By RAW, no, you cannot, unless a specific feature allows you to...
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?...
The answer to all your (rhetorical) questions is "the DM decides". The DM decides the color of the acid, and whether that color is constant for each caster, changeable or whatever. The DM decides all things unless the rules (and/or the DM) place that choice into a player's hands. That is a fundamental of how this game works. For many spells, like most illusions, the rules give the player/character the choice of appearance, but for others there is no choice given. The player is free to ask "can I make the acid red like blood?", and most DM's would reply "sure, makes no mechanical difference, have fun". And that might extend to a visual theme for a character's whole spell list (purple acid, purple lightning, purple fire). Or if the player is wanting to change the appearance of their spell as part of some sort of ruse then the DM might refuse, or ask for an Arcana or Deception check or whatever they dream up.
The rule books do not list all the things you can't do; they list the things you can do by default and everything else is DM discretion, including going to the bathroom.
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.
Asian or European darts?
Earthforce or United Martian Colonies darts?
Greyhawk or 7th Plane of Hell darts?
Not specified, up to the DM. Point isn't that they look exactly the same across games, but that they look exactly the same within a game. That's how magic works in D&D. It's not a caster artisanally weaving raw magic into a particular effect they wish in the moment, but rather a pre-determined set of specific effects that are shared between everybody who can cast them. All Magic Missile spells are the same spell being cast by different people. Artificer spells are somewhat of an exception, and the rules point that out.
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'd think that going to the bathroom is an implied basic function of most humanoids, and wouldn't need to be specified in the rules. Changing a spell's appearance, on the other hand, isn't basic, nor implied, and absent a feature that allows you to do so, why would you assume you can?
I'd think that going to the bathroom is an implied basic function of most humanoids, and wouldn't need to be specified in the rules. Changing a spell's appearance, on the other hand, isn't basic, nor implied, and absent a feature that allows you to do so, why would you assume you can?
Because the rules of the game are not a complete ruling of everything we can do in the game. Exactly because, in other words, the rules don't describe going to the bathroom, or jumping over turtles, or making your own shoes. The rules of a sandbox game, like any RPG, are going to explain the limitations of action, not all the possible actions.
The rules lay out the basic structure of the game--this is combat, it's in rounds, etc etc.
Primarily, though, when we learn about limitations in the game, we're not told about them by being told "You cannot do such and such." Most of the time, we learn about what we can't do by learning that certain beings can do certain things in the game, things that are specifically mentioned. If the rules say "This race has darkvision", and that's not listed for another race, we know that this is a limitation of that other race. If the rules list one class as having spells, and the rules do not list spells for another class, we know that latter class has the limitation of not having spells. If the rules explain 'Attack' as a combat action, and then list 'Help' as an action, we know that I cannot make an attack as part of Help.
The rules in these cases therefore don't have to say "Fighters do not have spells", and the rules don't have to list for each race all the racial traits they don't have. And the rules remain silent on all the things that our characters could do that do not affect stats or dice rolls or the outcome of the game. The rules are silent on whether my character can part his hair on the left or right, or what armor polish is made of.
So take magic. We learn that spells have V, S, and M components, and we do learn at this point that we cannot cast the spell if we don't have the M, or can't do the V or S. We learn that we cannot cast spells of levels higher than we can cast, or spells we don't know. In other words, the rules have something to say about all the things that would affect gameplay.
And so the rules describe the basic appearances of the spells--the things that impact gameplay. Acid Splash doesn't create the acid at the target, it creates it at the caster, and you hurl it.
But the rules don't say "It's H2SO4" or "It's green" or "it smells like rotten eggs". The rules stay silent on those issues. Now here's the thing: surely the acid looks like something. It's colored, or it's clear. So the players and the DM check through all the rules--do the rules say what it looks like? Nope. Okay, so that's up to us to decide. Then we ask whether it looks the same every time. We check through all the rules, do the rules say that spells always look the same regarding these minor details that aren't listed in the spell?
No. The rules are silent on whether these things change or always stay the same.
Okay, so that's up to us.
In other words, there is nothing in RAW explicitly supporting your ruling that they can't change. Literally nothing. And there's nothing in the rules explicitly supporting my ruling either. Literally nothing.
So why would you assume that one of these rulings is against RAW? It's not against at all. No rule of the game is being broken, bent, or ignored to have spells change in these ways. Not one. :)
Let me ask you this--the rules contain pictures of swords, daggers, etc. And the rules do not say that your character's sword or dagger can look different from those pictures.
I'm kinda confused with that you wanted to achieve with showing this.
Cause while all their Patronus as the same color, they are ALL DIFFERENT, and behave different, even if the effects are the same, so it works in the argument FOR changing how spells looks from one caster to another...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
I'm kinda confused with that you wanted to achieve with showing this.
Cause while all their Patronus as the same color, they are ALL DIFFERENT, and behave different, even if the effects are the same, so it works in the argument FOR changing how spells looks from one caster to another...
This is more or less what I meant earlier. The character can't change the appearance of their spells, but the player can decide it to some extent.
This is more or less what I meant earlier. The character can't change the appearance of their spells, but the player can decide it to some extent.
I think I get what you're saying. That once Fred learns magic missile, it will appear the same for Fred whenever he casts it; and once Susan learns magic missile, it will appear the same for Susan whenever she casts it. But it may not look the same for both, and you would rule that Fred and Susan cannot change the appearance of the spell each time they cast it (or maybe not at all) after the player and DM determine what their casting of the spell looks like. Is that it?
That seems reasonable to me too, I think that's what a lot of people I know go with. "When I cast Eldritch Blast, it looks like..." But they don't say it looks different each time--it's not "This time when I cast it, it looks like...". To me, that would jive with the way I like to think of magic, and the way it's often represented in the sort of fiction D&D and us players draw from--that the way you cast spells is personal in some ways. Allanon's druid fire in Shannara always looked the same. But maybe another druid's fire would have looked different.
It's not required by RAW, but it's not against RAW either (see my overly long post above :), and I think it's a really common and reasonable take on it.
I'm kinda confused with that you wanted to achieve with showing this.
Cause while all their Patronus as the same color, they are ALL DIFFERENT, and behave different, even if the effects are the same, so it works in the argument FOR changing how spells looks from one caster to another...
That's been my point from the start =)
Casters should be able to choose how their spell looks even if the effect is the same.
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?"
Wow this escalated over time... Thank you for the answers guys. Sorry for the confusion it brought about.
The character in question was a blade singer in a Victorian era setting. The "darts" in question from her Magic Missile spell resembled small glowing daggers that shattered on impact. There ended up never being any confusion because I would always have to announce the spell I'm casting anyways, and the description added flavor to her character and mystique.
I think I get what you're saying. That once Fred learns magic missile, it will appear the same for Fred whenever he casts it; and once Susan learns magic missile, it will appear the same for Susan whenever she casts it. But it may not look the same for both, and you would rule that Fred and Susan cannot change the appearance of the spell each time they cast it (or maybe not at all) after the player and DM determine what their casting of the spell looks like. Is that it?
Yes!! This right here. This is what I was trying to say in my OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The answer to all your (rhetorical) questions is "the DM decides". The DM decides the color of the acid, and whether that color is constant for each caster, changeable or whatever. The DM decides all things unless the rules (and/or the DM) place that choice into a player's hands. That is a fundamental of how this game works. For many spells, like most illusions, the rules give the player/character the choice of appearance, but for others there is no choice given. The player is free to ask "can I make the acid red like blood?", and most DM's would reply "sure, makes no mechanical difference, have fun". And that might extend to a visual theme for a character's whole spell list (purple acid, purple lightning, purple fire). Or if the player is wanting to change the appearance of their spell as part of some sort of ruse then the DM might refuse, or ask for an Arcana or Deception check or whatever they dream up.
The rule books do not list all the things you can't do; they list the things you can do by default and everything else is DM discretion, including going to the bathroom.
Not specified, up to the DM. Point isn't that they look exactly the same across games, but that they look exactly the same within a game. That's how magic works in D&D. It's not a caster artisanally weaving raw magic into a particular effect they wish in the moment, but rather a pre-determined set of specific effects that are shared between everybody who can cast them. All Magic Missile spells are the same spell being cast by different people. Artificer spells are somewhat of an exception, and the rules point that out.
I'd think that going to the bathroom is an implied basic function of most humanoids, and wouldn't need to be specified in the rules. Changing a spell's appearance, on the other hand, isn't basic, nor implied, and absent a feature that allows you to do so, why would you assume you can?
"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
Because the rules of the game are not a complete ruling of everything we can do in the game. Exactly because, in other words, the rules don't describe going to the bathroom, or jumping over turtles, or making your own shoes. The rules of a sandbox game, like any RPG, are going to explain the limitations of action, not all the possible actions.
The rules lay out the basic structure of the game--this is combat, it's in rounds, etc etc.
Primarily, though, when we learn about limitations in the game, we're not told about them by being told "You cannot do such and such." Most of the time, we learn about what we can't do by learning that certain beings can do certain things in the game, things that are specifically mentioned. If the rules say "This race has darkvision", and that's not listed for another race, we know that this is a limitation of that other race. If the rules list one class as having spells, and the rules do not list spells for another class, we know that latter class has the limitation of not having spells. If the rules explain 'Attack' as a combat action, and then list 'Help' as an action, we know that I cannot make an attack as part of Help.
The rules in these cases therefore don't have to say "Fighters do not have spells", and the rules don't have to list for each race all the racial traits they don't have. And the rules remain silent on all the things that our characters could do that do not affect stats or dice rolls or the outcome of the game. The rules are silent on whether my character can part his hair on the left or right, or what armor polish is made of.
So take magic. We learn that spells have V, S, and M components, and we do learn at this point that we cannot cast the spell if we don't have the M, or can't do the V or S. We learn that we cannot cast spells of levels higher than we can cast, or spells we don't know. In other words, the rules have something to say about all the things that would affect gameplay.
And so the rules describe the basic appearances of the spells--the things that impact gameplay. Acid Splash doesn't create the acid at the target, it creates it at the caster, and you hurl it.
But the rules don't say "It's H2SO4" or "It's green" or "it smells like rotten eggs". The rules stay silent on those issues. Now here's the thing: surely the acid looks like something. It's colored, or it's clear. So the players and the DM check through all the rules--do the rules say what it looks like? Nope. Okay, so that's up to us to decide. Then we ask whether it looks the same every time. We check through all the rules, do the rules say that spells always look the same regarding these minor details that aren't listed in the spell?
No. The rules are silent on whether these things change or always stay the same.
Okay, so that's up to us.
In other words, there is nothing in RAW explicitly supporting your ruling that they can't change. Literally nothing. And there's nothing in the rules explicitly supporting my ruling either. Literally nothing.
So why would you assume that one of these rulings is against RAW? It's not against at all. No rule of the game is being broken, bent, or ignored to have spells change in these ways. Not one. :)
Let me ask you this--the rules contain pictures of swords, daggers, etc. And the rules do not say that your character's sword or dagger can look different from those pictures.
So why do you assume that it could? :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I'm kinda confused with that you wanted to achieve with showing this.
Cause while all their Patronus as the same color, they are ALL DIFFERENT, and behave different, even if the effects are the same, so it works in the argument FOR changing how spells looks from one caster to another...
"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 is more or less what I meant earlier. The character can't change the appearance of their spells, but the player can decide it to some extent.
I think I get what you're saying. That once Fred learns magic missile, it will appear the same for Fred whenever he casts it; and once Susan learns magic missile, it will appear the same for Susan whenever she casts it. But it may not look the same for both, and you would rule that Fred and Susan cannot change the appearance of the spell each time they cast it (or maybe not at all) after the player and DM determine what their casting of the spell looks like. Is that it?
That seems reasonable to me too, I think that's what a lot of people I know go with. "When I cast Eldritch Blast, it looks like..." But they don't say it looks different each time--it's not "This time when I cast it, it looks like...". To me, that would jive with the way I like to think of magic, and the way it's often represented in the sort of fiction D&D and us players draw from--that the way you cast spells is personal in some ways. Allanon's druid fire in Shannara always looked the same. But maybe another druid's fire would have looked different.
It's not required by RAW, but it's not against RAW either (see my overly long post above :), and I think it's a really common and reasonable take on it.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
That's been my point from the start =)
Casters should be able to choose how their spell looks even if the effect is the same.
"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
These arguements against it didnt age well lol
Wow this escalated over time... Thank you for the answers guys. Sorry for the confusion it brought about.
The character in question was a blade singer in a Victorian era setting. The "darts" in question from her Magic Missile spell resembled small glowing daggers that shattered on impact. There ended up never being any confusion because I would always have to announce the spell I'm casting anyways, and the description added flavor to her character and mystique.
Thanks again!
Yes!! This right here. This is what I was trying to say in my OP.