Spice up a spell

[Deleted]

If you could change a spell, to expand on the fluff, what spell would you pick and how would you do it?

Grease
conjuration

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: S, M (bacon wrapped around a small cube of butter)
Duration: 1 minute

When you cast this spell you put the material component in your mouth and chew a bit before spitting it back out. What comes up is a buttery-greasy admixture that covers the ground in a 10-foot square centered on a point within range and turns it into difficult terrain for the duration.

When the grease appears, each creature standing in its area must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or fall prone. A creature that enters the area or ends its turn there must also succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or fall prone.

====


Honestly, the spells in 5e are rather dull and I would like to see them spiced up a bit.

[DragonSorcererX]

Stinking Cloud
3rd-level conjuration


Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 90 feet
Components: V, S, M (a leaf of dat weed)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute


You create a 20-foot-radius sphere of green, dank gas centered on a point within range. The cloud spreads around corners, and its area is heavily obscured. The cloud lingers in the air for the duration.


Each creature that is completely within the cloud at the start of its turn must make a Constitution saving throw against poison. On a failed save, the creature spends its action that turn contemplating the horizon or laughing from random things. Creatures that don’t need to breathe or are immune to poison automatically succeed on this saving throw.


A moderate wind (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses the cloud after 4 rounds. A strong wind (at least 20 miles per hour) disperses it after 1 round.

----------

This is the Druidic version of Stinking Cloud... freaking tree hugging animal loving hippies...

[Asmotherion]

I'd love a fluff/lore book with an (optional ofcource) explaination and description to Somatic and Verbal Component. Then the complete spell list, and apropriate verbal and somatic components for all spells in the list.

[Deleted]

I'd love a fluff/lore book with an (optional ofcource) explaination and description to Somatic and Verbal Component. Then the complete spell list, and apropriate verbal and somatic components for all spells in the list.

That would be amazing.

Sadly, as it is now, there aren't much reason to even have S, V, M for spells... You could just throw that system out and it wouldn't change the game. At least make them interesting.

[DracoKnight]

I dunno how I would spice up existing spells, but I wrote this one up today:

Phoenix Fire
Conjuration cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S, M (a singed feather with flames painted across it)
Duration: Instantaneous

You reach into the elemental plane of fire and conjure forth the smoldering essence of a phoenix. Once you have captured this eternal ember, you may channel its power to conjure a spectral phoenix that attacks your foes. Make a ranged spell attack against a creature that you can see within range. On a hit, you deal 1d4 fire damage and 1d4 radiant damage.

This spell pulls more energy from the Elemental Plane of Fire when you reach higher levels, allowing you to conjure additional phoenixes at higher levels: two phoenixes at 5th level, three phoenixes at 11th level, and four phoenixes at 17th level. You can direct the phoenixes to attack the same target or different ones. Makes a separate attack roll for each of them.

[GandalfTheWhite]

I'd love a fluff/lore book with an (optional ofcource) explaination and description to Somatic and Verbal Component. Then the complete spell list, and apropriate verbal and somatic components for all spells in the list.

I want this so bad!

[JumboWheat01]

Was going to make a Thyme Stop joke, as this is a SPICE up a spell thread, but decided against it.

[Asmotherion]

That would be amazing.

Sadly, as it is now, there aren't much reason to even have S, V, M for spells... You could just throw that system out and it wouldn't change the game. At least make them interesting.


I want this so bad!

Wander if we could just gather people who would like that, and then send this to Wizards Of The Coast to let them know or something... I'm sure the idead crossed their mind more than once before, but they perhaps decided against it because they were not sure it would sell.

On the other hand, perhaps people would like to Work on a project like this, and then present it to the WotC as a ready thing?

[DracoKnight]

Wander if we could just gather people who would like that, and then send this to Wizards Of The Coast to let them know or something... I'm sure the idead crossed their mind more than once before, but they perhaps decided against it because they were not sure it would sell.

Throw my name in for people who want it! :smallbiggrin:


On the other hand, perhaps people would like to Work on a project like this, and then present it to the WotC as a ready thing?

I don't know if this would work, but I won't tell you not to try! Heck, I might contribute! :smallbiggrin:

[WickerNipple]

Hunger of Habanero
Cone of Cayenne
Tabasco Whip
Chipotle of Death

[Vorpalchicken]

Pepper Spray
Divine Flavour
Inflict Wasabi
ummm... Marjoram Image? (kind of niche for a third level spell but it does what it does very effectively)

[JackPhoenix]

Lack of description of spells is a feature, not bug. Players are supposed to create their own description. A wizard's Fireball may be a bead of flame created in his hand thrown at the target, while fiend warlock causes creatures and unattended objects in the target area to burst in black hellfire, draconic sorcerer spits a growing sphere of fire that explodes when it reaches the target area and light cleric of sun god summons his patron's power in the form of a tiny sun.

While refluffing is a thing, if you wrote specific description in the PHB, you know there are GMs who would stop their players from inventing their own description because the book says how it's supposed to look like.

[jleonardwv]

Arcane rye
Drawmijs instant cumin
Fennel steed
Sage armor
Mordenkainen's faithful horehound
Power word dill
Heroes yeast

[DragonSorcererX]

Lack of description of spells is a feature, not bug. Players are supposed to create their own description. A wizard's Fireball may be a bead of flame created in his hand thrown at the target, while fiend warlock causes creatures and unattended objects in the target area to burst in black hellfire, draconic sorcerer spits a growing sphere of fire that explodes when it reaches the target area and light cleric of sun god summons his patron's power in the form of a tiny sun.

While refluffing is a thing, if you wrote specific description in the PHB, you know there are GMs who would stop their players from inventing their own description because the book says how it's supposed to look like.

Yes! Yes! Someone give this man a cookie!

I always saw it the way you described, for example: The Bard with Magic Initiate Sorcerer, refluffed as a Fey Sorcerer, would never cast a simple Firebolt, his or her Firebolt has purple-ish flames that glow like the eternal twilight in the Feywild, and leaves a trail of golden light like a shooting star!

[Hathorym]

Was going to make a Thyme Stop joke, as this is a SPICE up a spell thread, but decided against it.
In college, our group began to unravel a plot involving murdered chefs. The antagonist was a man named Lainoloc the Baker Mage. He reworked all of his spells to function as food derivatives.

His favorite spell?
Magic Muffin - modifies magic missile to fire muffins that you could eat after they pummeled you.

His guardians?
Garlic Bread Golems.

We had the munchies if you hadn't guessed.
Good times.

[Deleted]

It is neither a feature or a bug, it is just lazy and noncommittal.

You can always change something, starting with a blank slate spell or with a descriptive spell... So you can't say its a feature bc nothing stops you from changing it either way lol.

I don't want to pay for something so bland, kinda feel cheated with the spells in the PHB.

[JackPhoenix]

It is neither a feature or a bug, it is just lazy and noncommittal.

You can always change something, starting with a blank slate spell or with a descriptive spell... So you can't say its a feature bc nothing stops you from changing it either way lol.

It was always this way.

And I mentioned refluffing exists, but it's always easier to create description where none exists than to convince some people to stray from what's written in the book. And if you have to refluff stuff, what's the point of having the fluff in the first place? Having everyone default to the same description is much blander... I don't think cleric, wizard, warlock, sorcerer and bard cast the same spell the same way... cleric prays to his god, wizard intones complex words of power and makes precise gestures, warlock may do anything from the same thing as wizard to asking his patron to lend him his aid, depending on patron and their relationship, sorcerer just shouts "Burn, you [expletive]!" and gesticulates wildly and unleashes the primal power within himself and bard... I'm not really sure, because I don't think I've ever actually used bard as a magic singer. And druids may run the whole spectrum from almost wizard-like magic to asking nature itself (or appropriate gods) for help to shamanistic ritual dances.


I don't want to pay for something so bland, kinda feel cheated with the spells in the PHB.

Well, good thing you've paid for the whole set of rules intended to be generic(ish) and usable in wide variety of settings. In fact, more detailed spell descriptions would make the text longer, forcing the devs to either include less spells to keep the page count down, or increase the number of pages, thus making the book more expensive.

[Deleted]

It was always this way.

And I mentioned refluffing exists, but it's always easier to create description where none exists than to convince some people to stray from what's written in the book. And if you have to refluff stuff, what's the point of having the fluff in the first place? Having everyone default to the same description is much blander... I don't think cleric, wizard, warlock, sorcerer and bard cast the same spell the same way... cleric prays to his god, wizard intones complex words of power and makes precise gestures, warlock may do anything from the same thing as wizard to asking his patron to lend him his aid, depending on patron and their relationship, sorcerer just shouts "Burn, you [expletive]!" and gesticulates wildly and unleashes the primal power within himself and bard... I'm not really sure, because I don't think I've ever actually used bard as a magic singer. And druids may run the whole spectrum from almost wizard-like magic to asking nature itself (or appropriate gods) for help to shamanistic ritual dances.



Well, good thing you've paid for the whole set of rules intended to be generic(ish) and usable in wide variety of settings. In fact, more detailed spell descriptions would make the text longer, forcing the devs to either include less spells to keep the page count down, or increase the number of pages, thus making the book more expensive.

Just because its "always been that way" doesn't defend it.

That's a horrible defense! That's excusing them for not doing A++ work, when you are paying A++ prices.

Sorry, but I expect more when I put my money down. I don't care if "that's how its always been".

[Cybren]

I vastly prefer this world as 1) overly descriptive spell imagery would lead to all sorts of "well it says it creates a sphere of swirling air first so why can't I use that to mix the cookie batter atop the pedestal of truth without having to first answer the fart goblins riddle!?" And 2) I think it should be the responsibility of everyone at the table to decide what magic looks like. Unless you read the flavor text every time you cast the spell you're not actually giving anyone a mental image of what's going on. So just describe what's going on.

[Lawful Good]

I vastly prefer this world as 1) overly descriptive spell imagery would lead to all sorts of "well it says it creates a sphere of swirling air first so why can't I use that to mix the cookie batter atop the pedestal of truth without having to first answer the fart goblins riddle!?" And 2) I think it should be the responsibility of everyone at the table to decide what magic looks like. Unless you read the flavor text every time you cast the spell you're not actually giving anyone a mental image of what's going on. So just describe what's going on.

This goes on at my table enough as it is. It would be nice to have a table of sample effects that you could draw from for inspiration, but assigning them? Meh.