|
I'm re-posting my original suggestion from the Alpha threads to give all spellcasting classes (Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer) a *free* ability to "flavor" their spells with a "theme":
I have been thinking about giving all spellcasters a free class feature: 'Arcane/Divine/Nature's Flavour', which is essentially a modified version of the 'Spell thematics' (Metamagic Feat in FR). This Feat essentially lets you add some theme (flavour) to your arcane spells -- your version of the 'Shield' spell might manifest as green flames enveloping your body, or maybe your 'Greater Magic Weapon' makes your weapon glow golden (to give two examples). You don't really benefit from this Feat in 3E -- Spellcraft check DCs to identify your spells (e.g. when an enemy tried to counterspell them) increase by +5, but that's hardly worth spending a Feat. Well, I have to admit that I *have* taken it a couple of times just add some unique flavour to my PC's spells.
Psionics also have different types of 'manifestations' that you can freely choose -- e.g. it might be a sensory or olfactory "flavour". And Ars Magica lets you choose a "sigil" for all your spells which is always unique (and therefore acts as a 'calling card' for your spells).
I have given almost all NPCs (and many PCs, too) of *all* the spellcasting classes the ability to flavour their spells however they wanted, but unlike 'Spell Thematics', my version has no mechanical effect at all. For example, isn't it kind of cool when that evil Druid casts 'Flame Blade' and a blade of poison-green blade appears? Or when the ancient elven cleric casts 'Flame Strike', a cascade of bright, burning stars sear his foes? Or the half-fiend evil conjurer might summon his minion creatures among a burst of ethereal, heatless flames.
As it would be a "flavour-only" kind of ability, why couldn't all the spellcasters get this as a class ability in PF? I know that it's easy to "houserule" in, but I also know many DMs who always play "by the book", and do not allow any sort of "tweaking" or "houseruling". As this would not take up a lot of space (i.e. it does not have any mechanical effects), perhaps it could be included "officially" in the game -- as an optional rule in a sidebar, if not nothing else?
|
i understand the reason of this
while i agree this is needed to have a thematic and flavored game, i would prefer that in the spells chapter or magic chapter there is something refered to this instead of in the classes area...
why?
the idea of the feat coming from FR is good, but only needed when, as you mention and is true, the DM is so hard ehaded and rule encased that he needs to see it writen to acept the possibiity.
at least in my table the players are not only allowed but supported to describe both their spells and combat maneuvers and even their criticals and fumbles by themselves.
for example my quite martiric cleric of Iomedae to cast create water she prays and cuts her hands with her sword and from the wounds the water flows
most of her spells run around ofusing ehr sword (holy simbol too) as focus.
her "produce flame" domain ability actually brings silver flames with golden sparks that burn the vile and evil minions of darkness, cof cof... and sometimes one paladin that crosses between her and her fumbles
|
|
i understand the reason of this
while i agree this is needed to have a thematic and flavored game, i would prefer that in the spells chapter or magic chapter there is something refered to this instead of in the classes area...why?
the idea of the feat coming from FR is good, but only needed when, as you mention and is true, the DM is so hard ehaded and rule encased that he needs to see it writen to acept the possibiity. [...]
That's exactly what I'm talking about -- reminds me of a High Priest of Tempus (God of War) casting Greater Magic Weapon on the weapons of the PCs (he cut their hands and his own, and the intermingles blood dripping on the weapons on the altar was the necessary "sacrifice" for the "ritual" to succeed).
You're correct that this rule should be in the Magic chapter -- maybe it's indeed better if it was an optional rule mentioned in a sidebar?
So long as this is done purely for flavor and has no impact on the DCs for characters using Spellcraft to identify these spells, I am behind this idea 100%. Spell Thematics should be rolled into the existing rules for magic - they are NOT worth spending an entire Feat on.
|
|
Asgetrion, definitively a Sidebar would be good, that way it would be noticeable enough to see... more than optional i would just like it mentioned, many players just go with the game, using their spells like another woulduse a swing of the sword, buti would like the freedom for imaginative players to be able to describe their spell in this or that way without the GM telling them "no, i don't use that Optional Rule"
and yes definitiveli Sueki, no mechanics mixed, just thematic and visual... definitiveley a FEAT is too much, for something a caster should be able to from his/her training
for example the fireball of a evoquer would be pure molten fire, burning everyone around... while that of a conjurer who especialices in summoning devils might cast the same fireball as a dirty-green flame of infernal created fire, the fire burning more the characters will to continue than their physical bodies....
both of them only do hit point damage, one represented in burned skin, the other in being less able to resist further damage