their advantage and you have to decide if you allow it, thereby having your fluff affect the machanic in sometimes unintended ways or deny it and make the whole issue even more silly.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Why do you insist that there are dozens of completely different spells out there which yet do exactly the same thing? That doesn't add any "coolness" but is imo just lame.

It's the same reasoning that might lead a DM to say the following:

1. The trog's "jabber-jabber" is little more than a crudely hacked tree branch with a broad stone tip affixed at one end with a wrapping of coarse hemp fiber.
2. The guard's realmspike has a worked steel point riveted to a heavy sanded shaft of oak, from which dangles a short crimson tassle.

Mechanically, both weapons are "spear/1d8/x3". Only the fluff has changed.

 

[Derren]

It's the same reasoning that might lead a DM to say the following:

1. The trog's "jabber-jabber" is little more than a crudely hacked tree branch with a broad stone tip affixed at one end with a wrapping of coarse hemp fiber.
2. The guard's realmspike has a worked steel point riveted to a heavy sanded shaft of oak, from which dangles a short crimson tassle.

Mechanically, both weapons are "spear/1d8/x3". Only the fluff has changed.

And thus a crude stone age weapon is exactly the same as a carefully crafted steel weapon. By hearing those description I, and probably most other people, expect the steel weapon to be way better than the stone one and having them performing exactly the same is in my eyes, lame.

 

[ForceUser]

In my D&D campaign, magic is science. All of my spells and magic items always work the same way, always require the same components and are always of the same rank. If you want unquantifiable magic play in a different campaign where I'm not the DM or a player.

Fixed that for ya.

We'll have to agree to disagree, friend. I think the system allows for a lot more narrative variance than you give it credit.

 

[Derren]

Fixed that for ya.

No, you didn't. You completely missed the point.
Unless someone houserules that the results of casting a spell are variable, sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it backfires, etc. they are always the same. Wizards casts magic missile which always takes 1 action and always does the same thing. And forcewave(I think thats how it called) always pushes the same distance. All fire swords +X always costs the same to make, no matter which technique you use and all scrolls of raise dead cost the same and have the same effect.

And thus, magic is science because it can be reproduced without fail.

To use an (very simplified) analogy, physics/gravity is a science because all things fall down with the same speed (barring air resistance). If things would fall with different speeds, hover or even fall upwards for no discernable reason, physics/gravity wouldn't be a science. And exactly that form of unpredictability is missing in D&D magic.

 

[ForceUser]

The way we describe spells and powers has no bearing on the rules mechanic. If I want to describe my wizard waving around a tuba and spitting sunflower seeds to cast fireball, it makes absolutely no difference because the mechanic hasn't changed. It's just fluff. This whole thread is just talking about fluff. Mechanics is irrelevant to the discussion. We're just discussing creative ways to describe spell effects, monster powers, etc.

 

[Derren]

The way we describe spells and powers has no bearing on the rules mechanic. If I want to describe my wizard waving around a tuba and spitting sunflower seeds to cast fireball, it makes absolutely no difference because the mechanic hasn't changed. It's just fluff. This whole thread is just talking about fluff. Mechanics is irrelevant to the discussion. We're just discussing creative ways to describe spell effects, monster powers, etc.

And thats the problem with refluffing. It has no effect on the mechanics which simply is silly.
If you want unique spells then make unique spells. But don't just pretend a spell is unique when it actually isn't.

 

[ForceUser]

And thats the problem with refluffing. It has no effect on the mechanics which simply is silly.
If you want unique spells then make unique spells. But don't just pretend a spell is unique when it actually isn't.

I was hoping that this isn't what your argument boiled down to, but it is. You're saying we play the game wrongbad. I don't feel that's a point worth arguing over, so this is where I bow out of the discussion.

 

[Derren]

I was hoping that this isn't what your argument boiled down to, but it is. You're saying we play the game wrongbad. I don't feel that's a point worth arguing over, so this is where I bow out of the discussion.

I guess you weren't really interested in hearing why some people do not "refluff" then. Apparently its now me who plays "wrongbad"