Rex Blunder
First Post
What's in a spell name?
The question before the table: Should it be "Melf's Acid Arrow" or "Acid Arrow"?
The question before the table: Should it be "Melf's Acid Arrow" or "Acid Arrow"?
D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: What's in a (Spell) Name?
- Thread starter Rex Blunder
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Some, yes. Ones that are very very much "so-in-so's such-in-such spell" and would seem awkward without. Melf's Acid Arrow? We've had it as "Acid Arrow" before and it's not a big deal. "Bigby's Hand of whatever" well that strikes me as more iconic.
Rex Blunder
First Post
Personally, I think it would be cool if any wizard could learn the generic "Acid Arrow", and upgraded versions like "Melf's Acid Arrow" were available for research or to find in treasure.
Savage Wombat
Hero
If they're serious about reclaiming 1st and 2nd edition players, they will. Attention to the game's rich history is an important factor for them.
To me it makes them sound more like spells and less like super-powers.
But it's hardly a deal-breaker.
To me it makes them sound more like spells and less like super-powers.
But it's hardly a deal-breaker.
pauljathome
First Post
I was desperately looking for the
"Who gives a <expletive deleted>" button
With all the things to sort out at this stage of the development process they're killing innocent electrons to ask this?
Feh.
tlantl
First Post
Spells have to come from somewhere.
If one of my characters creates a spell you darn well better bet that character is not only going to name it but his or her name is going to be part of it.
Using spells named after their creator gives the game a lived in feeling, at least for me.
If one of my characters creates a spell you darn well better bet that character is not only going to name it but his or her name is going to be part of it.
Using spells named after their creator gives the game a lived in feeling, at least for me.
The Human Target
Adventurer
Its one of those things I don't really care about one way or another.
But I will say this- keeping hard/impossible to pronounce words out of the game is for the better.
But I will say this- keeping hard/impossible to pronounce words out of the game is for the better.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I like having the names - I always reinvented the eponymous wizards for my own campaigns (not knowing anything about their Gygax campaign origins or Greyhawk lore).
I think it's important for the traditional wizard archetype. It reinforces the idea that spells are something which is invented by a wizard after years of research. Not just a manifestation of will, but a ritual created/discovered by an individual.
A world with just Acid Arrow is a world where there is a finite, limited number of spells, set down by the DM and the world.
A world with Melf's Acid Arrow is a world where my wizard can create a totally new spell to do exactly what he wants. Where inventing new spells can be as important as using them.
A world with just Acid Arrow is a world where there is a finite, limited number of spells, set down by the DM and the world.
A world with Melf's Acid Arrow is a world where my wizard can create a totally new spell to do exactly what he wants. Where inventing new spells can be as important as using them.
I think the the names give a certain flavour and implied richness that can be engaging to both old an new players (Even if some of the names are a little, ahh..lame. I mean Melf? Jim Ward's name spelled backwords?) So I don't mind it even if it does not fit all settings. It allows you to question, who was this guy? What did he do? However, D&D often goes too far in trying to expound to much on these allusions that are throw out for a bit of added flavour to the extent of adding elaborate back stories and a cumbersome cannon. What was a nice bit of flavour to something that gives me a hint of vast vistas for my imagination to work in and explore becomes an ever-increasing morass of predefined world events to chain your imagination rather than set it free to sore.
If I were being consistent with my general philosophy, which is that D&D should encourage homebrew and avoid pushing setting-specific material in the core, I would vote to remove the names.
However, I am not consistent. These names are too deeply entwined with the history of the game. Vote to keep.
However, I am not consistent. These names are too deeply entwined with the history of the game. Vote to keep.
Fear not! I am confident that no electrons were harmed in the making of that blog - unless WoTC are now using anti-matter servers.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I like the names. But for me, it only really works if they decide to make Greyhawk the default setting (and I don't think they are). In other worlds they'd have different names. At least that's the logic for me.
But for casual gamers, I don't think they care what the names signify (who they are, what game world, etc.), it just adds a sense of mystery and history to the spells...which is cool.
And it would definitely be a nod to old school players. An invaluable thing bought very cheaply. That's a win-win in my book.
But for casual gamers, I don't think they care what the names signify (who they are, what game world, etc.), it just adds a sense of mystery and history to the spells...which is cool.
And it would definitely be a nod to old school players. An invaluable thing bought very cheaply. That's a win-win in my book.
Viking Bastard
Adventurer
I like 'em. They give color. And easy to ignore. Add more!
Kaodi
Hero
In one respect, if there is a default pantheon that is a mashup of gods from past settings, or includes even a single Greyhawk deity, then there is absolutely no reasonable argument that can be made that the traditional spell names should be ditched.
In a different respect, you could just italicize or colour the name in the spell name, or add flavour text based on the appropriate character, to, in effect, both use a generic name and include the traditional name.
In a different respect, you could just italicize or colour the name in the spell name, or add flavour text based on the appropriate character, to, in effect, both use a generic name and include the traditional name.
Wizard names can be buried deep in the past. Bigby, Mordenkainen, those wizards can be dust and bone if you want, without changing anything in your current setting. There's no rule stating those wizards need to be alive.
Well, possibly an issue if you're running a campaign where magic has just come into the world, and your mages are the first of their kind. But that situation is unlikely, and can be handwaved.
However, the Golden Wyvern organization has to exist in the current time. It impinges on your current campaign in a way that a single individual who may have existed in the past doesn't.
I do remember that; as one of the people who argued strongly against Golden Wyvern and Emerald Serpent, I recognize that wanting to keep Bigby and Mordenkainen is somewhat inconsistent (see my post above).
My reply is that Bigby and Mordenkainen's spells, like Vecna's Hand and Eye, are part of longstanding D&D tradition. If they were being introduced now for the first time, I would be opposed to them. But after so many years, D&D wouldn't quite feel right without them.
FireLance
Legend
If named individuals can be dead, named organizations can be disbanded or destroyed. Learning and using a dead organization's secrets and techniques is no different from learning and using a dead archmage's spells.
