D&D General What is a "spell"? What isn't?

[Gadget]

I personally like the explanation above provided by @DEFCON 1 , and that is how I would explain it via the in world fiction.

That said, from a mechanical perspective, I feel like this question has been brought about by recent changes MTOM; which seem to have been a reaction on the dev's part to their sloppy design with counterspell (anti-magic zones have always been in a weird space but come up less frequently), despite how (in)frequently this comes up.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I don't want to detail the Mordenkainen let's read any more than I have, but something interesting came up I that thread:

What is a spell in the fiction of the game, and what isn't?

Spells are the fairly rigid mental calculations and thoughtforms that allow spell casters to harness the flux of Chaos and manifest their will in reality. Significantly, spells are teachable, either from mentor to apprentice or entity to supplicant. It is difficult to change the spell without increasing the amount of chaotic flux channeled through the caster. Some people have an inborn talent to interface with Chaos, and can manipulate the spell with greater adroitness.

The key aspect of spells are, then, the communicatibility of these formulas.

There are certainly people who have, learn, or discover preternatural or supernatural abilities. While perhaps magical, if drawn from the Maelstrom or even the Pattern, they lack the ability to be taught to another. These abilities can have similar limitations of spells, such as being deflected by one puissant in the magical arts. It can be difficult to counter powers drawn from the lesser Empyrians; that the disciplines of the Wending Way being orthogonal to standard magic theory is well attested.

 

[Umbran]

Reynard, is this question motivated more by concerns about gameplay ("Borg has resistance against spell attacks, but not abilities, so what happens in this circumstance?") or more by the theoretical question of where the principled line between spells and non-spell magic sits? For example, suppose some PC or NPC can "cast" the equivalent of Fire Bolt as an innate ability. That's clearly a magical attack, but is it a spell attack? Is that the sort of question you're concerned with?

On the theoretical question I'm skeptical there is a coherent line for us to draw....

Not only will it be hard to find a coherent line to draw, I am not sure drawing that line is useful.

Magic, not being science, doesn't need a coherent theory behind it, unless you intend it to be part of the narrative.

 

[Weiley31]

So what do wizards and such do with all those gobs of bat guano, waving their hands around and mumbling?

Stuff that clearly GOES AGAINST EWNorld's TOS rules and would be only acceptable on.......certain sites that are on the web.

 

[Weiley31]

Well, here is fiction of the game:



Basically: Spells are Apps, The Weave is a UI, and raw magic is the physics of the D&D world.

Well according to the Modern Magic UA, this tracks.

 

[Mort]

Not only will it be hard to find a coherent line to draw, I am not sure drawing that line is useful.

Magic, not being science, doesn't need a coherent theory behind it, unless you intend it to be part of the narrative.

But certain cases will require it - a lot. Forgetting counterspell for a moment, the biggest instance where this will come up all the time is the Ancients Paladin, 7th level aura. With so many of the of the monster attacks now "abilities" instead of spells - this aura gets a REALLY big nerf unless the DM treats those as spells as well.

 

[Hussar]

But certain cases will require it - a lot. Forgetting counterspell for a moment, the biggest instance where this will come up all the time is the Ancients Paladin, 7th level aura. With so many of the of the monster attacks now "abilities" instead of spells - this aura gets a REALLY big nerf unless the DM treats those as spells as well.

Wouldn't the simple solution be to reword the aura to simply affect "magic"? As it stands, it's really kinda weird. You are resistant to damage from a fireball, but, not from the damage from a Ring of Shooting Stars.

 

[Reynard]

Wouldn't the simple solution be to reword the aura to simply affect "magic"? As it stands, it's really kinda weird. You are resistant to damage from a fireball, but, not from the damage from a Ring of Shooting Stars.

Now you have to define what counts as magic and I gaurantee no matter where you draw that line someone is going to quibble: "ki isn't magic" "rage is supernatural" etc.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't know, the PHB actually calls Ki "mystic energy". It was so much easier in 3.5 when you had Extraordinary, Spell-Like, and Supernatural tags for abilities.

 

[Mort]

Wouldn't the simple solution be to reword the aura to simply affect "magic"? As it stands, it's really kinda weird. You are resistant to damage from a fireball, but, not from the damage from a Ring of Shooting Stars.

Sure, but it's redrawing the line which then actually expands the ability. The point is, it doesn't quite fit with the old order of rules.