Creative freedom in roleplaying magic?

[sharina]

Hi,

To which degree is there creative freedom in how I roleplay the spells and their effects on this server?

For example, if I cast the fireball spell, does it have one canon singular explanation of what happens and I am bound to use it (e.g., "this spell developed by Mage X in the year Y works by evoking fire in exactly this one specific way and has been used throughout the ages ever since"), or do I have leeway in how to explain what happens (e.g., "I heat up the air in a region" or "I conjure a fiendish energy that explodes", or "I magically overheat a stone that explodes in flaming fragments")?

Obviously I'm not asking about roleplaying a spell in a way that makes it more powerful ("my magic missile also shields me and pushes you backwards!") or unknowable ("you can't understand my spell, because it works so differently, haha!"), but rather I'm asking about the degree of freedom in explaining the same overall effects.

[The Red Mage]

My experience with this is creative freedom in interpreting the magic, because I come from text-based roleplay where it was expected. However, in D&D, I think the creativity doesn't come from how the magic is evoked, but in its application. For instance, while most mages may conjure a fireball the same, how one would explain DC differences or the like would be in the application--the aiming, etc. Otherwise, I think it'll be up to the DM/ Admin involved. Using spells creatively in an event is likely different than just doing so in lay-time. I think maybe the exception to this are Fey and Fey-like magic.

I would like to explain that my Red Wizard's fireballs, for instance, burn hotter than conjured fire from a traditional wizard. That's in part why his DCs with fireball are so much higher, but I'm also not sure if that's a fair or correct assessment. My two cents are: worry about application instead of function, and it's completely admin call.

Thanks for asking, though.

[Blackheart]

Admins can correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's not explicitly written in the rules, there's some leeway and room for creativity.

For example, fireball is described as being an explosion at a point the page indicates with a pointed finger. That part must stay the same.

However, it doesn't say what color the fire is. It could be green, purple, blue... Whatever.

In plots, DMs withhold the right to allow you to apply spells creatively, or to be resrictive based on their judgement.

Outside of DM events, it'll likely just boil down to common sense and how "close" to the written rules you are.

[sharina]

Thanks a lot for your answers.

I fear they don't answer my question though; I'm not primarily talking about making a spell do something functionally different (e.g., using my knowledge of the fireball spell to warm myself). My assumption here would be that small feats of  magic fitting to the character can be okay (and any such creative magic affecting characters of other players requires their consent), but in an event the DM can decide what makes sense.

My main question, however, is about the factual 'magical truth' of regular spells. If I roleplay the fireball as pointing to a location and then the air heating up in that region, causing fire damage, this does not functionally change what the spell does. Similarly, I could roleplay conjuring energy from the abyss, flinging that energy to a location and having it explode in demonic flames. However, is that allowed? How much leeway do I, as a player, have in explaining the spell and at which point can someone else come along and claim "no, that's not what you just did!"?

[Blackheart]

Evocation, as I understand it, -creates- things. So your character couldn't claim to, say, summon fire from the abyss. (That would be something conjuration could claim, maybe)

Again, anything not explicitly stated within the spell is... sort of up for interpretation. Claims can be made/argued IC, much as hypotheses and other such things are argued in IRL science fields.

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2020 14:32:50 GMT -5 Blackheart said:

Evocation, as I understand it, -creates- things. So your character couldn't claim to, say, summon fire from the abyss. (That would be something conjuration could claim, maybe)

Again, anything not explicitly stated within the spell is... sort of up for interpretation. Claims can be made/argued IC, much as hypotheses and other such things are argued in IRL science fields.

Pretty much this.

When you are describing how a spell works, as long as it is within the limits of the approved cannon books, then there is some leeway.  For example, the -way- you cast it might be slightly unique.  Some of the visual effects might be different.  However, the mechanical effects (not just mechanics as in numbers, but mechanics in the effect) but are often rather specifically described as what is done. 

In your examples, summoning fire from the abyss/hells is a rather specific planar effect that isn't just fire, not something that a fireball would do.  However, a fireball being created by the air heating up suddenly then extinguishing would be okay.

[Fire Wraith]

To clarify a bit more, you could have infernal or demonic flair to the fire, like maybe it smells of brimstone, or flickers a fiendish green-red, but you'd have to be careful not to call it "Hellfire" or "Demonflame" since those are rather specific things under this ruleset. Having the fire sparkle with fey dust or something (as long as it wasn't implied to have other affects than normal fire) would however be okay.

So you can have your magic have a definite noticeable type/origin/etc, like if you're a Sorcerer of a certain bloodtype, but the underlying effect still needs to be the same (ie, it's Fire damage on a fireball, whether that's exposure to flames, or simply subjecting someone to daytime temperatures in Phoenix AZ - but it can't be Cold Damage, Negative, etc).

[sharina]

Thanks a lot for your quick responses!

That clarifies things quite a bit -- it makes sense that I couldn't call it "hellfire", because that would imply additional effects (like that you can't extinguish it easily) and I am only allowed to change the flair while keeping the mechanics the same.