Illustrations for spells

[Quasqueton]

I’ve had a game situation, recently, that needed a ruling based what the spell looked like. <edited out distraction>

[If you want to discuss Evard's black tentacles, please go to the Rules forum -- there are currently 3 threads for that one spell on the first page.]

I know that most spells can be described any way the DM and/or Players want to describe them – What does magic missile look like? But the same concept could be applied to monsters, and yet we have an illustration of almost every monster in the MM (even the invisible stalker).

Do we need / should there be an illustration for the visible spells in the PHB? What spells need an “official” illustration? If we have an illustration of a fire elemental, how about a fireball? Would having illustrations help your game? (For instance, I would really like to see how the rule designers imagined a field of black tentacles.) How about a pic of a flaming sphere? Passwall? Resilient sphere?

Quasqueton

 

[Piratecat]

I think you need to diferentiate appearance from mechanical effects. For all I'm concerned, Evard's Black Tentacles can be pink and smell like daisies so long as nothing changes mechanically. As soon as the appearance changes the rules of the spell (like Evard's providing cover), though, I become cautious.

 

[Pbartender]

I think you need to diferentiate appearance from mechanical effects. For all I'm concerned, Evard's Black Tentacles can be pink and smell like daisies so long as nothing changes mechanically. As soon as the appearance changes the rules of the spell (like Evard's providing cover), though, I become cautious.

Quoted for truth...

Compare Black Tentacles with Web ("If you have at least 5 feet of web between you and an opponent, it provides cover. If you have at least 20 feet of web between you, it provides total cover.")

The spell itself does not technically grant cover of any sort.

Creatures caught within the effect, however, would grant cover to anyone standing behind them as usual.

 

[el-remmen]

While certain illustrations might be nice, I have no problem using common sense. In the case of the example spell, it is only common sense that 10' tall waving black tentacles in a 20' radius spread would provide cover for those on the other side of it. How much cover? Well, a DM needs to make that choice for himself depending on the circumstances, but I can imagine it being as much as 9/10ths cover.

 

[Monty Tomasi]

Computer RPGs are a good source of illustrations for spell effects. The description for the spell in the PHB (or other source) is what the GM draws inspiration from in order to describe it. Having each one illustrated seems to be going too far, not every fireball looks the same.

 

[lukelightning]

Computer RPGs are a good source of illustrations for spell effects.

Neverwinter Nights' Evard's Black Tentacles look like agressive cornstalks flailing about uselessly.

 

[Quasqueton]

Having each one illustrated seems to be going too far, not every fireball looks the same.

Neither does every orc, ogre, giant, mindflayer, dragon, etc. But there is one and only one illustration of each in the MM.

Quasqueton

 

[lukelightning]

I'd like to see a fireball that isn't a fully-formed sphere of fire, but rather an eruption of strands of fire or something that has some spaces in it; it makes evasion "save for no damage" easier to accept.

 

[Pbartender]

I'd like to see a fireball that isn't a fully-formed sphere of fire, but rather an eruption of strands of fire or something that has some spaces in it; it makes evasion "save for no damage" easier to accept.

Think of fireworks.

 

[wedgeski]

Are there not descriptions of spells in the Spell Compendium? If so that might help you out.

But in any case, I could as easily come up with a description of Evard's that does not provide cover (perhaps they only attack when their area of effect is crossed, springing from the ground and lashing at victims) as one that does.