Quote from SirTawmis >>

That might make for a fun Question of the Day Type thing...

What as a player are some of your least "well built" types of characters you've played? Or as a DM, what are some of the least "well built" characters you've had to DM for?

 

 Besides the one that prompted the question, I once built and played a variant human (keen mind) scribe wizard with one level of ranger from lvls 5-8. I chose a bunch of knowledge spells (ie, detect and other situational spells) and no classic good spells (ie fly, shield, fireball) which made me very ineffective. What made it worse that the rest of the party was a moon Druid, a monk, a fighter, and a barbarian. Eventually I decided I wasn’t having fun with the character so I asked the dm to rebuild the character and he allowed it with a level of warlock, 2 levels of ranger, and rest in wizard. Needless to say the rebuilt could have been built better but I wanted to keep some of the theme, but I rebuilt my spells to be much better, such as polymorph, resilient sphere, faithful hound (which I got a flimsy wood board placed the hound atop it, then carried it around with mage hand. Letting it bite people, dm allowed this) he and his party then got TPKed by a supped up vampire lord after our monk friend betrayed us at lvl 12.

Quote from The_Summoning_Dark >>

Question: Y'all have probably seen the new bastion thing that has come out. What do y'all think about it? Seems interesting to me, would y'all ever try to use it?

 The important points of this UA for me:

1.) WOTC saw the “Strongholds and Followers” book and realized that they had almost made a similar system for 2014 and then they nixed it. They saw it’s success now and decided that they would try to make it official.

2.) Chill Touch is well-named now

3.) True Strike has been ruined. Except in some very specific builds (Bladesingers, combat bards, and a few other specific spellcasting weapon wielders) it is basically useless. It adopted the “make an attack with benefits” cantrip idea from SCAG and Tasha’s and I hate it. In 2014 it is a unique spell with a few really different and cool uses, and now it’s stupid. Before, I would use it to initiate combat by granting myself advantage and then attacking or it could be used by casters who can switch it to a bonus action and then make multiple attacks and benefit from it next turn (by this logic, if they do it every turn then they can have advantage every turn on one attack except for their first turn). I know True Strike got ripped on for sucking, but did they really have to turn it into Booming Blade and all those other cantrips? Those are good ideas but True Strike is its own thing!

Chill Touch is touch now, but it's still not chilly. Ideally it would be renamed. But I think they said they're not changing any spell names or levels, so it needs to deal cold damage.

I'll die on this hill.

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Chill Touch is touch now, but it's still not chilly. Ideally it would be renamed. But I think they said they're not changing any spell names or levels, so it needs to deal cold damage.

I'll die on this hill.

 I do agree with this. I’ll die on it as well.

Quote from Amnon_Balderk >>

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Chill Touch is touch now, but it's still not chilly. Ideally it would be renamed. But I think they said they're not changing any spell names or levels, so it needs to deal cold damage.

I'll die on this hill.

 I do agree with this. I’ll die on it as well.

 So, is now a bad time to note that when I was rewriting spells I got to Chill Touch and  and instead did Elemental Touch (with 12 elemental types, lol) and then did planar touch (with one of them being Necrotic, which is exactly what Chill Touch is)?

This is the real reason I dislike rewriting spells -- I will create a score of new spells fro encountering one (and will just copy the basics of it over and over and over again, lol).

Because I also agree -- chill touch should do cold/frost damage. It should be magical frostbite.

Deathly Touch, or Necrotic Touch, is what it should be named.

But I also dislike "name of creator" spells, lol. Except Tasha. Her I will allow.

My first DM was actually named Tasha. I wasn't experienced enough to make the connection with the spells at the time, though. The fact that she called herself the Witch Queen probably should'a been a hint.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Amnon_Balderk >>

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Chill Touch is touch now, but it's still not chilly. Ideally it would be renamed. But I think they said they're not changing any spell names or levels, so it needs to deal cold damage.

I'll die on this hill.

 I do agree with this. I’ll die on it as well.

 So, is now a bad time to note that when I was rewriting spells I got to Chill Touch and  and instead did Elemental Touch (with 12 elemental types, lol) and then did planar touch (with one of them being Necrotic, which is exactly what Chill Touch is)?

This is the real reason I dislike rewriting spells -- I will create a score of new spells fro encountering one (and will just copy the basics of it over and over and over again, lol).

Because I also agree -- chill touch should do cold/frost damage. It should be magical frostbite.

Deathly Touch, or Necrotic Touch, is what it should be named.

But I also dislike "name of creator" spells, lol. Except Tasha. Her I will allow.

 You don't like Bigby? He made a giant fist! 

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Chill Touch is touch now, but it's still not chilly. Ideally it would be renamed. But I think they said they're not changing any spell names or levels, so it needs to deal cold damage.

I'll die on this hill.

 
I’m okay with it being necrotic, that doesn’t bother me, but why make it touch ranged?!?

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Amnon_Balderk >>

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Chill Touch is touch now, but it's still not chilly. Ideally it would be renamed. But I think they said they're not changing any spell names or levels, so it needs to deal cold damage.

I'll die on this hill.

 I do agree with this. I’ll die on it as well.

 So, is now a bad time to note that when I was rewriting spells I got to Chill Touch and  and instead did Elemental Touch (with 12 elemental types, lol) and then did planar touch (with one of them being Necrotic, which is exactly what Chill Touch is)?

This is the real reason I dislike rewriting spells -- I will create a score of new spells fro encountering one (and will just copy the basics of it over and over and over again, lol).

Because I also agree -- chill touch should do cold/frost damage. It should be magical frostbite.

Deathly Touch, or Necrotic Touch, is what it should be named.

But I also dislike "name of creator" spells, lol. Except Tasha. Her I will allow.

 You don't like Bigby? He made a giant fist! 

 
I especially find Bigby and Mordy annoying. Long story, involving elephants, leomund, and a bottle of aged whiskey...

I still hope to one day have players that invest time and money into creating a spell then naming it after them. Then in future games make that spell available - Just like all those named folk you dislike =)

Admittedly I think Otiluke was a bonehead.

Quote from Wysperra >>

I still hope to one day have players that invest time and money into creating a spell then naming it after them. Then in future games make that spell available - Just like all those named folk you dislike =)

Admittedly I think Otiluke was a bonehead.

 I have always liked otiluke’s sphere spell because I thought it would be hilarious if the wizard used it on the lich BBEG of a campaign then just had the barbarian whack it like a baseball

Quote from Wysperra >>

I still hope to one day have players that invest time and money into creating a spell then naming it after them. Then in future games make that spell available - Just like all those named folk you dislike =)

Admittedly I think Otiluke was a bonehead.

 
So...

Yes, do it.  It is an absolute blast, players adore it, and especially if you can do a generational set of campaigns in a fixed world, it really does help a lot to create that sense of continuity.

The Halfling chanted in the strange tongue and hurled the spell, taking down the last of the pack of wolves. The Elf stood stock still, open mouthed. "Where did you learn Durandel's Bloody Vengeance?"

"What? You mean the spell? That was Grace Bigtoe's Mighty Boot!"

The Elf huffed. "I was there, four hundred years ago, when Durandel created that spell! You stole it!"

"Grace is my aunt, you leaflover!"

While a paraphrase, it is also an example of something that can happen, lol. The named spells is one of the quirks of the Dying Earth -- they named the spells because a spell was a treasure in and of itself, rare and peculiar. In current D&D terms, because all spells had to be found or researched, on the dying earth it is wholly possible for a 9th level Wizard to not have any spells of 2nd level, simply because they never found any.

Named spells are a blast. They can create a sense of history, as well, and they are very easy to change (Bigby never existed. On this world, it was Wispera who made all those things. The great and powerful D'nym is famed for their history of researching spells about spheres and durable fabrics.)

I don't particularly care for the creators of Mordenkainen, Bigby, and others. Almost all of them -- Tenser, Otiluke, Bigby, Mordenkainen, et al -- were the earliest characters created for the game, and were played at some point. The exception is Tasha, who was a whole cloth creation, because apparently none of them played girls until TSR was a going concern and hired women.

(the thought of D&D being the "nerd's poker night", with the dutiful wives bringing in snacks, is laughable today, but that was part of how it was envisioned at the start).

One way to encourage it that has worked for me is to  go through the list of spells and pull out the "practical" ones -- any spell that doesn't heal or involve causing damage -- and then add a name from your world setting to them. Or do it with the healing and damage spells, if your world is more focused on combat style stuff.

Then those go into the spell lists that your player's choose from and get entered on the character sheet -- the goal is that they will always see that. So to use the second part, every time they cast Fenix's Furious Fireball they see it on the sheet and will say it.

One of the things I hated at first but later came to appreciate (in part because of the balance it affords) was the original rule that a Wizard or Illusionist had to find their spells or make their spells. When we started, we hated the idea of not being able to just pick the right spells from the whole list, lol. So we ignored that rule. We never thought of the concept of spells as treasure, really.

The way it worked was that at 1st level you got a few 1st level spells, then maybe a 2nd or a 3rd level spell, either gained from your master or found during your "pre-game" explorations. The DM was supposed to assign them (randomly or selected). After that, you had to find your spells. You could be a 35th level Wizard and only have 9 spells to choose from, lol.

Clerics prayed for their spells -- they were granted from on high -- and sometimes the deity they followed would not grant a spell they wanted -- they would just give them what the god thought they would need that day. So they, too, had a limited and not always reliable set up.

As you can likely imagine, that really drives the murder hobos nuts. And when we started, doing dungeon delves and hex crals, we were all murder hobos back then, so we thought the simple idea was nuts. I knew a few Dms who did do things that way, and they cycled through a lot of players. It is really not a popular way to do things, especially if you don't make it a habit of leaving magical scrolls or providing opportunities to research or don't bother to create grimoires that are scattered about as "non-magical items".

The basis for that way of doin things was the books that were used -- and a lot of stories still rely on that (even the recent D&D movie, although the sorcerer was used as that archetype in this case, and they leaned on the wild magic side of things). The old movies with a wizard who never did fancy things but could still toss out a massive fireball is another.

During a session where we "went back" and played the old stuff, we revisited that rule, only by that time we were much more skilled and able to do the stuff needed to include a tome or grimoire or spell scroll set.  And it made for a much more brilliant game, because we were less murder hobos and more role playing explorers, and the judicious use of a fw random tables helped us to create interesting options.

So we moved back to it. Cantrips exist today, as well. Their original purpose was "the spells you had to master to become a wizard", and all the leveled spells are supposed to be things that the mage developed out of those spells. They were the most basic of spell parts, really. Light a candle would teach you how to create a fireball and then later a fire storm or wall of fire.

So folks usually get a base level of a dozen cantrips, a few 1st level, a few 2nd level. After that, they have to find them. The higher level spells are gained because "they are studying them in order to be able to cast them" when they get to a level where they can do so.

By giving all of those low level spells a name, it allows you to build up a sense of "I need a spell that does this, so I am going to create one. Dear DM, how do I research and create a spell?"

and then poof -- you have it.

But you have to give your players a reason to do so, as well as a way to do so. Having to choose between using a scroll that was found in battle and saving it to transcribe into your spell book (which requires downtime) places a degree of drama and resource management on players that they often don't expect.

So Do It.

Do the thing, Zhuli!

But, also, stay away from the guy Tenser. Totally lazy. Not sure he could lift his own spell books...

Darn it, Wysperra, you made me think about game mechanics!

I coulda been watching anime or listening to a meeting of the minds session!

(ok, yeah, that's not your fault at all but I dun wanna take responsibility, lol)

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Chill Touch is touch now, but it's still not chilly. Ideally it would be renamed. But I think they said they're not changing any spell names or levels, so it needs to deal cold damage.

I'll die on this hill.

 I can see that. But I always took it - not sure how common this is - when you suddenly get a chill, they saying goes someone has walked over your grave.
(Side note - guess it's fairly common... https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/someone-is-walking-over-my-grave.html )

I always took Chill Touch, as necrotic damage, essentially sending chills as it touches your soul.

Because the spell description literally says: You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. 

So I always imagined this large skeletal hand appearing before the caster and reaching out, like death.

Quote from SirTawmis >>

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Chill Touch is touch now, but it's still not chilly. Ideally it would be renamed. But I think they said they're not changing any spell names or levels, so it needs to deal cold damage.

I'll die on this hill.

 I can see that. But I always took it - not sure how common this is - when you suddenly get a chill, they saying goes someone has walked over your grave.
(Side note - guess it's fairly common... https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/someone-is-walking-over-my-grave.html )

I always took Chill Touch, as necrotic damage, essentially sending chills as it touches your soul.

Because the spell description literally says: You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. 

So I always imagined this large skeletal hand appearing before the caster and reaching out, like death.

 

I can verify that is indeed precisely the reason that it is named that way.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the name Chill Touch makes sense. It's just, it doesn't make more sense than assuming the spell does cold damage at a range of touch.

Like, you could rename the signature Barbarian feature that they get at level 1 "Blazing Fury," or "White Hot Anger," and it would make sense to call it that, but people would assume it had something to do with fire damage, and the disconnect would be your fault as a rules writer.

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Oh, don't get me wrong, the name Chill Touch makes sense. It's just, it doesn't make more sense than assuming the spell does cold damage at a range of touch.

Like, you could rename the signature Barbarian feature that they get at level 1 "Blazing Fury," or "White Hot Anger," and it would make sense to call it that, but people would assume it had something to do with fire damage, and the disconnect would be your fault as a rules writer.

 
I thought the naming of the spell was rather clever, and I appreciated the metaphor. The fact that other people are too literal to appreciate shouldn’t matter. Not everything should cater to the lowest common denominator.

I think the chief reason we should keep chill touch as-is is because it's not exactly what people are expecting from the name.

"What's the spell called?"
"Chill touch."
"Oh, so it's like a melee cold damage kinda thing? That's cool."
"Nope."
"Oh. What's it do, then?"
"Skeleton blast."

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Oh, don't get me wrong, the name Chill Touch makes sense. It's just, it doesn't make more sense than assuming the spell does cold damage at a range of touch.

Like, you could rename the signature Barbarian feature that they get at level 1 "Blazing Fury," or "White Hot Anger," and it would make sense to call it that, but people would assume it had something to do with fire damage, and the disconnect would be your fault as a rules writer.

 
I thought the naming of the spell was rather clever, and I appreciated the metaphor. The fact that other people are too literal to appreciate shouldn’t matter. Not everything should cater to the lowest common denominator.

 I mostly pointed it out as a joke, but I will note that I do prefer the spell being touch just because I like the idea of setting your hand on someone and sending the shivers of death through them.

Quote from Amnon_Balderk >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Oh, don't get me wrong, the name Chill Touch makes sense. It's just, it doesn't make more sense than assuming the spell does cold damage at a range of touch.

Like, you could rename the signature Barbarian feature that they get at level 1 "Blazing Fury," or "White Hot Anger," and it would make sense to call it that, but people would assume it had something to do with fire damage, and the disconnect would be your fault as a rules writer.

 
I thought the naming of the spell was rather clever, and I appreciated the metaphor. The fact that other people are too literal to appreciate shouldn’t matter. Not everything should cater to the lowest common denominator.

 I mostly pointed it out as a joke, but I will note that I do prefer the spell being touch just because I like the idea of setting your hand on someone and sending the shivers of death through them.

 
But after EB, it’s the best ranged spell attack cantrip in the game.