DM rulings: "Spells that do not exist do not exist"

[Hoihe]

PnP/Lore spells
Between players: Spells that do not exist in the game do not exist. Cantrips that do not affect another player are fine, but all other spells do not exist. (this is part of play what is on your sheet)

Does this mean they do not exist as in - do NOT use them/RP casting them.

Or does this mean they do not exist, do not even acknowledge their existence, act as if all our wizards ever do is wave fireballs at stuff and nothing else?

Because I have a major problem with the second one. Magic, by its very nature in Forgotten Realms, does not have a limit on how many spells and variants you can make.

Wizards, similar to early scholars, keep re-inventing spells others invented due to lack of communication and secrecy. However, wizards ARE expected to invent something new in the study of arcane by the time they are considered acomplished (reach level 7 spell level, a substantial ASOC level, get first level of Archmage what have you).

Now, what's the simplest thing a wizard can do when pressed to invent something new? Revolutionize magic? Nah, too much work. Invent a new spell! Same deal as many people do for their phDs - choose something obscure nobody cares about and blow it up as if it is important and get some recognition.

So with the above in mind, the understanding of the ruling that "Spells that do not exist IG do not exist" meaning there are absolutely no other spells than what we have in game SERIOUSLY cripples wizards in my opinion. Makes them barely better than sorcerers, if they can even claim that.

So I'd like some clarity. One of the more fun aspects of RPing on Clandric I had when I played him was to ramble on about his newest spell that made beautiful ice statues out of dying things. Or about that spell that freezes blood in an almost permanent basis, allowing it to be used similarly to a very fragile gemstone and jewelry.

[DM_Absolution]

I think spells such as Mage hand, message (Not sure if this actually existed in the game) and Prestidigitation should be allowed to be used in-game for RP purposes. Seems overly strict to restrict people from RP'ing out using such innocent spells that help improve RP for some. Shrugs

[Aelcar]

In my experience, DMs are very cooperative under this point of view, encouraging player creativity.

The important thing is, keeping in mind it's a cooperative game (not talking about you Hoihe: you're one of the most mindful players ever!): taking advantage of this, mechanically or otherwise, is obviously not allowed.

Example: if your wizard casts a spell to stay dry in the falling rain, that's not a problem for anyone. If, however, you use telekinesis to acquire items you normally would not be able to reach by any other means (it's fine if you do it with a scroll on the table, not so much if you get an item from someone else's pocket without consent and/or DM supervision) then it's bad.

This mindset is not limited to spells: it involves any and all RP actions. If they are constructive for all players, and nobody has reasons to frown upon the outcome, then all's well (ie: a Druid RPing her staff being made of living, growing wood ... a Fighter RPing being able to perform a special sword technique instead of just "attacking" with the blade... a Rogue with a lucky coin that he consider a charm against any source of harm ...)

I don't think you'll ever have issues with it.

[Blackman D]

if your wizard casts a spell to stay dry in the falling rain, that's not a problem for anyone

Mordenkainen's Wonderful Umbrella!

[Merlaran]

Clarification would be nice!. I am guessing its the first requiring a DM to RP casting/Using them. The Second one just seems a bit silly.

[Maecius]

I'll let the DMs clarify, with regards to the specifics of the ruling, but I believe the impetus behind it was to prevent players from forcing spells on other players that do not mechanically exist -- and therefore cannot be countered.

We would occasionally have issues with one player trying to take control of the other player's player character, for example: Using a geas on them, or trying to convince the targeted player that the dominate spells should be roleplayed as "one day per level, like in the sourcebook," and so forth. And although the "victim" would sometimes go along with it in the moment, they'd later complain to us because it put them in a situation where they weren't having very much fun (or were otherwise uncomfortable with the roleplay they were having pushed their way).

The above was usually something evil PCs would try to do to good PCs. From the other side, though: The other common one was when players would try to detect alignment on each other -- usually paladins trying to detect evil on an evil PC. It was something that was frequently roleplayed when the server was young (sometimes with the silly inclusion of a "smite evil" attack to "prove" it -- as though a good-aligned god would allow his followers to try to kill a potentially innocent people to "test" them), and it couldn't be mechanically countered, so it put evil-aligned PCs (particularly wolf-in-sheep's-clothing types) in a pretty annoying situation.

Long answer short: It's just more fair if everyone's playing by the same set of rules, right?

[Merlaran]

I'll let the DMs clarify, with regards to the specifics of the ruling, but I believe the impetus behind it was to prevent players from forcing spells on other players that do not mechanically exist -- and therefore cannot be countered.

We would occasionally have issues with one player trying to take control of the other player's player character, for example: Using a geas on them, or trying to convince the targeted player that the dominate spells should be roleplayed as "one day per level, like in the sourcebook," and so forth. And although the "victim" would sometimes go along with it in the moment, they'd later complain to us because it put them in a situation where they weren't having very much fun (or were otherwise uncomfortable with the roleplay they were having pushed their way).

The above was usually something evil PCs would try to do to good PCs. From the other side, though: The other common one was when players would try to detect alignment on each other -- usually paladins trying to detect evil on an evil PC. It was something that was frequently roleplayed when the server was young (sometimes with the silly inclusion of a "smite evil" attack to "prove" it -- as though a good-aligned god would allow his followers to try to kill a potentially innocent people to "test" them), and it couldn't be mechanically countered, so it put evil-aligned PCs (particularly wolf-in-sheep's-clothing types) in a pretty annoying situation.

Long answer short: It's just more fair if everyone's playing by the same set of rules, right?

Couldn't you just go with something like, "Player consent required from all effected party's or Dm consent on behalf of NPCs". It might just be me but i don't see an issue with geas if the effected player wants or is happy to be under a geas.

For me the only time i have wanted to use a RP spell was things like Silent, Still Image to mimic story's my bard is telling. That said someone says their character see's through it or does not believe it *Shrugs*.

[DM Golem]

The issue with leaving it purely to player consent and then mandating that DMs honour it is that so often we get experiences where a player consents to something to another player but, as Maecius outlines, finds they dont enjoy it. Sometimes they even consent only to avoid being considered poor RPers or because they are afraid of worse "consequences".

We often had to go in and fix situations where parties just werent having fun. Its not a hypothetical - I'd say it was almost the most common outcome.

This is something that got discussed and all viewpoints were expressed on the team - and the decision to allow cantrips but not not other "off character sheet" spells was the position we took.

We do allow RP towards magical research, provided we do not overburden our Dev team in implementing said research. And we do allow off book use of spells in events. But between players we do not enforce such spells.

[Maecius]

Couldn't you just go with something like, "Player consent required from all effected party's or Dm consent on behalf of NPCs". It might just be me but i don't see an issue with geas if the effected player wants or is happy to be under a geas.

Probably not. Player consent was the rule of the day before the existing DM ruling. And I probably wouldn't be for going back to it.

Unfortunately, we discovered that consent isn't always freely given. As DM Golem just pointed out while I was drafting this response.

Moreover, it's very, very rare for a player-to-player "agreement" of this sort to stay player-to-player. Invariably other people become involved -- as the social nature of this game is all about bringing people together and sharing and cross-sharing roleplay. So if Player A knows that Player B is affected by a non-canon spell, and Player C doesn't have any means of knowing the same or of combating it, then Player C did not consent to the non-canon spell (and is potentially put at a serious storyline disadvantage).

As noted in my first comment, it's just hard to play a game where everyone's playing by different rules.

[Merlaran]

That's fair enough i suppose! The idea is for everyone to have fun after all. Although i don't think the original question was answered if they don't exist or if we simply can't use them.