Spell Compendium - Spell Name Changes

[sjmiller]

I know that if I buy the book I will also print out the name change list and just use the names I feel are appropriate. Heck, I might even add a few names from my own campaign just to throw the players off.

 

[Remathilis]

Would that apply to Tenser's Floating Disk, Mordenkainen's Sword or Leomund's Tiny Hut if you were playing in a non-Greyhawk game (perhaps Forgotten Realms or Eberron)?

I started dumping the IP names before the SRD (sometimes whole cloth, sometimes changing the name) for my homebrews, so it didn't bother me.

I guess my comment was taken abit too far, I'm not terribly concerned about those names in my PH, but I DO suspect 4e will do away with them from in front of those spells...

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Honestly, who gives a flying toot? If you want the names, use 'em, if not don't.

 

[lukelightning]

I like generic names, for many reasons. One is that the NPCs who give their names to spells are often setting-specific. I don't know who Melf is, and frankly I don't care since he doesn't exist in my world.

Also, I have a different taste in character names than many of the spell authors. They are either silly (Melf, Otto) or hard pronounce and spell (Aganazzar...Agazannar...Azaa oh screw it). Names that I make for my characters will likely have the same effect on others.

Additionally, the spells are probably named after the game designers' PCs, so it seems self-indulgent for them to make all other D&D players pay homage to their own PCs.

The names contribute nothing to the spell description. I'd rather have acid spray than lukelightning's spray, which sounds gross. Lukelightning's orb tells you nothing about a spell other than it is an orb.

 

[MerricB]

Would that apply to Tenser's Floating Disk, Mordenkainen's Sword or Leomund's Tiny Hut if you were playing in a non-Greyhawk game (perhaps Forgotten Realms or Eberron)?

The only reason it doesn't in the case of the PHB spells is because I've known them for 23 years - and, honestly, they don't really come up that much. There's a note in the original Forgotten Realms campaign setting as to what to do with those spells...

I'm trying to think of one occasion in my entire playing career that a "named" spell has been used outside the setting it was written for... and I can't think of one.

Cheers!

 

[Arnwyn]

Although named spells are great for imbuing flavour in a particular world, at the point that they are reprinted in a generic resource, the names really become a hindrance.

Not for me (and my FR game).

 

[MerricB]

Not for me (and my FR game).

No, and that's great. Alas for the greater world!

Cheers!

 

[Li Shenron]

I won't likely buy the SC, so I'm not really bothered.

However I don't see a problem with using the names or not. It's true that it's slightly more flavorful to use named spells, but it's not a big deal. It's obvious that they wanted this book to be very setting-free.

What instead I think it's a bad decision is to arbitrarily change certain spell names entirely.

Air Bubble -> Deep Breath
Banebow -> Foe Bane
Bridge of Sound -> Dark Way
Chameleon -> Camouflage
Curse of Petty Failing -> Curse of Ill Fortune
(and MANY more in the preview)

What in the name of God was the purpose of this change? Who decided that the new name was "better" than the old one? Why causing an unnecessary problem for example if you are still using older books or adventures?

This is a compendium right? They said that they were going to fix certain spells (I don't know how many, but I'd certainly hope A FEW, not even close to another revision...), but changing names is completely unnecessary and confusing.

 

[Ero Gaki]

The changes of spell names is one of the main reasons I'm not going to watse money on the stupid book. The spell names have a unique flavor; Melf, Mordenkainen, etc, are the pioneers of the magical world. Having the names stripped and converted to these generic titles just reminds me of how generic and bland certain aspects of D&D have become. Heck, I was mad when I found out that a guy in my group was confused when I called Tasha's hedious laughter "Tasha's Uncontrollable Hidious Laughter." I have always liked the ring of it. Eliminating Mordenkainen, Tenser, Melf, Bigby not only erases the flavor and feel of the spells, but also a piece of gaming history. I personally hate having the hobby that I love tampered with by these lame, unimaginative jerks... aka, WotC.

Meh, that's just my opinion, but the minute I say "Bigby's Interposing Hand" and get a blank stare, I'm slapping someone.

 

[lukelightning]

The point is that Mordenkainen is a poineer of magic in Greyhawk. Elminster should not be able to cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction since he's from an entirely different universe. Giving a spell a person's name assumes a history that is not generic. There is no Melf in the Forgotten Realms. In my campaign what's the point of having Bigby spells? There was no wizard named Bigby! And if Bigby did exist, why the heck would EVERY wizard and sorcerer have access to his spells?

Adding people's names to spells do not give them a unique flavor, in my opinion. What possible "flavor" does adding "Melf" to "acid arrow" give if you have no idea who Melf is? It's just a funny, distracting word in my mind. And why stop with these few spells? Why not call fireball "Froodle's Fireball" and "Mage Armor" "Z'p'tee D'oo'Dah's Armor"?

The changes of spell names is one of the main reasons I'm not going to watse money on the stupid book. The spell names have a unique flavor; Melf, Mordenkainen, etc, are the pioneers of the magical world.