I am not sure if this is posted somewhere in here already, so here I go. Can a spellcaster alter the appearance of the spells he or she casts? Not the damage or the mechanic of how it works but juat the appearance. For example: A wizard's Magic Missle description is that of darts. Can those darts appear as daggers or throwing stars or something of that nature? The damage and number of attacks is all the same but I very much play themed characters and am a bit curious. Is there anything RAW about this?
There’s nothing written about that in the rules, but I do it with my spellcasters for flavor. It’s fun and it doesn’t change the effect but it’s great for role playing!
I want to say in at least one previous edition there was a mention that the caster could choose what the appearance of their spell was.
In the end though, there is nothing about the appearance of a spell that would change the game. I have a player who uses Sacred Flame and has chosen to make it look like a silvery white barn owl dive bombing the target. I have another player who uses Magic Missile and makes it look like flowers striking the opponent. My sorcerer's Scorching Ray has the bolts look like miniature flaming spiders. I've described Dissonant Whispers as "Mouths opening in whispered screams as the black energy flies from the instrument and encircles the creature's head". It's a very personal thing to the mental imagery we choose to have when we play and has no mechanical effect on the game...have fun with it is my answer.
I always ask my caster what their spell looks like when they cast it.
Rainbow beams of light, little flaming skulls, purple glowing lights, skeletal hands, whatever. It makes the player more invested in their character and it doesn't hurt anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
By RAW, no, you cannot, unless a specific feature allows you to (e.g., Spiritual Weapon can look like a different weapon depending on which god the caster worships; Arcane Tricksters can make their Mage Hand invisible). But as long as you don't try to hide one spell as another, there shouldn't be a problem with allowing this. It can become a problem if a caster wants their Fireball to look like Mass Heal, obviously, or when your Bard wants their Charm Person to simply sound like a flattering song. As long as spells are just as identifiable as if you couldn't change how they looks, there shouldn't be a problem.
Scorching Ray as miniature fire spiders is fine, and adds a personal touch you might want in your games (I don't, I enjoy the fact that spells exists outside their casters, and always behave the same way... but that's my personal taste). But when the other guy thinks you're summoning elementals and makes decisions based on that (erroneous) information, you have a problem.
By RAW, no, you cannot, unless a specific feature allows you to (e.g., Spiritual Weapon can look like a different weapon depending on which god the caster worships; Arcane Tricksters can make their Mage Hand invisible). But as long as you don't try to hide one spell as another, there shouldn't be a problem with allowing this. It can become a problem if a caster wants their Fireball to look like Mass Heal, obviously, or when your Bard wants their Charm Person to simply sound like a flattering song. As long as spells are just as identifiable as if you couldn't change how they looks, there shouldn't be a problem.
Scorching Ray as miniature fire spiders is fine, and adds a personal touch you might want in your games (I don't, I enjoy the fact that spells exists outside their casters, and always behave the same way... but that's my personal taste). But when the other guy thinks you're summoning elementals and makes decisions based on that (erroneous) information, you have a problem.
Giving false information to your ennemies is a part of tactics...
Also the only time "another guy" would think that , it is when its a player, wich then makes the point moot entirely, since a player always says what he uses... unless you make a PVP match, in wich case, there still no problem, false information is part of warfare, you either guess right, or you're wrong, but from a mecanical point of view none of this changes anything.
The guy cast a Scorching ray that looks like tiny spiders( now from a conceptual point of view i don't see the relation of a Ray and spiders, buts that another something), even if the target is confused, it would still be a ranged attack spell, and it would still hit the same way by throwing a D20.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
The guy cast a Scorching ray that looks like tiny spiders( now from a conceptual point of view i don't see the relation of a Ray and spiders, buts that another something), even if the target is confused, it would still be a ranged attack spell, and it would still hit the same way by throwing a D20.
This has been taken the wrong way: it is a ray of fire but it looks like the head of the ray is a spider. The character I play is a Drow so it's in homage to Lolth.
Giving false information to your ennemies is a part of tactics...
Yes, which is why I said that as long as you don't change how it actually works, there should be no problem in changing how it looks. As per the rules, if you see a Scorching Ray being cast, and you've seen it being cast before, you can identify it (because it always looks the same). If when some guy casts it, it looks different, and that makes it unrecognizable, you're changing how the rules work, which can introduce problems if not done carefully.
Also the only time "another guy" would think that , it is when its a player, wich then makes the point moot entirely, since a player always says what he uses... unless you make a PVP match, in wich case, there still no problem, false information is part of warfare, you either guess right, or you're wrong, but from a mecanical point of view none of this changes anything.
Or if you, as the DM, play your NPCs and monsters correctly, without giving them knowledge they shouldn't have. Or if an NPC or monster casts a spell which the players should be able to recognize, but don't, because you've altered how it looks. False information is part of warfare, but the rules are the rules, and the rules say all spells look the same when cast. Changing the fluff doesn't mess with the rules, but changing how they work does, and while that doesn't necessarily create a problem, it can.
The guy cast a Scorching ray that looks like tiny spiders( now from a conceptual point of view i don't see the relation of a Ray and spiders, buts that another something), even if the target is confused, it would still be a ranged attack spell, and it would still hit the same way by throwing a D20.
The target might have a limited-resource ability to defend against summoned creatures, or against elementals, and might wrongfully decide to use it to defend against a Scorching Ray that looks like summoned elemental spiders, which would not happen if it looked like it's supposed to look. The ability to change how a spell looks is not built-in, so it's not a given that it's a valid player option to give false information by changing how their character's spells look.
I'm not talking about a caster using Seeming to make their party look like Fiends, and maybe trigger their enemies to waste a Protection from Evil and Good to defend against them, uselessly (since they're really humanoids, not Fiends), something that's 100% covered by the rules. I'm talking about a caster triggering an enemy to waste a Protection from Energy by making their Fire Bolt look like tiny hammers instead of actual bolts of fire, something that's outside the rules, and gives characters, especially casters, abilities they aren't supposed to have. If you say your Fire Bolt looks like tiny hammers, but everybody knows they actually work like bolts of fire, you've changed nothing in the rules, and there shouldn't be a concern. If they look like tiny hammers, but deal bludgeoning damage, and are obviously a spell being cast (and not simply look like the caster is throwing hammers physically), then you've made a small change in the rules (nobody would think to use Protection from Energy, but it wouldn't work anyway), which can introduce problems (but probably won't). If they look like tiny hammers, work like bolts of fire, but nobody can tell they do, because they look and feel like tiny hammers, you've made a significant change in the rules (nobody would think to use Protection from Energy, which would work, but they'd think a Barbarian's resistance from Rage should work, but it actually doesn't), which is likely to introduce problems.
The guy cast a Scorching ray that looks like tiny spiders( now from a conceptual point of view i don't see the relation of a Ray and spiders, buts that another something), even if the target is confused, it would still be a ranged attack spell, and it would still hit the same way by throwing a D20.
This has been taken the wrong way: it is a ray of fire but it looks like the head of the ray is a spider. The character I play is a Drow so it's in homage to Lolth.
Lol, no worries, I didn't quite "take it the wrong way". I used your example, ran with it, and exaggerated it. :D
I didn't mean to point out any potential problems with your example, but rather to use it as a spring board to more potentially problematic examples.
Nobody was suggestion changing how a spell works, just what it looks like.
What color is a bright streak or a glowing dart? What kind of dart? RAW doesn't specify, so it is up to the GM and player to define it. RAW doesn't prevent them from inputting details.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
RAW doesn't prevent changing the appearance of spells. In fact, curse of Strahd has a section describing how some spells may have a different appearance in that setting.
And the new artificer class tells you to describe your magic differently as it relates to the tools you used.
To paraphrase my original post: As long as it is only for flavor and not to try to metagame by tricking an enemy or making the spell harder to notice, I think spell personalization should be encouraged.
Nobody was suggestion changing how a spell works, just what it looks like.
Chaosrex did. Said it was ok to do so, too. How "giving false information [via casting a spell that looked liked another spell, by changing how it looked]" was "part of tactics".
What color is a bright streak or a glowing dart? What kind of dart? RAW doesn't specify, so it is up to the GM and player to define it. RAW doesn't prevent them from inputting details.
RAW doesn't prevent changing the appearance of spells. In fact, curse of Strahd has a section describing how some spells may have a different appearance in that setting.
And the new artificer class tells you to describe your magic differently as it relates to the tools you used.
To paraphrase my original post: As long as it is only for flavor and not to try to metagame by tricking an enemy or making the spell harder to notice, I think spell personalization should be encouraged.
Spells do what they say they do, and that includes their description. I guess a case could be made that anything that fulfills that description is valid, but there is no general mechanism that allows the caster to change spell effect details on the fly, so Fireball's "bright streak" will always look the same (probably fire-colored), no matter who casts it. Magic Missile's "glowing darts" will always be the same color, and same shape (if it matters, the DM can decide), no matter who casts it. That's how those spells work. Some features allow you to change that, like the campaign-wide CoS feature (although that's more a tool for the DM to change how spells look in that campaign, not a feature to allow casters to customize their spells), and the playtesting Artificer's feature. Absent any such feature, a Cone of Cold will always look like a generic Cone of Cold.
Now, having said that, again... as long as the spell behaves the same way, including how recognizable it is, there shouldn't be a problem with narratively describing it differently, even allowing the player to customize the spells' looks. If the spell also behaves differently, though, and that includes any change to its recognizability (sure, it still hits like a Ray of Sickness, but now looks like a Ray of Frost, and everybody who sees it being cast will think it's the latter), then there could be a problem, since you're changing the rules.
By RAW, no, you cannot, unless a specific feature allows you to (e.g., Spiritual Weapon can look like a different weapon depending on which god the caster worships; Arcane Tricksters can make their Mage Hand invisible). But as long as you don't try to hide one spell as another, there shouldn't be a problem with allowing this. It can become a problem if a caster wants their Fireball to look like Mass Heal, obviously, or when your Bard wants their Charm Person to simply sound like a flattering song. As long as spells are just as identifiable as if you couldn't change how they looks, there shouldn't be a problem.
Scorching Ray as miniature fire spiders is fine, and adds a personal touch you might want in your games (I don't, I enjoy the fact that spells exists outside their casters, and always behave the same way... but that's my personal taste). But when the other guy thinks you're summoning elementals and makes decisions based on that (erroneous) information, you have a problem.
Where are you getting the rule that says that spells always look the same? The rules not specifying that you can change the appearance is not the same thing as the rules specifying that you cannot change the appearance. As far as I can tell, RAW is silent on this issue.
Take Acid Splash for example. "You hurl a bubble of acid." What color is the acid? Is the acid going to be the exact same color, for every spell caster, in every part of every 5e world? Where do the rules make that claim? Now take Fireball. What color is the fire? Red fire, orange fire, blue fire, green fire, white fire? All perfectly reasonable fire colors. Finger of Death sends "negative energy coursing through a creature". What does that look like? Why wouldn't it look different for different casters? The rules do not say at all that it looks the same for every caster.
Now look at OP's original question, Magic Missile. It shoots out 'darts'. What shape are those darts? Do they look like the ones I throw around at the bar? Or lawn darts? Or kung fu movie blowgun darts? Whichever one, why would they look like that for every caster?
I admit that I don't have all the books memorized, but I haven't seen any rule that says that altering the non-stat parts of the spell in these ways is against RAW. RAW doesn't specifically say you can do it. But RAW doesn't specifically say my character can go to the bathroom--we shouldn't say that "I cannot, according to RAW".
I am not sure if this is posted somewhere in here already, so here I go. Can a spellcaster alter the appearance of the spells he or she casts? Not the damage or the mechanic of how it works but juat the appearance. For example: A wizard's Magic Missle description is that of darts. Can those darts appear as daggers or throwing stars or something of that nature? The damage and number of attacks is all the same but I very much play themed characters and am a bit curious. Is there anything RAW about this?
There’s nothing written about that in the rules, but I do it with my spellcasters for flavor. It’s fun and it doesn’t change the effect but it’s great for role playing!
Professional computer geek
As long as it is for flavor and not to meta a stealthier spell, I would encourage it as a DM.
Many players add flair to their weapons, it is only fair that spellcasters could do the same thing.
Plus that is really only for RP it shouldn't affect the game so I don't see why a GM wouldn't allow it.
I want to say in at least one previous edition there was a mention that the caster could choose what the appearance of their spell was.
In the end though, there is nothing about the appearance of a spell that would change the game. I have a player who uses Sacred Flame and has chosen to make it look like a silvery white barn owl dive bombing the target. I have another player who uses Magic Missile and makes it look like flowers striking the opponent. My sorcerer's Scorching Ray has the bolts look like miniature flaming spiders. I've described Dissonant Whispers as "Mouths opening in whispered screams as the black energy flies from the instrument and encircles the creature's head". It's a very personal thing to the mental imagery we choose to have when we play and has no mechanical effect on the game...have fun with it is my answer.
I have always allowed it. I think it makes magic more magical.
I would be inclined to say no, the caster cannot change the appearance. I would, however, allow the player to decide the appearance.
I always ask my caster what their spell looks like when they cast it.
Rainbow beams of light, little flaming skulls, purple glowing lights, skeletal hands, whatever. It makes the player more invested in their character and it doesn't hurt anything.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
By RAW, no, you cannot, unless a specific feature allows you to (e.g., Spiritual Weapon can look like a different weapon depending on which god the caster worships; Arcane Tricksters can make their Mage Hand invisible). But as long as you don't try to hide one spell as another, there shouldn't be a problem with allowing this. It can become a problem if a caster wants their Fireball to look like Mass Heal, obviously, or when your Bard wants their Charm Person to simply sound like a flattering song. As long as spells are just as identifiable as if you couldn't change how they looks, there shouldn't be a problem.
Scorching Ray as miniature fire spiders is fine, and adds a personal touch you might want in your games (I don't, I enjoy the fact that spells exists outside their casters, and always behave the same way... but that's my personal taste). But when the other guy thinks you're summoning elementals and makes decisions based on that (erroneous) information, you have a problem.
Giving false information to your ennemies is a part of tactics...
Also the only time "another guy" would think that , it is when its a player, wich then makes the point moot entirely, since a player always says what he uses... unless you make a PVP match, in wich case, there still no problem, false information is part of warfare, you either guess right, or you're wrong, but from a mecanical point of view none of this changes anything.
The guy cast a Scorching ray that looks like tiny spiders( now from a conceptual point of view i don't see the relation of a Ray and spiders, buts that another something), even if the target is confused, it would still be a ranged attack spell, and it would still hit the same way by throwing a D20.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
This has been taken the wrong way: it is a ray of fire but it looks like the head of the ray is a spider. The character I play is a Drow so it's in homage to Lolth.
Makes much more sense!
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Yes, which is why I said that as long as you don't change how it actually works, there should be no problem in changing how it looks. As per the rules, if you see a Scorching Ray being cast, and you've seen it being cast before, you can identify it (because it always looks the same). If when some guy casts it, it looks different, and that makes it unrecognizable, you're changing how the rules work, which can introduce problems if not done carefully.
Or if you, as the DM, play your NPCs and monsters correctly, without giving them knowledge they shouldn't have. Or if an NPC or monster casts a spell which the players should be able to recognize, but don't, because you've altered how it looks. False information is part of warfare, but the rules are the rules, and the rules say all spells look the same when cast. Changing the fluff doesn't mess with the rules, but changing how they work does, and while that doesn't necessarily create a problem, it can.
The target might have a limited-resource ability to defend against summoned creatures, or against elementals, and might wrongfully decide to use it to defend against a Scorching Ray that looks like summoned elemental spiders, which would not happen if it looked like it's supposed to look. The ability to change how a spell looks is not built-in, so it's not a given that it's a valid player option to give false information by changing how their character's spells look.
I'm not talking about a caster using Seeming to make their party look like Fiends, and maybe trigger their enemies to waste a Protection from Evil and Good to defend against them, uselessly (since they're really humanoids, not Fiends), something that's 100% covered by the rules. I'm talking about a caster triggering an enemy to waste a Protection from Energy by making their Fire Bolt look like tiny hammers instead of actual bolts of fire, something that's outside the rules, and gives characters, especially casters, abilities they aren't supposed to have. If you say your Fire Bolt looks like tiny hammers, but everybody knows they actually work like bolts of fire, you've changed nothing in the rules, and there shouldn't be a concern. If they look like tiny hammers, but deal bludgeoning damage, and are obviously a spell being cast (and not simply look like the caster is throwing hammers physically), then you've made a small change in the rules (nobody would think to use Protection from Energy, but it wouldn't work anyway), which can introduce problems (but probably won't). If they look like tiny hammers, work like bolts of fire, but nobody can tell they do, because they look and feel like tiny hammers, you've made a significant change in the rules (nobody would think to use Protection from Energy, which would work, but they'd think a Barbarian's resistance from Rage should work, but it actually doesn't), which is likely to introduce problems.
Lol, no worries, I didn't quite "take it the wrong way". I used your example, ran with it, and exaggerated it. :D
I didn't mean to point out any potential problems with your example, but rather to use it as a spring board to more potentially problematic examples.
Nobody was suggestion changing how a spell works, just what it looks like.
What color is a bright streak or a glowing dart? What kind of dart? RAW doesn't specify, so it is up to the GM and player to define it. RAW doesn't prevent them from inputting details.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
RAW doesn't prevent changing the appearance of spells. In fact, curse of Strahd has a section describing how some spells may have a different appearance in that setting.
And the new artificer class tells you to describe your magic differently as it relates to the tools you used.
To paraphrase my original post: As long as it is only for flavor and not to try to metagame by tricking an enemy or making the spell harder to notice, I think spell personalization should be encouraged.
Chaosrex did. Said it was ok to do so, too. How "giving false information [via casting a spell that looked liked another spell, by changing how it looked]" was "part of tactics".
Spells do what they say they do, and that includes their description. I guess a case could be made that anything that fulfills that description is valid, but there is no general mechanism that allows the caster to change spell effect details on the fly, so Fireball's "bright streak" will always look the same (probably fire-colored), no matter who casts it. Magic Missile's "glowing darts" will always be the same color, and same shape (if it matters, the DM can decide), no matter who casts it. That's how those spells work. Some features allow you to change that, like the campaign-wide CoS feature (although that's more a tool for the DM to change how spells look in that campaign, not a feature to allow casters to customize their spells), and the playtesting Artificer's feature. Absent any such feature, a Cone of Cold will always look like a generic Cone of Cold.
Now, having said that, again... as long as the spell behaves the same way, including how recognizable it is, there shouldn't be a problem with narratively describing it differently, even allowing the player to customize the spells' looks. If the spell also behaves differently, though, and that includes any change to its recognizability (sure, it still hits like a Ray of Sickness, but now looks like a Ray of Frost, and everybody who sees it being cast will think it's the latter), then there could be a problem, since you're changing the rules.
This is D&D there can't be any trickery.
"I cast Magic mIssile, it looks like ________"
There is no mystery or hidden agenda there. You can't tell the GM, "I cast my super secret spell."
On the flip side, if the GM says, "You take XX damage from a spell." and not tell you it was Magic Missile, he's being a jerk.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Asian or European darts?
Earthforce or United Martian Colonies darts?
Greyhawk or 7th Plane of Hell darts?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Where are you getting the rule that says that spells always look the same? The rules not specifying that you can change the appearance is not the same thing as the rules specifying that you cannot change the appearance. As far as I can tell, RAW is silent on this issue.
Take Acid Splash for example. "You hurl a bubble of acid." What color is the acid? Is the acid going to be the exact same color, for every spell caster, in every part of every 5e world? Where do the rules make that claim? Now take Fireball. What color is the fire? Red fire, orange fire, blue fire, green fire, white fire? All perfectly reasonable fire colors. Finger of Death sends "negative energy coursing through a creature". What does that look like? Why wouldn't it look different for different casters? The rules do not say at all that it looks the same for every caster.
Now look at OP's original question, Magic Missile. It shoots out 'darts'. What shape are those darts? Do they look like the ones I throw around at the bar? Or lawn darts? Or kung fu movie blowgun darts? Whichever one, why would they look like that for every caster?
I admit that I don't have all the books memorized, but I haven't seen any rule that says that altering the non-stat parts of the spell in these ways is against RAW. RAW doesn't specifically say you can do it. But RAW doesn't specifically say my character can go to the bathroom--we shouldn't say that "I cannot, according to RAW".
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)