This discussion got started on another thread, but I think it deserves its own.
The question is, what do characters call the spells in game? The spells in the core rulebook have names for ease of play issues, but those names donn't necessarily have to be the ones used by characters in the game. Some spells have their own names, like the ones named after intellectual property and bastardized to 'mage's X,' but how do characters refer to basics spells, like fireball, harm, etc.? Characters and tell the difference between, say, fireball and delayed blast fireball cast without a delay by how hard it is to resist them and how much damage they do, in addition to what a character trained in Spellcraft can do. But do characters really refer to spells as level 3, say, or level 9? I don't think spells have universal names, simply because there are so many different ways of learning or using magic. A character with ranks in Spellcraft knows what a particular effect will do, and is what would be referred to as, say, a major image by the core rulebook, but they don't think of it as a level 3 illusion (figment) spell.
This presents problems with the christmas tree/walmart approach to magic items and treasure, as well as learning to be a wizard in a large academy (or so I am told). I disagree. If a wizard wants to buy a scroll of persistent image, and doesn't happen to have studied at the same academy as the shopkeeper, and the shopkeeper shows him a scroll of major image, the wizard knows that the scroll is not of a powerful enough spell even if they don't refer to the spells as major and/or persistent image respectively.
Another point: what if the caster doesn't speak common? They won't call it major image.
Another point: what if the caster doesn't speak common? They won't call it major image.
Something like Phantasmajoris?
Another point: what if the caster doesn't speak common? They won't call it major image.Something like Phantasmajoris?
Touche ;p
It's my thinking that the perusal of a scroll can allow a mage to determine the spell on a scroll. Anything beyond that is pretty awesome world flavor.
Also, the next mage I create is going to refer to the Fireball spell as "Kaboom-shaka-laka".
I would have to say that spells do indeed have names. If only because it would seriously suck to have to record your spells as Fire Spell A, Fire Spell B, Slightly Stronger Fire Spell A, etc.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct; in world, people in Golarion call spells by the same names we do. The analogy above with weapons having names is spot on.
Changing the spell names would be the same as changing the names of weapons or monsters or types of plants or architectural styles or weather manifestations or anything else. Would different languages have different names for them? Absolutely. Would having to track multiple names for the same thing make game play more frustrating? Absolutely.
It's my thinking that the perusal of a scroll can allow a mage to determine the spell on a scroll. Anything beyond that is pretty awesome world flavor.
Also, the next mage I create is going to refer to the Fireball spell as "Kaboom-shaka-laka".
Batum shaka laka? Sorry... Blazers fan here.
Another point: what if the caster doesn't speak common? They won't call it major image.
I like the scientific/Harry Potter approach to this problem: latin names.
Depending on how you see the Common tongue (whether you see it as the modern "common"--English--or the medieval "common"--Latin), you could rule that they already are named in their universally accepted form.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another point: what if the caster doesn't speak common? They won't call it major image.
This statement assumes that they're even speaking English. :)
Take a look at Tolkien's etymology of the language the humans are speaking in Middle-Earth (Westron), and how his M-E names and words get translated into English. For example, Frodo Baggins' name in Westron is actually "Maura Labingi," and Samwise's name in Westron is actually "Banazîr Galbasi."
Your PCs and NPCs aren't speaking English. They're not describing distances in terms of inches, feet, and miles, they're not describing time in terms of seconds, hours, and days, and they're not describing food in terms of bread, beef, and carrots. Don't let yourself get hung up on this sort of thing. I once ran a game where I actually came up with in-game names for feet, miles, and so on, and the players still used English feet and yards (whether it was "I stop about ten feet from him," or "I tell him how far it is, using the common system of measurements") because it's easier to work with as a player.
Languages exist in the game for two reasons: #1 to communicate with others (such as speaking with your allies and NPCs in a language you share), and #2 to not communicate with others (such as two PCs speaking Elven in front of the bandits because the bandits probably don't speak Elven). If adding specific stuff (like "in Taldor, they call the fireball spell flarmsplar") starts to interfere with #1, it's becoming an obstacle to necessary communication between PCs.
Which reminds me of something from one of the later Oz books. Two characters are introduced to each other by a third character. They are from opposite ends of Oz. One says, "It's unfortunate that I can't understand you, because we live on opposite sides of the land and therefore must be speaking different languages," and the second says, "I agree, it is regretful, for you seem to be a very interesting person and I wish I could understand you." Except they were speaking the same language. :p
Are you having fun running the game? Are your PCs having fun playing the game? Then don't worry about things like whether the food they're eating is corn (wheat), corn (barley), corn (oats), or corn (maize), or whether the spell they're casting is fireball, fireball, or fireball. :)
Spells have names just like weapons do - the book lists one for the purposes of allowing the players to realize there are different options, and so that they have a word to use in character to talk about the item (barring setting material that provides alternate names to use).
For example: Great sword. Claymore. Zweihander. All are (or at least could be) the same sword.
Magic Missile. Arcane Bolt. Force Dart. All are (or at least could be) the same spell.
To summarize: the spell names in the book are absolutely meant to be useable in-character and understood by NPCs, but are not necessarily the only names that spells might have and a setting could certainly change them.
The fighter probably doesn't know the difference between a regular fireball and a delayed blast one. He also probably classifies heals into helpful categories like "small" and "big" But he could tell you the difference between a glave, a glave-guisarme, a halberd, and a ransur. All of which are "That long stabby thing" to the wizard.
Those who are educated would know the common parlance. Average commoner? Not so much.
Since I don't like to post "+1" and leave it at that, here's my take, which is more or less the same than many others:
The characters in the fantasy world don't speak English, German, French or Latin. They speak Chelaxian/Taldan/Common, Elven, Skald, Varisian, Draconic. However, since none of the players speak any of this, the game won't run in the original language with subtitles, but will be synchronised. In all likelihood, all the different languages will be changed into either whatever is the table language (for stuff the characters understand) or "he speaks in a language you don't know". It's just so much easier like that.
The characters in the fantasy world might also have all sorts of different names for things. While some might call a longsword a longsword (or whatever the Common/Elven/etc word for longsword is), others might actually talk about a broadsword, or have a different descriptive name for it like orcslasher.
In that case, I actually like it when players or GMs actually tell us those changed names, provided they tell us what the thing actually is ("They have horsechoppers - basically a halberd"). The reason for that is that you don't tend to have too many weapons. So the character has one weapon he has a special name for, or the GM's monsters have two or three special cases (horsechoppers, dogslicers and babystickers), and that's it. It's a bit of flavour that isn't too much to track.
But don't do it with spells! Sure, not everyone sticks to the naming conventions in the world - while wizards and others who get formal training (and/or have ranks in Spellcraft) probably refer to magic missile as magic missile and so on, a sorcerer who stumbled on his magic talent and never got any formal, theoretical training might call it spellbolt, bloodstar, death mote or just "thingy I fling at enemies". However, resist the temptation to do that at the table with your spells. The reason for this is simple: Unlike weapons, characters tend to have many different spells. Keeping track not only of the spells themselves but also to lots and lots of alternate names and what actual spell they belong to will be a huge pain.
If you must, make up the words, mention them once (together with the real name), and then only use the real names.
My personal take is that different individuals, languages, and cultures would have different names for the spells, but at least for the common spells in the core books, there would be a common working name, much like in our world, we have different names for the same animals, but those who study them have a common scientific name they use. If you find a spellbook in loot, most of the time it will reference that common name somehow, but for unique spells or spells that a DM wanted to be rare, or if the DM wanted to highlight the paranoia of the wizard they just killed, the DC of translating the spell could be just a bit higher than usual because the wizard deliberately avoided using the common names. This way, you can use the unusual name element as something that drives the story without driving yourself or your players batty.