For example if you refer to Bulls Strength as such. Like someone asking a spellcaster "Cast fireball!" or a spellcaster saying "Do you want me to use bulls strength on you?" something along those lines.

Thanks,

to be honest, I find it to be completely annoying when people do that. Like I mean it may be the same magic, but it can come from all kinds of differetn sources. Differnt gods, inherent talent (sorcs) or studied (wiz)

It makes perfect sense each person might have a different name for the spell, for example, a sorcerer might call his fireball, "Blast of flame" Or a cleric's Bulls strength "Gift of Tempus' Might" or so on. A wizard would obviously call the spell whatever they learned the name of it as, but as everyone learns different ways and from different people, there could be variation as well.

Imo, its blatant metagaming for a non caster to spout spell names like that anyways.

Just my thoughts

It is not really metagaming, it is how the spells are known. If you want to use different names to reflect your character's home region, that is excellent! Otherwise, it's not really much different from how we all speak Common.

If you dont like people refering to certain spells in certain manners, then correct them IC to what ever your particular brand might be.

But the spell names as per PnP arnt exactly scientific...

A Fireball... is well... "A big Flaming Ball". Bulls strength... is well... "Give me the Strength of a Bull" Protection from Evil... is uh.. "Hex protection?"

Really most fo the Spells are named for what they visually look like... or well their primary function. If you want to sit down and write up your "scientific names" then sweet!

Well...

In my honest and modest opinion, If you got 0 Spellcraft, you should know -shit- in arcane and divine spells.

You shouldn't refer to spells directly except in like describing them vaguely -- "I saw 'em finger wrigglers do 'em magic that can make meself stronger, can you enhance me loik that?" For example.

And as a mage, saying phrases like: " I have 3 bull strength ready, do you guys want them?" or "Do you want a protection of evil, now?" is borderline and should be avoided.

Spell craft is used to Identify spells by their casting, the residual effects in the aftermath, or distinguishing spells that really ARE ambiguous visually to a character.

Say a cloud is a cloud. Is color can also be seen. Be we really arnt going to be sure if its some kind of fog or something else, unless we walk in and are effected by it, most of the time in these circumstances we still wont really know what the hell it was, because most fog spells attack someones mental capacity directly.

As for spells like fireball and bull strength, they are obvious. And it doesn't take spell craft to be able to identify a change in your own body, or describe a visual effect accurately. I'm sorry Mort, But I'll have to respectfully disagree. Not having ranks in spell craft doesn't make a really observant character become a dolt, it doesn't take knowledge to describe what you saw or what you felt.

Although, they may not describe some spells in the same manner: I.E. Bulls strength makes no sign or effect that a Bull has anything to do with it beyond its D&D title. So I can see someone arguing that point as far as someone else saying, "whatever you did that filled me with power, do it again." etc... But to see a Ball of fire spring out of someones fingers and explode? That tends to be VERY self explanatory.

Mages have taught us via potion labels, and colors, how to distinguish some effects. Its a market as well as a science/arcana. Now it wouldn't be much of a market if the person was continuously oblivious to the effects or how to describe them. "Wow that felt odd... Did I just drink poison? I want my money back."

We are given cheap labels, and we learn cheap labels. This is engrained into the world already, and I really don't see it changing until the DMs let us brew different colors and different bottles for any one spell- and then allow custom names for a potion when you brew it.

This is in addition to the obvious abilities for a human to observe/witness and then classify through observation.

Yes it does! -- either that or invest in lore. Spellcraft is more like a Lore (magic). What you listed are the mechanical benefits of a successful spellcraft check in Neverwinter Nights, but those are not the limitations!

You can describe them, sure -- but know their exact arcana name, no.

You say fireball is 'obvious', well it's obvious to call it like that because you've been calling like that for 5 or so years. It's not so obvious to someone else which can call it an inferno, a blazing inferno, or just a fire bomb or just describe it for what it is.

I'd argue that 0 lore people shouldnt be able to differentiate a lot of subtleties that we take for granted- i.e. differentiating a bodak from a ghoul. An imp from a quazit. A positive energy ball from a magic eater. etc. etc.

Having Joe-bob the twit who lived in Sanctuary all his life knowing the entire arcane arsenal by its names is meh-- I'd like it if some ignorant goof would refuse to be hasted by fear that it would age him.

Again, respectfully disagree. though I'm starting to see things in both our arguments that are agreed upon, which is good! But...

Mort but know their exact arcana name, no

Snoteye It is not really metagaming, it is how the spells are known. If you want to use different names to reflect your character's home region, that is excellent! Otherwise, it's not really much different from how we all speak Common.

By the way, I have also heard ignorant gits in real life describe types of fireworks as a "colorful fireball" Which proves at least to me, that beyond my obvious familiarity "Fireball" is a relatively simple term with an easily identifiable connotation.

I'm also taking the standpoint of someone with 0 spell craft. I left the other skills out because its irrelevant to the fact the you said spell craft is required in order to describe spells with any degree of accuracy. To be able to put a name with an effect you just witnessed or felt, is common- especially when you're an adventurer dealing with these things every single day. Still it doesn't mean you can cast it, or know how to counter it, or have any idea if it was that, or something that looked remarkable similar.

If someone happens to be a moron, a simpleton, with absolutely no observation skills, their reaction to any spell should be something on the lines of.. "huh?"

I don't know what to think, keep in mind that in D&D games also things like "Mace+1" is a commonly used term but I'm not really sure anyone would say that IC.

I guess there is no "rule" for it. Now that I think of it, those of us who were ex-slaves might say something like "the strength of a bull" but people born in the underdark most likely have never seen one... maybe the strength of an umberhulk...

Thanks for all the replies.

I say it's fair to IC call the spells by what they're named according to the game engine. Spells like Evard's black tentacles and Isaac's lesser missile storm certainly imply that these spells have been specifically identified by some sort of arcane institution.

But at the same time, I don't see any harm in being creative and giving your specific spells different names so that things don't seem stale.

As for the Mace +1 thing. I figured that's just an instance of simplicity on the part of the game maker. It's so much easier to say that all of these goblins are armed with mace +1 instead of this goblin has a mace of fire, this goblin has a sharp mace, this one has a heavy mace, etc. It's up to the player (and perhaps the DMs) to name their equipment and weapons =P

If a spell has some person's name in its title, you should call it by that. Especially if you are a wizard, since they are interested in all the academic aspects of magic. A sorcerer might not know the official name for a single one of his or her spells. For divine casters it's a lot easier to come up with different names for your spell, because you can call them the divine favor, or glorious wrath, or merciful touch of Whoever. But there are still a lot of options for sorcerers.

Asking for strength or a blade enchantment when you have a caster in the party really doesn't bother me all that much, since the people live in a world where they know they can get these things.

I have to agree 100% with Mort on this one. It's one thing for a 0 Spellcraft character to ask a wizard, "Can you use your magic to make me stronger?" It's something else entirely when that character is asking the wizard to "Cast Bull's Strength on me."

It all boils down to playing your stats, which everyone here is expected to do anyway. It is perfectly natural for a level 8 wizard to know the name "Evard's Black Tentacles," but Joe Fighter might just call it "deadly black fingers."

It's not terribly difficult to make up layman's names for spells and spell effects, and it's much more fun besides.

Mort/Playercharacter: So what you are saying is, that if my mage casts bull's strength on a fighter and says "Hey man, I am casting bull's strength on you", unless that fighter invests in spellcraft he cannot call it bull's strength?

I am not sure if that is what you mean, but that is the impression I got, and that seems odd to me. Regardless of spellcraft skill if someone names a spell for you I would think they would be able to ask for it by name at a later date.

As far as naming spells uniquely, I would love to do this, and have tried it before, but it just ends up in a lot of confusion as the two people discussing the spell have to figure out what each other is talking about. This wouldn't bother me, but most parties I have been in get annoyed with this and just want to get on with things.

So, I used to do it, would like to do it, but for simplicity, usually just use the D&D names now.

Mort/Playercharacter: So what you are saying is, that if my mage casts bull's strength on a fighter and says "Hey man, I am casting bull's strength on you", unless that fighter invests in spellcraft he cannot call it bull's strength?

No. The fighter scores point in my book if he doesn't know what the mage is talking about. He can call it whatever he wants. It is just nicer if he doesn't use the exact ooc connotation.

So, I used to do it, would like to do it, but for simplicity, usually just use the D&D names now.

Yeah. Out of convenience.

I'm not saying any of this on an aggressive dictatorial tone of what you should or shouldn't do. I'm just saying if you to be want to be unconventional and stand out from the rest of your class-- don't use spell labels. Put your own spins on the spells.

For example, this is original, sweet and nice to see.

These are nice druid's spins on the spells. Cleric spins are easier, you just spin your spells based on your god -- Bull strength becomes "Tempus's Might", etc. Just look at the Shrine of Grumbar and Ibrandul -- each spell you can ask has their own spin-off on it. Resilience of the Diamond, Strength of the earth, etc..

Since i'm going a bit out of the topic. I'll conclude with this:

- The generic ooc name is convenient and tolerated. - Being ignorant of the nomenclature of spells is encouraged (to match your stats). - Giving your own spinoffs to spell names is encouraged.

I play a wizard with high INT, lore and spellcraft, but I don't refer to spells by exact names unless I'm talking to another wizard. Generally, if a wizard is talking to a person who wouldn't understand spells, its more likely that they would say it simpler, as in "I'm casting a spell of strength" to make it less confusing IC. The way I see it, there's no need to make bigger names (Tincture of Travelward to use the previous post's example) for characters that wouldn't understand the already rather simple name (Endure Elements), so you should really just be simplifying it more (Insulation).

The way potions are named is a really good example, Ghostly Visage is Blur, Endure Elements is Insulation, and if you stay in the same vein it works well.

I'm going to side with Mort and CircleOfGlory on this. I've played a mage for quite some months now, and never refer to the spells by their generic name (apart from fireball/lightning bolt/etc, which are basically the exact thing they are called).

It's no real effort to say you're warding someone against evil when casting Protection from Evil, or enhancing someone's strength, giving elemental protection, assuming the form of a troll, or whatever instead of using the spell name. It tells everyone what you're casting without breaking any immersion at all.

I've always treated spellcraft as a sort or arcane Lore skill (bear in mind that NWN is the only 3rd Ed DND I've ever played) and it makes a little part of me happy when I see mages show proper knowledge of the arcane and others that should be ignorant act ignorant. 8)

That's my $0.02 anyway.

Buzzlebub doesn't even pay attention to the lables on bottles. O.O

Potion of Blur = "Drinky of goody smudginess!" Potion of Bull's Strength = "Super Smashin' Tar" Invisibility = ... this one stays the same. ; ) Summon Creature I = "Rattie Ally!!"

But then, he's a sorc. So he wouldn't know the "academic" terminology anyhow. All he knows is that when he points his finger at something and does a little dance, whatever he's pointing at dies.

I'll just point out that spellcraft doesn't mean knowing a spell by its name; it goes way beyond that. Knowing a name, and knowing exactly how a spell works is very different. So, really, I have no problem how anyone wants to call a spell, with or without any spellcraft.

Alright, referring to the druid post, which gives an interesting name and then has an OOC reference after it. What do people think of doing this in game as opposed to in a post? Is it immersion breaking?

ie.

"I can provide you with an environmental sheath of protection ((OOC: endure elements))"

Or do you come up with unique names and leave some people guessing as to what is actually going to happen?

I am being swayed to give this another try by this post, but don't want to annoy my way out of parties. As well, I think when trading spells with other wizards this would take too long and I would just stick with proper names.

Varlam used archaic or incorrect names for some spells, like calling Protection from Evil "Dispel Evil", Summon I "First Conjuration", and See Invisibility "Scry Invisibility".

Other than that, it was all "Elemental Endurance" and "Color Spray" spoken ICly.

GFWD: If you are going to rename your spells, dont tell them oocly what it is. If they want the blessing, rite, enchantment, or what have you- They'll either say yes, or ask about what they should expect from it. Its like a little kid getting a shot, "is this going to hurt?" And despite the fact it slows things down... Its Role-playing, and thats what we are here for.

Concerning the previous posts, Staring simplified my main point with his. If someone identifies a spell, and then shows you what it does, there is absolutely no reason that you cannot use that word in later reference to a similar effect. I would of course rather that not be the original ooc name, but shit happens and allot of people don't care to be extra-creative sometimes. (which was why I mentioned the potions, becuase if things didn't have the staple ooc name on the bottle, then people would be allot more likely to use other words for it. Insulation is a good example of that.)

EFU has always backed the rule, what you see is what you get. If you get taught a certain set of names through potions, PCs, or the market place, it doesn't require a skill to retain basic information.

Just try to pay attention to whether you've ever seen a spell before, whether you've been given a name for something, Whether you've been told incorrect information, etc... (you shouldn't be screaming necromancer at the guy who cast Neg energy ray at the ogre. Your character should be highly oblivious to what spells fall under what schools, beyond Necromancy = Walking dead.)

Just don't come created with a complete venacular of every spell in existence. Just as you shouldnt come into the game with a complete knowledge of any other type of lore. if you learn things IC, thats cool- but take into consideration that this is still relatively unfamiliar territory when it comes to magic. You should be ignorant until taught otherwise... sometimes it takes more then once setting to accomplish this. (its why allot of people in faerun don't trust magic)

Otherwise I'll quote Mort now and stop spamming this thread.

Mort - The generic ooc name is convenient and tolerated. - Being ignorant of the nomenclature of spells is encouraged (to match your stats). - Giving your own spinoffs to spell names is encouraged.

Another fun thing would be to just not ever tell anyone what spells you are going to cast, cast them, and face the IC consequences. You might give a little warning that something is about to happen. The following scenario makes me smile:

Mage: Okay, everyone, stand back. Everyone: Why? Mage: *casts a fireball that hits the entire party as collateral damage* That's why.

The character probably wouldn't last too long, though.

8 Int Half-Orc: Make me stronger! Shiny fancy SMASHER too!

16 int wizard: Bull's Strength will augment you properly, my boarish friend.

10 int warrior: *grunt* Gimme that shite too. Whatever the hell you call it. Make me powerful.

18 cha bard: Music makes us stronger!

It just depends on what you are playing, what their spellcraft/int/lore modifiers are, and how interesting you can be when roleplaying. Just use some common sense here and everyone should benefit.

wcsherry 8 Int Half-Orc: Make me stronger! Shiny fancy SMASHER too!

16 int wizard: Bull's Strength will augment you properly, my boarish friend.

10 int warrior: *grunt* Gimme that shite too. Whatever the hell you call it. Make me powerful.

18 cha bard: Music makes us stronger!

It just depends on what you are playing, what their spellcraft/int/lore modifiers are, and how interesting you can be when roleplaying. Just use some common sense here and everyone should benefit.

8 int wizard: Ur-ur-UR!

8 Int Bard: ME GOOD SING YOU PUNCH GOOD

If I want to call a spell Bull's Strength, ward against evil, or Terry's Tapdancing F*ck then that's what I'll call it.

Even a low intelligence fighter can remember something that helps him in a battle. If you find a potion of bulls strength, use it, and like the effects, then go to town and see them for sale,You should learn the name just so you can buy more later. Down the road, some finger waggler casts a spell on you, you realize it is the same as drinling the potion and call it bulls strength. No spellcraft and little intelligence necessary.

GFWD Mort/Playercharacter: So what you are saying is, that if my mage casts bull's strength on a fighter and says "Hey man, I am casting bull's strength on you", unless that fighter invests in spellcraft he cannot call it bull's strength?

I suppose he could ask for a Bull's Strength in the future after that, yes.

Although, as far as I've understood, that fighter wouldn't be able to recognize the spell if the mage casted it on someone else and didn't mention the spell's name. And even then, assuming the mage did mention the spell's name, a fighter with 0 spellcraft would only have the mage's word on it.

Otherwise I'm pretty much with what seems to be the general opinion here. I think it's much nicer to see non-casters coming up with custom names for the spells, or just describing what the spells do instead of calling them by their real names. wcsherry put it together pretty nicely.

Unless said fighter invested in spell craft.