What's in a (Spell) Name? - Poll

[Mokona]

As WotC_Bruce says, "What do you think?" Should Melf's, Tasha's, Bigby's, Leomund's, Drawmij's, Otiluke's, Tenser's, and Evard's names be on spells as part of the core game?

From the D&D Next blog:

Spells that bear a creator’s moniker have been part of the game nearly since its inception. There’s an argument (given some, but not complete, heed during 4th Edition design), however, that eponymous spells speak to a specific D&D setting. To include eponymous spells in the core game is anachronistic for games that take place in settings that don’t include those wizards in its history. The argument goes that to avoid anachronisms across all the possible potential settings DMs might create for their campaigns, all such eponymous spells should become mere spells, which would mean that Melf’s acid arrow, for instance, should just be acid arrow, Bigby’s grasping hand would be grasping hand, and so on.

The counterargument goes something like this: Eponymous spells are part of D&D. Wizards created these spells, and to strip those iconic spells of their names is to do damage to the story of D&D. If a particular DM wants to strip names from spells, then he or she can do so by indicating that those spells are not part of the game, or, to the extent they are in the game, different (or no) names are associated with those spells. But D&D has lore all its own—lore that is part of the game’s identity—and eponymous spells speak to that. Besides, is it so hard to believe that an ancient archwizard’s spells have spread by a panspermialike migration of dimensional travelers over the millennia?

I'm curious how the vote will turn out, especially between "They should be part of the core game because that’s what D&D is" and "Yes, and add more names, such as Emerikol, Entreri, and Blackstaff".

 

[Ahnehnois]

I play homebrew game and I don't want much setting in my core rules, but I like having the eponymous spells. Besides being a D&D trope, they suggest a backstory to the spells (or items; who *is* "Kwalish" anyway?). The names don't assume much about your game and are easily ignorable if you don't like them.

But I'm fine with Melf's Acid Arrow, even though I don't know or care who Melf is.

 

[Grazzt]

I play homebrew game and I don't want much setting in my core rules, but I like having the eponymous spells. Besides being a D&D trope, they suggest a backstory to the spells (or items; who *is* "Kwalish" anyway?). The names don't assume much about your game and are easily ignorable if you don't like them.

But I'm fine with Melf's Acid Arrow, even though I don't know or care who Melf is.

I prefer the names there (just for nostalgia's sake I guess). But I'm good either way. And, if IIRC, Melf was Luke Gygax's character. Couldnt come up with a name so since the PC was a Male Elf...it became Melf.

 

[Raith5]

I think named spells are just unnecessary nostalgia

They may add some of D&D history into the new game but they are something that will have to be ignored in worlds that do not have melf, evard etc.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm fine with it for setting-specific spells with very specific attributes, but something like Acid Arrow is too generic to attach something like "Melf" to.

At the very least, keep it to complex dailies, or abilities that would be stuck with a lame, generic title otherwise.

 

[CM]

Keep those that exist already, and throw in a few new ones from Eberron and FR as well. The 2e Pages from the Mages book was chock-full of named spells, and I still dig into it occasionally for ideas in my 4e games.

 

[Incenjucar]

Named spells become increasingly absurd the moment you have anything casting it naturally or from a patron.

4E witches and 3E sorcerers, for example.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Eponymous spells just sound cool. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion is just 20% cooler than Magic Mansion and 1000% cooler than what truth-in-naming name: High Level Wizard Takes Extended Rest Whenever He Wants. Crimson Bands of Cyttorak is cooler than Force Bindings. Doing a Dr Strange or Jack Vance with spell names is fun.

What doesn't need to matter is who Mordenkainen was. OK, he was EGG's character, but he doesn't have to have a particular cannon history in a particular world. He could have one place in history in one world, and a different one in another.

 

[Dalamar]

I don't really care that much one way or another, but if the names are kept, then I dearly hope that the spells are alphabetized without the name. So "Acid Arrow, Melf's" or "Floating Disc, Tenser's"

 

[Hassassin]

For iconic spells it is ok, but don't invent anything new that's not universally applicable. Someone called "Blackstaff" can probably be found anywhere with mages, but Emerikol not so much.