Spell Compendium - Spell Name Changes

[MerricB]

That's why I say that including the setting-specific names would help preserve continuity. It's because you can exclude spells that shouldn't be in a particular world. A spell created by Mordenkainen shouldn't be in FR. But if it doesn't say that Mordenkainen wrote it, you might include it in an FR campaign by accident, only to find out later that you're crossing genres.

Indeed. I understand that.

However, by that argument, those "named" spells have no place in the Spell Compendium because they only serve a small number of people. Far better to have more generic spells that everyone can use.

Cheers!

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Good. Wish I could remove Bigby, Tenser, Mordekainenr, Otiluke, Melf, Rary, and Tasha from my PHB as well.

They SO ruin the flavor of my Eberron game...

I'm rigth there with you, friend. Except replace Ebberon with Scarred Lands (not that I have anything at all against Ebberon). Getting rid of the names was one of the big plusses to me (and there is a list in the book itself showing which spells were changed so you still have the 'named' spells there too). For me it is a reference thing. I know there is a 'scorcher' spell but I have to look under 'A' to find it? huh? The Spell Compendium is a reference tool first and foremost and they have made it that much more useful, imo.

 

[ThirdWizard]

When I first started playing I had no idea what Greyhawk was. Or Forgotten Realms. They existed, but I had no clue about them. And, my PHB had these spells with names attached to them. And, I didn't care. I looked at Melf's Acid Arrow and thought to myself, "Cool, its named after some wizard who created it!" And then I went on my way playing my homebrew.

So, this whole concept of caring if Melf was a great wizard in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Mystra (I don't actually know) is irrelevant to me. He was just some wizard who created a spell and decided to name it after himself. Personally, I've always liked that.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Originally Posted by MerricB
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).

And yet they do for others who don't play in any of the 'old guard' worlds. Can't we get some generic love here?

 

[Psychic Warrior]

When I first started playing I had no idea what Greyhawk was. Or Forgotten Realms. They existed, but I had no clue about them. And, my PHB had these spells with names attached to them. And, I didn't care. I looked at Melf's Acid Arrow and thought to myself, "Cool, its named after some wizard who created it!" And then I went on my way playing my homebrew.

So, this whole concept of caring if Melf was a great wizard in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Mystra (I don't actually know) is irrelevant to me. He was just some wizard who created a spell and decided to name it after himself. Personally, I've always liked that.

Your right it is cool when a wizard names stuff after himself. No doubt about it, imo. However naming conventions vary from game to game and many people do know who Mordenkainen, Melf and Otto were/are. Such things can really (and I mean really) stand out like a sore thumb when added to other settings.

 

[Victim]

I think more spells should have evocative, proper noun names, not less. Why forfeit one of the main strengths of a spell list system over generic magic? One of the best parts of Vancian magic was the awesome names for spells.

If they're worried about organizing the spell lists, just do this: Scorcher, whathisface. It's easy enough to change names if needed (probably not necessary for low level spells, since their creators probably were never big shots), but once you take the names out, it's hard to put them back on.

 

[Yair]

I like flowery spell names. Ars Magica spoiled me. It's much more fun to cast an "Abysmal Ball of Flame" then "Fireball". Or "Gea's Wrathful Shout" then "Earthquake".
I don't find the addition of the spell's creators adds much flavor. I don't think their elimination adds much either, though, so I don't care either way.

 

[BOZ]

back in the day, they used to explain it by saying that people like Elminster and Mordenkained knew how to travel to each other's worlds, and that they shared magical knowledge.

 

[MerricB]

back in the day, they used to explain it by saying that people like Elminster and Mordenkained knew how to travel to each other's worlds, and that they shared magical knowledge.

Indeed they did. And Mordenkainen as well.

Unfortunately, it made less and less sense as more "closed system" settings were made.

Cheers!

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I think more spells should have evocative, proper noun names, not less. Why forfeit one of the main strengths of a spell list system over generic magic? One of the best parts of Vancian magic was the awesome names for spells.

If they're worried about organizing the spell lists, just do this: Scorcher, whathisface. It's easy enough to change names if needed (probably not necessary for low level spells, since their creators probably were never big shots), but once you take the names out, it's hard to put them back on.

But they don't organize spell lists like this. It would be great if I was making my own book of spells but i have to rely on other so.....