Spell Thematics should be bonus feat.

[tadkins]

Minus the tangible benefits (the extra spellcraft DC and the increased CL). What do you guys think?

It's just a great way to customize and add flavor to an arcane character. I'd be tempted to take the feat on any arcane spellcaster for just that reason.

[Cyrion]

If it's only cosmetic, why make it a mechanic at all? Simply allow your mages to change special effects on spells to suit their characters.

[eggynack]

If it's only cosmetic, why make it a mechanic at all? Simply allow your mages to change special effects on spells to suit their characters.
I don't really like it costless. It feels like such a generic thing if you do it like that. Maybe somewhere in between, I'm thinking as a skill trick. Spellcraft makes sense as a prerequisite, and as a possible other one, something like craft works reasonably well.

[tadkins]

Something that immediately comes to mind are the OotS characters, and how their hands all glow different colors when they're casting spells. A neat little thing that gives them identity.

If I were DMing it'd probably be something I'd allow. Would be obvious whose spells belong to who when "Archmage Enzek the White" is having an arcane battle with "Rak'nathar the Black".

[Cyrion]

I think a skill trick is a good possibility, though you might want to make it a skill instead- that way it's something that players can opt to invest more resources in so that they can become better at it.

[Anlashok]

refluffing your spells is a facet of RP. There's no need for any mechanic at all. So "Spell thematics as a bonus feat minus the stuff the feat does" doesn't make much sense.

[eggynack]

I think a skill trick is a good possibility, though you might want to make it a skill instead- that way it's something that players can opt to invest more resources in so that they can become better at it.
I don't think that it necessarily make sense to make this a thing that scales. I mean, what are you actually scaling here? I guess you can make higher DC spell thematics uses, that produce more phenomenal effects, but attaching a roll to, "I want my fireball to have skulls popping out of it," doesn't make much sense to me.

Edit:
refluffing your spells is a facet of RP. There's no need for any mechanic at all. So "Spell thematics as a bonus feat minus the stuff the feat does" doesn't make much sense.
You can make it an RP thing, or you can make it a not-RP thing. Spending a bit in the way of resources to make things all cool and flavorful seems reasonable enough, though I wouldn't go as far as spending a whole feat on it most of the time.

[Pluto!]

I'm pretty sure this is explicitly the default, either spelled out in Complete Arcane or the Description chapter of the PHB itself.

EDIT:

Well, not the PHB, but still core. DMG pg 34.

"A magic missile could be a dagger shaped burst of energy that flies through the air. It could also be a fistlike creation of force that bashes into its target or the sudden appearance of a demonic head that spits a blast of energy...

You can let players describe the spells that their characters cast. Don't, however, allow a player to use an original description that makes a spell seem more powerful than it is. A fireball spell that creates an illusion of a dragon breathing flames goes too far."

[Anlashok]

Spending a bit in the way of resources to make things all cool and flavorful seems reasonable enough, though I wouldn't go as far as spending a whole feat on it most of the time.

I don't know why you'd want to punish your players for wanting to add more flavor to their character though.

[BWR]

In Ars Magica it's called a sigil: each magus has a specific element which, if at all possible, shows up in all spells they cast. It could be harmless flashes of light or puffs of smoke, visible effects shaped like some creature or object, specific sounds or smells, blood dripping from your hands, shadows in the area momentarily becoming deeper or brighter, feelings of chills or joy: anything that can add a unique non-mechanical effect.

[eggynack]

I don't know why you'd want to punish your players for wanting to add more flavor to their character though.
I don't think a skill trick is all that much punishment. As for motive, I never really feel right having my character do stuff I haven't earned in some fashion. Having your magic look really cool feels a bit empty to me when there's nothing on the sheet to support it.

[Blackhawk748]

So dictating what my spell looks like needs to be earned? :smallconfused: Im not sure why youd think that considering its just a bunch of fluff. Honestly ive always said Spell Thematics lets you go "one step further" than normal spell refluff

Normal-Ok so you fireball looks like a cackling skull.

Spell Thematics-Ok so you are surrounded in green fire that then shoots from your hands and forms into a shrieking skull.

My favorite use of this was a buddy's halfling Sorcerer who made his Delayed Fireballs look like a roasted turkey

[eggynack]

So dictating what my spell looks like needs to be earned? :smallconfused: Im not sure why youd think that considering its just a bunch of fluff. Honestly ive always said Spell Thematics lets you go "one step further" than normal spell refluff

Normal-Ok so you fireball looks like a cackling skull.

Spell Thematics-Ok so you are surrounded in green fire that then shoots from your hands and forms into a shrieking skull.

My favorite use of this was a buddy's halfling Sorcerer who made his Delayed Fireballs look like a roasted turkey
It seems fair to declare spell thematics just another level of spell refluffing than you can access normally, and put a cost on that level of design, while keeping open some lesser amount of spell design.

[Blackhawk748]

Thats kinda how i did it, i mean the feat only lets you pick one spell per spell level so youll only ever have 9, i always took that to mean that those spells meant something to you.