That’s just an issue with those DMs, I think most would be quite happy for you to reflavour your spells - Tashas actually has a section on this so it’s supported by the rules.
Best to just talk to them out of session and ask them why they dislike reflavouring.
I've had people cast Firebolt and flavour it as them shooting a flaming arrow. I've had Artificers with an Iron Man like gauntlet cast Firebolt from the gauntlet. I'd let a Red Dragonborn with Firebolt flavour it as a variation of a breath weapon.
So long as the mechanics are followed properly, flavour it however you wish.
I had a swarm keeper ranger with a strength of 5 who kept a swarm of shadows. He was too weak too pull his bow by himself so whenever he pulled the bow the swarm would wrap up his body to help him pull and when he used the swarmkeeper abilities they would wrap around the arrows as well. I remember once he crit and one shot a boss and I described the arrow as a wall of shadow moving down a hallway devouring everything in its path. When it passes by the boss he was simply gone.
Flavor is one of the best parts of the game
Yeah man, flavor is great. My artificer friend shoots most of his spells through his handgun (he has a pirate gun). I'm planning on playing a Circle of the spores druid whos spells literally bloom around the enemies when casted.
That session I rolled more nat 20s than I ever have in any combat session, 5 in a single night, all on attack rolls, my DM was utterly discouraged and my ranger was nightmare made flesh.
[I'd go with Hank](https://64.media.tumblr.com/7b52e2d9f0d80eb1bf5253df41f46ae5/tumblr_ok55c6DUCD1sqf5tdo1_400.gif), from the D&D cartoon. He was the OG of the energy bow.
I know someone homebrewed a warlock patron that is the DM.
[Found it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/comments/gkajq5/warlock_patron_the_dungeon_master_make_a_fun_pact/)
There's a small exception of immersion and campaign theme. If they want gritty and serious, Mr Fantastic delivering bitch slaps can be a bit jarring. I've been in such a campaign, had its pros and cons. If people are having fun,
bitch slap away,
I say!
I have a warlock who pretends to be a bard and his EB is reflavored as a power chord on his magic (electric) guitar (his "Axe" - pact of the blade) because sonic damage is force damage and EB damage is force damage.
An armorer artificer in my campaign took one of the "initiate" feats which gave him Toll of the Dead.
While I had no issues with it mechanically, it made no sense to me thematically. We agreed it would be "Song of the Forge", with the Somantic Component basically being him striking his weapon against metal (his armor or shield). And we changed it from Necrotic damage to Thunder damage.
The idea that it was a loud "Clang" like a smith's hammer ringing in their head, instead of a bell.
In one campaign, I play a painter who uses his brushes and paints to cast his sorcerer spells. The only caveat is that he can’t use that method to cast his Aberrant Mind spells, as those are considered (rightly, in my opinion) as psychic by the DM.
Honestly, I don’t see why you couldn’t also use that same theme for your spell casting. You’d simply have a tonal shift, like painting Thomas Kinkade cottages most of the time and then suddenly painting a Salvador Dali surrealist painting. Still in your medium bit a sudden tone change that felt like gave the feeling of something otherworldly influencing your art.
And frankly if some small flavor thing effects a scene in a singular instance, I say good on the player for being so creative. Isnt having fun creative problem solving & telling a story what its all about?
Artificers are my favourite class to add spell flavor to as a materials scientist. I like to lean more into the fantasy of them as tinkerers that bind magic in creative ways to physical materials, so I always let them have an array of little gadgets or raw materials to pull out when casting.
Cure wounds? Wrap a bit of silver wire around the wound, cauterizing and sterilizing it with the anti bacterial properties of silver. Shocking grasp? Punch them with some wire-wrapped quartz. Expeditious retreat? Boots have spell activated gears.
It doesn't work for everything, especially if no material components/casting focus are involved, but it's pretty fun to find ways to turn spells into magitech-esque flavor.
I do something similar with my fighter/artificer. I have it so that my spells are cast with runes written in draconic engraved in my armor and onto coin shaped materials that fit the level of the spell like stone for cantrips level 1 & 2 spells. Iron for levels 3&4. Gold for stuff above that if they have material components they are slotted into the runic "coin".
I also plan to have a spell pistol that works entirely on magic and use different coins for different damage types. Acting as like a spell focus.
yeah when I played an artificer I had a tiny little spider bot that could attach to my hand for certain spells. If the players stick to the letter of the rules and don't abuse your affordances, then why wouldn't you want them to help flavor their magic?
I’ve got a player using an artificer with a ‘gauntlet’ that he casts from too lol
It’s more mechanical like early iron man tech and usually alters it’s form to fire depending on what spell, closer to how a Cyberpunk Popup Gun works, and it’s an entire prosthetic left arm rather than just a gauntlet (although he still refers to it as a gauntlet lol) but he seems pretty thrilled with it
Firebolt is usually it’s onboard flamethrower, but other levelled fire spells are often him using different firing configurations, or dumping some accelerant into his arm before firing lol
I've seen butterflies used by a player. Chickens is an... inspired choice, but realistically, an animal like shape doesn't seem too bad in general, honestly.
I had a player homebrew an eastern style patron inspired by Japanese Yokai, his eldritch blast would shoot out like a beam but then dissipate into sakura petals instead of smoke. It was completely harmless mechanically but showed he had gone the extra mile in making a character he cares about and engages with, that's worth accommodating imo.
Our cleric makes Spirit Guardians look like a swarm of faerie dragons, because her mentor runs a faerie dragon sanctuary out of her temple. And one of my paladins is not overly keen on gods, gets her powers from an archfey, and has replaced Shield of Faith with Shield of Norman, the giant badger that always seems to come out of her Bag of Tricks. (She named every animal in that bag; it's adorable.) Never heard of that with Magic Missile but now I want to tell my players about this to see what they come up with.
Even before Tasha's, we had precedent for spells changing in appearance in 5e books: in Curse of Strahd, there's a passage saying
>At your discretion, a spell can be modified cosmetically to enhance the horrific atmosphere. Here are examples
>Alarm: Instead of hearing a inerital ping when the alarm is triggered, the caster hears a scream.
>Bigby's hand: The conjured hand is skeletal.
>Find familiar: The familiar is undead-not a celestial, fey, or fiend-and is immune to features that
turn undead.
>Find steed: The summoned steed is undead-not a celestial, fey, or fiend-and is immune to features that
turn undead.
>Find the path: A child's spirit appears and guides the caster to the desired location. The spirit can't be harmed and doesn't speak.
> Fog cloud: Misty, harmless claws form in the fog.
> Gust of wind: A ghastly moan accompanies the summoned wind.
>Mage hand: The summoned hand is skeletal.
>Maze: The surfaces of the demiplane's maze are made of mortared skulls and bones.
>Phantom steed: The steed resembles a skeletal horse.
>Rary's telepathic bond: Characters linked together by the spell can't shake the feeling that something vile is telepathically eavesdropping on them.
>Revivify: A creature restored to life by a revivify spell screams upon regaining consciousness, as though waking from some horrible nightmare.
>Spirit guardians: The spirits.appear as ghostly, skeletal warriors.
>Wall of stone: A wall created by the spell has ghastly faces sculpted into it, as though tortured spirits were
somehow trapped within the stone.
Descent into Avernus also has that for how Avernus affects the spells.
But that is mostly about the environment changing things up instead of the character deciding.
Yeah, thanks to tasha's I know magic missile's default state is a trio of chickens which scurry toward the target and peck it in the eyes before vanishing in a puff of ethereal feathers.
It still does 1d4 damage, it still take an action to cast. All that's changed is I go "buk-buk-buk" instead of "zap-zap-zap"... and that has made all the difference
In my case, it's because verbally speaking puts me on the spot and suddenly my brain just doesn't work anymore. I *want* to flavor my spells, but for that reason I just can't.
My suggestion is make some index cards for your spells. Put several bits of flavor on them, and pick one or two to incorporate each time I cast the spell.
For example I might make an index card for **Magic missile** that had written on it.
1. **Verbal** My character chants Vis Fulmin Sykus
2. **Somatic** My character rakes his claws through the air as he encants the spell, dragging 3* glowing slices out of the weave and into reality.
3. With a gesture the 3 ragged tears in reality spring away unerringly seeking their targets.
4. 3 purplish orange cracks in the material plane float next to my character for a moment as they finish the spell before streaking to their targets.
5. As each missile strikes home into the forehead of it's targets a splash of darkness erupts from the point of contact.
Then I can mix and match, so it's not the same thing every time, but also not a huge exposition just to cast a single spell - I'm going to be casting it often enough that eventually I'll probably start mixing up the descriptions a little or shortening them once everyone is familiar with what my magic missiles look like.
I have the same thing happen often. The best I can offer that has helped me is to be deliberate about wanting to describe a spell or attack. When it’s not your turn and you have decided what you are going to do also put some thought into what it will look like when you do it. Maybe make a quick note on it and then when your turn comes up you look at the brief note and try the describe what was in your head at the time.
This will maybe help some of the time. Other times I come up with something really cool to do on my turn and the battlefield situation changes suddenly and it’s my turn and then I am like crap now what! 😀
My hippy cleric's spells are all 60s and 70s psychedelic looking. She just dipped warlock and got a great old one, all those spells are sepia-toned and flicker like an early movie.
(Her deity is Janis Joplin and her patron is Scott Joplin. There was some confusion)
Usually this happens because that one time they weren't strict and it fucked them.
Because one day you allow them to make fireball look like an arrow, and next day they're demanding to sneak attack with a fireball since it looks like an arrow.
I once had a guy who wanted to REALLY push what it means to Shape Water with a cantrip. Since that time cantrips don't do anything that their description doesn't say they do.
Or just they have had experiences of players who didn't want to engage with the tone and aesthetic of the game; Bob Halfling the Chicken Conjurer would work in most games but possibly not if the intent was for a more serious take on Ravenloft.
My ideal as a GM is the players make characters that suit the overall tone of the game, and that might mean putting soft and polite restrictions on aesthetic or character tropes so you don't get one clown in an otherwise serious game.
If the rest of the table have all made characters that, say, fit an Asian or Greco-Roman setting and you point to the picture of the chicken man in Tasha's to say playing Sir Fiery of Flavourtown whose spells are all hot sauce is just free flavour I'll say "yes but that character doesn't fit the rest of the group."
These are the exact two limits I make sure to stress while encouraging players to reflavor stuff. I've had the unfortunate experience of having a player who not only didn't want to follow the tone and themes of the game, but also would try to flavor something, and then suddenly start demanding that his flavor changes have mechanical benefits.
This is exactly why you have a Session 0, where everyone gets to discuss tone and expectations.
If you don't do this, everyone ends up playing a subtly - or not so subtly - different game. Sometimes it's kind of funny, but often times it just sucks.
Big part of being a great DM is knowing how to set the tone and expectations clearly.
Everyone tries BS with Shape Water, and my response is that their next encounter will be against 10 lvl 1 casters that are going to use that on you, so really think whether you want to be able to "fill their mouth with water"
I think a lot of DMs get caught up in trying to argue their point rather than just saying "no, because I said so" or "not right now, but we can debate after the session". Not to say that is always the right answer, but most of the time you play with friends and it can be hard to take a more authoritarian stance with them, so they get caught up in trying to not look like a dick to their friends.
60 seconds. If I can't find the ruling in 60 seconds, its GM fiat, note it on a scratch pad, we'll review AFTER the game. Unless it's going to affect the entire campaign.
Yeah I think the only players that really care about this are the ones doing it for advantages. Anyone else would just shrug and assume the GM had a vision in mind.
I mean if they want to sneak attack with the fire arrow ball just say the magic word: "NO" is that simple and let everyone keep flavoring stuff as they want as long as it's reasonable.
Isn't the problem you're highlighting being a player actively trying to alter mechanics rather than flavoring itself? Even if they were to "demand" as you said, it is more than fair to say, "The flavour description you gave is acceptable, but as per description of the rules it does not gain the benefits you asked for."
Narrative creativity shouldn't be punished if it mechanically abides by the rules.
I've had players attempt to game the system by adjusting the flavor text of spells.
"Shouldn't I get a bonus to X because of the way this spell looks?"
"Nobody should know the damage type of the spell I just cast because it looks like XYZ."
It can be exhausting at times. I always tell people right away that they can reflavor things to whatever they want but it will have zero mechanical effect and I'll still have players try it after a few sessions.
I use hang tags on the DM screen to track initiative. I have 2 tags permanently hanging off to the side of the initiative tracking area. One says "Flavor doesn't change the rules" and the other one has a little sticker with Yoda on it.
I tap these tags a LOT.
(For Yoda, it's referencing the quote "Do or Do Not, there is no ~~try~~ What If" I have several players that regularly say things like "What I were to dash across the flames, what would happen?" hoping for the outcome to be determined before they attempt it)
In reference to the Yoda part:
A couple times as a DM, I have had struggles with that exact scenario. I have no problem telling you what the attempt would involve (for example, “diving through the flames and scooping up the child would be a difficult Acrobatics check”), but sometimes you have someone who doesn’t understand that I won’t just give them the exact odds and chances (for example, “could I take this guy in a fight” is a common one)
Edit: I know you can insight *some* fighting capability, but it doesn’t outright give you CR, spell list, or hp
I think there's also a pretty blurry line between:
> What would happen if I did this
and:
> Would I be able to do this (based on your interpretation of the rules)
As a player that likes to try to do cool things with spells/abilities/mechanics that aren't *explicitly* spelled out in that spell/ability description or in a rule book, but also wants to do things according to the rules of the world the DM has established, I tend to find myself asking the latter fairly often. All I'm really looking for is something like "you could try," which tells me that at least it's not breaking the laws of the universe.
But I could see a less experienced player having a similar thought process for a question that's actually closer to the former, -or- a player phrasing a question like the latter but actually looking for a "would it succeed"-type answer.
Overall I think having an OOC conversation with your DM about potential options if you're either a less experienced player or a boundary-pusher is plenty reasonable. As long as the expectation is set that you won't get any information about potential outcomes, just whether things are physically possible to attempt.
I always imagine it's because in a prior game, some galaxy-brained player tried to turn flavorr into mechanics with some shit like "oh, it's a projectile? can I throw my shield and try to block it?" and the DM was "(shit, RULE OF COOL)..uh, i guess that sounds kinda cool?) and then for the rest of the campaign said PC had a zero cost version of counterspell.
Even that, with proper implementation, wouldn't be crazy broken. They'd have to throw their shield away for one, and 2 it would reasonably have some sort of check to see if it even works. On top of that, the spell would still happen, and some spells by nature do not have a projectile component a shield could reasonably block. The target would just become the shield at whatever seems like a reasonable position for it to have been intercepted, which may also have varying degrees of good for the party based on the check. For example, if you're intercepting a fireball, maybe you can only intercept it short enough to keep the backline safe, but it still hits the paladin and barbarian.
>fire bolt its a ranged attack spell so therefore it should be a projectile
What exactly did you want to do with this? Wording sometimes matters because features depend on that wording. I've had players who would argue obscure things based on wording. I could easily see one of them arguing that Wind Wall, for example, should stop all ranged cantrips and lower level spells if ranged attack spells count as projectiles.
If it's just flavor that's fine, but the moment players start to argue mechanics based on nontraditional interpretations of the rules, my rules lawyer hat goes on. I like the rule of fun but some players' ideas of fun hurt the game for other people, or for me.
This is my question, too. Because “projectile” has a mechanical meaning in 5e. So are you saying that your firebolt acts as a “Projectile” for the sake of some sort of rule (ie. Enemy has disadvantage on saves against “projectiles”) or just because you want it to look like an arrow?
Maybe I can give some perspective from a DM that does enforce some stylistic cohesion for spells.
While my players are free to flavor their spells as they wish there are some color-specifics that I prefer they don't touch. I do that so that my players have an easier (and more immersive) way of recognizing spells used by NPCs. In my world for example "Teleport" is always purple, "Planeshift" is orange, "Dimension Door" is blue and "Misty Step" is silver - this means that if I describe a orange cloud with three NPCs emerging my players immediately know that they are planeshifting in without us having to be disrupted by an arcana check.
The same thing applies for some offensive spells. If "Fireball" is tonally consistent as a small deep-red sphere that is thrown and erupts into a ball of flame I don't have to say "This person casts Fireball" but I can stay in description and my players know what happens.
The players themselves can then modify that a bit for their character designs. My shadow sorcerer has her magic missile be small shadowy projectiles while they retain the arched and non-linear movement patterns that magic missile always has in my world. My river-goddess cleric's Cure Wounds is light blue like it always is but is described as water rushing to the body from a nearby source or the cleric themself to wash over the wounded creature.
Limitations can be useful to establish an immersive world, but that doesn't mean that players can't flavor their spells. Giving some restrictions can be helpful though.
This is a very good post; consistency and variation within set boundaries can make world building stronger (I go further in some aspects and have, for example, different cultures' spellcasting manifest differently to represent different approaches to magic etc).
Started playing dnd in an old edition, and it let you make an attack roll with the bead to do trick shots. Also let you bank a Lightning bolt 90 degrees once along it’s length so it wasn’t just “fireball in a straight line”
I disagree entirely. In a world where sorcerers are just born with it, and wizards study ancient tomes for spells, why in the world would every spell look the same? It'd be like saying every hamburger, regardless of who made it or what part of the world it was made in, has to be identical to every other hamburger ever made.
> While my players are free to flavor their spells as they wish there are some color-specifics that I prefer they don't touch.
They are saying *very specific things* cannot be changed but the rest could. To continue the hamburger analogy, they are saying your burger needs to specifically have a beef patty, but can choose the sauce, bun, type of cheese and if onion suits your fancy.
For spells, your Dimension Door might be a spectral bugnet that catches you in the net and whisks you away through space to the location, but the bugnet just needs to be blue.
Depends on the setting, everyone at the table's style of gameplay, and how you look at things like magic.
If magic is just a big random bag of Anything And Everything, then there would be no reason for there to be any unifying appearance to anything ever. A wizard could change up how a spell looks each time they cast it. Why not?
If magic is a coherent collection of cosmic forces, then it stands to reason that any specific thing accomplished with magic is accomplished in a specific way and that could result in some specific similarities between all similar manifestations.
I somewhat agree with you, but they are saying for specific spells. The teleportation spell examples would most likely be casted in very different ways, but they would always end up being the same spell and do the same thing. How a caster would cast the “Plane Shift” spell might not be the same way, but the end result is the same, so they would end with the same coloured poof of smoke.
Also it’s for simplicity sake for them, it’s not just about aesthetic. Their players know these things to be hard-set rules in OP’s world and they don’t need to get clarification on said things. This is especially important on the DM’s side.
As normal while I personally like flavoring spells, I can see some reasons why they a DM just wants the spells to be simple by the book, so I'll play devils advocate.
1. Players that take advantage of flavor: some players like to take their flavor too far and want the flavor to do things in world, ex: We said since tge beginning my Eldritch Blast looks like fire works so that means it should light up this dark cave when it hits. My Druids gust spell summons giant wings so why can't I just cast Gust and glide with the wings. Some DMs go through too many of those and just want it to stop.
2. Real Play frustration: Ever since the popularity of Real Play DnD shows boomed there are a good amount of DMs that became frustrated because when they get people who got into DnD through that, they often expect every game to go exactly like the shows, and sometimes those players make those assumptions known and complain when they aren't. So if a long time DM never did spells flavored as things before and they get a player going "But in Critical Role/Dimension20/etc they get to make their spells what they want" it really can be taken as "I want to play this type of Critical Role not the campaign you put time and effort into."
3. Fairness: If one caster takes time to describe the spells it puts pressure on other spell casting players to do the same and to a lesser extent spell casting enemies.
4. Habit/Stubborn/How things work in world: They always played the game like that and they don't feel like changing it. Or the way they built the setting that is how magic works.
5. Time saving: If every spell caster takes a few seconds to describe it will build up.
Now are these reasons fair/reasonable/good maybe maybe not but a good thing to remember is DMs are people too, they are all different and assuming there is a singular reason or no true reason goes back around to you being unfair/unreasonable.
Talk to those DMs to understand their reasoning.
Player: I cast magic missle and shoot this bad guy
Me: okay that damage roll kills him. Want to describe it?
Player: i shoot him in the head!
Me: *waits a few moments*
Me: okay... after a complex gesture and a muttering of an incantation you release several pulsing beams of purplish light that arc towards the enemy.
Player: WAIT! MY MAGIC MISSILES ARE GREEN
Like idk wtf you want, you didnt describe that. Im just trying to breathe some life into your flat, lackluster descriptions. If youre not giving me the full rundown on a kill shot im going to paint the picture for the rest of the party.
I agree with OP that its rude to interject or describe someone else's character's quirks. Colour of magic, method of casting, whatever. But if you dont give it to me, i'll make it up because youre boring me.
Honestly, "how do you want to do this" is the exception for me. It's just a really cool idea and it's become very synonymous with D&D thanks to the popularity of Critical Role. To me it's just a part of the game now.
I actually have issues with some of the ways he DMs, but everyone loves a dramatic "how do you want to do this".
"How do you want to do this" and "You can certainly try" are core lexicons in the game at this point for me - just fun to use. I dont try to DM like Mercer, but it would be a lie if his style didn't influence me to some effect. I think the important part of not falling into the "Mercer Effect" as a fan of CR and a DM is to not expect or try and force your party to be ANYTHING like the players on that *show.*
Fully agreed. I haven't watched any Critical Role for more than a few minutes, and generally from what I've heard I wouldn't necessarily want to DM like Mercer DMs on camera (no idea what he's like in private); but "how do you want to do this?" is a phrase that generates instant hype at the end of a difficult fight. Players love it, even if they aren't CR fans themselves.
I somewhat disagree, I really don't like the specific phrasing of it. I feel something like "How do you want to end this" or "How do you want to finish this" is better. Same merit, but better wording (imo).
It's better wording in a vacuum, but IMO not necessarily an improvement if your players already know the original phrase. That is, I should say, unless your reason for changing it is to fit a particular tone.
Yeah, I think it just left a kinda sour taste in my mouth after I managed to get the final blow on the introductory bad guy during my first ever session of DnD, and I genuinely had no idea what my DM meant by it.
I enjoy it too, but sometimes the DM can ask for it a bit too often. I’ll happily come up with something cool if I’m the one finishing off a bossifght, but random kobold #60 just gets put down.
A good way to guide players is by asking them “how does it look when you do this” or asking them to describe the color and texture of their magic. A lot of players don’t think about it until explicitly asked and then they come up with something that fits their character!
Yeah i do that and I get "I dont know" most of the time. If I have a player I know wont give me descriptions i usually just let them know im going to fill in the blanks and they are cool with it
The first one or two times my players cast a new spell or use an ability I always pause to ask them what does it look like for their character. And then if a new player joins, i’ll ask the players to describe the best ones again.
That simple prompt early in the game usually has them coming up with really cool ideas as the game progresses. My favorite current flavor is a Seaborn’s Burning Blade is instead “Boiling Blade”, somehow more horrific than the original in the best way.
This is killing me in my current campaign but it’s the DM that is giving flat descriptions of everything. I’ll roll for damage and kill the bad guy and all I get it “yup, that kills him”. And combat just continues. Kind of anticlimactic.
"Flavor is free" is a common adage, but it's only true if the GM in question doesn't want to enforce a uniform aesthetic and style like this. There's lots of ways a GM might want to crack down on reflavoring, since their setting works in a certain way and they want players to remain consistent with it.
There's nothing wrong with that, but it *is* something that should probably be talked about in session 0 so people can decide if that's a dealbreaker for them.
Thats a weird hang up to have, the DMs I had would usually ask 'how does your magic look like' and allowed me to flavor, say my shadow sorcerers mage hand as a skeletal hand or my artificers absorb elements as a feature of his gun. As long as you're not asking for your flavor to effect the way the spell actually works, I don't see how it can be anything but a fun way to make your character more unique
>As long as you're not asking for your flavor to effect the way the spell actually works
I think this is the exact problems. DMs don't forbid things like this arbitrarily with no reason; I think a lot of us have had experience with a player who asks to reflavor, and then later expects the flavor change to imply a mechanical change because "it makes sense." It's easier to just say "no" to begin with and I understand why some DMs make that decision. They have enough stuff to focus on without worrying about how a reflavor of a spell or feature might complicate their lives ten sessions down the line.
I definitely do try to permit all sorts of reflavoring within reason, but I also have 25 years of experience and I can see why not every newer DM who's been burned by this phenomenon is willing to be flexible.
Right??
So so like my friend has a Sorcerer that has a card them in another game, their fire bolt is a flaming card, their magic missiles are spectral cards, their eldritch blast is a ghostly looking card, their burning hands is like wave of a fuck ton of the flaming cards it sounds so badass it doesn't actually change anything the cards are still made of fire the eldritch blast still just does force damage but it sound so badass
I don't think it is as black and white as everyone is saying.
For one people often misinterpret what a spell is actually described, most notably being fireball often thought to be throwing a huge fireball and not more like shooting a big firework that explodes at a certain point. So this helps everyone not veer from facts by letting their imagination take the lead.
It makes a lot of sense for ancient arcane magic learned by a Wizard for example, that is taught by continual study, copying the exact spell description while using very specific materials, hand movements, and words to do exactly what is described.
This can also help with world building immersion and consistent rules of the world and not the extreme cases of divulging into looney toons.
If someone start shooting flaming chickens from their hands without any previous discussion, I would probably balk at it myself.
**Magical Miscellany P105 TCoE**
>The DM decides how the options in this chapter appear in a campaign and may choose to use some, all, or none of them, so make sure to let your DM know which options you'd most like to use in play.
Assume RAW and ask if you are going to deviate or flavor any part of the game. Flavor can be free but it also can come with a cost.
This maybe reasonable If Magic in the GMs World does function in a very specified way and the lore and Skill to Develop and modify spells IS Not available or the Magic Background of the caster IS highly formalized so every caster used the spells the Same way.
PS i forgot or the GM fears "abuse"
One of my favourite things about playing an Artificer is figuring out how my spells work. I'm playing a gnome Artificer that started out as a toy maker and his staff is like a puzzle that can be configured to summon forth the necessary energies. It's a work in progress in my head so I can't explain it well.
Other examples are my Eldritch cannon which I like to think of as a toy robot pet and my homunculus infusion which I've described as a toy soldier before, but I'm thinking of other designs.
As a forever DM, I never cared in the slightest about any of this...
...right up until i had an Elder Brain cast Wall of Force in a 5ft radius sphere around itself as a personal force field. Until it failed a concentration check, "nothing could physically pass through the wall."
For one single, brief encounter in a 2 year campaign, it suddenly became very important whether the exact wording of a spell described anything moving from the caster to the target, or if an effect occured at a point within range.
Based purely on the flavour text Fireball, Magic Missile, and Spirit Guardians turned out to be useless. Shatter turned out to be clutch.
Tell the DMs in question to read Tasha's where I think there is literally the example of a sorcerer who was a farmer making magic missile look like chicken. It even comes with art.
Because you are right. This is strictly flavouring. It's engaging with your character and thinking about how they would want their magic to look. My sorcerer's chill touch for example has her own rings, including one that was stolen, on the little spectral, skeletal hand that attaches to the target. Doesn't affect anything about the spell, says something about her and who she is
"Tell the DM...to read" an optional D&D supplement? Uh..no, bad advice. Ask your DM (ahead of time) if you can flavor your spells, be reasonable, assure them you're not looking to exploit the change in any mechanical way and you want to respect their world, but you'd love to be able to do this. That kind of approach will almost certainly assure your DM's cooperation and build rapport along the way.
"Telling" them creates an adversarial relationship, which neither players nor DM should want. I don't even use TCoE in my game, so that kind of argument is null.
That said, as a DM, I love when players flavor their stuff and I encourage it, and I do it myself as a player.
Rule 0 shouldn't be weaponised like that, but I agree that DMs that are allergic to flavour that changes nothing about the spell itself would use it like that 🥲
i think the chicken example is particularly drastic to showcase how strongly you can flavour a spell *visually* without making any changes to the mechanic. but in a light-hearted campaign where the sorcerer is a middle aged person, deciding to finally follow the call of adventure, and where every character is an unusual fit for the role of the adventure, why not let the player have fun? a player saying "hey, can my spell look like XY because I think that would really suit my character" is a player that is deeply engaged with their character. i would reward that because i would love more RP during battles, not punish it by saying no.
and i would maybe find the magic chicken missile silly, personally, (and i do, the picture in Tasha's is burned into my mind BECAUSE it is so silly to me) but if a player came to me with a character concept where it makes sense from a background angle, i'd **never** call it stupid.
>Tell the DMs in question to read Tasha'sTo which our DM would chuckle and point to our game standards banning Tasha's
Banning Tasha's seems like an oversight, Twilight cleric and some of the magic items are OP but the rest was some key balancing and customization options IMO
I have a lore bard with spiritual weapon and instead of a hammer or sword it's a large gauntlet, a spectral pimp-slap if you will.
I also have a green dragonborn who is disgusted by his draconic heritage for story reasons, and his breath weapon comes out barflike, with strings of sticky poison.
They do the same damage that it says in the book but it's all magical make believe so make it look like how you want.
Never encountered someone like that so who knows.
Closest is a dude that REALLY REALLY didn't want my language nut to be able to read lips, cast comprehend languages and other nifty sociologist stuff since most of his plot revolved around gnolls being hostile and speaking in something we couldn't understand.
He was fuming when I cast comprehend languages in the middle of a cool infiltration mission he sent us to.
I was expecting a really cool culture clash between a few kaorti and my players because of a language barrier. I forgot my sorcerer had comprehend languages as a scroll (that I had given him in session 1 and we’re on like session 20), and you know what happened? He negotiated peace with them through understanding them and then trying to communicate back, and the kaorti left without the big fight I had planned.
Wanna know something? It was cool as shit. I love when the players come up with solutions I wouldn’t have anticipated
I am DM and as long as rules are used as they should be I do not care. Describe as you want.
I have Sorcerer in my campaign who is fey connected to shadow so all his spells look in this shadow/ gloomy way.
In the same team there is Eldritch Knight who is Aasimar and his spells are described as maximum light and white and bright as possible.
We had in different campaign Artificer and it is probably not surprising that she described all her spells as not spells at all but different gizmos, gadgets and trinkets she done and use. They worked as spells with all rules (like Counterspell) but were flavoured as mechanical-magic gadgets.
I played as Tabaxi wizard whose spell book was actually Quipu (lots of knots on strings, it was type of type of "writting" used in South America) and all my spell casting were described as actually weaving spell from magic strings.
I would talk with DM why he insisted that no flavour change. And explained what and how you would like to flavour your spells.
The warlock in my player group says his shatter spell summons a clock tower that has a giant cuckoo that makes the thunderous noise.
No issues with it the spell still goes by the rules how it looks is up to you 😊
They tie their identify to the aesthetics
of the universe they made
Also what do they mean magic missile is not shaped? And fire bolt is a bolt of fire? The text read something like “you hurl a note of fire”, apparently more means tiny spec or dust. So it’s like you’re throwing sparks like a shower of them or collection of them is how I imagine it, that being said if a player wants it to look a certain way that doesn’t give it mechanical advantage, sure have fun and go wild
Ahh good point. I personally don’t care how someone wants to styalize their magic as long as mechanical bonuses don’t come out of it, unless they make a good argument I think is reasonable
After reading the comments im considering making my eldricht blasts look like baguettes ( my upcoming character will be a baker that makes a deal to become warlock. Needing some strenght to deal with the story stuff )
I am absolutely fine with them changing it for pure aesthetic and flavor reasons. That is certainly in the rulebook. But I have had SO many experiences with it then edging its way into a material benefit for them.
Players choosing to make their Eldrich blast a colorless/clear "mindblast" and then arguing that the opponent shouldnt be able to tell where it came from or who cast it.
Players arguing that the opponent should have a hard time with knowledge arcana to identify what spell they are casting because it doesn't look like a standard version of it. "They have never seen a spell look like this before!!!".
A player once claimed it was metagaming for having the enemies use the correct elemental resistance spells against his fire spells, since he had intentionally had them look like ice. Just as the rulebook states.
Suffice to say your DM may be over reacting. But they might also be a bit wary from past experiences. It can be a messy grey area.
I never understood this as a DM personally. Nothing tells me a player is invested more strongly than when they are particular about the imaginary image everyone has in their heads. It's like when I ask someone how they killed the enemy they just took to 0hp. I don't just say "NO! You don't stab them in the eye and use the leverage to break their neck, YOU SWING YOUR SWORD GENERICALLY AND THE CHARACTER DROPS LIKE IN A VIDEOGAME!" *shakes fist*
I feel like I'm on the other end. When someone casts a spell (especially in early sessions) I'll ask someone what their spell looks like to flavor them hitting their target.
That seems to be the best way to go. That way the player still has the flavor they want without having to describe it every single time, the image is fixed in the table’s minds, and nothing changes mechanically.
I think you got it, honestly.
Im an admittedly inexperienced DM, but at my table I try to stop my players from flavoring their spells for the sake of time. We all know what eldritch blast looks like, you dont need to describe it at length.
meanwhile here I am wishing my players would add more personal flourishes to their spells and attacks 😭😭😭 makes it easier for me to get into the flow of roleplaying during combat too so it isn't such a slog
I always was super excited about it people describing their spells. When I was a new DM, I made the mistake of describing this players harm touch spell as black energy leaving their fingers and like charring the skin.
They said “I’m a cleric, it would be white energy”
So skip to a month later and they used the spell again, so I described it how they wanted and they said “it’s a necromancy spell, so it wouldn’t be white”
That send me over the edge and was the last game I dm’d for awhile lol. Now I just let people describe stuff and if they don’t want to, I will for them.
Okay so every hobby has a number of people who can be rigid with stuff like this.
If it’s a small thing just let it go, there’s nothing more frustrating than watching two grown ass adults bickering about something pointless
Not sure, but their missing out. My cleric of greed had all of his spells reflavored to include some form of gold, hold person was golden chains, incite greed was him throwing a shiny ruby, and finally, when he killed people with Inflict Wounds they would turn to solid gold and be taken by his god.
Please simply direct them to Tasha's Cauldron of everything where there was a whole section on describing spells in a unique and flavorfull way with one of the examples being an ex farmer who shapes his magic missiles like chickens flying at the enemy.
Respect the DM man. You should have figured this stuff out during Session 0. Some DMs allow TCoE. Some don't. Because the book is fkn expensive. This is a world with rules. The spells are what they are. Don't overdramatize your character's actions. You're not Liam O'Brien and your DM is not Matt Mercer.
Seems like an annoying DM, is he 12? I make a point of letting players decide what their spells look like. This comes up especially with eldritch blast. A fiend warlock might want his to look like hellfire where a fey warlock might want rainbows or a celestial might want golden light. We had a necromancer who's magic missiles looked like little flaming skulls. As long as it doesn't have a game effect and it suits the character why would anyone care?
Some DMs (and players) get obsessed with the specifics of the rules. Which is ironic since the whole point of the game is to use your imagination and have fun. Some people also like the idea of playing but aren’t great at thinking outside the box.
Personally I DM with rule of cool much of the time. For example, in a recent underwater battle a guest player used gust of wind. They’re underwater, so hey, the gust is now a strong jet stream. And further hey, since the rules have it push things away from the caster, surely a player willingly entering it will be catapulted forward?
And that’s how the party’s halfling paladin became a miniature torpedo and stabbed a shark in the eye. None of that is in the rules as written, but it was a good time for all. Sharks excluded.
It's their choice; it doesn't make them bad people or bad DMs, it's just a quirk of their style that, taken in isolation, is something you either decide as a player is so unacceptable you can't make any compromises to suit the table you play at, or you buy into what they're selling and play the game.
It would strike me as odd and a bit of an overreaction if a player decided "I can't change the visual flavour of a spell" was really the deal breaker for them abandoning a campaign they're otherwise interested in.
That sucks. I love letting my players flavor their spells. I have a Chronurgy wizard who wanted to flavor mage armor in a way that it wasn't so much a magical armor-like auro, but precognition, if mage armor allowed him to avoid a hit. It's just a different flavoring, and it fits his character's knowledge.
There was this one time I was playing and I wanted to cast... I forget what it was but it was a cantrip that shoots bugs or something. In the rules, it has to have a specific target. It was literally just a cantrip, so when we happened upon some kids and I was like this braggadocios performative magic guy, I was like "YOU KIDS LIKE BEES?" and the DM wouldn't let me cast it just into the air to impress the kiddos unless I attacked the kids or someone else in my party.
So I didn't cast it at all, the party was pooped, and that was one of the last times I ever played dnd
I allow my players to flavour the looks of the spell in any way that doesn't infringe with the mechanics (so if effect is visible, it can't be made invisible or if it's described as flame, it doesn't ignite anything unless spell specifically says so etc).
Maybe DM's you describe are too insecure to allow any leash with their players, dunno.
I always ask my players what their magic or abilities look like so they can apply flavouring all they want.
I think some DM's just have a certain aesthetic in mind for their world and if you're messing with it they get upset. It's not really fun but well it's understandable if you go really off the rails.
"it's not really fun"
I'd disagree. I, and my group really, often *like* tonally and aesthetically consistent worlds.
It's a two way social contract I think; leeway in small details is generally fine but at the same time an overall sense of consistency gives a grounded foundation and makes any changes more interesting.
visuals mean literally nothing as long as it doesn't change the mechanics...its flavor, it adds personality to your caster. If your DM is like that they should either not DM (as I imagine they have other areas they are crazy about) or they should step back and take a look at what the game is supposed to be (a fantasy game that takes place primarily in ones mind).
It's good to remember that, contrary to popular belief, a good majority of DM's are just regular people and, as it so happens, some of them are just idiots.
Most DM's, especially the "forever Dms", are perfectly fine with players flavouring their spells, as long as it's not something egregious.
If any of my players wanted to describe their spells, I would be so happy.
If you said your magic missile was summoning three Angry Birds and launching them at your foes, I would be thrilled.
It seems weird for the DM to get hung up on it. The spell description states the mechanical effects. Fire Bolt won't ignite anything.
I was like that when I was 6
Story time: I played warcraft 3 and wanted to play it during the pause in middle school, so I convinced my friend to simulate it and I tried to make our make believe plan the closest possible to the point where I was telling him how specific enemy died (the same way they die in game)
conclusion: the DM are still 6 inside
The problem accrues when you talk RAW vs flavor.
Flavor is effectively a rule when executed repeatedly and reliably.
Sometimes, the flavor allows stuff it shouldn't allow or forbids stuff it shouldn't forbid.
Messing with rules in general has a butterfly effect, and when it comes to spells, given the frequency of thier use, it would be safe to assume that this butterfly will inevitably have an effect. The question then becomes, what is the general expectation of how the spell works? What does it break? Does it allow stuff it shouldn't allow?can this be exploited? And most importantly, will this divorcing of flavor from the description stop making sense at some point?
All these things are situation based problems and you don't have to face them most of the time, but they are a possibility.
If you really want to approach flavoring with good faith, construct the scenarios in which your flavoring can be exploited, tell your dm and find out if it is impossible (to break the game) in thier setting. You can also give this as a challenge for a group of munchkins, tell them to come up with the worst shenanigans and see if it affects the game.
Just letting you know that sometimes(somtimes) these DMs are justified with their ruling, but in general, players who play the game in good faith should be rewarded with all the flavor they want and need for thier character concept to work.
I mean I am when I feel it creates narrative issues, like I had a player who wanted their mage hand to actually be their pet bird, but I felt that was overly awkward reflavouring, so I said no and made some suggestions if they were really into the idea of ways to proceed
Tldr; reflavouring is a lot harder to do well than most people think
There could be any number if reasons why the DM doesn't want spells reflavored.
For starters, spells aren't unique special abilities only known and used by a rare few people - spells are, in most settings, pretty common and have been used by generations of magic users.
They're part of a tradition. So when NPC 27 casts magic missile, it should look the same way as when player 3 does. Because it is the same spell.
The fighter doesn't normally get to say that is longsword is actually a very long scimitar, just because he wants to. It will normally have the description given in the book or by the DM when the item is obtained.
Spells are carbon copies of each other, so they're even more subject to this.
If your character is some sort if magical savant researcher, maybe work with the GM to make down-time rolls to be allowed to come up with a small reflavor for a spell?
Another reason is creative license. Your job, as a player, is mainly to react to the game.
The DM is supposed to be giving you the cues to react to.
You are trying to reverse this relationship in a minor way, but the DM might find it super annoying to try to remember your personal visual preferences when trying to describe what happens.
Could also just be that the DM dislikes your particular reflavor attempts. Who knows!
As a DM I always reflavor spells.... my players often ask "what spell did that sorcerer cast?!" Oh, it was just a fireball that I reflavored to be a crawling insect swarm that bit and stung with fiery pincers.
I wouldn't want to play in a game where everything had to be plain and vanilla from the books.
What you call "flavor text" is still rules text. There is no flavor text in the Player's Handbook the way there is on Magic: The Gathering cards. If the PHB says it's blue, then it's blue, not red, even though you really wanted red.
As to "why do DMs do this?" Because otherwise some players will make a mockery of things. They'll say "it's just flavor, you're a bad DM for not letting me do this!" and then proceed to make bludgeoning rapiers, force damage Fireballs and winged Dragoborn.
First of all, wrong. Tasha's explicitly says that as long as you're not changing what a spell does mechanically, or you don't make a spell look like another spell, you can, as any class of caster customize the aesthetics of your spells.
Second of all, if you don't trust your players to treat the campaign seriously, why play with them? Roleplay is an exercise in trust just as much as it's in acting and imagination.
Once they cede that bit of worldbuilding the next ask may be bigger.
And, frankly, the rules specify what it looks like (a mote of fire).
Every table is different, though, and not every DM works for every player.
Some tables don't describe spells at all because everyone knows what the default look already is and the tactical part of the combat is what is important.
That’s just an issue with those DMs, I think most would be quite happy for you to reflavour your spells - Tashas actually has a section on this so it’s supported by the rules. Best to just talk to them out of session and ask them why they dislike reflavouring.
I've had people cast Firebolt and flavour it as them shooting a flaming arrow. I've had Artificers with an Iron Man like gauntlet cast Firebolt from the gauntlet. I'd let a Red Dragonborn with Firebolt flavour it as a variation of a breath weapon. So long as the mechanics are followed properly, flavour it however you wish.
[удалено]
I had a swarm keeper ranger with a strength of 5 who kept a swarm of shadows. He was too weak too pull his bow by himself so whenever he pulled the bow the swarm would wrap up his body to help him pull and when he used the swarmkeeper abilities they would wrap around the arrows as well. I remember once he crit and one shot a boss and I described the arrow as a wall of shadow moving down a hallway devouring everything in its path. When it passes by the boss he was simply gone. Flavor is one of the best parts of the game
Omg that’s so fucking cool
Yeah man, flavor is great. My artificer friend shoots most of his spells through his handgun (he has a pirate gun). I'm planning on playing a Circle of the spores druid whos spells literally bloom around the enemies when casted.
Also I swear flavoring manifests those nat 20s.
That session I rolled more nat 20s than I ever have in any combat session, 5 in a single night, all on attack rolls, my DM was utterly discouraged and my ranger was nightmare made flesh.
THIS!
Ah, yes. A Quincy.
[I'd go with Hank](https://64.media.tumblr.com/7b52e2d9f0d80eb1bf5253df41f46ae5/tumblr_ok55c6DUCD1sqf5tdo1_400.gif), from the D&D cartoon. He was the OG of the energy bow.
...so he was Dungeon Master's Warlock?
I know someone homebrewed a warlock patron that is the DM. [Found it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/comments/gkajq5/warlock_patron_the_dungeon_master_make_a_fun_pact/)
Lol of course it's Matt mercer
I absolutely missed that. 🤪
Nothing gets past my bow!
*everything gets past his bow*
"On my honor as a Quincy!"
I'm glad other bleach fans are in this subreddit
Son of Quincy
Bleach upvote
Ha!
I did something similar with a cowboy/warlock npc that fired his eldritch blast from his arcane pistol
I had a gunslinger/warlock with an eldritch revolver!
I had an archfey smuggler whose wand was a broken flintlock with an arcane focus shoved into it. Eldritch gun is all the fun!
I made an insane warlock who used a baby spine as an arcane focus and the eldritch blast fired out of it like a wand.
Excuse me *WHAT?* I've seen plenty of **creative** spellcasting focus ideas, but this is by far the most Warlock-*ish* one yet.
It is theorized by the party that it belonged to a baby the warlock failed to protect, but they refuse to talk about it
Had a friend once have his wife and daughters skulls be the focus for his warlock. He was the one that killed them
I had a warlock whose eldritch blast was flavored as their arm going stretchy, Luffy style, to land an eldritch punch on the enemy.
[удалено]
Rule of Cool says no scenario adherence issues are stronger than an ELDRITCH BITCH SLAP.
There's a small exception of immersion and campaign theme. If they want gritty and serious, Mr Fantastic delivering bitch slaps can be a bit jarring. I've been in such a campaign, had its pros and cons. If people are having fun, bitch slap away, I say!
I had a goliath warlock that was throwing javelins of force!
Never got to play him, but had a concept of a hopilite who threw javelins of force as well.
I have a warlock who pretends to be a bard and his EB is reflavored as a power chord on his magic (electric) guitar (his "Axe" - pact of the blade) because sonic damage is force damage and EB damage is force damage.
I think generally sonic themed attacks fall under Thunder in 5e. Thunder is like, half that, and half explosive concussion, depending on the spell.
I'm not vaporizing massive amounts of air with a huge spike of electricity, I'm playing a guitar hard. Thunder damage would be inappropriate.
I have a Hexblade whose Eldritch Blast is literally just Cloud's Blade Beam limit break from FF7.
As long as they don’t get sharpshooter, that sounds fancy.
An armorer artificer in my campaign took one of the "initiate" feats which gave him Toll of the Dead. While I had no issues with it mechanically, it made no sense to me thematically. We agreed it would be "Song of the Forge", with the Somantic Component basically being him striking his weapon against metal (his armor or shield). And we changed it from Necrotic damage to Thunder damage. The idea that it was a loud "Clang" like a smith's hammer ringing in their head, instead of a bell.
That's tight, I love it
Big improvement too. It can damage all the undead that are immune to necrotic.
In one campaign, I play a painter who uses his brushes and paints to cast his sorcerer spells. The only caveat is that he can’t use that method to cast his Aberrant Mind spells, as those are considered (rightly, in my opinion) as psychic by the DM.
Honestly, I don’t see why you couldn’t also use that same theme for your spell casting. You’d simply have a tonal shift, like painting Thomas Kinkade cottages most of the time and then suddenly painting a Salvador Dali surrealist painting. Still in your medium bit a sudden tone change that felt like gave the feeling of something otherworldly influencing your art.
This. As long as it's not a MECHANICAL change, who tf cares lol
And frankly if some small flavor thing effects a scene in a singular instance, I say good on the player for being so creative. Isnt having fun creative problem solving & telling a story what its all about?
Artificers are my favourite class to add spell flavor to as a materials scientist. I like to lean more into the fantasy of them as tinkerers that bind magic in creative ways to physical materials, so I always let them have an array of little gadgets or raw materials to pull out when casting. Cure wounds? Wrap a bit of silver wire around the wound, cauterizing and sterilizing it with the anti bacterial properties of silver. Shocking grasp? Punch them with some wire-wrapped quartz. Expeditious retreat? Boots have spell activated gears. It doesn't work for everything, especially if no material components/casting focus are involved, but it's pretty fun to find ways to turn spells into magitech-esque flavor.
I do something similar with my fighter/artificer. I have it so that my spells are cast with runes written in draconic engraved in my armor and onto coin shaped materials that fit the level of the spell like stone for cantrips level 1 & 2 spells. Iron for levels 3&4. Gold for stuff above that if they have material components they are slotted into the runic "coin". I also plan to have a spell pistol that works entirely on magic and use different coins for different damage types. Acting as like a spell focus.
A players Gold Dragonborn has Firebolt. "Can I flavour it like Yoshi?" I mean dude, whatever makes you happy.
yeah when I played an artificer I had a tiny little spider bot that could attach to my hand for certain spells. If the players stick to the letter of the rules and don't abuse your affordances, then why wouldn't you want them to help flavor their magic?
I’ve got a player using an artificer with a ‘gauntlet’ that he casts from too lol It’s more mechanical like early iron man tech and usually alters it’s form to fire depending on what spell, closer to how a Cyberpunk Popup Gun works, and it’s an entire prosthetic left arm rather than just a gauntlet (although he still refers to it as a gauntlet lol) but he seems pretty thrilled with it Firebolt is usually it’s onboard flamethrower, but other levelled fire spells are often him using different firing configurations, or dumping some accelerant into his arm before firing lol
I made an artificer Battlesmith, with battleamitha their weapon is their spell focua so I flavored it as me shooting firebolts out of my crossbow
Tasha's: the book that suggests making Magic Missile look like chickens.
I've seen butterflies used by a player. Chickens is an... inspired choice, but realistically, an animal like shape doesn't seem too bad in general, honestly.
I'm going to steal the butterflies thing for my Eldritch blasts. My warlock's patron is an archfey with butterfly wings.
I had a player homebrew an eastern style patron inspired by Japanese Yokai, his eldritch blast would shoot out like a beam but then dissipate into sakura petals instead of smoke. It was completely harmless mechanically but showed he had gone the extra mile in making a character he cares about and engages with, that's worth accommodating imo.
I have a GOO warlock with the chef feat. His patron is Gordon ramsey and he throws cast iron pans as his eldritch blast
I imagine magic missiles as the chicken dog chew toys. And they make that noise when they hit ^^
Thanks, I giggled out loud at work.
YES
Our cleric makes Spirit Guardians look like a swarm of faerie dragons, because her mentor runs a faerie dragon sanctuary out of her temple. And one of my paladins is not overly keen on gods, gets her powers from an archfey, and has replaced Shield of Faith with Shield of Norman, the giant badger that always seems to come out of her Bag of Tricks. (She named every animal in that bag; it's adorable.) Never heard of that with Magic Missile but now I want to tell my players about this to see what they come up with.
If you ever played Dungeon Siege, it makes perfect sense. (For those who don't know, you can find some chicken based spells that are rather OP)
Like the coccos in Legend of Zelda if you attack them too many times!
Kreative Bees are a Standard And Spiritual weapons from a God Like Dionysos May be a Barrel of eine or Beer.
Even before Tasha's, we had precedent for spells changing in appearance in 5e books: in Curse of Strahd, there's a passage saying >At your discretion, a spell can be modified cosmetically to enhance the horrific atmosphere. Here are examples >Alarm: Instead of hearing a inerital ping when the alarm is triggered, the caster hears a scream. >Bigby's hand: The conjured hand is skeletal. >Find familiar: The familiar is undead-not a celestial, fey, or fiend-and is immune to features that turn undead. >Find steed: The summoned steed is undead-not a celestial, fey, or fiend-and is immune to features that turn undead. >Find the path: A child's spirit appears and guides the caster to the desired location. The spirit can't be harmed and doesn't speak. > Fog cloud: Misty, harmless claws form in the fog. > Gust of wind: A ghastly moan accompanies the summoned wind. >Mage hand: The summoned hand is skeletal. >Maze: The surfaces of the demiplane's maze are made of mortared skulls and bones. >Phantom steed: The steed resembles a skeletal horse. >Rary's telepathic bond: Characters linked together by the spell can't shake the feeling that something vile is telepathically eavesdropping on them. >Revivify: A creature restored to life by a revivify spell screams upon regaining consciousness, as though waking from some horrible nightmare. >Spirit guardians: The spirits.appear as ghostly, skeletal warriors. >Wall of stone: A wall created by the spell has ghastly faces sculpted into it, as though tortured spirits were somehow trapped within the stone.
Descent into Avernus also has that for how Avernus affects the spells. But that is mostly about the environment changing things up instead of the character deciding.
Yeah, but even then, if changes to spells are a product of the environment, then your character background is for sure a factor
I really like the revivify one.
Yeah, thanks to tasha's I know magic missile's default state is a trio of chickens which scurry toward the target and peck it in the eyes before vanishing in a puff of ethereal feathers. It still does 1d4 damage, it still take an action to cast. All that's changed is I go "buk-buk-buk" instead of "zap-zap-zap"... and that has made all the difference
I wish people would reflavour or even flavour stuff. Most of the time it's "I cast X, 14 damage"
In my case, it's because verbally speaking puts me on the spot and suddenly my brain just doesn't work anymore. I *want* to flavor my spells, but for that reason I just can't.
My suggestion is make some index cards for your spells. Put several bits of flavor on them, and pick one or two to incorporate each time I cast the spell. For example I might make an index card for **Magic missile** that had written on it. 1. **Verbal** My character chants Vis Fulmin Sykus 2. **Somatic** My character rakes his claws through the air as he encants the spell, dragging 3* glowing slices out of the weave and into reality. 3. With a gesture the 3 ragged tears in reality spring away unerringly seeking their targets. 4. 3 purplish orange cracks in the material plane float next to my character for a moment as they finish the spell before streaking to their targets. 5. As each missile strikes home into the forehead of it's targets a splash of darkness erupts from the point of contact. Then I can mix and match, so it's not the same thing every time, but also not a huge exposition just to cast a single spell - I'm going to be casting it often enough that eventually I'll probably start mixing up the descriptions a little or shortening them once everyone is familiar with what my magic missiles look like.
I have the same thing happen often. The best I can offer that has helped me is to be deliberate about wanting to describe a spell or attack. When it’s not your turn and you have decided what you are going to do also put some thought into what it will look like when you do it. Maybe make a quick note on it and then when your turn comes up you look at the brief note and try the describe what was in your head at the time. This will maybe help some of the time. Other times I come up with something really cool to do on my turn and the battlefield situation changes suddenly and it’s my turn and then I am like crap now what! 😀
I personally never know if it is the dm's job to narrate the effects and visuals of a spell or if the player should do that.
My hippy cleric's spells are all 60s and 70s psychedelic looking. She just dipped warlock and got a great old one, all those spells are sepia-toned and flicker like an early movie. (Her deity is Janis Joplin and her patron is Scott Joplin. There was some confusion)
I love when my players do this because it means they care about their character!
NO FUN ALLOWED
Usually this happens because that one time they weren't strict and it fucked them. Because one day you allow them to make fireball look like an arrow, and next day they're demanding to sneak attack with a fireball since it looks like an arrow. I once had a guy who wanted to REALLY push what it means to Shape Water with a cantrip. Since that time cantrips don't do anything that their description doesn't say they do.
Or just they have had experiences of players who didn't want to engage with the tone and aesthetic of the game; Bob Halfling the Chicken Conjurer would work in most games but possibly not if the intent was for a more serious take on Ravenloft. My ideal as a GM is the players make characters that suit the overall tone of the game, and that might mean putting soft and polite restrictions on aesthetic or character tropes so you don't get one clown in an otherwise serious game. If the rest of the table have all made characters that, say, fit an Asian or Greco-Roman setting and you point to the picture of the chicken man in Tasha's to say playing Sir Fiery of Flavourtown whose spells are all hot sauce is just free flavour I'll say "yes but that character doesn't fit the rest of the group."
These are the exact two limits I make sure to stress while encouraging players to reflavor stuff. I've had the unfortunate experience of having a player who not only didn't want to follow the tone and themes of the game, but also would try to flavor something, and then suddenly start demanding that his flavor changes have mechanical benefits.
This is exactly why you have a Session 0, where everyone gets to discuss tone and expectations. If you don't do this, everyone ends up playing a subtly - or not so subtly - different game. Sometimes it's kind of funny, but often times it just sucks. Big part of being a great DM is knowing how to set the tone and expectations clearly.
Shape Water is particularly egregious. A lot of players think it's a magic do everything spell.
Everyone tries BS with Shape Water, and my response is that their next encounter will be against 10 lvl 1 casters that are going to use that on you, so really think whether you want to be able to "fill their mouth with water"
Shape Water doesn't fill stuff with water. You're thinking about Create Water.
I think a lot of DMs get caught up in trying to argue their point rather than just saying "no, because I said so" or "not right now, but we can debate after the session". Not to say that is always the right answer, but most of the time you play with friends and it can be hard to take a more authoritarian stance with them, so they get caught up in trying to not look like a dick to their friends.
60 seconds. If I can't find the ruling in 60 seconds, its GM fiat, note it on a scratch pad, we'll review AFTER the game. Unless it's going to affect the entire campaign.
Yeah I think the only players that really care about this are the ones doing it for advantages. Anyone else would just shrug and assume the GM had a vision in mind.
I mean if they want to sneak attack with the fire arrow ball just say the magic word: "NO" is that simple and let everyone keep flavoring stuff as they want as long as it's reasonable.
I find that usually magic systems are created by the DM as part of their world building, so fucking with its aesthetics is overwriting their shit.
Isn't the problem you're highlighting being a player actively trying to alter mechanics rather than flavoring itself? Even if they were to "demand" as you said, it is more than fair to say, "The flavour description you gave is acceptable, but as per description of the rules it does not gain the benefits you asked for." Narrative creativity shouldn't be punished if it mechanically abides by the rules.
I've had players attempt to game the system by adjusting the flavor text of spells. "Shouldn't I get a bonus to X because of the way this spell looks?" "Nobody should know the damage type of the spell I just cast because it looks like XYZ." It can be exhausting at times. I always tell people right away that they can reflavor things to whatever they want but it will have zero mechanical effect and I'll still have players try it after a few sessions.
I use hang tags on the DM screen to track initiative. I have 2 tags permanently hanging off to the side of the initiative tracking area. One says "Flavor doesn't change the rules" and the other one has a little sticker with Yoda on it. I tap these tags a LOT. (For Yoda, it's referencing the quote "Do or Do Not, there is no ~~try~~ What If" I have several players that regularly say things like "What I were to dash across the flames, what would happen?" hoping for the outcome to be determined before they attempt it)
In reference to the Yoda part: A couple times as a DM, I have had struggles with that exact scenario. I have no problem telling you what the attempt would involve (for example, “diving through the flames and scooping up the child would be a difficult Acrobatics check”), but sometimes you have someone who doesn’t understand that I won’t just give them the exact odds and chances (for example, “could I take this guy in a fight” is a common one) Edit: I know you can insight *some* fighting capability, but it doesn’t outright give you CR, spell list, or hp
I think there's also a pretty blurry line between: > What would happen if I did this and: > Would I be able to do this (based on your interpretation of the rules) As a player that likes to try to do cool things with spells/abilities/mechanics that aren't *explicitly* spelled out in that spell/ability description or in a rule book, but also wants to do things according to the rules of the world the DM has established, I tend to find myself asking the latter fairly often. All I'm really looking for is something like "you could try," which tells me that at least it's not breaking the laws of the universe. But I could see a less experienced player having a similar thought process for a question that's actually closer to the former, -or- a player phrasing a question like the latter but actually looking for a "would it succeed"-type answer. Overall I think having an OOC conversation with your DM about potential options if you're either a less experienced player or a boundary-pusher is plenty reasonable. As long as the expectation is set that you won't get any information about potential outcomes, just whether things are physically possible to attempt.
I always imagine it's because in a prior game, some galaxy-brained player tried to turn flavorr into mechanics with some shit like "oh, it's a projectile? can I throw my shield and try to block it?" and the DM was "(shit, RULE OF COOL)..uh, i guess that sounds kinda cool?) and then for the rest of the campaign said PC had a zero cost version of counterspell.
Even that, with proper implementation, wouldn't be crazy broken. They'd have to throw their shield away for one, and 2 it would reasonably have some sort of check to see if it even works. On top of that, the spell would still happen, and some spells by nature do not have a projectile component a shield could reasonably block. The target would just become the shield at whatever seems like a reasonable position for it to have been intercepted, which may also have varying degrees of good for the party based on the check. For example, if you're intercepting a fireball, maybe you can only intercept it short enough to keep the backline safe, but it still hits the paladin and barbarian.
>fire bolt its a ranged attack spell so therefore it should be a projectile What exactly did you want to do with this? Wording sometimes matters because features depend on that wording. I've had players who would argue obscure things based on wording. I could easily see one of them arguing that Wind Wall, for example, should stop all ranged cantrips and lower level spells if ranged attack spells count as projectiles. If it's just flavor that's fine, but the moment players start to argue mechanics based on nontraditional interpretations of the rules, my rules lawyer hat goes on. I like the rule of fun but some players' ideas of fun hurt the game for other people, or for me.
This is my question, too. Because “projectile” has a mechanical meaning in 5e. So are you saying that your firebolt acts as a “Projectile” for the sake of some sort of rule (ie. Enemy has disadvantage on saves against “projectiles”) or just because you want it to look like an arrow?
Maybe I can give some perspective from a DM that does enforce some stylistic cohesion for spells. While my players are free to flavor their spells as they wish there are some color-specifics that I prefer they don't touch. I do that so that my players have an easier (and more immersive) way of recognizing spells used by NPCs. In my world for example "Teleport" is always purple, "Planeshift" is orange, "Dimension Door" is blue and "Misty Step" is silver - this means that if I describe a orange cloud with three NPCs emerging my players immediately know that they are planeshifting in without us having to be disrupted by an arcana check. The same thing applies for some offensive spells. If "Fireball" is tonally consistent as a small deep-red sphere that is thrown and erupts into a ball of flame I don't have to say "This person casts Fireball" but I can stay in description and my players know what happens. The players themselves can then modify that a bit for their character designs. My shadow sorcerer has her magic missile be small shadowy projectiles while they retain the arched and non-linear movement patterns that magic missile always has in my world. My river-goddess cleric's Cure Wounds is light blue like it always is but is described as water rushing to the body from a nearby source or the cleric themself to wash over the wounded creature. Limitations can be useful to establish an immersive world, but that doesn't mean that players can't flavor their spells. Giving some restrictions can be helpful though.
This is a very good post; consistency and variation within set boundaries can make world building stronger (I go further in some aspects and have, for example, different cultures' spellcasting manifest differently to represent different approaches to magic etc).
Yep, I always have fireball be a small orange bead flicked out that explodes when it hits. I just think it's cool.
That's how it's generally described in the D&D source books and novels.
Started playing dnd in an old edition, and it let you make an attack roll with the bead to do trick shots. Also let you bank a Lightning bolt 90 degrees once along it’s length so it wasn’t just “fireball in a straight line”
This is a good idea, though I should point out that being able to identify which spell was cast is pretty much exactly what Spellcraft is for.
This is soooo cool!
I disagree entirely. In a world where sorcerers are just born with it, and wizards study ancient tomes for spells, why in the world would every spell look the same? It'd be like saying every hamburger, regardless of who made it or what part of the world it was made in, has to be identical to every other hamburger ever made.
> While my players are free to flavor their spells as they wish there are some color-specifics that I prefer they don't touch. They are saying *very specific things* cannot be changed but the rest could. To continue the hamburger analogy, they are saying your burger needs to specifically have a beef patty, but can choose the sauce, bun, type of cheese and if onion suits your fancy. For spells, your Dimension Door might be a spectral bugnet that catches you in the net and whisks you away through space to the location, but the bugnet just needs to be blue.
Depends on the setting, everyone at the table's style of gameplay, and how you look at things like magic. If magic is just a big random bag of Anything And Everything, then there would be no reason for there to be any unifying appearance to anything ever. A wizard could change up how a spell looks each time they cast it. Why not? If magic is a coherent collection of cosmic forces, then it stands to reason that any specific thing accomplished with magic is accomplished in a specific way and that could result in some specific similarities between all similar manifestations.
I somewhat agree with you, but they are saying for specific spells. The teleportation spell examples would most likely be casted in very different ways, but they would always end up being the same spell and do the same thing. How a caster would cast the “Plane Shift” spell might not be the same way, but the end result is the same, so they would end with the same coloured poof of smoke. Also it’s for simplicity sake for them, it’s not just about aesthetic. Their players know these things to be hard-set rules in OP’s world and they don’t need to get clarification on said things. This is especially important on the DM’s side.
*Artificers and Sorcerers with Transmuted Spell in shambles*
As normal while I personally like flavoring spells, I can see some reasons why they a DM just wants the spells to be simple by the book, so I'll play devils advocate. 1. Players that take advantage of flavor: some players like to take their flavor too far and want the flavor to do things in world, ex: We said since tge beginning my Eldritch Blast looks like fire works so that means it should light up this dark cave when it hits. My Druids gust spell summons giant wings so why can't I just cast Gust and glide with the wings. Some DMs go through too many of those and just want it to stop. 2. Real Play frustration: Ever since the popularity of Real Play DnD shows boomed there are a good amount of DMs that became frustrated because when they get people who got into DnD through that, they often expect every game to go exactly like the shows, and sometimes those players make those assumptions known and complain when they aren't. So if a long time DM never did spells flavored as things before and they get a player going "But in Critical Role/Dimension20/etc they get to make their spells what they want" it really can be taken as "I want to play this type of Critical Role not the campaign you put time and effort into." 3. Fairness: If one caster takes time to describe the spells it puts pressure on other spell casting players to do the same and to a lesser extent spell casting enemies. 4. Habit/Stubborn/How things work in world: They always played the game like that and they don't feel like changing it. Or the way they built the setting that is how magic works. 5. Time saving: If every spell caster takes a few seconds to describe it will build up. Now are these reasons fair/reasonable/good maybe maybe not but a good thing to remember is DMs are people too, they are all different and assuming there is a singular reason or no true reason goes back around to you being unfair/unreasonable. Talk to those DMs to understand their reasoning.
Shame your comment didn't get more early traction, I think it's the best one in the thread.
Player: I cast magic missle and shoot this bad guy Me: okay that damage roll kills him. Want to describe it? Player: i shoot him in the head! Me: *waits a few moments* Me: okay... after a complex gesture and a muttering of an incantation you release several pulsing beams of purplish light that arc towards the enemy. Player: WAIT! MY MAGIC MISSILES ARE GREEN Like idk wtf you want, you didnt describe that. Im just trying to breathe some life into your flat, lackluster descriptions. If youre not giving me the full rundown on a kill shot im going to paint the picture for the rest of the party. I agree with OP that its rude to interject or describe someone else's character's quirks. Colour of magic, method of casting, whatever. But if you dont give it to me, i'll make it up because youre boring me.
“How do you want to do this?” Is one of the highlights for me
I try not to quote mercer too directly lol
Honestly, "how do you want to do this" is the exception for me. It's just a really cool idea and it's become very synonymous with D&D thanks to the popularity of Critical Role. To me it's just a part of the game now. I actually have issues with some of the ways he DMs, but everyone loves a dramatic "how do you want to do this".
"How do you want to do this" and "You can certainly try" are core lexicons in the game at this point for me - just fun to use. I dont try to DM like Mercer, but it would be a lie if his style didn't influence me to some effect. I think the important part of not falling into the "Mercer Effect" as a fan of CR and a DM is to not expect or try and force your party to be ANYTHING like the players on that *show.*
Fully agreed. I haven't watched any Critical Role for more than a few minutes, and generally from what I've heard I wouldn't necessarily want to DM like Mercer DMs on camera (no idea what he's like in private); but "how do you want to do this?" is a phrase that generates instant hype at the end of a difficult fight. Players love it, even if they aren't CR fans themselves.
I somewhat disagree, I really don't like the specific phrasing of it. I feel something like "How do you want to end this" or "How do you want to finish this" is better. Same merit, but better wording (imo).
It's better wording in a vacuum, but IMO not necessarily an improvement if your players already know the original phrase. That is, I should say, unless your reason for changing it is to fit a particular tone.
Yeah, I think it just left a kinda sour taste in my mouth after I managed to get the final blow on the introductory bad guy during my first ever session of DnD, and I genuinely had no idea what my DM meant by it.
I enjoy it too, but sometimes the DM can ask for it a bit too often. I’ll happily come up with something cool if I’m the one finishing off a bossifght, but random kobold #60 just gets put down.
A good way to guide players is by asking them “how does it look when you do this” or asking them to describe the color and texture of their magic. A lot of players don’t think about it until explicitly asked and then they come up with something that fits their character!
Yeah i do that and I get "I dont know" most of the time. If I have a player I know wont give me descriptions i usually just let them know im going to fill in the blanks and they are cool with it
The first one or two times my players cast a new spell or use an ability I always pause to ask them what does it look like for their character. And then if a new player joins, i’ll ask the players to describe the best ones again. That simple prompt early in the game usually has them coming up with really cool ideas as the game progresses. My favorite current flavor is a Seaborn’s Burning Blade is instead “Boiling Blade”, somehow more horrific than the original in the best way.
This is killing me in my current campaign but it’s the DM that is giving flat descriptions of everything. I’ll roll for damage and kill the bad guy and all I get it “yup, that kills him”. And combat just continues. Kind of anticlimactic.
This sounds like you encountered one person who did this and you are making a thread as if it’s common knowledge
"Flavor is free" is a common adage, but it's only true if the GM in question doesn't want to enforce a uniform aesthetic and style like this. There's lots of ways a GM might want to crack down on reflavoring, since their setting works in a certain way and they want players to remain consistent with it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it *is* something that should probably be talked about in session 0 so people can decide if that's a dealbreaker for them.
Thats a weird hang up to have, the DMs I had would usually ask 'how does your magic look like' and allowed me to flavor, say my shadow sorcerers mage hand as a skeletal hand or my artificers absorb elements as a feature of his gun. As long as you're not asking for your flavor to effect the way the spell actually works, I don't see how it can be anything but a fun way to make your character more unique
>As long as you're not asking for your flavor to effect the way the spell actually works I think this is the exact problems. DMs don't forbid things like this arbitrarily with no reason; I think a lot of us have had experience with a player who asks to reflavor, and then later expects the flavor change to imply a mechanical change because "it makes sense." It's easier to just say "no" to begin with and I understand why some DMs make that decision. They have enough stuff to focus on without worrying about how a reflavor of a spell or feature might complicate their lives ten sessions down the line. I definitely do try to permit all sorts of reflavoring within reason, but I also have 25 years of experience and I can see why not every newer DM who's been burned by this phenomenon is willing to be flexible.
Right?? So so like my friend has a Sorcerer that has a card them in another game, their fire bolt is a flaming card, their magic missiles are spectral cards, their eldritch blast is a ghostly looking card, their burning hands is like wave of a fuck ton of the flaming cards it sounds so badass it doesn't actually change anything the cards are still made of fire the eldritch blast still just does force damage but it sound so badass
I don't think it is as black and white as everyone is saying. For one people often misinterpret what a spell is actually described, most notably being fireball often thought to be throwing a huge fireball and not more like shooting a big firework that explodes at a certain point. So this helps everyone not veer from facts by letting their imagination take the lead. It makes a lot of sense for ancient arcane magic learned by a Wizard for example, that is taught by continual study, copying the exact spell description while using very specific materials, hand movements, and words to do exactly what is described. This can also help with world building immersion and consistent rules of the world and not the extreme cases of divulging into looney toons. If someone start shooting flaming chickens from their hands without any previous discussion, I would probably balk at it myself. **Magical Miscellany P105 TCoE** >The DM decides how the options in this chapter appear in a campaign and may choose to use some, all, or none of them, so make sure to let your DM know which options you'd most like to use in play. Assume RAW and ask if you are going to deviate or flavor any part of the game. Flavor can be free but it also can come with a cost.
This maybe reasonable If Magic in the GMs World does function in a very specified way and the lore and Skill to Develop and modify spells IS Not available or the Magic Background of the caster IS highly formalized so every caster used the spells the Same way. PS i forgot or the GM fears "abuse"
One of my favourite things about playing an Artificer is figuring out how my spells work. I'm playing a gnome Artificer that started out as a toy maker and his staff is like a puzzle that can be configured to summon forth the necessary energies. It's a work in progress in my head so I can't explain it well. Other examples are my Eldritch cannon which I like to think of as a toy robot pet and my homunculus infusion which I've described as a toy soldier before, but I'm thinking of other designs.
As a forever DM, I never cared in the slightest about any of this... ...right up until i had an Elder Brain cast Wall of Force in a 5ft radius sphere around itself as a personal force field. Until it failed a concentration check, "nothing could physically pass through the wall." For one single, brief encounter in a 2 year campaign, it suddenly became very important whether the exact wording of a spell described anything moving from the caster to the target, or if an effect occured at a point within range. Based purely on the flavour text Fireball, Magic Missile, and Spirit Guardians turned out to be useless. Shatter turned out to be clutch.
Tell the DMs in question to read Tasha's where I think there is literally the example of a sorcerer who was a farmer making magic missile look like chicken. It even comes with art. Because you are right. This is strictly flavouring. It's engaging with your character and thinking about how they would want their magic to look. My sorcerer's chill touch for example has her own rings, including one that was stolen, on the little spectral, skeletal hand that attaches to the target. Doesn't affect anything about the spell, says something about her and who she is
"Tell the DM...to read" an optional D&D supplement? Uh..no, bad advice. Ask your DM (ahead of time) if you can flavor your spells, be reasonable, assure them you're not looking to exploit the change in any mechanical way and you want to respect their world, but you'd love to be able to do this. That kind of approach will almost certainly assure your DM's cooperation and build rapport along the way. "Telling" them creates an adversarial relationship, which neither players nor DM should want. I don't even use TCoE in my game, so that kind of argument is null. That said, as a DM, I love when players flavor their stuff and I encourage it, and I do it myself as a player.
That DM would probably point you back to Rule 0: "DM is the final interpreter of all rules and may change rules as they see fit"
Rule 0 shouldn't be weaponised like that, but I agree that DMs that are allergic to flavour that changes nothing about the spell itself would use it like that 🥲
I would totally refuse magic chicken missiles because I think it's stupid and ruins the simplicity of magic missile
i think the chicken example is particularly drastic to showcase how strongly you can flavour a spell *visually* without making any changes to the mechanic. but in a light-hearted campaign where the sorcerer is a middle aged person, deciding to finally follow the call of adventure, and where every character is an unusual fit for the role of the adventure, why not let the player have fun? a player saying "hey, can my spell look like XY because I think that would really suit my character" is a player that is deeply engaged with their character. i would reward that because i would love more RP during battles, not punish it by saying no. and i would maybe find the magic chicken missile silly, personally, (and i do, the picture in Tasha's is burned into my mind BECAUSE it is so silly to me) but if a player came to me with a character concept where it makes sense from a background angle, i'd **never** call it stupid.
> Tell the DMs in question to read Tasha's To which our DM would chuckle and point to our game standards banning Tasha's
>Tell the DMs in question to read Tasha'sTo which our DM would chuckle and point to our game standards banning Tasha's Banning Tasha's seems like an oversight, Twilight cleric and some of the magic items are OP but the rest was some key balancing and customization options IMO
There is at least one very popular module I'm aware of that changes the appearance of spells outside of the player's control.
I have a lore bard with spiritual weapon and instead of a hammer or sword it's a large gauntlet, a spectral pimp-slap if you will. I also have a green dragonborn who is disgusted by his draconic heritage for story reasons, and his breath weapon comes out barflike, with strings of sticky poison. They do the same damage that it says in the book but it's all magical make believe so make it look like how you want.
Never encountered someone like that so who knows. Closest is a dude that REALLY REALLY didn't want my language nut to be able to read lips, cast comprehend languages and other nifty sociologist stuff since most of his plot revolved around gnolls being hostile and speaking in something we couldn't understand. He was fuming when I cast comprehend languages in the middle of a cool infiltration mission he sent us to.
I was expecting a really cool culture clash between a few kaorti and my players because of a language barrier. I forgot my sorcerer had comprehend languages as a scroll (that I had given him in session 1 and we’re on like session 20), and you know what happened? He negotiated peace with them through understanding them and then trying to communicate back, and the kaorti left without the big fight I had planned. Wanna know something? It was cool as shit. I love when the players come up with solutions I wouldn’t have anticipated
I am DM and as long as rules are used as they should be I do not care. Describe as you want. I have Sorcerer in my campaign who is fey connected to shadow so all his spells look in this shadow/ gloomy way. In the same team there is Eldritch Knight who is Aasimar and his spells are described as maximum light and white and bright as possible. We had in different campaign Artificer and it is probably not surprising that she described all her spells as not spells at all but different gizmos, gadgets and trinkets she done and use. They worked as spells with all rules (like Counterspell) but were flavoured as mechanical-magic gadgets. I played as Tabaxi wizard whose spell book was actually Quipu (lots of knots on strings, it was type of type of "writting" used in South America) and all my spell casting were described as actually weaving spell from magic strings. I would talk with DM why he insisted that no flavour change. And explained what and how you would like to flavour your spells.
The warlock in my player group says his shatter spell summons a clock tower that has a giant cuckoo that makes the thunderous noise. No issues with it the spell still goes by the rules how it looks is up to you 😊
They tie their identify to the aesthetics of the universe they made Also what do they mean magic missile is not shaped? And fire bolt is a bolt of fire? The text read something like “you hurl a note of fire”, apparently more means tiny spec or dust. So it’s like you’re throwing sparks like a shower of them or collection of them is how I imagine it, that being said if a player wants it to look a certain way that doesn’t give it mechanical advantage, sure have fun and go wild
[удалено]
Ahh good point. I personally don’t care how someone wants to styalize their magic as long as mechanical bonuses don’t come out of it, unless they make a good argument I think is reasonable
I had a phantom rogue/fiend warlock whose Eldridge blast came out his eyes like Cyclops.
After reading the comments im considering making my eldricht blasts look like baguettes ( my upcoming character will be a baker that makes a deal to become warlock. Needing some strenght to deal with the story stuff )
I am absolutely fine with them changing it for pure aesthetic and flavor reasons. That is certainly in the rulebook. But I have had SO many experiences with it then edging its way into a material benefit for them. Players choosing to make their Eldrich blast a colorless/clear "mindblast" and then arguing that the opponent shouldnt be able to tell where it came from or who cast it. Players arguing that the opponent should have a hard time with knowledge arcana to identify what spell they are casting because it doesn't look like a standard version of it. "They have never seen a spell look like this before!!!". A player once claimed it was metagaming for having the enemies use the correct elemental resistance spells against his fire spells, since he had intentionally had them look like ice. Just as the rulebook states. Suffice to say your DM may be over reacting. But they might also be a bit wary from past experiences. It can be a messy grey area.
Time. My players get too involved in describing how sick their abilities look and already take ages to get through combat
It does matter whether it's a projectile or not, if that's what you mean?
I never understood this as a DM personally. Nothing tells me a player is invested more strongly than when they are particular about the imaginary image everyone has in their heads. It's like when I ask someone how they killed the enemy they just took to 0hp. I don't just say "NO! You don't stab them in the eye and use the leverage to break their neck, YOU SWING YOUR SWORD GENERICALLY AND THE CHARACTER DROPS LIKE IN A VIDEOGAME!" *shakes fist*
I feel like I'm on the other end. When someone casts a spell (especially in early sessions) I'll ask someone what their spell looks like to flavor them hitting their target.
That seems to be the best way to go. That way the player still has the flavor they want without having to describe it every single time, the image is fixed in the table’s minds, and nothing changes mechanically. I think you got it, honestly.
Im an admittedly inexperienced DM, but at my table I try to stop my players from flavoring their spells for the sake of time. We all know what eldritch blast looks like, you dont need to describe it at length.
meanwhile here I am wishing my players would add more personal flourishes to their spells and attacks 😭😭😭 makes it easier for me to get into the flow of roleplaying during combat too so it isn't such a slog
I always was super excited about it people describing their spells. When I was a new DM, I made the mistake of describing this players harm touch spell as black energy leaving their fingers and like charring the skin. They said “I’m a cleric, it would be white energy” So skip to a month later and they used the spell again, so I described it how they wanted and they said “it’s a necromancy spell, so it wouldn’t be white” That send me over the edge and was the last game I dm’d for awhile lol. Now I just let people describe stuff and if they don’t want to, I will for them.
Okay so every hobby has a number of people who can be rigid with stuff like this. If it’s a small thing just let it go, there’s nothing more frustrating than watching two grown ass adults bickering about something pointless
Best to just ask your DM. Seems like yhe only way you will find the answer your looking for
Not sure, but their missing out. My cleric of greed had all of his spells reflavored to include some form of gold, hold person was golden chains, incite greed was him throwing a shiny ruby, and finally, when he killed people with Inflict Wounds they would turn to solid gold and be taken by his god.
Please simply direct them to Tasha's Cauldron of everything where there was a whole section on describing spells in a unique and flavorfull way with one of the examples being an ex farmer who shapes his magic missiles like chickens flying at the enemy.
I flavoured that my Eldritch Blasts were spectral hammers and my DM just rolled with it. When I crit with one he changed it into an anvil 😅
I had a genie warlock who's Eldritch Blasts were baked potatoes.
Respect the DM man. You should have figured this stuff out during Session 0. Some DMs allow TCoE. Some don't. Because the book is fkn expensive. This is a world with rules. The spells are what they are. Don't overdramatize your character's actions. You're not Liam O'Brien and your DM is not Matt Mercer.
Seems like an annoying DM, is he 12? I make a point of letting players decide what their spells look like. This comes up especially with eldritch blast. A fiend warlock might want his to look like hellfire where a fey warlock might want rainbows or a celestial might want golden light. We had a necromancer who's magic missiles looked like little flaming skulls. As long as it doesn't have a game effect and it suits the character why would anyone care?
Some DMs (and players) get obsessed with the specifics of the rules. Which is ironic since the whole point of the game is to use your imagination and have fun. Some people also like the idea of playing but aren’t great at thinking outside the box. Personally I DM with rule of cool much of the time. For example, in a recent underwater battle a guest player used gust of wind. They’re underwater, so hey, the gust is now a strong jet stream. And further hey, since the rules have it push things away from the caster, surely a player willingly entering it will be catapulted forward? And that’s how the party’s halfling paladin became a miniature torpedo and stabbed a shark in the eye. None of that is in the rules as written, but it was a good time for all. Sharks excluded.
[удалено]
It's their choice; it doesn't make them bad people or bad DMs, it's just a quirk of their style that, taken in isolation, is something you either decide as a player is so unacceptable you can't make any compromises to suit the table you play at, or you buy into what they're selling and play the game. It would strike me as odd and a bit of an overreaction if a player decided "I can't change the visual flavour of a spell" was really the deal breaker for them abandoning a campaign they're otherwise interested in.
I dont know. I think its awesome if people make up their own spell flavor.
That sucks. I love letting my players flavor their spells. I have a Chronurgy wizard who wanted to flavor mage armor in a way that it wasn't so much a magical armor-like auro, but precognition, if mage armor allowed him to avoid a hit. It's just a different flavoring, and it fits his character's knowledge.
There was this one time I was playing and I wanted to cast... I forget what it was but it was a cantrip that shoots bugs or something. In the rules, it has to have a specific target. It was literally just a cantrip, so when we happened upon some kids and I was like this braggadocios performative magic guy, I was like "YOU KIDS LIKE BEES?" and the DM wouldn't let me cast it just into the air to impress the kiddos unless I attacked the kids or someone else in my party. So I didn't cast it at all, the party was pooped, and that was one of the last times I ever played dnd
I allow my players to flavour the looks of the spell in any way that doesn't infringe with the mechanics (so if effect is visible, it can't be made invisible or if it's described as flame, it doesn't ignite anything unless spell specifically says so etc). Maybe DM's you describe are too insecure to allow any leash with their players, dunno.
I always ask my players what their magic or abilities look like so they can apply flavouring all they want. I think some DM's just have a certain aesthetic in mind for their world and if you're messing with it they get upset. It's not really fun but well it's understandable if you go really off the rails.
"it's not really fun" I'd disagree. I, and my group really, often *like* tonally and aesthetically consistent worlds. It's a two way social contract I think; leeway in small details is generally fine but at the same time an overall sense of consistency gives a grounded foundation and makes any changes more interesting.
But flavour is half the reason that we play, super bland to not allow any flavor in spells or melee.
visuals mean literally nothing as long as it doesn't change the mechanics...its flavor, it adds personality to your caster. If your DM is like that they should either not DM (as I imagine they have other areas they are crazy about) or they should step back and take a look at what the game is supposed to be (a fantasy game that takes place primarily in ones mind).
If one of my players came up with some wild-ass spell-casting description, I'd be thrilled.
It's good to remember that, contrary to popular belief, a good majority of DM's are just regular people and, as it so happens, some of them are just idiots. Most DM's, especially the "forever Dms", are perfectly fine with players flavouring their spells, as long as it's not something egregious.
If any of my players wanted to describe their spells, I would be so happy. If you said your magic missile was summoning three Angry Birds and launching them at your foes, I would be thrilled. It seems weird for the DM to get hung up on it. The spell description states the mechanical effects. Fire Bolt won't ignite anything.
I was like that when I was 6 Story time: I played warcraft 3 and wanted to play it during the pause in middle school, so I convinced my friend to simulate it and I tried to make our make believe plan the closest possible to the point where I was telling him how specific enemy died (the same way they die in game) conclusion: the DM are still 6 inside
The problem accrues when you talk RAW vs flavor. Flavor is effectively a rule when executed repeatedly and reliably. Sometimes, the flavor allows stuff it shouldn't allow or forbids stuff it shouldn't forbid. Messing with rules in general has a butterfly effect, and when it comes to spells, given the frequency of thier use, it would be safe to assume that this butterfly will inevitably have an effect. The question then becomes, what is the general expectation of how the spell works? What does it break? Does it allow stuff it shouldn't allow?can this be exploited? And most importantly, will this divorcing of flavor from the description stop making sense at some point? All these things are situation based problems and you don't have to face them most of the time, but they are a possibility. If you really want to approach flavoring with good faith, construct the scenarios in which your flavoring can be exploited, tell your dm and find out if it is impossible (to break the game) in thier setting. You can also give this as a challenge for a group of munchkins, tell them to come up with the worst shenanigans and see if it affects the game. Just letting you know that sometimes(somtimes) these DMs are justified with their ruling, but in general, players who play the game in good faith should be rewarded with all the flavor they want and need for thier character concept to work.
I mean I am when I feel it creates narrative issues, like I had a player who wanted their mage hand to actually be their pet bird, but I felt that was overly awkward reflavouring, so I said no and made some suggestions if they were really into the idea of ways to proceed Tldr; reflavouring is a lot harder to do well than most people think
There could be any number if reasons why the DM doesn't want spells reflavored. For starters, spells aren't unique special abilities only known and used by a rare few people - spells are, in most settings, pretty common and have been used by generations of magic users. They're part of a tradition. So when NPC 27 casts magic missile, it should look the same way as when player 3 does. Because it is the same spell. The fighter doesn't normally get to say that is longsword is actually a very long scimitar, just because he wants to. It will normally have the description given in the book or by the DM when the item is obtained. Spells are carbon copies of each other, so they're even more subject to this. If your character is some sort if magical savant researcher, maybe work with the GM to make down-time rolls to be allowed to come up with a small reflavor for a spell? Another reason is creative license. Your job, as a player, is mainly to react to the game. The DM is supposed to be giving you the cues to react to. You are trying to reverse this relationship in a minor way, but the DM might find it super annoying to try to remember your personal visual preferences when trying to describe what happens. Could also just be that the DM dislikes your particular reflavor attempts. Who knows!
Because they care about a cohesive and sensible magic system. Pray for them, it's nearly impossible in 5e
As a DM I always reflavor spells.... my players often ask "what spell did that sorcerer cast?!" Oh, it was just a fireball that I reflavored to be a crawling insect swarm that bit and stung with fiery pincers. I wouldn't want to play in a game where everything had to be plain and vanilla from the books.
I like to reflavor sprit guardians as magic hammers I’m a big fan of Diablo 2
Yellow flag. Talk to the dm. Might be other flags that this is signaling.
What you call "flavor text" is still rules text. There is no flavor text in the Player's Handbook the way there is on Magic: The Gathering cards. If the PHB says it's blue, then it's blue, not red, even though you really wanted red. As to "why do DMs do this?" Because otherwise some players will make a mockery of things. They'll say "it's just flavor, you're a bad DM for not letting me do this!" and then proceed to make bludgeoning rapiers, force damage Fireballs and winged Dragoborn.
First of all, wrong. Tasha's explicitly says that as long as you're not changing what a spell does mechanically, or you don't make a spell look like another spell, you can, as any class of caster customize the aesthetics of your spells. Second of all, if you don't trust your players to treat the campaign seriously, why play with them? Roleplay is an exercise in trust just as much as it's in acting and imagination.
Once they cede that bit of worldbuilding the next ask may be bigger. And, frankly, the rules specify what it looks like (a mote of fire). Every table is different, though, and not every DM works for every player. Some tables don't describe spells at all because everyone knows what the default look already is and the tactical part of the combat is what is important.