PDA

View Full Version : Who loves Flavourful spell names?



Belteshazzar
2007-04-16, 08:32 PM
I don't know why this annoys me but one of the things I dislike about 3.5 is how they cut out many of the interesting parts from spells, especially in reference to the spell's creator or patron Examples (Bigsby's, Snilloc's Melf's Mordenkien and some many others) . I can understand trying to make the spells as customizable as possable and trying to make them fit in a nonstandard game but still I like rolling off those interesting almost tongue twister names because they give some flavor. I mean can't you just feel the oddness of Simbulís skeletal deliquescence while it's updated name corporeal instability feels like a textbook description

DaMullet
2007-04-16, 08:34 PM
Bigby, Melf, Mordenkein, Tenser, and a couple others are still around.

Not having played previous versions, I can't really say I mind.

Counterpower
2007-04-16, 08:46 PM
Definitely the old versions. The 3.5 Player's Handbook does have some of those, like Mordenkainen's disjunction. Then I looked at the SRD, saw Mage's Disjunction, and thought "what is this?"

kamikasei
2007-04-16, 08:47 PM
The SRD has had those names stripped out for copyright/"product identity" reasons. The PHB and actual WotC publications retain them.

Lemur
2007-04-16, 08:52 PM
It doesn't really matter much to me either way. I never got into premade campaign settings, so I never really understood who Otiluke, Bigby, and the like were anyway.

Since I've only ever played in custom settings, the names of these spells introduced a small sort of continuity flaw, since they'd be named after wizards who never existed in the world. Besides, they never added "Melf's Minute Meteors" to 3rd ed in the first place, so anything for me to miss in this respect is already gone.

storybookknight
2007-04-16, 09:05 PM
Though not specifically on topic, I would like to state for the record that the ToB maneuver title "Five-Shadow-Creeping-Ice-Enervation-Strike!" is totally awesome.

Lord Nyax
2007-04-16, 09:13 PM
I used to like the more interesting names, but as I've gotten more and more into actually playing D&D with other people I've learned to appreciate the simpler names. I used to call them by abbreviations anyways; now I'm actually using the real name.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-16, 09:22 PM
I tend to enjoy them, even though I don't deal with Greyhawk. There's just something neat about casting Otiluke's Resilient Sphere as opposed to Resilient Sphere. Part of it is just the Form-Blazing-Sword style goodness of naming your superweapons, but it's amusing to see shticks shine through the game. Otiluke has his spheres, Bigby has his hands, and Tasha and Otto have gotten some particularly amusing little numbers; Otto's Imperative Ambulation is made of win for its name alone.

Scribbler
2007-04-16, 09:37 PM
Since I've only ever played in custom settings, the names of these spells introduced a small sort of continuity flaw, since they'd be named after wizards who never existed in the world. Besides, they never added "Melf's Minute Meteors" to 3rd ed in the first place, so anything for me to miss in this respect is already gone.

There's that, and I also don't think that characters would necesarily have names for their spells (maybe wizards would, but especially not sorcerors). So I think of the names as mostly just for the players to use anyway.

EDIT: I voted for the simpler names, but then I do enjoy the interesting names even if I never refer to the spells as such in-character, so maybe that wasn't the best response.

Macrovore
2007-04-16, 09:44 PM
Though not specifically on topic, I would like to state for the record that the ToB maneuver title "Five-Shadow-Creeping-Ice-Enervation-Strike!" is totally awesome.

especially, in my campaign, any PC who uses a strike maneuver has to say the maneuver as he performs it. it's hilarious. makes it sound like Dragonball, except even cheesier (if that's possible)