Spellcasting "Style"

[carrdrivesyou]

So there are several different types of casters now in 5e; especially with the addition of the artificer "tool casting." I was curious how everyone else's table really flavors their particular spellcasting in game? Like, does a fireball from the wizard look different from when the sorcerer casts it. Do warlocks have a special look or feel to their casting that gives them away as warlocks instead of more traditional mages? The artificer using tools to cast spells seemed rather unique, and it has me curious as to if other classes look different or are identifiable by their casting styles?

For example...
Bard: plays a song or throws down some smack talk
Cleric: its a prayer
Sorcerer: more like channeling their own power
Wizard: reciting specific lines and using almost robotic hand/wand movements
Warlock: somewhere between cleric and sorcerer?

[sayaijin]

The current group I'm in has a valor bard, abjuration wizard, arcane trickster, gloom stalker ranger, and mc GOO warlock paladin (warlock level was a curse).

The bard often has a couplet prepared to go along with a spell.
The wizard is really big on describing the use of his spell components.
The AT tries to be as subtle and secretive as possible.
The paladin tries to be as open and straightforward with his spell casting, unless it's a paladin spell. Then he avoids those unless we're in combat.
The ranger doesn't really RP his spells much.

[Aett_Thorn]

I always try to reflavor my spellcasting to fit the caster's personality if I can.

I have a wilderness-based Bard that flavors all of their verbal requirements as bird songs and calls. I have a Wizard that instead of a spellbook grows crystals and carries them with him. I have an atheistic Cleric that flavors all of their stuff more like a Sorcerer and doesn't believe that he is being helped by a deity (though he is).

Basically, I try to make it unique instead of having every caster I make the same.

[Ashrym]

My bards don't sing, lol. They rhyme more like a play from Shakespeare or a rerun of Bewitched.

[JellyPooga]

Hmm...I'm in the "unique to the character" camp as opposed to "class identity" one. Yes, Class will suggest certain styles, but I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to identify a characters class just by watching them cast a spell.

A Bard can be just as much a scholar as a Wizard, as intuitive a mage as any Sorcerer, as in tune with the natural world as a Druid or as devoted a servant of the gods as a Cleric...and all the vice-versa's and in betweens and more. How any of these manifest for a given character is entirely within the players purview.

A character I'm playing right now wields a totemic staff that he channels many of his spells through, is festooned with fetishes, tokens and charms and he invariably (and perhaps irritatingly) speaks in rhyme. His magic manifests with themes of insects and swarms, yet he knows no conjuration or evocation spells (yet). If you can guess his Class, I'd be surprised, but just from the in-character experience of how his magic manifests he could be any spellcaster or combination.

[sithlordnergal]

I tend not to "flavor" my spell casting. Even if I have a flavor for it, I'll keep the flavor for a few sessions before I break it down to a simplified "I cast Fireball, it deals 8d6".

[Yakmala]

One bit of magic I see re-flavored very frequently is the Warlock's Eldritch Blast.

Many Warlocks depend on it, and those that do are casting it a lot. So they tend to try and re-skin or punch up the effects to fit their background.

I've seen rainbow colored celestial force bolts, force arrows shot from a bow, tentacles of energy (and this was before the Fathomless patron), flintlock pistols firing eldritch bullets, howling energy skulls, musical energy notes from a Warlock/Bard and even super powered force cabbages.

[Anonymouswizard]

My general rule for spellcasting styles would be as follows.

Artificer: you cast spells by manipulating the objects you cast them on, or by creating and adjusting devices.
Bard: spells and other bardic abilities are cast via poetry, shorter spells may be singular couplets, while rituals are entire stories, ballads and the like. This might not be strictly required, but it's how bards teach spellcasting.
Cleric: miracles are invoked by speaking in a clear voice to your target and stating what your god is going to do. This isn't a prayer, it's a declaration. Rituals are basically religious services, but still include a declaration.
Paladin: similar in style to Clerics.
Sorcerer: spells are an invocation of will. But doing this is echausting, so most sorcerers come up with verbal or somatic components to help their concentration, but these vary wildly.
Warlock: your patron gave you a specific set of words and gestures in order to invoke the magic. This might be calling on them, or it might just be them teaching you some limited wizardry.
Wizard: very precise incantations and gestures are needed to invoke the various rules and bargains that form the basis of wizardry. Anything that takes longer than a minute probably needs you to draw a magic circle to various degrees of complexity and accuracy.
Subclasses and feats: use the style of whatever full caster they're closer to, e.g. Eldritch Knights using wizardry.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I tend to do this most often with buff spells. My alley-cat Tabaxi Druid will invoke the spirits of small, fluffy animals to give his friends a hand when casting Guidance, or my Divine Soul asks Lliira to guard his allies' lives when casting Death Ward. I especially do this with Favoured by the Gods because, well, even the name implies divine intervention.

[Danielqueue1]

I go for each caster chooses their own methods within reason so two wizards will each cast the same spell differently.

My most recent is a warforged artificer who's spells are mostly canisters loaded into his crossbow arm. Healing word canisters, faerie fire grenade etc. Verbal component arms the grenades so they don't blow up on him.

For firebolt alone I see several flavorful ways just within Wizard subclasses.

Abjuration fills a small bubble-shield with fire and launches it at the target, bubble shattering on contact releasing the flames.

Conjuratin pops open a hand size hole into the plane of fire. (Portal gets bigger as the cantrip levels.)

Evocation makes a mote of flame floating between their fingers an launches it.

Transmutation changes the air at their target into an inflamible gas then throws a spark.

Etc.
Lots of ways to flavor, lots of personalization to be had.

[Littlemike137]

A character I'm playing right now wields a totemic staff that he channels many of his spells through, is festooned with fetishes, tokens and charms and he invariably (and perhaps irritatingly) speaks in rhyme. His magic manifests with themes of insects and swarms, yet he knows no conjuration or evocation spells (yet). If you can guess his Class, I'd be surprised, but just from the in-character experience of how his magic manifests he could be any spellcaster or combination.

Spores Druid? I’m in the camp generally of anyone can flavor anything they like however they want. The toughest might be artificer just because they are already themed around it being mechanical effects, but they could also go as a wizard or anything else.

[LordCdrMilitant]

So there are several different types of casters now in 5e; especially with the addition of the artificer "tool casting." I was curious how everyone else's table really flavors their particular spellcasting in game? Like, does a fireball from the wizard look different from when the sorcerer casts it. Do warlocks have a special look or feel to their casting that gives them away as warlocks instead of more traditional mages? The artificer using tools to cast spells seemed rather unique, and it has me curious as to if other classes look different or are identifiable by their casting styles?

For example...
Bard: plays a song or throws down some smack talk
Cleric: its a prayer
Sorcerer: more like channeling their own power
Wizard: reciting specific lines and using almost robotic hand/wand movements
Warlock: somewhere between cleric and sorcerer?

I imagine basically all spellcasters as doing the "calling your attacks" thing. Like, *point casting focus at target* "DISINTEGRATE!" and then disintegrate happens.

Unless it's a ritual, a spell is cast quickly; as quickly as it takes to swing a sword, so like the casting action can't be too complex.

In line with that, one of the silliest things in D&D IMO is the fanny pack/tactical vest of trash. Somehow, a pouch contains more than 250 items, some of which are liquid or powdered, gross, alive, fragile, or fairly large. And somehow, the caster has it all indexed to find exactly what they need in 5 seconds, and none of it is ever lost or destroyed inadvertently.

[JellyPooga]

Spores Druid?

Nope. Though I'll give you a bonus point for Druid, because Magic Initiate.


In line with that, one of the silliest things in D&D IMO is the fanny pack/tactical vest of trash. Somehow, a pouch contains more than 250 items, some of which are liquid or powdered, gross, alive, fragile, or fairly large. And somehow, the caster has it all indexed to find exactly what they need in 5 seconds, and none of it is ever lost or destroyed inadvertently.

Urgh. I hate the bottomless component pouch. :smallannoyed:

No, I will not just assume I have a bunch of live spiders, dried faeces, bits of string and the other assorted weirdness that spellcasters supposedly have on them to do their thing. I also refuse to assume my character is scavenging, finding by happenstance or buying all these things to keep their pouch "topped up". :smallmad: If I do these things, then for consistency I must also assume the same of torches, lantern oil, rations, rope and basically the entire equipment list. Hell, while we're at it, let's assume that after a one time payment at the beginning of time, that no character ever has to bother paying for anything ever; lodgings, travel, bribes, gate fees, etc. etc. Heck, why bother with money in these games at all? After all, it's all just "pointless bookeeping", right? :smallfurious: "Yeah, let's just get to the action, JP!" That's the only fun part of the game, after all. No-one could possibly actually enjoy the glory of a well organised and meticulously kept record of party spending, resource expenditure and adventuring logistics, right?
...right?

...*sniff* :smallfrown:

[RedMage125]

Artificer: you cast spells by manipulating the objects you cast them on, or by creating and adjusting devices.
Bard: spells and other bardic abilities are cast via poetry, shorter spells may be singular couplets, while rituals are entire stories, ballads and the like. This might not be strictly required, but it's how bards teach spellcasting.
Cleric: miracles are invoked by speaking in a clear voice to your target and stating what your god is going to do. This isn't a prayer, it's a declaration. Rituals are basically religious services, but still include a declaration.
Paladin: similar in style to Clerics.
Sorcerer: spells are an invocation of will. But doing this is echausting, so most sorcerers come up with verbal or somatic components to help their concentration, but these vary wildly.
Warlock: your patron gave you a specific set of words and gestures in order to invoke the magic. This might be calling on them, or it might just be them teaching you some limited wizardry.
Wizard: very precise incantations and gestures are needed to invoke the various rules and bargains that form the basis of wizardry. Anything that takes longer than a minute probably needs you to draw a magic circle to various degrees of complexity and accuracy.
Subclasses and feats: use the style of whatever full caster they're closer to, e.g. Eldritch Knights using wizardry.
This is a lot like what I do, which ties into how I make rulings on how magic works.

As far as Magical Theory, one of the things I use is that Bard magic is different from Sorcerer or Warlock magic drastically. Bards tap into the Echoes Of Creation, the lingering effects of the sounds of the world, and magic itself, being formed. Some Bards claim it was "sung" into existence, others perceive these echoes as the tones that the creation created, like the high-pitched ping of a drop of water striking a pond in a cave. At any rate, it is these echoes that Bards learn to tap in to, attune to, and replicate to a degree. The Seeker of the Song Prestige class in 3.5e was a great example of this, as they learn to more precisely replicate the actual forces and energies of that creation, instead of using those echoes to create distinct spell effects. These echoes are still dependent on "the Weave" (as Forgotten Realms terms it, in any other setting this would just be the flow of magic throughout the multiverse) in order to bring the effect into existence.

Other arcane casters also tap into the Weave. The best explanation for HOW they do it is to compare it to kids in school taking a test. Let's use a math test for the analogy. Wizards are the kids that studied the material and know to get the right answer by following the correct steps. Sorcerers just "know" the answers. They go by some instinct, natural knack for the material, and they can get the exact same answers as wizards, but cannot show their work, even for incredibly complex equations. Warlocks...they cheat. They made a shady deal in a back alley, and someone gave them the answers to the test. Some of the answers anyway.

Divine Magic uses the Weave to work, but the source for the knowledge of it, to include the proper incantations/hand movements, comes from an external source. For Clerics, this is easy. They either get it from an actual divine being of intelligence (a deity), or from the collective unconscious of all those who share similar beliefs (for deity-less Clerics, and the Clerics of quasi-agnostic settings like Eberron). Druids sometimes worship Nature Deities, and for them, their magic works like Clerics' does. Most druids, however, revere Nature as a force in and of itself. The same principle of the Collective Unconscious grants them the knowledge of their magic, too. This comes from other Druids, Fey, Primal Spirits, and even knowledge stored in the very bones of the earth, latent and waiting to be tapped. Rangers tap into this in the exact same manner.

Paladins also tap into the Collective Unconscious of Belief, for the actual knowledge of their spells, but the various editions of D&D have changed what a Paladin even is so much that it requires an edition-by-edition breakdown. Pre-3e paladins: Get their powers, to include their spells, from a devotion to righteousness. As we know that Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are observable, quantifiable, dispassionate cosmic forces in D&D, it is through alignment with the forces of Law and Good that the paladin receives her powers. The immunities, auras, and lay-on-hands powers are no different than the spells in that regard. If they ever strayed from alignment with the forces of Law and Good, to include even one act of intentionally committed evil, they lost the communion with those forces that granted them the powers. 3.x Paladins actually worked the same way, but COULD also get their powers and spells from a deity, much like a cleric. It is a common misconception that 3e Paladins got their powers from gods, I blame the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith. 4e Paladins got their powers from the rituals that invested them as Paladins, same way Clerics worked in 4e. 5e Paladins, now that's a clincher, as they SEEM to be more in common with their pre-4e ancestors, but with no alignment restriction. From all appearances, it would seem that their Devotion to their Oath is what grants them their power. And the knowledge of spells likewise comes from a connection to that ephemeral Collective Unconscious shared by those with the same beliefs.

The Collective Unconscious Of Shared Belief is, by the way, why divine spellcasters of the same class all have the same spell lists. It's kind of based in Jungian principles and theories, but it perfectly explains how a Cleric can choose from ANY Cleric spell EVER when choosing his daily spell allotment.

My artificer that I play flavors a lot of my "spells" as arcano-mechanical objects. Some really are just objects that emit magic energy, but others are accomplishing what the spells does in some way. Of note is that, due to some story advances and time spent in research (during which I used a temporary backup character), my artificer has a limited-use item that duplicates Teleport....of sorts. It is a collapsible pedestal that creates a sort of spherical "cage" once it is activated (several people can fit inside). Then it explodes. It is hurled through the air to land...more or less...where we are going. So far, I haven't had a mishap with it, but it is clear that it is a possibility (I have an INT of 20, so I've been making all my checks...I think the DM is waiting for a nat 1).




Cleric: its a prayer

So...my dyslexia made me read this as "Like a Prayer"...like the Madonna song. Which is about...naughty things.

Oral Sex, if you didn't know

[Anonymouswizard]

The reason I go for poetry is to allow both singing and nonsinging bards, whichever a player prefers. Sure most bards can probably sing, but specifying poetry, and particularly rhyme and rhythm as key elements, helps players who don't want their bards to sing in combat have that.

As for Clerics, I've always seen it as the deity itself performing the magic. Sure the deity has more important things to do, but a low level spell really doesn't take any attention at all and a high level spell is being cast by somebody who's basically a prophet anyway. It's not done consciously, the deity hears the request and then just alters the world without thinking. If gods even think, they might be closer to cosmic forces and definitely work several cosmic levels up from PCs. Even their avatars in the outer planes aren't really them.

[Bilbron]

Urgh. I hate the bottomless component pouch. :smallannoyed:
You don't actually manipulate the components themselves, just the pouch they are in, and RAW this is sufficient: "A character can use a component POUCH or a spellcasting focus in place of the components specified for a spell. "

And surely most wizards have an Arcane Focus AND a component pouch? The Focus cleans up a lot of the detritus.

[Aussiehams]

Other than Tashas Hideous laughter where I say the worst D&D joke I can think of I just say the spell, roll the damage and remind the DM of the DC.
I find long descriptions of spell casting a bit self indulgent, and rarely as interesting as the person casting the spell thinks it is. Spell casters turns can already take a long turn while the rest of the table is waiting.
I might just be old and grumpy though.

[Clistenes]

Bard: Truespeaking, basically. Think of the mages from Ursula L.Guin's Terramar. Some use rhymes, some use song, but those are just aids to make sure you are using exactly the right pronunciation and rhythm.

Wizard: They make complex rituals during spell preparation, leaving just the last part of said ritual for the actual casting. They may draw diagrams, recite spells, use magically charged items, call the names of spirits...etc., to enchant a little stone or an staff or an ivory wand or a small piece of parchment or whatever, and when they need to cast the spell they take that item and point it at the target.

The actual magic preparation is taking place in the mind of the Wizard and in the Astral plane/Ethereal plane/Plane of Shadows, the Wizard accessing currents of power and drawing from them... the gestures and words people in the material plane see are just exercises the Wizard learned during training, each step in the ritual bound to a step in the process of drawing extradimentional energies, so the Wizard will be able to repeat them intuitively.

Cleric: Prayers.

Druid: Invocations of Nature's spirits. Sounds like mix of prayer and bardic song.

Sorcerer: The Sorcerer access his own inner power and unleash it. The Sorcerer just points his finger, and BAM! magic comes out. The Sorcerer may shout or call the spell's name too.

EDIT: And no, we don't do the gestures and say the words for real. But that's how people in universe do it.

[Tanarii]

I've always run it that each individual PC casts in whatever style the the player wants. As long as the V, S, and M components are pure the rules: there and distinct and somewhat obvious, for reasons.

They can change from casting to casting of the same spell by the same caster for all I care. Maybe when you cast Fireball with a wand you do the devil horns before grabbing it from your belt and then say the name of the beast, but when you pull out the guano & sulphur out, you intone a shaman chant and shake your grigri at them.



Urgh. I hate the bottomless component pouch. :smallannoyed:

No, I will not just assume I have a bunch of live spiders, dried faeces, bits of string and the other assorted weirdness that spellcasters supposedly have on them to do their thing. I also refuse to assume my character is scavenging, finding by happenstance or buying all these things to keep their pouch "topped up". :smallmad: If I do these things, then for consistency I must also assume the same of torches, lantern oil, rations, rope and basically the entire equipment list. Hell, while we're at it, let's assume that after a one time payment at the beginning of time, that no character ever has to bother paying for anything ever; lodgings, travel, bribes, gate fees, etc. etc. Heck, why bother with money in these games at all? After all, it's all just "pointless bookeeping", right? :smallfurious: "Yeah, let's just get to the action, JP!" That's the only fun part of the game, after all. No-one could possibly actually enjoy the glory of a well organised and meticulously kept record of party spending, resource expenditure and adventuring logistics, right?
...right?

...*sniff* :smallfrown:9/10, would read rant again.