Meta-naming or Meta-gaming?

[Greyfeld85]

I do most of my roleplaying through PBP games. As I've spent more time on RP boards, I've developed a habit where I purposely avoid using naming constructs lifted directly from the rulebooks when describing things in-character; mostly spells, abilities, classes, and things of that nature.

For example, in one game I'm DMing, one of my players is playing a Ranger. However, every NPC that's referred to him by way of his profession has called him a "tracker" rather than a ranger.

Similarly, with spells I try to deal in effects and descriptions, rather than just coming straight out and saying, "Hey, use another Magic Missile!!"

Are my growing tendencies normal for roleplayers? Or are they more along the line of quirks? Or possibly eccentricities?

Do any of you do this? Hate people who do this? Have rules at your table concerning this sort of thing?

[JellyPooga]

I love this sort of thing and wish the players at my table would do it more often.

I particularly like descriptive actions in combat, rather than the tired old "I attack him with a 2 point Power Attack", or whatever. Give me a "I smash him with an overhead chop from my claymore; 2 points of Power Attack" anyday!

Same goes for spells. Rather than "I cast Flaming Sphere", I'd rather hear "I conjure (or should that be evoke?) and roiling ball of flame and send it careening towards the enemy".

Sure, this sort of thing can require OOC clarification, but I've always thought that Roleplaying is about telling a collective story and if I was reading a book or listening to a storyteller, then the bland statements I usually hear at the gaming table just wouldn't cut the mustard in a decent piece of prose or poetry...I want to create a saga, not a series of gaming terms! If I just wanted the latter, I'd go listen to Rimmer describing his game of Risk in Red Dwarf!

That's just me though.

[Jeff the Green]

Generally what I do (and all the players in the games I'm in and the one I DM do) is describe what happens, and then put the mechanics in a spoiler. E.g:

The vampire steps forward and stares at you. He moves his hands adroitly, and you seem to perceive a marionette dancing in response to his directions. Suddenly you feel an overwhelming pressure in your skull, an irresistible urge to obey his every command.

Count Strahd uses Dominate (su), as dominate person, on Greyfeld85. Will DC 19.

[Urpriest]

The spells are a little different. Spellcraft exists, so there really are discrete spells in-world that people can identify. They might call them different things, but the spells are already named fairly thematically for the most part.

[Larpus]

The spells are a little different. Spellcraft exists, so there really are discrete spells in-world that people can identify. They might call them different things, but the spells are already named fairly thematically for the most part.
Indeed.

And, to some extent, so are classes, since their names is a valid description of the trade. However, just like two people in our world can have the same trade but call themselves differently (quick example, decorator vs. interior designer), the same is very ok (and rather expected to) to happen in a game world.

The one I use the most is "spellcaster" or "mage" when referring to a Wizard or Sorcerer, especially when I'm someone who has no arcane training, to whom both classes look the same.

[Psyren]

It depends on who I'm playing. When asking the Sorcerer to throw another magic missile, My Barbarian wouldn't know what to call it for instance, but my Sha'ir absolutely would.

[kharmakazy]

It depends on who I'm playing. When asking the Sorcerer to throw another magic missile, My Barbarian wouldn't know what to call it for instance, but my Sha'ir absolutely would.

I would say there is a decent chance EVERY mid level adventurer knows what a magic missile is. Added circumstance bonus for traveling around with a guy who casts it regularly.

I'd call it an untrained knowledge check dc 15 + level of spell. Circumstance bonus/penalty based on how popular the spell is/ having experienced it a few times.

[Toliudar]

I try to avoid IC conversation that uses metagame terminology like class names. What the heck kind of profession is beguiler? And who in their right mind would self-identify as a rogue?

I agree that sometimes spell names are useful - for brevity, if nothing else - but many of my spellcasters are apt to have pet names for their spells. I had an orc favoured soul of Gruumsh once who renamed all of her spells as some variant on "Gruumsh Says X". Silence became "Gruumsh Says Shut Up." Lesser Vigor was "Gruumsh Says Stop Whining You Big Baby." Much fun.

[ShadowPsyker]

I agree with the class convention, but not the spells. After all you can buy scrolls of magic missile and fireball.

Player: Ah... yes, i'm looking for a scroll of... throwing fire long distance.
Merchant: Of course, here's one that allows you to do so with a ray of burning energy.
Player: No, more like... you know a ball of fire.:smallwink:
Merchant: Ah this allows you to send a ball rolling alo...
Player: No. More exploding ball. At long rang... i mean many, many yards away.
Merchant: Oh of course sir. I apologize. If only someone would come up with a name for all these spells and perhaps record them in spell... catalogue.
Player: Yeah right. You know how spell-casters hate to put their name on anything.

[Prime32]

Spells are consistent between casters, are taught in universities, and can be bought and sold, so even non-spellcasters would probably know the names of the more common ones.
There's a few exceptions, like clerics of [Deity] referring to Divine Might as "[Deity]'s Might", and I think there's one instance in the books of an Energy Substituted (cold) fireball being referred to as "coldball". And then you'll get the occasional caster whose spells have non-standard appearances, meaning that the non-educated can't recognise them.

Stuff like warlock invocations on the other hand, could have any kind of name. Even if it was common knowledge that warlocks tended to have certain kinds of abilities in common, they can't be reproduced and have different power sources and appearances; "Eldritch Blast" is the only name I can see being likely to stick.


I try to avoid IC conversation that uses metagame terminology like class names. What the heck kind of profession is beguiler? And who in their right mind would self-identify as a rogue?Added to that, calling someone a "barbarian" is an insult. Calling a solo adventurer a "scout" is nonsensical. And "fighter" is just too bland and undescriptive for anyone to call themselves (even if fighting is your only purpose in life, at least say "warrior").

Wizards, beguilers, warmages and dread necromancers would probably all be referred to as wizards (since they all learned their magic). A sorcerer might be referred to as such, or as a wizard who's "naturally talented". Commoners will understand none of this, and use the same term for everyone.

[Siosilvar]

I would say there is a decent chance EVERY mid level adventurer knows what a magic missile is. Added circumstance bonus for traveling around with a guy who casts it regularly.

I'd call it an untrained knowledge check dc 15 + level of spell. Circumstance bonus/penalty based on how popular the spell is/ having experienced it a few times.

1) You can't make untrained knowledge checks above DC10. (Which is dumb, but nevertheless.)
2) Spellcraft exists and does this exact thing already.

Class names... I use very few class names in-game. You can probably tell a sorcerer from a wizard or warlock if you're familiar enough with them, but the difference between monk/paladin and samurai (see Miko), between marshal and warblade with White Raven maneuvers, or between beguiler and sorcerer with only illusion and enchantment spells doesn't really exist in-character.

Spells, on the other hand, are very formulaic and can be individually identified in-game. One person's lance of glorious flame might be another's Kelgore's fire bolt, but they're both the same spell and recognizably so. The terms probably should show up, but only by people who would actually know them (and you probably know the spells your party wizard can use, if only by necessity).

[Zaq]

I do rename my abilities on a fairly regular basis, but I don't go much for elaborate descriptions in combat (for example, I'm totally fine with saying "yeah, I PA for two"), mostly because I find that they tend to get old after a while, and it's difficult to keep coming up with new ways of describing the same things on the fly. If I were into PbP, where you have all the time in the world to write out a flashy description (and where making sure your turn only takes a minute or so, tops, is not quite so much of an issue) I might feel differently, but yeah, elaborate descriptions of combat aren't my thing. I have nothing against other people doing them, but I can't do them consistently.

Renaming, though, totally.

[LadyLexi]

I had a similar experience with a game that I played in where I had no knowledge and neither did my party members. I took a trophy from each kill in order to show what I was talking about to smarter, and often grossed out, NPCs.

I would name each monster based on what it seemed to do.

Earth Elemental became stone demon
Gargoyle became lesser stone demon
Mind flayer became face-sucker
Beholders became Death Balloons.
This went on for the entire campaign, my trophy bag smelled awful.

[kharmakazy]

1) You can't make untrained knowledge checks above DC10. (Which is dumb, but nevertheless.)
2) Spellcraft exists and does this exact thing already.


You can if you are the DM, which you would have to be in order to implement a rule I just made up. I don't think a fighter should need ranks in spellcraft to discern that he has just been hit by the fifth fireball this week.

[Scarlet-Devil]

The spells are a little different. Spellcraft exists, so there really are discrete spells in-world that people can identify. They might call them different things, but the spells are already named fairly thematically for the most part.

Spellcraft exists, but very few people have any training in it, and without a successful check all that's known about the spell is the effect described.

I've been trying to develop the same habit as the OP, and I hardly ever say what my action is until I've given some kind of description about what my character is really doing first. That said, it also depends on my company; it feels kind've awkward to me to be the only one at the table making that kind of effort, so when the people I'm playing with all seem to be more interested in getting through a fight quickly than telling the story, I'll usually just blandly say 'I attack it again'.

[legomaster00156]

Most of the spells are generally referred to as their names in my games. After all, that is their name. However, classes are often not the same. Characters are called by their profession - for example, a Rogue was a performer: an acrobat, specifically. The most common exceptions are Paladins and Bards, who are often called exactly that.

[Metahuman1]

I happen to agree that in character, people should not use class names unless there a social title as well that happens to be applicable to that character. Bards or Knights for instance.


Even then, you and the rest of the people around you (In Character.) have to know and understand what that entails. (Hence the lack of people who will understand the difference between spellcasters XYZ based on there class. )


Having said that, Spells and Similar effects are fine, just as long as the characters referring to them by name have a reason to know them by name. (So, yeah, the Barbarian will figure out what the fire ball is after the Wizard throws them out there a few times. Or that Haste is that spell that let's him move faster and swing there weapon so fast that he can take an extra shot at his enemy's. )

[kharmakazy]

In my current game we have a spirit shaman that my character constantly refers to as a druid. Why? Looks like a druid.

I routinely dress my character in archetypical clothing that doesn't match their class. Front line fighter? Robe and wizard hat. (over armor). Rogue? Cleric vestments and holy symbol. Wizard? Fake full plate.

[Zale]

I try to avoid IC conversation that uses metagame terminology like class names. What the heck kind of profession is beguiler? And who in their right mind would self-identify as a rogue?

I agree that sometimes spell names are useful - for brevity, if nothing else - but many of my spellcasters are apt to have pet names for their spells. I had an orc favoured soul of Gruumsh once who renamed all of her spells as some variant on "Gruumsh Says X". Silence became "Gruumsh Says Shut Up." Lesser Vigor was "Gruumsh Says Stop Whining You Big Baby." Much fun.

That's hilarious. I like that. I like that quite a lot.


On spell names: My rogue may not know exactly what the names of the spells his wizard friend casts, but he's familiar with what they do.

There's the one that makes glowing darts, the one that makes him disappear, the one that lets the wizard fly, the one that makes words that blow people up when they read them..

Unless the wizard decided to enlighten him, he'd refer to them by describing their effects, unless the name is fairly obvious. The Flight Spell is Fly, after all.

[eggs]

It's cute a couple times, but over an extended game, I tend to get when people go out of their way to make conversation less effective. I'm not going to go out of my way to avoid calling the Wizard a Wizard or guess which of the hundreds of blasty explosive spells I'm talking about, if it matters.

[Greyfeld85]

You can if you are the DM, which you would have to be in order to implement a rule I just made up. I don't think a fighter should need ranks in spellcraft to discern that he has just been hit by the fifth fireball this week.

There are some spells that have just blatantly obvious names. "Hey, I got hit with a huge ball of fire! I think I'll call it... OW MY ASS IS FLAMING!!!"

But some spell names are easy to obfuscate. I mean, outside of those who have extensively studied arcane magic, who's going to know the difference between Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud? Who's going to realize the difference between a Silent Image used alongside Ghost Sound and a casting of Minor Image? Who's going to recognize Shield or Mage Armor, considering they're marked as invisible?

You also have to take into consideration that difference classes learn magic in different ways. While wizards would have every reason to use the names listed in the PHB, because they learn magic through study, warmages may have completely different names for them because they learn magic for the sake of making war rather than for the sake of personal growth, and sorcerers and bards may not have names for their spells at all.

[Wyntonian]

I had an orc favoured soul of Gruumsh once who renamed all of her spells as some variant on "Gruumsh Says X". Silence became "Gruumsh Says Shut Up." Lesser Vigor was "Gruumsh Says Stop Whining You Big Baby." Much fun.

This will be stolen. Resistance is futile. :smallbiggrin:

[ahenobarbi]

I use game-name when it suits (why Cleric of X wouldn't introduce himself as a cleric of X?). Sometimes when it doesn't (for clarity). Sometime I get annoyed when a co-player gives 5-minute description of a standard attack So you I hit him... but I look for the most vulnerable spot, like you know, where the armor doesn't cover him. And I hit as hard as I can. But I stay alert so the other gut won't have opportunity to hit me when I'm not cautious. And I push the sword down when it's in, before pulling it out. And....

[Greyfeld85]

I use game-name when it suits (why Cleric of X wouldn't introduce himself as a cleric of X?). Sometimes when it doesn't (for clarity). Sometime I get annoyed when a co-player gives 5-minute description of a standard attack So you I hit him... but I look for the most vulnerable spot, like you know, where the armor doesn't cover him. And I hit as hard as I can. But I stay alert so the other gut won't have opportunity to hit me when I'm not cautious. And I push the sword down when it's in, before pulling it out. And....

Obviously tabletop doesn't lend itself to florid descriptions the way PBP does, but that doesn't mean that descriptions are out of the question. Personally, I always found a bit of a thrill in taking a few seconds to describe my character's actions, even at the table. Afterall, if I didn't care about the roleplay part of a roleplaying game, I'd just play a video game, where all the roleplaying is already done for me and all I have to worry about is maximizing my character's mechanics.

[Slipperychicken]

People in-universe are familiar with some spells, and have an idea of what they do. People are aware that a Wizard can only cast so many spells per day, that a Druid can only transform so many times each day. People know that some casters read their spells from a book, some pray for them, and some "just know". They might not know the spell-name exactly, but they do know that a guy in a robe waved his hands around, said some magic-sounding gobbledygook, and a bunch of demons appeared.

It's just like real/modern people knowing that a gun fires bits of metal really fast, that the gun can only fire so many times without reloading, and that you need to point it at someone, pull the trigger, and a loud BANG goes off before the target's head explodes. Most people can name a few types of guns, but are totally lost in the specifics.

I consider classes to be metagame constructs, and a Rogue can call himself a Detective or Locksmith or Diplomat or whatever he pleases, as long as the mechanics back that up. A Barbarian might be a Holy Crusader, whose devotion rouses him to divine fury, and a Perform: Oratory Bard can easily be a Commander who would punch your teeth out for calling him a "Bard".


I sometimes find myself detailing my character's actions in "narrative terms" ("he waves a lit candle around, chants something sinister, and a bunch of demons spring out of nowhere"), then mentioning the game term for mechanical clarity ("If any of you made your Spellcraft checks, you'd know he was casting Summon Monster III"). Describing what others see makes one's mental image more clear.

[ahenobarbi]

Obviously tabletop doesn't lend itself to florid descriptions the way PBP does, but that doesn't mean that descriptions are out of the question. Personally, I always found a bit of a thrill in taking a few seconds to describe my character's actions, even at the table. Afterall, if I didn't care about the roleplay part of a roleplaying game, I'd just play a video game, where all the roleplaying is already done for me and all I have to worry about is maximizing my character's mechanics.

I don't mind descriptions (they certainly can add some nice flavor) but sometimes there can be too much of them.

[kharmakazy]

There are some spells that have just blatantly obvious names. "Hey, I got hit with a huge ball of fire! I think I'll call it... OW MY ASS IS FLAMING!!!"

But some spell names are easy to obfuscate. I mean, outside of those who have extensively studied arcane magic, who's going to know the difference between Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud? Who's going to realize the difference between a Silent Image used alongside Ghost Sound and a casting of Minor Image? Who's going to recognize Shield or Mage Armor, considering they're marked as invisible?

You also have to take into consideration that difference classes learn magic in different ways. While wizards would have every reason to use the names listed in the PHB, because they learn magic through study, warmages may have completely different names for them because they learn magic for the sake of making war rather than for the sake of personal growth, and sorcerers and bards may not have names for their spells at all.

I don't have to take any of that into consideration. A magic missile is a magic missile is a magic missile. That complicates things unnecessarily. If a fighter sees the same spell a few times it's a relatively simple matter to describe the spell to someone and figure out what the spell is. If an adventurer is wandering about fighting things with magic, chances are he might have heard about a particular spell. The lower level the spell, the more commonly it is probably cast.

[Boci]

I don't have to take any of that into consideration. A magic missile is a magic missile is a magic missile.

To a wizard, but a sorcerer's magic is innate, so what is the chance they will call it that as well? And yes, wizard ca tell them the name, but why would he believe they were right?

As a player, sure you say magic missile, but its fine to establish that your character calls it something else and occasionally use that name.

[Zaq]

I don't mind descriptions (they certainly can add some nice flavor) but sometimes there can be too much of them.

It's a spectrum, like pretty much anything else. I sincerely doubt that any of us are advocating completely flavorless d20 rolls with only the barest context, and I sincerely doubt that any of us are saying that each standard action should take five minutes.

[Greyfeld85]

I don't have to take any of that into consideration. A magic missile is a magic missile is a magic missile. That complicates things unnecessarily. If a fighter sees the same spell a few times it's a relatively simple matter to describe the spell to someone and figure out what the spell is. If an adventurer is wandering about fighting things with magic, chances are he might have heard about a particular spell. The lower level the spell, the more commonly it is probably cast.

So, you see somebody cast Magic Missile a few times. You go up and ask him, "Sir, that's quite the spell you've cast. It packs quite the wallop, and seems to have never missed! What might you call that work of arcanistry?"

To which he replies, "Ah, why I'm glad you noticed! I call that my Shining Bolt, on account of its brilliant shine in the sunlight, and how it flies true like the bolt of a crossbow."

Little did you know that the mage you asked is a Sorcerer, who has had no formal training and has done no formal study into the intricacies of magick.

Get my point?

[yougi]

I think it's two different things with regards to spells and classes. Spells do have official names that stand IC: however, as some have mentioned, can a Barbarian really tell that this was the 3rd level wizard spell fireball? To me, wizards and other academically trained casters definitely know the spells by name. Spontaneous casters probably don't, though: the sorcerer might know that he throws a ball of fire that explodes on contact, but not that it's the 3rd level wizard spell fireball, at least, until a wizard tells him.


I agree with the class convention, but not the spells. After all you can buy scrolls of magic missile and fireball.

Player: Ah... yes, i'm looking for a scroll of... throwing fire long distance.
Merchant: Of course, here's one that allows you to do so with a ray of burning energy.
Player: No, more like... you know a ball of fire.:smallwink:
Merchant: Ah this allows you to send a ball rolling alo...
Player: No. More exploding ball. At long rang... i mean many, many yards away.
Merchant: Oh of course sir. I apologize. If only someone would come up with a name for all these spells and perhaps record them in spell... catalogue.
Player: Yeah right. You know how spell-casters hate to put their name on anything.

Well, I'd expect scroll merchants and wizards to know what they're saying. However, a sorcerer trying to buy a scroll would probably kind of look like this his first time in. If the sorcerer sends the fighter to buy his scrolls, then it would definitely sound like this.

In terms of classes, these are concepts we have as players of a game. Characters do not know that they are fighters, or 3rd level, or that they're 300XP away from leveling. But let's go logically: would a party really know that this wizard is actually an illusionist, while this one is just a non-specialized wizard who casts a lot of illusions? Until they wake up and see one of their casters read a spellbook, while the other just chills out, do they really know that one is a sorcerer and the other a wizard? And also, what would you call multi-classed characters?

Character 1: Hello my Rogue/Ranger/Swashbuckler friend. How are you doing?
Character 2: I'm doing fine, what about you, my Dragon Shaman/Barbarian companion?
Character 1: I'm doing alright, thanks for asking. As soon as our Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge finishes praying and then studying his spellbook, we'll get on our way to the Fire Mountain where we can defeat the Drowish* Duskblade/Blackguard/Assassin!

I would go for something more resembling this:
Character 1: Hello my Agile Fighter friend. How are you doing?
Character 2: I'm doing fine, what about you, my dragon worshipping companion?
Character 1: I'm doing alright, thanks for asking. As soon as our spell caster finishes praying and then studying his spellbook, we'll get on our way to the Fire Mountain where we can defeat the Drowish* Pelor-damned Leader!

Either that or, you know, use their names.

All in all, I personally use novels as a guidelines: what would appear in a novel is more or less what characters would know.

*Drowish? Drowen? Drowese? Drowidian?

[kharmakazy]

To a wizard, but a sorcerer's magic is innate, so what is the chance they will call it that as well? And yes, wizard ca tell them the name, but why would he believe they were right?

As a player, sure you say magic missile, but its fine to establish that your character calls it something else and occasionally use that name.

If that sorcerer scribes a scroll, what does it say on it? Magic missile.

[Zale]

A magic missile is a magic missile is a magic missile.

Yes, but a self-taught sorcerer may refer to it by a different name.

Luckily, most spells have very obvious names. Invisibility. Fly. Fireball.

[Boci]

If that sorcerer scribes a scroll, what does it say on it? Magic missile.

Not if he has never heard of the spell name. It will cast the spell the players and Dm know as magic missil, but its name could be different.

[kharmakazy]

So, you see somebody cast Magic Missile a few times. You go up and ask him, "Sir, that's quite the spell you've cast. It packs quite the wallop, and seems to have never missed! What might you call that work of arcanistry?"

To which he replies, "Ah, why I'm glad you noticed! I call that my Shining Bolt, on account of its brilliant shine in the sunlight, and how it flies true like the bolt of a crossbow."

Little did you know that the mage you asked is a Sorcerer, who has had no formal training and has done no formal study into the intricacies of magick.

Get my point?

And if he want's to buy a scroll of it, he buys a scroll of magic missile.

[kharmakazy]

Not if he has never heard of the spell name. It will cast the spell the players and Dm know as magic missil, but its name could be different.

And then the wizard copies it into his spell book. What spell does he get? Magic missile.

[Boci]

And if he want's to buy a scroll of it, he buys a scroll of magic missile.

At which point he says "Wow, whoever made this scroll is an idiot. Its called shiny bolt. If I ever meet them I will have to tell them that..."


And then the wizard copies it into his spell book. What spell does he get? Magic missile.

Possibly, but maybe the wizard was taught it under a different name. Its unlikely all wizard academies teach the exact same spell.

[Zale]

If that sorcerer scribes a scroll, what does it say on it? Magic missile.

No. It says whatever the Sorcerer wrote down.

But any properly trained Wizard will look at it and chuckle at the ignorant Sorcerer who doesn't know the proper name is Magic Missile.

[kharmakazy]

At which point he says "Wow, whoever made this scroll is an idiot. Its called shiny bolt. If I ever meet them I will have to tell them that..."



Possibly, but maybe the wizard was taught it under a different name. Its unlikely all wizard academies teach the exact same spell.

It is likely. In fact it is 100% likely.

[Urpriest]

Spellcraft exists, but very few people have any training in it, and without a successful check all that's known about the spell is the effect described.


The mere existence of Spellcraft means that the spells are discretized, and that every class that learns a given spell accomplishes it in the same manner. While it's true that not everyone can identify a spell when it is cast, that doesn't mean they don't know the names of existing spells. Most people know that there are six quarks, but most people wouldn't be able to explain what that actually means.

[Scarlet-Devil]

And then the wizard copies it into his spell book. What spell does he get? Magic missile.

I seriously doubt that wizards in most settings simply write "magic missile" into their spellbooks. I tend to imagine a full page of formula and instruction, probably including the specific incantation for the spell written out. If it were as simple as a couple of words in common, then why did it take the wizard so long to learn to cast?

[Greyfeld85]

If that sorcerer scribes a scroll, what does it say on it? Magic missile.

The fact that sorcerers taking the Scribe Scroll feat is a horrendous idea aside...

There isn't a place anywhere in any of the 3.5 books (that I am aware of) that states that spell names are written across the top of each scroll in neat black ink for everybody to read. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, it takes a spellcraft check to determine what a spell is if it's from a spell list that your character doesn't have access to.

Which pretty much means that the scroll DOESN'T say "magic missile."

[Boci]

The mere existence of Spellcraft means that the spells are discretized, and that every class that learns a given spell accomplishes it in the same manner. While it's true that not everyone can identify a spell when it is cast, that doesn't mean they don't know the names of existing spells. Most people know that there are six quarks, but most people wouldn't be able to explain what that actually means.

Or spells are given a single name to avoid unnecessary confusion for the players and DM. But in game they can go by multiple names.


It is likely. In fact it is 100% likely.

So what happens if my wizard sets up an academy and renames the spells?

[kharmakazy]

I seriously doubt that wizards in most settings simply write "magic missile" into their spellbooks. I tend to imagine a full page of formula and instruction, probably including the specific incantation for the spell written out. If it were as simple as a couple of words in common, then why did it take the wizard so long to learn to cast?

Note that I did not say the spell book now contains the words "Magic Missile". I said what spell does he get? Does the wizard get "shiny bolt" in his spell book because that's what the sorcerer wants to call it? No. The wizard gets magic missile.

[kharmakazy]

Or spells are given a single name to avoid unnecessary confusion for the players and DM. But in game they can go by multiple names.



So what happens if my wizard sets up an academy and renames the spells?

Then he has either A) taught everyone magic missile or B) researched a custom version of magic missile called shiny bolt and taught them a new spell. There are rules for the latter.

[Zale]

Note that I did not say the spell book now contains the words "Magic Missile". I said what spell does he get? Does the wizard get "shiny bolt" in his spell book because that's what the sorcerer wants to call it? No. The wizard gets magic missile.

Because both are functionally the same.

The only difference is what the Sorcerer calls it. The Wizard will still recognize it as whatever he was taught the name of the spell to be.

Call a boat a FLARG and it's still a boat.

[kharmakazy]

The fact that sorcerers taking the Scribe Scroll feat is a horrendous idea aside...

There isn't a place anywhere in any of the 3.5 books (that I am aware of) that states that spell names are written across the top of each scroll in neat black ink for everybody to read. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, it takes a spellcraft check to determine what a spell is if it's from a spell list that your character doesn't have access to.

Which pretty much means that the scroll DOESN'T say "magic missile."

It's not necessary, but good luck buying or selling unlabeled scrolls.

[Scarlet-Devil]

The mere existence of Spellcraft means that the spells are discretized, and that every class that learns a given spell accomplishes it in the same manner. While it's true that not everyone can identify a spell when it is cast, that doesn't mean they don't know the names of existing spells. Most people know that there are six quarks, but most people wouldn't be able to explain what that actually means.

That really depends on the abundance of magic and spellcasters in the world, and also language issues. One person might recognize the symbol Hg as representing Mercury, while another might know it as hydrargyrum, and another might not know the symbol at all, but think of the same element as quicksilver.

A peasant living in a small farming community with no native spellcasters, upon witnessing spellcasting, only sees the gestures and hears a bizarre incantation, then sees the effect; those are the only constants of the spell.

[Siosilvar]

The mere existence of Spellcraft means that the spells are discretized, and that every class that learns a given spell accomplishes it in the same manner. While it's true that not everyone can identify a spell when it is cast, that doesn't mean they don't know the names of existing spells. Most people know that there are six quarks, but most people wouldn't be able to explain what that actually means.

Same or similar. The way I run magic, every different person who casts a spell casts it slightly differently, which explains why you need to make a check to identify a fireball as it's cast even if you've correctly labeled hundreds of other fireballs before.


Then he has either A) taught everyone magic missile or B) researched a custom version of magic missile called shiny bolt and taught them a new spell. There are rules for the latter.
Yes, he taught them all magic missile. They all call it shiny bolt, but it works exactly like magic missile and does exactly the same things. Somebody else who calls it frindle will recognize it as fundamentally the same spell if they make their check.

EDIT: "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

[Greyfeld85]

It's not necessary, but good luck buying or selling unlabeled scrolls.

All scrolls are unlabeled, unless you take the time to write out their names on them. When's the last time your DM wouldn't let you sell a scroll to a shop because you didn't write out the name of the spell in marker?

[kharmakazy]

Because both are functionally the same.

The only difference is what the Sorcerer calls it. The Wizard will still recognize it as whatever he was taught the name of the spell to be.

Call a boat a FLARG and it's still a boat.

Exactly. He can call it whatever he wants. It's still magic missile. He can believe that he isn't a caster at all. He can think that he is literally throwing chunks of his own flesh unerringly at long range. It matters not. It is still magic missile.

[kharmakazy]

Yes, he taught them all magic missile. They all call it shiny bolt, but it works exactly like magic missile and does exactly the same things. Somebody else who calls it frindle will recognize it as fundamentally the same spell if they make their check.

EDIT: "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

You are agreeing with me but you don't seem to realize it. Of course he can call it whatever he wants. That doesn't change what it is.

[Greyfeld85]

Exactly. He can call it whatever he wants. It's still magic missile. He can believe that he isn't a caster at all. He can think that he is literally throwing chunks of his own flesh unerringly at long range. It matters not. It is still magic missile.

I think you're missing the point.

We're all aware it's called a Magic Missile. But the name is a meta-construct that may, or may not, exist in the game world. The whole point of this thread is the discussion of dissembling meta constructs and thinking in terms of IC knowledge, rather than using names as they appear straight from the PHB. It's about immersion.

[Scarlet-Devil]

Note that I did not say the spell book now contains the words "Magic Missile". I said what spell does he get? Does the wizard get "shiny bolt" in his spell book because that's what the sorcerer wants to call it? No. The wizard gets magic missile.

The wizard doesn't 'get magic missile', he gets a page of arcane formulae that allows him to produce the spell that we call, OOC, "magic missile". The wizard knows how to cast the spell, and might call it magic missile if he was taught to, but wouldn't you expect a foreign wizard, who doesn't even speak common, to have a different name for it?

[Zale]

Exactly. He can call it whatever he wants. It's still magic missile. He can believe that he isn't a caster at all. He can think that he is literally throwing chunks of his own flesh unerringly at long range. It matters not. It is still magic missile.

That's what is being said. Different people may call things different names. Just because they call it Shiny Bolt doesn't make it the correct name Magic Missile.

It does the same thing, and it makes far more sense for people from different cultures and languages to call it different things.

I mean, if you expect me to believe that every magic user everywhere from the beginning of time to call a spell the exact same thing..

It seems silly.

[eggs]

We're all aware it's called a Magic Missile. But the name is a meta-construct that may, or may not, exist in the game world.
A DC 16 Spellcraft says it's a "Magic Missile."
Knowledge checks tie class names to in-game traits and behaviors.

Most of the weird knowledge that you wouldn't expect a character to know is still knowledge they can know; the rules don't support a clean division between metagame constructs and in-game fiction.

[kharmakazy]

I think you're missing the point.

We're all aware it's called a Magic Missile. But the name is a meta-construct that may, or may not, exist in the game world. The whole point of this thread is the discussion of dissembling meta constructs and thinking in terms of IC knowledge, rather than using names as they appear straight from the PHB. It's about immersion.

I'm not missing the point. The wizard and sorcerer get spells off a list. The spell is called magic missile. That's what it is called. It doesn't say that the sorcerer can reproduce the effects of the spell magic missile. It says he can knows and can cast magic missile. It already has a name. It's magic missile. He knows the name. The knowledge of the spell is granted to him by his arcane heritage. Knowledge of the spell includes the spell's name.

If a DM wants to refluff his worlds so that spells names aren't known by the casters... that's his business. But that isn't the way things work by default.

[Boci]

Spells are just a small part of the original topic, lets not get bogged down in them. Here is a thread especially for spellcraft: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13499271#post13499271

[kharmakazy]

The wizard doesn't 'get magic missile', he gets a page of arcane formulae that allows him to produce the spell that we call, OOC, "magic missile". The wizard knows how to cast the spell, and might call it magic missile if he was taught to, but wouldn't you expect a foreign wizard, who doesn't even speak common, to have a different name for it?

Which foreign wizards don't speak common? And foreign to where?

[Greyfeld85]

A DC 16 Spellcraft says it's a "Magic Missile."
Knowledge checks tie class names to in-game traits and behaviors.

Most of the weird knowledge that you wouldn't expect a character to know is still knowledge they can know; the rules don't support a clean division between metagame constructs and in-game fiction.

You're absolutely right.

But neither do the rules support or hinder roleplay in the broadest sense of the word. Where you decide to divide meta-knowledge from IC knowlege is up to you, and that's what this thread is about.

But I think it's obvious that many of us feel a bit more immersed in our games when we go that extra mile to pretend that we don't have the name of every spell right at our fingertips.

[Greyfeld85]

{{Scrubbed}}

[eggs]

EDIT: I'm going off-topic and being ornery about something I don't get behind. I'll just pull this comment before spinning things off further. :smallredface:

[Scarlet-Devil]

Which foreign wizards don't speak common? And foreign to where?

That depends on the setting. My understanding of the Pathfinder world is that the 'asian-themed region', Tian Xia, has its own 'common', a completely different language from the common of the more 'western-themed region', and also a specific language for each country. Kara-tur, in the Forgotten Realms, might be the same.


It strains suspension of disbelief that a rogue in a closed and empty 5x5 room can dodge the 20ft radius explosion of a fireball. That doesn't change the way the game works.

Fiction-based arguments don't change the rules. And they're especially weak when the argument is for a dissociation between the fiction and the rules.

I never argued that roleplaying 'changes the way the game works', and it's not entirely a fiction-based argument. I was partially arguing from the real world; people call things by different names, whether because they speak completely different languages, or just because they grew up in a different region and happened to learn a different term. The fact that the mechanics are the same doesn't mean it makes sense for everyone to use the same terms in the game world.

[kharmakazy]

You're absolutely right.

But neither do the rules support or hinder roleplay in the broadest sense of the word. Where you decide to divide meta-knowledge from IC knowlege is up to you, and that's what this thread is about.

But I think it's obvious that many of us feel a bit more immersed in our games when we go that extra mile to pretend that we don't have the name of every spell right at our fingertips.

Knowing the names of the spells you know and can cast does not in any way hinder roleplay. If pretending your character doesn't know things that they should know makes you feel more immersed, have at it. I'm not judging. It's just not the way things work by default.

As players, we tend to have a lot more metagame knowledge than we should, but at the same time we also don't have quite a bit of game knowledge that we should.

For example: A player who probably has real world intelligence around 7 is playing as a min-maxed wizard with INT 23. The character is so much smarter than the player... The wizard would know the most beneficial things to do, while the player just does not. The player want's to wear full plate and fight with a sword because ASF only happens to other people. The wizard knows better.

But more realistically if the player is in his hometown he has to ask a plethora of questions to the DM to get even the most basic understanding of how his own village functions. We as players don't have access to the knowledge the characters should have by virtue of the the fact that they are alive.

[Siosilvar]

You are agreeing with me but you don't seem to realize it. Of course he can call it whatever he wants. That doesn't change what it is.

I'm saying that the wizard gets a spell that does what magic missile does in every exact way but is in-game called whatever, and you're saying he gets a magic missile. I'm not agreeing with you; you're saying that the name magic missile means everything in game, and I'm saying that magic missile doesn't mean anything except as a metagame construct that categorizes a whole bunch of nearly-identical spells in-game that casters can recognize as basically the same thing.

The world is far more interesting than the rules we put on top of it; people don't really move in five-foot increments, but we use a five-foot grid for combat. There's not any one standardized magic missile (unless in your setting there is), but there are a whole bunch of traditions that came up with spells that unerringly fire 1 bolt plus 1 per 2 caster levels that each are about as effective as an arrow from a shortbow at hurting things.

[Zale]

If I want my Wizard to have long, flowery names for his spells, it hardly impedes his ability to use Clever Arazoth's Wondrous Incatation of Temporal Stillness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm) to buy himself some time.

[kharmakazy]

There's not any one standardized magic missile (unless in your setting there is), but there are a whole bunch of traditions that came up with spells that unerringly fire 1 bolt plus 1 per 2 caster levels that each are about as effective as an arrow from a shortbow at hurting things.

No, there really is one standardized magic missile. You can go to the shop and buy a wand of magic missile. You can reflavor things all you want. That is fine. But calling your magic missile a shiny bolt doesn't do anything. People still identify it as magic missile. If my character casts identify on the wand he learns that the wand casts magic missile. It is an in game construct, not a meta game construct. You cast shiny bolt, my spellcraft check tells me it is magic missile.

[Greyfeld85]

You can reflavor things all you want. That is fine. But calling your magic missile a shiny bolt doesn't do anything.

That's the point. It's not supposed to "do" anything. It's called roleplaying.

[Zale]

No, there really is one standardized magic missile. You can go to the shop and buy a wand of magic missile. You can reflavor things all you want. That is fine. But calling your magic missile a shiny bolt doesn't do anything. People still identify it as magic missile. If my character casts identify on the wand he learns that the wand casts magic missile. It is an in game construct, not a meta game construct. You cast shiny bolt, my spellcraft check tells me it is magic missile.

Actually, I'd say you would identify it as whatever you've been taught the spell's name to be.

If that's Magic Missile, then fine. If it's Shiny Bolt, then also fine. If it's Arrow of the Forceful Spirits, then ok.

[ahenobarbi]

No, there really is one standardized magic missile.

You are wrong. My PHB says there is no spell called Magic Missile. Because it's non-english edition.

[kharmakazy]

That's the point. It's not supposed to "do" anything. It's called roleplaying.

I'm aware that it is roleplaying. But renaming magic missile does not mean that magic missile is not an in game construct. Magic missile is the default name for a spell that certainly exists and is known in the game world.

[Siosilvar]

No, there really is one standardized magic missile. You can go to the shop and buy a wand of magic missile. You can reflavor things all you want. That is fine. But calling your magic missile a shiny bolt doesn't do anything. People still identify it as magic missile. If my character casts identify on the wand he learns that the wand casts magic missile. It is an in game construct, not a meta game construct. You cast shiny bolt, my spellcraft check tells me it is magic missile.

Alternately... your spellcraft check tells you that it works exactly like your magic missile would. "Identify the spell being cast" can support both our interpretations.

[Zale]

I'm aware that it is roleplaying. But renaming magic missile does not mean that magic missile is not an in game construct. Magic missile is the default name for a spell that certainly exists and is known in the game world.

So every single Wizard ever calls the spell Magic Missile?

That's terribly boring.

[kharmakazy]

So every single Wizard ever calls the spell Magic Missile?

That's terribly boring.

No, you can certainly cast shiny bolt if you want. But that is your character's belief. That is your responsibility to roleplay. Since magic missile is an established spell everyone who knows who sees or interacts with it will just see it as magic missile that they know and love.

[Zale]

No, you can certainly cast shiny bolt if you want. But that is your character's belief. That is your responsibility to roleplay. Since magic missile is an established spell everyone who knows who sees or interacts with it will just see it as magic missile that they know and love.

So, according to you, everyone in the world calls it Magic Missile and my character's just a loon.

[Scarlet-Devil]

I'm aware that it is roleplaying. But renaming magic missile does not mean that magic missile is not an in game construct. Magic missile is the default name for a spell that certainly exists and is known in the game world.

In Tien it might be 'mahou misairu'. We all have our experiences; it may be that you're used to playing in settings where people actually call spells by their OOC, player's handbook names, but most DMs I've played with like to make distinctions between out-of-game and in-game labels and descriptions. Obviously everyone has their own way of playing.

[kharmakazy]

In Tien it might be 'mahou misairu'. We all have our experiences; it may be that you're used to playing in settings where people actually call spells by their OOC, player's handbook names, but most DMs I've played with like to make distinctions between out-of-game and in-game labels and descriptions. Obviously everyone has their own way of playing.

That's a perfectly valid way of doing things if you are the DM. I have to say I admire the dedication it must take to sit down and come up with a second name for every spell in the system.

[Scarlet-Devil]

That's a perfectly valid way of doing things if you are the DM. I have to say I admire the dedication it must take to sit down and come up with a second name for every spell in the system.

It's not about coming up with different names, although I do know several people that like to come up with different incantations for their spells. We were originally just talking about describing spells when you cast them, versus just saying 'I cast magic missile'.

[Greyfeld85]

I'm aware that it is roleplaying. But renaming magic missile does not mean that magic missile is not an in game construct. Magic missile is the default name for a spell that certainly exists and is known in the game world.

It may be the default name for wizards and characters who have a handful of ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), but that only accounts for a very small percentage of the characters in the game world. Everybody else can be assumed to be ignorant of that sort of knowledge.

[Scarlet-Devil]

It may be the default name for wizards and characters who have a handful of ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), but that only accounts for a very small percentage of the characters in the game world. Everybody else can be assumed to be ignorant of that sort of knowledge.

Exactly this^.

[kharmakazy]

It may be the default name for wizards and characters who have a handful of ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), but that only accounts for a very small percentage of the characters in the game world. Everybody else can be assumed to be ignorant of that sort of knowledge.

Exactly not this. The world is filled with magic. Adventuring parties see magic all the time. To think that the party fighter could rub shoulders with the party wizard for 10 levels and not recognize any of the spells he cast? Everyone and their mother should be familiar with a cure light wounds spell.

[Zale]

Peasant #5830 only knows that the priest used holy magic to make his wounds better. He couldn't tell you if it was Cure Light Wounds or Heal or something else entirely.

[Greyfeld85]

Exactly not this. The world is filled with magic. Adventuring parties see magic all the time. To think that the party fighter could rub shoulders with the party wizard for 10 levels and not recognize any of the spells he cast? Everyone and their mother should be familiar with a cure light wounds spell.

Rubbing shoulders with the wizard for 10 levels means jack-all unless the wizard expressly goes out of his way to tell the fighter the names of his spells. Unless the wizard says, "Hey, watch me cast Magic Missile!!" all the figher knows is that the mage can toss around pretty lights that always manage to hit their target.

And any fighter who's taking the time to learn about magic should be gaining points in Knowledge (Arcana).

[Scarlet-Devil]

Exactly not this. The world is filled with magic. Adventuring parties see magic all the time. To think that the party fighter could rub shoulders with the party wizard for 10 levels and not recognize any of the spells he cast? Everyone and their mother should be familiar with a cure light wounds spell.

But even after being exposed to one hundred cure light wounds spells, he still has no reason to think of the spell as being called "cure light wounds". When the cleric casts it, he waves his hands around, says some magic words, and miraculously heals injuries. The 'cure light wounds' part is entirely OOC, unless the cleric actually calls it that and says "alright Mr. Fighter, I'm going to cast 'cure light wounds' on you now", which seems rather silly to me.

[kharmakazy]

But even after being exposed to one hundred cure light wounds spells, he still has no reason to think of the spell as being called "cure light wounds". When the cleric casts it, he waves his hands around, says some magic words, and miraculously heals injuries. The 'cure light wounds' part is entirely OOC, unless the cleric actually calls it that and says "alright Mr. Fighter, I'm going to cast 'cure light wounds' on you now", which seems rather silly to me.

Ok. I'll admit the cure light/moderate/serious wounds thing strains credulity a bit. "I'll cast cure light wounds!"

"But my wounds are quite serious!"

[yougi]

Ok. I'll admit the cure light/moderate/serious wounds thing strains credulity a bit. "I'll cast cure light wounds!"

"But my wounds are quite serious!"

Or the opposite, to a Lv15 Fighter who lost 20 of his 130ish hp: "I'll cast cure serious wounds!"

"You call that a serious wound?"

[huttj509]

Something that may help remedy some of the talking past each other, what do you envision happens when a wizard casts a spell?

a) He waves his hands, mutters some arcane words and a bolt of glowing energy shoots out.

b) same as a, but the verbal component clearly includes the name of the spell ("MAGIC MISSILE!" "FIREBALL!" "DRAGO- you get the point).

If you lean to b, well yeah, it's silly that after 10 levels the fighter doesn't know the spell's called 'magic missile.' With a, it's perfectly reasonable.

[yougi]

Now I want my wizard to call his spells by extraordinary names.

Me: I cast the TRIPLE SHINY BOLT OF DESTRUCTION THAT NEVER MISSES on this Minotaur.

DM: ... What?

Me: The TRIPLE SHINY BOLT OF DESTRUCTION THAT NEVER MISSES. *rolls 3d4+3*

DM: *sees the dice* Oh! Magic Missile!

Me: Don't insult Zedior the Majestic! Magic Missiles are for apprentices! Zedior casts the TRIPLE SHINY BOLT OF DESTRUCTION THAT NEVER MISSES!

And so on and so forth.

[eggs]

Me: I cast the TRIPLE SHINY BOLT OF DESTRUCTION THAT NEVER MISSES on this Minotaur.

DM: ... What?
That's pretty much my beef with switching labels from a gameplay perspective.

There's so much wargame in D&D that staying on top of what's going on is important (it matters whether "Shiny Bolt" is a Kelgore's Flame Bolt or a Magic Missile or a Whatsit Quickblast - they interact very differently with the rules) and recoding each of the dozens of spells in the Wizard's book is obnoxious.

But I should also say that I don't really aim for deep immersive roleplaying in D&D. It's more the system I use when I want a story that can largely be resolved by fantasy trope characters who walk into caves, beating up silly monsters and taking their stuff.

[planswalker]

Something that may help remedy some of the talking past each other, what do you envision happens when a wizard casts a spell?

a) He waves his hands, mutters some arcane words and a bolt of glowing energy shoots out.

b) same as a, but the verbal component clearly includes the name of the spell ("MAGIC MISSILE!" "FIREBALL!" "DRAGO- you get the point).

If you lean to b, well yeah, it's silly that after 10 levels the fighter doesn't know the spell's called 'magic missile.' With a, it's perfectly reasonable.

well, even if you use a), after a while, you'd expect the party members to talk to each other about stuff, such as what spells they like to use. I don't find it very reasonable that after three months of risking their lives together that the party doesn't know the basics about each other.

[King Atticus]

well, even if you use a), after a while, you'd expect the party members to talk to each other about stuff, such as what spells they like to use. I don't find it very reasonable that after three months of risking their lives together that the party doesn't know the basics about each other.

This also depends on the world in which the game is played. It's not unreasonable for the particulars of spells to be a closely guarded secret among those in the magic community. Something only to be shared with others that possess the gift, certainly not with every buffoon that resolves problems by whacking at them with sharpened sticks. With high intelligence and low social skills comes (in most cases) a certain degree of arrogance, why should a Wizard demean himself or his gift by sharing the name of his spells with some guy who scraped enough gold together to buy a sword, just because they sit around the same campfire at night. Especially when it could be highly amusing for him to make up some ridiculous name that he could chuckle at whenever the fighter called for it by it's freshly minted misnomer.

[planswalker]

This also depends on the world in which the game is played. It's not unreasonable for the particulars of spells to be a closely guarded secret among those in the magic community. Something only to be shared with others that possess the gift, certainly not with every buffoon that resolves problems by whacking at them with sharpened sticks. With high intelligence and low social skills comes (in most cases) a certain degree of arrogance, why should a Wizard demean himself or his gift by sharing the name of his spells with some guy who scraped enough gold together to buy a sword, just because they sit around the same campfire at night. Especially when it could be highly amusing for him to make up some ridiculous name that he could chuckle at whenever the fighter called for it by it's freshly minted misnomer.

I would like to point out that your counterargument is assuming that the party wizard and party fighter are total strangers who don't get along. Even in games where they start this way, after a while, risking their lives together has broken down those barriers. My "three months together" may not always be long enough, but the point behind it is that with enough time the fighter and wizard would talk together.

Saying that the wizard doesn't talk to semi-strangers about their spells is spurious to the point I was making.

[huttj509]

well, even if you use a), after a while, you'd expect the party members to talk to each other about stuff, such as what spells they like to use. I don't find it very reasonable that after three months of risking their lives together that the party doesn't know the basics about each other.

Aye, but in this case the fighter would just come to know the spell by the name 'shiny bolt' or whatever. "Magic Missile" would not be an inherent part of the spell, except possibly how it was categorized by a large section of the organized magic establishment.

For a real-world parallel, "soda," "pop," or "Coke?" (I grew up with the third, it was a brand generic, like "pass me a Kleenex," except when specifics were needed.)

There's definitely times to cut the jibber-jabber and get to the guts. If combat's already taking a while, or is complicated, being flowerly descriptive can just be confusing ("I'm keeping track of 5 status effects on 10 guys at once, just tell me the freaking spell!"), but there's also times when "I roll a 12 to hit for 3 damage" is too cut and dried.

[planswalker]

Aye, but in this case the fighter would just come to know the spell by the name 'shiny bolt' or whatever. "Magic Missile" would not be an inherent part of the spell, except possibly how it was categorized by a large section of the organized magic establishment.

For a real-world parallel, "soda," "pop," or "Coke?" (I grew up with the third, it was a brand generic, like "pass me a Kleenex," except when specifics were needed.)

to keep with your metaphor, my point is that even if you know all sugary carbonated beverages as a "coke", spend enough time with guy who bottles "cokes" for a living, he'll talk shop and teach you that there are sodas of all different names. Probably not ever explicitly sit down and teach you, but you'll learn eventually.

To stretch the metaphor, especially if the two of you risk your lives together three times a week, with him unleashing his various cans of "cokes" to save your life while you and he raid the lair of various jocks. You and he talking shop about that latest bottle he threw out that saved your hide while resting to let him recover his cokes makes sense.

Maybe at first he was very closed-lipped about it, but after the umpteenth time of saving each others' lives, those barriers break down.

[King Atticus]

I would like to point out that your counterargument is assuming that the party wizard and party fighter are total strangers who don't get along. Even in games where they start this way, after a while, risking their lives together has broken down those barriers. My "three months together" may not always be long enough, but the point behind it is that with enough time the fighter and wizard would talk together.

Saying that the wizard doesn't talk to semi-strangers about their spells is spurious to the point I was making.


The point I was trying to make wasn't one of familiarity but more of a possible feeling of superiority by the wielders of arcane might. I think it's not out of the question that that could be information he wouldn't share with even a life-long friend if he didn't possess magical aptitude. Power like that can lend itself to contempt of those who aren't capable of using it. I just don't think every mage is going to sit down and spell out the all the details of his power to those he may not think are powerful enough, or intelligent enough, to use it. It would run the risk of demystifying something he would, rightly so, be very proud of being able to do.

I'm not saying every wizard would think this way but I don't think it's beyond belief that some would.

[planswalker]

Valid point, but that's not the point you *said*. You set up a straw man to talk about.

Still, such an archetype would be the exception, not the rule.

[The Random NPC]

to keep with your metaphor, my point is that even if you know all sugary carbonated beverages as a "coke", spend enough time with guy who bottles "cokes" for a living, he'll talk shop and teach you that there are sodas of all different names. Probably not ever explicitly sit down and teach you, but you'll learn eventually.

To stretch the metaphor, especially if the two of you risk your lives together three times a week, with him unleashing his various cans of "cokes" to save your life while you and he raid the lair of various jocks. You and he talking shop about that latest bottle he threw out that saved your hide while resting to let him recover his cokes makes sense.

Maybe at first he was very closed-lipped about it, but after the umpteenth time of saving each others' lives, those barriers break down.

I believe he means something like:
Player1: Throw another Orange Coke!
NPC from somewere else: Coke? :spellcraft check: Oh he means Orange Pop.

[planswalker]

oookay...

*sheepish grin*

*gets off soapbox*

don't mind me, just a nerd ranting from his soapbox.

[Duke of URL]

Stuff like warlock invocations on the other hand, could have any kind of name. Even if it was common knowledge that warlocks tended to have certain kinds of abilities in common, they can't be reproduced and have different power sources and appearances; "Eldritch Blast" is the only name I can see being likely to stick.

Actually, as a frequent Warlock player, I hate referring to Eldritch Blast by name, except in an OOC block that details specific actions. I agree with those who prefer to use descriptions of spells, abilities, effects, etc., when describing the character's actions, but then use the "book name" when describing the specific actions for rules adjudication.

Similarly for classes, etc. To me, they're a mechanical description of abilities, not something someone would be actually called by other people. Even if this means using a name that actually "belongs" to another class. For example, when I play a rogue, I almost always call myself a "scout", and I've referred to warlocks as "sorcerers" before, because that's how the characters see themselves.

[Tyndmyr]

So, you see somebody cast Magic Missile a few times. You go up and ask him, "Sir, that's quite the spell you've cast. It packs quite the wallop, and seems to have never missed! What might you call that work of arcanistry?"

To which he replies, "Ah, why I'm glad you noticed! I call that my Shining Bolt, on account of its brilliant shine in the sunlight, and how it flies true like the bolt of a crossbow."

Little did you know that the mage you asked is a Sorcerer, who has had no formal training and has done no formal study into the intricacies of magick.

Get my point?

This sorcerer obviously can't make a DC 16 spellcraft check.

[Greyfeld85]

This sorcerer obviously can't make a DC 16 spellcraft check.

You botched your intelligence check, didn't you?

[Duke of URL]

This sorcerer obviously can't make a DC 16 spellcraft check.

It's a Sorcerer. He's lucky to have skill points at all.

[Agincourt]

The analogy I came up with is species names for animals or other biological kingdoms. Some are arguing that a spell has an official name like an animal has a species name, where scientists from all over the world can identify it by its genus and specific name. People in one part of the world may call a particular animal a puma, others a cougar, and some a mountain lion. But scientists (wizards) know they can better communicate among themselves by calling it Puma concolor.

However, in order to come up with that biological classification, there had to be communication between scientists the world over. Such consensus may or may not be possible in your D&D setting. If regular communication isn't possible, then it seems likely, nearly certain, that wizards on the other side of the world will have a different name for the exact same spell.

Also, even if there is an "official name" for a spell in your D&D world, I don't see why that requires the wizard to always use it. Plenty of scientists realize that if they are giving a lecture to laypeople, they might have an easier time communicating if they stick with the common name. A biologist could know just about everything there is to know about dogs, but that doesn't necessarily mean he insists on calling his best friend's dog a "Canis lupus familiaris." So I don't think that necessarily means that the party barbarian knows the official name of "Bull's Strength," even if he is the beneficiary regularly.

I'm a longtime lurker, but this discussion interested me enough to register and post my thoughts.

[Tyndmyr]

You botched your intelligence check, didn't you?

Spellcraft is tied with concentration for the most important sorc skill. Given that, in combat, you can identify a magic missile correctly and describe it as such with a mere DC 16 spellcraft check, most competent sorcerers, even if they don't cast it, know what a magic missile is in elaborate detail.

This thread is basically proposing that a bunch of mathematicians could all be doing calculus without using consistent terminology. Sure, it's possible, but really, why would such a thing exist? It's pretty implausible.

[Greyfeld85]

Spellcraft is tied with concentration for the most important sorc skill. Given that, in combat, you can identify a magic missile correctly and describe it as such with a mere DC 16 spellcraft check, most competent sorcerers, even if they don't cast it, know what a magic missile is in elaborate detail.

Putting aside the fact that your assertion that Concentration is one of the most important skills to Sorcerers is patently false...

Yes, they know it's a magic missile. But knowing what the spell is doesn't mean they know it by that name. Or even that they have a name for it, for that matter.

[Zale]

This thread is basically proposing that a bunch of mathematicians could all be doing calculus without using consistent terminology. Sure, it's possible, but really, why would such a thing exist? It's pretty implausible.

Every magic user everywhere all spontaneously deciding to use the exact same name for a spell? For every spell?

That's pretty implausible.

[lsfreak]

This thread is basically proposing that a bunch of mathematicians could all be doing calculus without using consistent terminology. Sure, it's possible, but really, why would such a thing exist? It's pretty implausible.

I think what we're proposing is exactly what happened in the real world. You have some people doing calculus in Arabic numerals, others in Chinese numerals, and their children, Japanese and Korean numerals. Then you also got people working in base-20 Mayan and base-60 Babylonian. Sure, they function similarly, but because each group doing math has different ideas about it, the surface realization is radically different. Except in this case, the group might be - and very likely is - a single person, since you have people like favored souls, sorcerers, and psions that require no training at all.

EDIT: Well, I messed up, they certainly weren't all doing calculus. But lesser math was still being done in different systems in different places.

[whibla]

This thread is basically proposing that a bunch of mathematicians could all be doing calculus without using consistent terminology. Sure, it's possible, but really, why would such a thing exist? It's pretty implausible.

I find this example particularly ironic, because, funnily enough calculus, as we know it today, was thought of, and referred to, in two different ways (fluxions and infinitesimals) by Newton and Leibniz respectively, when they semi-independently 'discovered' it.

Implausible or not, reality is often stranger than fiction.

[planswalker]

Both of those systems were very quickly recognized as the same, however...

[The Random NPC]

Perhaps, but it didn't stop people from calling it by different names for a while.

[Siosilvar]

Perhaps, but it didn't stop people from calling it by different names for a while.

And there's still several different ways to denote a derivative lying around, from x' to D[x] to dx/dt (to name the three that I've personally used). They all mean the same thing, but the symbols are different.

Likewise, we're suggesting that everybody can tell that one mage's shining bolt is another's soda pop blaster is their own magic missile, because it's the basically same spell, just with a different name. One shoots silvery blasts of energy, another shoots spectral pop cans, and the last one invisible orbs of force that visibly distort the air and shatter like glass on impact. They all do the same thing, but the names and visuals are different for each's personal flair.

[planswalker]

no matter the notation you use for calculus, everyone can tell the operation you are performing...

[Slipperychicken]

Putting aside the fact that your assertion that Concentration is one of the most important skills to Sorcerers is patently false...


Sorcerers like casting. They don't like things (weather, enemies with big sticks, riding a horse, etc.) which interrupt their casting, as those waste both actions and spell slots. Such interruption is usually averted with successful Concentration checks. What skills are so obviously more important to a Sorcerer?

[Agincourt]

no matter the notation you use for calculus, everyone can tell the operation you are performing...

I can't tell if you're arguing with Siosilvar or providing more evidence that there could be subtle variations, differences in terminology, but a spellcraft check would still tell a caster fundamentally what is happening.

[Eldest]

no matter the notation you use for calculus, everyone can tell the operation you are performing...

Everyone that's trained in calculus can tell you what's going on. Try asking somebody that stopped with math at algerbra what f'(x) means. Then ask them what dy/dx means. Then ask them some other notation. Chances are, unless they're smart and caught on to the repetition, they've got no clue. Because they have no training in calculus. Now change the f'(x) and dy/dx for different spell names for the same mechanical spell, and change training in calculus for training in spellcraft.

[planswalker]

Everyone that's trained in calculus can tell you what's going on. Try asking somebody that stopped with math at algerbra what f'(x) means. Then ask them what dy/dx means. Then ask them some other notation. Chances are, unless they're smart and caught on to the repetition, they've got no clue. Because they have no training in calculus. Now change the f'(x) and dy/dx for different spell names for the same mechanical spell, and change training in calculus for training in spellcraft.

yes, thank you for explaining the metaphor. It was clearly too dense to be understood without it.

And if you spend three years traveling around with the mathematician risking your lives together as you hear him use his math equations to save your life, odds are you two will talk shop at some point and you'll pick up the basics. Even if long division gives you trouble, you'll at least recognize the math when you see it.

[Eldest]

yes, thank you for explaining the metaphor. It was clearly too dense to be understood without it.

And if you spend three years traveling around with the mathematician risking your lives together as you hear him use his math equations to save your life, odds are you two will talk shop at some point and you'll pick up the basics. Even if long division gives you trouble, you'll at least recognize the math when you see it.

I apologize for trying to help. My bad. Next time I shall leave you alone.

[sonofzeal]

Some of my characters don't really care much about the specifics of spells, and their terminology is similarly vague.

Some of my characters are versed in magic lore, and use correct terminology.

One of my characters is fluent to the point of obtuseness, and tends to use slang rather than proper terms. Any Conjuration (teleportation) effects are "ports" except the Transposition line which are "backports", Disintegrate is "duster", Magic Missile is "ping", and so on.

[QuidEst]

I'm just starting up, and I recently ran into this. "Polypurpose Panacea" is an awesome extract, but there's no way my character would call it that. I just went with "a curious little extract" and linked that to the spell page.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I generally try to be non-specific when I'm refering to things as a DM. It just sounds so much better to say that "The warrior lashes out at you with both of his curved knives, moving faster than you would have thought possible" rather than saying "The warblade with the kukris uses wolf fang strike" or "A strongly built man walks out of the darkened room. As he steps into the light of your torch, you see that his skin is covered in jagged crimson scales and that his eyes are cold and reptilian" instead of "A red half-dragon comes out of the room". If there's somebody around who can identify the specific spell/maneuver/monster or whatever, they can make their roll and get whatever name or stats they're entitled to, but I try not to use the names from books in lieu of actual descriptions.

In character as an NPC, I try to use terms that sound like something people would say. A rural farmer probably wouldn't talk about "lycanthropes" but would amost certainly say "werewolves" or "werebeasts" if there was a mixed group of wolves and bears. Similarly, I try to keep sorcerers/wizards, fighters/warblades, clerics/archivists and so forth ambiguous and some NPCs might use the name of one as a generic for either; people of those classes would probably know the difference, but a clerk with the merchants' guild who just heard a few funny sounding sylables and saw some hand waving before the guys in the robes vanished wouldn't know if he was a wizard or a sorcerer any more than he knows if he cast Invisibility or Teleport. There's actually one recurring NPC in my game who the players think is a ranger even though he doesn't have a single level in it; before they first met the guy, another (uninformed) NPC called him a ranger, becasue he was a man with a longbow and a pet snake who knew his way around the woods far better than most.

[2xMachina]

What? No calling your attacks? You've got to shout MAGIC MISSILE! to cast a magic missile. :P

[Greyfeld85]

Sorcerers like casting. They don't like things (weather, enemies with big sticks, riding a horse, etc.) which interrupt their casting, as those waste both actions and spell slots. Such interruption is usually averted with successful Concentration checks. What skills are so obviously more important to a Sorcerer?

While the theory is sound on paper, in practice it doesn't hold up. You're talking about a wizard-lite class. They still have all the potential defenses the wizard has. Just like a wizard, if a sorcerer is getting his face beat on, he's doing it wrong.

[lunar2]

While the theory is sound on paper, in practice it doesn't hold up. You're talking about a wizard-lite class. They still have all the potential defenses the wizard has. Just like a wizard, if a sorcerer is getting his face beat on, he's doing it wrong.

that's true for dodging beatsticks. but how do you dodge the low level wizard over there with a readied action and a wand of magic missile? if you have no concentration, you get pinged every time you try to cast. no save, no concealment, no AC, no incorporealness. the only 2 things that can stop him from stopping you are SR and concentration. even if you try to put a shield spell up, he can have a readied action to stop that one.

or what about when you're on a ship, or in a storm? concentration is absolutely required for functioning casters, even if no one is ever able to lay a hand on them.

@magic missile. while the spell is defined within the game itself, the name of the spell is purely meta. the spellcraft check doesn't tell the character the name of the spell (after all, you can spellcraft custom spells, without even a modifier to the DC) it tells you the name of the spell, but the character only knows what the spell is.

to use the math example, you see 3. you get a successful DC 1 mathcraft check. if you speak english, you know it as three. if you speak spanish, you know it as tres (sp?). but either way, you know that 3=1+1+1.

spellcraft doesn't tell you three or tres, it tells you 3.

[planswalker]

that's true for dodging beatsticks. but how do you dodge the low level wizard over there with a readied action and a wand of magic missile? if you have no concentration, you get pinged every time you try to cast. no save, no concealment, no AC, no incorporealness. the only 2 things that can stop him from stopping you are SR and concentration. even if you try to put a shield spell up, he can have a readied action to stop that one.

or what about when you're on a ship, or in a storm? concentration is absolutely required for functioning casters, even if no one is ever able to lay a hand on them.

@magic missile. while the spell is defined within the game itself, the name of the spell is purely meta. the spellcraft check doesn't tell the character the name of the spell (after all, you can spellcraft custom spells, without even a modifier to the DC) it tells you the name of the spell, but the character only knows what the spell is.

to use the math example, you see 3. you get a successful DC 1 mathcraft check. if you speak english, you know it as three. if you speak spanish, you know it as tres (sp?). but either way, you know that 3=1+1+1.

spellcraft doesn't tell you three or tres, it tells you 3.

you're mangling my metaphor. I used calculus to be an equivalent to casting spells. And math at that level is written, not spoken. Every time you speak it, that's you translating into a different language. Written calculus has an almost-universally used group of notations that don't require language translations.

[whibla]

Written calculus has an almost-universally used group of notations that don't require language translations.

I think the point that many people are trying to make is that depending on your learning experience it is entirely possible that you preferentially use one 'group of notations' over another. For example f'(x) as opposed to dy/dx. In fact it's entirely possible for you to never have used a particular form of notation, so set are you in your ways. That's not to say that you would not recognise them, understand them, or be able to translate any calculation into your own preferred form, merely that you do not write your calculations (or refer to them) in a certain way. Furthermore, there are 'natural' mathematicians (an analogy to sorcerors) that have (or had) no formal training at all, and use their own notation. It does the same thing, and with a bit of effort could be understood and translated by any competant 'trained' mathematician, but the names and symbols are undoubtedly different.

Alas, it's kinda reached the point where I'm not exactly sure what people are trying to argue in this thread anymore. Metaphors and analogies are all very well, but after a while, when the debate moves onto the details of the metaphor you risk stretching it beyond the general principle that was to be highlighted. *shrug*

[eggs]

I thought we were arguing whether Magic Missile could crank out Riemann sums...

[Venusaur]

I thought we were arguing whether Magic Missile could crank out Riemann sums...

Mind if I sig this?

[eggs]

Sure. Evocation's sick math skills have been a secret far too long. :smalltongue:

[QuidEst]

With respect to the original topic, I found "mutagen" to be an awfully annoying term. A little Googling later, and I found that alchemists mostly named stuff in Latin.

Aqua Fortis for a STR mutagen (in reality, it's nitric acid)
Aqua Vitae for a CON mutagen (in reality, it's distilled ethanol)
and Aqua Celeris for a DEX mutagen (I made it up)

The character sheet lists both the official term and mine.

[_flint_]

I believe that the names given in the PHB are given as intended, meaning that the spell "Magic Missile" was actually named "Magic Missile" at the time of it's creation and "Ranger" is an appropriate term for a person of the same class.

At my gaming table, however it is usually frowned upon to call out a spell by name unless you have decided beforehand that your character knows it by means of a spellcraft check