I think that Clark defined what a "Spell in a Can" was at some point, but I am having some trouble finding that thread.
So, just to follow up, what is the formal game design meaning of "Spell in a Can?"
I think that Clark defined what a "Spell in a Can" was at some point, but I am having some trouble finding that thread.
So, just to follow up, what is the formal game design meaning of "Spell in a Can?"
My understanding is that it's an item that casts a spell more or less exactly as printed in the spell description. Like the Boots of Levitation, for instance.
So, just to follow up, what is the formal game design meaning of "Spell in a Can?"
It's not exactly a "formal" game design concept. But it loosely means you're giving an item (no matter how much flavor you pour over it) the ability to duplicate a spell. Maybe it does it 1/day...3/day...once-and-done...doesn't matter. It's a spell...in a can. You open the can. The spell takes effect. And that's it.
I believe the reason to steer away from spell-in-a-can concepts for wondrous items is two-fold...
1) You can easily buy a scroll, potion, or wand that will often do the same thing. So why bother undercutting those items just to present a newly-flavored version in a different delivery mechanism?
2) The best wondrous items let you do something that a straight-up spell usually won't. Or, it blends a couple of spell effects into a combined result that's greater than the sum of its parts.
As an example, look at the last leaves of the autumn dryad. They rely upon arcane eye, tree shape, and whispering wind. If you read the descriptions of all those spells and then the description of the last leaves they actually function very differently than if you tried to cast all three of those spells to achieve the same effect.
I believe that's the primary difference between a spell-in-a-can and a wondrous item.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
So, just to follow up, what is the formal game design meaning of "Spell in a Can?"It's not exactly a "formal" game design concept. But it loosely means you're giving an item (no matter how much flavor you pour over it) the ability to duplicate a spell. Maybe it does it 1/day...3/day...once-and-done...doesn't matter. It's a spell...in a can. You open the can. The spell takes effect. And that's it.
I believe the reason to steer away from spell-in-a-can concepts for wondrous items is two-fold...
1) You can easily buy a scroll, potion, or wand that will often do the same thing. So why bother undercutting those items just to present a newly-flavored version in a different delivery mechanism?
2) The best wondrous items let you do something that a straight-up spell usually won't. Or, it blends a couple of spell effects into a combined result that's greater than the sum of its parts.
As an example, look at the last leaves of the autumn dryad. They rely upon arcane eye, tree shape, and whispering wind. If you read the descriptions of all those spells and then the description of the last leaves they actually function very differently than if you tried to cast all three of those spells to achieve the same effect.
I believe that's the primary difference between a spell-in-a-can and a wondrous item.
Actually, that does clarify things. I can see then why the "Lordly Pavilion" is a "Spell in a Can" (only somewhat modifying secure shelter), and that it only got past the judges because of panache. :(
Actually, that does clarify things. I can see then why the "Lordly Pavilion" is a "Spell in a Can" (only somewhat modifying secure shelter), and that it only got past the judges because of panache. :(
Not just panache... a truckload of panache!
Ain't nothin' wrong with panache! That's the hardest part to learn (or to fake). Either way, it seems like a number of us got dinged for mechanics but bluffed our way through on sheer attitude ("chutz-panache," maybe).
So don't frown -- you're certainly not alone!
-S
EDIT: Not just ninja'd; efficiently ninja'd!
True, but reading people's comments, I get the feeling that "panache" will not be quite enough to make the next cut. :)
B.T.W., I updated the Pavilion's description.
Not by itself, but we don't have mechanics to deal with in this round (other than the voting mechanics, of course). So a sense of style will go a long way towards making folks like your villain concept when they don't know exactly what your villain can do...but they know what he/she/it wants to do.
Ain't nothin' wrong with panache! That's the hardest part....Either way, it seems like a number of us got dinged for mechanics but bluffed our way through on sheer attitude ("chutz-panache," maybe).
I feel like Round One is primarily about concept, flavor, and standing out as something truly wondrous first. Then, mechanics are the next big thing. I made it through mostly on flavor and concept as well. But if the mechanics were absolutely and horridly botched, I know I wouldn't be Top 32.
Now that said, there are still mechanical problems in many of the items that got through (mine included). So, I agree. Don't beat yourself up because the lordly pavilion got sucked into gravitational pull of the spell-in-a-can stereotype. Sometimes, an item needs to produce a spell exactly as written.
My two-cents,
--Neil
...we don't have mechanics to deal with in this round....So a sense of style will go a long way towards making folks like your villain concept when they don't know exactly what your villain can do...but they know what he/she/it wants to do.
Exactly. This round...more than any other...will be about flavor. The next round, with the stat blocks, is where utter mechanical execution must be on display for people to advance.
--Neil