Who cares about Otiluke, Mordenkainen, Rary and whatever geezer names they trot out.

[Lwaxy]

You know, each of my worlds simply has a guy named Bigby and a guy named Mordenkainen and a guy named Tenser. OK, sometimes they aren't guys...

The names don't need to refer to the original characters when you are playing elsewhere than Greyhawk. But I'd want to keep the names for all the reason listed in this topic and probably some more

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Who cares? I care! Weird, wacky spell names attributed to long-dead wizards are a great way to add unique flavor to the game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

would be:

Floating force-carrier
Goo-sticking-acid-shot
Re-remembering spell-slot bringer-backer

?

I see you subscribe to the Leonard da Quirm school of naming!

 

[Steely_Dan]

Melf's Minute Meteors has a certain panache.

 

[Yora]

Who cares? I care! Weird, wacky spell names attributed to long-dead wizards are a great way to add unique flavor to the game.

And then I have to remove them to play the game in the setting for my campaign.

 

[Mallus]

And then I have to remove them to play the game in the setting for my campaign.

Which is more difficult, removing them or inventing whole new wacky names yourself?

(says the guy who usually prefer his own wacky names).

There is no good reason for removing the classic, nutty D&D wizard names. Leave them in for DMs who want to use them. If they don't fit your world, replace/remove them. This is not rocket science...

Why remove a resource --which takes up almost no space on a page-- that a lot of gamers find useful/flavorful??

 

[Yora]

Because it's confusing baggage that many players don't have any connection to and think to be out of place.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

They did a poll on the blog about whether people wanted spells named after iconic casters in the core books.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Out of over 4300 respondents:

• 41% said "Yes. They should be part of the core game because that’s what D&D is."
• 29% said "Yes. And add more names, such as Emerikol, Entreri, and Blackstaff."
• 15% said "No. They should be presented with the settings to which they’re appropriate."
• 13% said "Maybe a few. However, they should be limited."
• 2% said "None of the above."

You can always drop the names when they aren't relevant to the campaign setting.

I believe I voted "Yes, and add more."

 

[Steely_Dan]

You can always drop the names when they aren't relevant to the campaign setting.

True, how can I possibly say Hideous Laughter instead of Tasha's Hideous Laughter.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I've always appreciated the names in the spells. They're just free flavor. Perhaps I feel less concerned with them because none of my players would ever assume the names meant anything beyond the possibility that somewhere in my self-created campaign world, someone was once named Mordencainen.

They'd hardly think they knew anything about said Mordencainen (or even if he really existed) simply because a spell was named after him.

And someday I might actually have them find a "Mordencainen" in a crypt or something. Might give them something to chew on.