Do magic missiles glow?

[Vrecknidj]

They look like tiny ICBMs.

Dave

 

[lukelightning]

They look like tiny ICBMs.

That's how I pictured them when I started playing D&D. I like them as arrow-like; it keeps the magic more "magic looking" and less like sci-fi super powers.

 

[Space Coyote]

I have no issues whatsoever with players describing the visual effects of spells. The spell itself does not change and will not do anything more than what the rule descriptions say.

On that note, I also say that regardless of the spell description, if the spell ruling does not state an effect on gameplay, then there is no extra effect. There was once a discussion on Holy Aura, because it bathed the targets in holy light will that prevent skills like hiding and make the target easy to spot if they were invisible? The spell itself states no such ruling or effects, therefore none are given (for example, Glitterdust actually states "-40 to hide").

If you are facing superstitious primitive warriors who are deathly afraid of cats and you describe your magic missiles as looking like "flaming cat heads", no problem. The spell still will not have any effect other than the auto-hitting damage.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I'm totally with Space Coyote on this one.

 

[Fifth Element]

From this moment on, I will always envision magic missiles as flaming cat heads. Thanks a bunch.

Who are we kidding? Bargle's glowing arrow is the only true magic missile!

 

[starwed]

Like many of the posters, I let arcane casters choose how to describe their spells. I might veto how a cleric's spells look, however, based on the god who granted them.

I'd also let a bard choose how their spell with every casting, while forcing other casters to be consistent with how their spells look.

 

[lukelightning]

Who are we kidding? Bargle's glowing arrow is the only true magic missile!

Ah, the good old days when you cast magic missile and the missiles floated around you until you used them, singularly or in groups.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No need for any 'spell thematics' feat, the ability to choose how to describe it is right there in the DMG

Perhaps not for something like MM, but Fireball? Lightning Bolt? Flame Strike?

The Feat does exist for a reason, after all.

 

[dead]

If you are facing superstitious primitive warriors who are deathly afraid of cats and you describe your magic missiles as looking like "flaming cat heads", no problem. The spell still will not have any effect other than the auto-hitting damage.

I totally agree but if I said this to my players I know they would howl and whine that I'm not rewarding them for their creativity.

How do you explain such a thing to players? Do you just say: "Those are the rules and you'll just have to accept it. If there were no rules power-gaming would get out of hand."

 

[Nail]

I totally agree but if I said this to my players I know they would howl and whine that I'm not rewarding them for their creativity.

How do you explain such a thing to players?

Like this:

"While your description of the spell's effect is very creative, it gives the spell in question extra powers. Are you claiming that you can add powers to any spell you wish?

"....I'll tell you what: You can do that so long as all of my NPCs can also do that. Keep in mind the number of NPCs compared to the number of PCs as you make your decision."