Illustrations for spells

[Matafuego]

Illustrations for spells is actually a very good idea.
Some do have, but most don't.
The problem is then that it would take up too much space.

 

[Hussar]

As PC mentioned, having illustrations that might interfere with mechanics is a no-no. Remember the pic in the old 1e DMG of the mage blasting away with a ray from a horse? That picture caused all sorts of arguements at my table. Can a wizard cast a spell while riding a horse at full gallop? Sigh.

Illo's are nice, but, IMO, there's far too much of a tendency for artists to get "creative" with the pics and you start getting some really big discrepancies between the text and the picture. Since there's nothing in the rules that Evard's Tentacles provide cover, then they don't. Full stop. Picture's would likely simply cause more arguements than they would solve.

Picture's of monsters are a different issue really. The pic of the monster has absolutely no in game effect. It's simply a pic of the monster. It's understood that the picture in the MM may or may not exactly represent what you are facing. IIRC, the orc in the pic is male. No one would argue that there are no female orcs for example or that an orc cannot use another weapon.

Putting pics of spells in the PHB would tend to make them more like diagrams - more of a rules thing than simply a bit of flavour.

 

[Quasqueton]

There are currently some illustrations for some spells, in the PHB, and in the various supplemental books. Do those pics hinder the rules?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20041112b&page=3

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20040507a

Quasqueton

 

[el-remmen]

Since there's nothing in the rules that Evard's Tentacles provide cover, then they don't. Full stop.

Wall of stone's description does not mention cover either, does that mean it doesn't provide any?

Again, common sense works in these situations. If the DM wants to describe Evard's as not giving cover but another does, neither is inherently incorrect. But based on the basic physical description of the spell it definitely could provide some cover.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Allright folks: You want pics for spells? you got it.

Acid Fog

Aid

Air Walk

Alarm

Alter Self

Analyze Dweomer

There, that's one page of spells, fully illustrated.

 

[Gold Roger]

I don't want my spell effects pinned down, but as soon as it's said the spell looks like this and this alone I'm peefed.

When I buy a monster I buy not only stats but also an adventure hook, source of inspiration and ready encounter.

When I buy a spell I buy a set of mechanics apropiate to a certain power level with one example how that may look in play. But a fireball could be an invisible heatwave, ball of steam, impressive firework etc.

 

[Vorput]

Allright folks: You want pics for spells? you got it.
...
There, that's one page of spells, fully illustrated.

hehe, so. awesome. These are going in my campaign this weekend!... somehow...

 

[smootrk]

I will ususally ask players to describe their version of any particular spell. In our game we have had Magic Missiles that streak across looking like screaming pink kittens, and a number of rainbow themed spells. As long as there is no mechanical change, the minor variants help the role-play flavor of our game. Casters with a theme seem to work best, rather than a hodge-podge of descriptions like out of the Spell Compendium.

For instance, a Fire Mage may specialize in a number of Flame/Heat related spells, but in addition, most of his spells have Flame-like auras around the area of the spell effect. Read Magic might outline the sigils in glowing ember like script (like LotR). Any particular protection spell might manifest as different colored flames (that don't really burn) around the area of the spell, if there is a visible effect. A strength enhancing spell might have smoke seeping from the muscles/skin of the recipient as the power flows through the individual. Sight or Divinations might be visible through any open flame or the eyes take on a burning eyesocket type look while spell in effect.

There are nearly limitless ways to enhance the spells to fit the casters theme.

 

[The Shaman]

Again, common sense works in these situations. If the DM wants to describe Evard's as not giving cover but another does, neither is inherently incorrect. But based on the basic physical description of the spell it definitely could provide some cover.

Asking rules-lawyers to accept "common sense" is like...something impossible happening.

(Yeah, I really couldn't come up with anything there, but you get the idea. :\ )

 

[The Shaman]

I will ususally ask players to describe their version of any particular spell.

The "Gnomish Root Tosser" is a spellcaster who's spells all look like tubers and other vegetables of the earth. A magic missle looks like a carrot streaking through the air, for example.

It's my non-PrC PrC.