Question about spell names...

[Ckorik]

Now that Paizo has moved away from keeping the rules and the setting in different realms...

Why on earth don't we have more lore in the spells?

I want to cast Zutha's fleshwarp, Jatembe's 7 facets, etc.

*The* most memorable thing about spells of old were the names - I mean... floating disk will always be Tensor's in my world - it's just part of the cool factor.

*edit* on post I realized my title was vague.

[Dr A Gon]

Beware the names of the great old ones lest ye be visited by serpentfolk guardians of the ancient ... err I mean attorneys.

There's a few names like that now in the new books. Perseis's Precautions, etc.

Personally I prefer to have the generic names. Players can invent their own names for spells if they want, and I'm not keen on having lore and setting mixed.

[Blave]

I don't think using setting names for what's essentially a part of the rules is a good idea. With a few exceptions, most commonly used tools and resources can't use setting names. Look at Pathbuilder and how it has to rename a lot of stuff from the Lost Omens Character guide as an example.

Generic names are a huge upside for all manner of commuity run resources. I hope Paizo keeps it that way.

[Elfteiroh]

I still remember the confusion of one of my player when I asked her: "How, so you want to join the Pathfinder?" and she replied, "No, I wanna create my own guild like that archetype let you do?", then I realize that the scrapping of the "pathfinder" name from "Pathfinder Agent" to "Guild Agent" in Pathbuilder made her think that archetype was to create a new "guild". In the end, when I explained it to her, she was in fact much more interested in joining an existing worldwide organization. But yeah, that was a weird moment.

[AnimatedPaper]

Blave wrote:

I don't think using setting names for what's essentially a part of the rules is a good idea. With a few exceptions, most commonly used tools and resources can't use setting names. Look at Pathbuilder and how it has to rename a lot of stuff from the Lost Omens Character guide as an example.

Generic names are a huge upside for all manner of commuity run resources. I hope Paizo keeps it that way.

And if they do use setting names, I hope those are kept to the Lost Omen line, not the rulebook line.

I know the lines blur nowadays, but there is a difference, and I'd like the setting to be as removed as is practical from the rulebooks. A feat like Artokus's fire is perfect for the LO line, as that ties the feat directly to a personality that they can go into for some length. Something like that in the CRB or APB, while interesting, doesn't tell me a lot about what is going on.

I had no idea who Tensor or Rary or Mordekein were for years. I still only have a vague idea (because I don't particularly care to learn).

[Invictus Novo]

Personally, I always liked D&D 3.5 and earlier's use of the wizard's name for who created the spell in its name. I won't say them here for reasons, but it was fun and drove me to read novels about them.

That said, in PF1e they couldn't use most of those names for copyright reasons and they didn't have the lore built up yet. Then as the lore was built up I think they just kept their format.

I will admit, that without the names, it is easier to look up spells in the book as sometimes you would remember you wanted "Floating Disk," but might forget that wizard's name that starts with a "T" and ends in a "ser" or just couldn't find "Forceful Hand" because you couldn't remember that the "Big" wizard had it named for him "by" inventing it.

[thenobledrake]

I... feel like the flavor added by the name of the inventing/popularizing caster isn't worth what it "costs."

Perhaps it's because I spent a few years back when in the appropriate settings so that it wasn't just a few spells here and there which had someone else's character's name on them, but dozens per spell level were attributed to this mage or that (because both Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms had supplements that were brimming with lore-heavy spells), but it really just makes it feel like you're being told "your PC caster is just parroting the actual greats" because so many of your character's spells have a big sticker on them that says "property of Not You"

And it's harder to find things when you go looking because we naturally abbreviate so it's just "floating disc" we're calling it all the time anyway, so going to check some detail we end up in the entirely wrong letter of the alphabet.

Plus, with some of the things, the name of a character was used in place of an actually useful name. For two examples; Tenser's Transformation gives no clue in the name what manner of transformation is going to happen... could be the caster, could be someone or something else, could turn into something useful, could be turning someone to sludge, there's not even a hint. And Murlynd's Spoon, not a spell but still the same deal, it's a magical spoon... but... what's it do? It's like if an everfull flask or decanter of endless water were just called Ben's Bottle.

Finally, there's the issue of not all D&D games taking place in the Greyhawk setting so naming all the spells after the famed casters of that setting doesn't make any sense the moment you're not there - and that holds true with not all Pathfinder games taking place in the Inner Sea setting.

[James Jacobs]

The main reason we avoid putting names into our spell names or magic items is to make it easier for folks to use those spells and items in home campaigns or 3rd-party publications, since those names are not open content. By avoiding this, we avoid having to curate lists of alternate spell and item names, and it helps keep our product identification elements of the OGL less complicated and confusing.

[Dr A Gon]

James Jacobs wrote:

The main reason we avoid putting names into our spell names or magic items is to make it easier for folks to use those spells and items in home campaigns or 3rd-party publications, since those names are not open content. By avoiding this, we avoid having to curate lists of alternate spell and item names, and it helps keep our product identification elements of the OGL less complicated and confusing.

Aww thanks. I am happy that homebrew is supported. Sounds weird to say, but a different rpg company who aren't coastal wizards doesn't approve of it.