[Note: This is the first of two different threads on this subject.]

Greetings to all...

If there's an option, I almost always play a spell-caster of some sort in games. Long ago, I learned that most spells can be used in ways that they were not originally designed to be used. I think it's fun and as a GM, I always give bonus XP to players to use spells in creative new ways.

For example, Levitate as an attack spell: cast this on someone and they are stuck up in the air, an easy target, and unable to engage in hand-to-hand. In most games they would probably have huge minuses to dodge / parry, too.

Or Create Water cast onto powered electronics (or computers) to cause them to short out or fry their circuits. Etc, etc.

I have run across GM's who do not allow this or limit such casting in some way. For example, in a D&D game, a DM allowed me to cast "Wall of Iron" over someone's head so that it fell on them and caused damage. But the same DM would not let me Teleport an enemy off a cliff.

I would've allowed both, myself.

What about you? Do you have limits on how you will allow your players to use spells?

Just curious.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;491072What about you? Do you have limits on how you will allow your players to use spells?

Just curious.

The only limits I apply are those specified in the description of the spell and pure common sense.

I like the power stunt system of Marvel Super Heroes which is also used by Icons. Basically you are normally expected to use a power in the spirit of the rules however you can spend a resource to do something different and special.

I think that's the best of both worlds. Going only be the spirit of the law limits the player's creativity but at the same time going only by the letter of the law invites the cynical bending and exploitation of the rules which rewards players knowledge of the rules over their knowledge of the genre and in turn forces game designers to write stricter and more cumbersome or flavourless rules.

Okay, this applies to superpowers but I think it would work with spells too.

Same answer as Ramón and yes, sometimes I reward creative spell use.

Regards,
David R

Same as Ramon, with one caveat.

If it becomes obvious that a player has found a way to seriously abuse a spell, then I point out that the basic spells have existed for a long, long time, that the player's Magic User knows this, and ask the player why, exactly, they've never heard of anyone abusing the spell this way?

If they come up with a good reason, that's the reason. If they don't, I come up with one.

Sure, I normally allow them.

However, I point out that NPCs might also know little tricks like these ...

I'm all about creative spell use in ADnD 1st and 2nd edition. Usually when I'm the only wizard in a party of fighter types, most of my time is spent role-playing or coming up with creative and cunning uses of spells and their description/usage.

I played a wizard in a Dragonlance campaign and had to undertake a wizard's test, and passed with flying colours as I managed to use spells with long durations and reuse certain spells to solve several puzzles over different floors. Tenser's Floating Disc being my favourite long duration spells, that solved

. A moving walkway puzzle
. A molten lava puzzle
. A room that had a lake and an unreachable island
. As a distraction in combat by having it nudge from behind every combatant I faced.

There were others. The spells are there to be exploited, its what Tenser and Bigby would have wanted xxx

Interestingly enough, most of the descriptions of the spells mentioned in this thread have clear text that explicitly disallows a lot of these creative uses.  Perhaps this has been excised in PF/4E, but I distinctly remember official rulings that a wall must be anchored between two existing points capable of supporting it and that a caster can't ride on his own TFD.

The problem I have with "creative" uses of spells is that they almost always involve an anachronistic understanding of physics on the part of the player.  Casting explosive runes on parchment and folding it into a paper airplane to throw at enemies is one of my "favourites", as is using fire spells to evacuate the oxygen from cave/dungeon complexes.

I love creative spell uses. A resourceful wizard can squeeze unseen servant and cantrip for a lot of value.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;491150I love creative spell uses. A resourceful wizard can squeeze unseen servant and cantrip for a lot of value.

I ran a game years ago where two first level characters were up against a mounted knight they couldn't possibly beat. The wizard used unseen servant to grab the bit in the horse's mouth to throw the rider.

Good stuff.

On the other hand, I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to spell descriptions. A levitated enemy would control the spell and refuse to levitate. It isn't exactly antigravity.

I like to see people creating completely new spells, or recombining existing spells or cantrips to make more powerful spells. Sadly in the last decade or so, I have only run across one player that had new non-canon spells on his char sheet.

I follow the strict descriptions of the spells, if a player can think of anything to do with the spell that doesn't in any way break those description guidelines then they can do it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;491356I follow the strict descriptions of the spells, if a player can think of anything to do with the spell that doesn't in any way break those description guidelines then they can do it.

RPGPundit

That is how I do it as well. There is still a lot of out-of-the-box stuff you can do and it is fair to everyone. I think it also adds a consistency and believability that is important to me as a player and GM.

Quote from: Imperator;491074The only limits I apply are those specified in the description of the spell and pure common sense.

Right. From there, it's a definite "yes" on my part as a DM.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;491072I have run across GM's who do not allow this or limit such casting in some way. For example, in a D&D game, a DM allowed me to cast "Wall of Iron" over someone's head so that it fell on them and caused damage. But the same DM would not let me Teleport an enemy off a cliff.

I would've allowed both, myself.

I encourage creative spell use, but you have to actually use the spell -- not some spontaneously house-ruled version of the spell.

For example, teleport in D&D explicitly included the caster (and often only the caster) until 3E, at which point it required a willing target. So I'd agree with your DM's ruling: Nope. Spell doesn't work like that.

OTOH, a couple of sessions ago in my Ptolus campaign I had a player who wanted to do aerial surveillance on a docked ship. They didn't have any fly spells handy, but they did have a ring of teleport and a ring of feather fall -- which prompted about five minutes in which the character would teleport 200 feet up, gently float down while making observations, and then teleport back up again. Not massively creative, perhaps, but certain unusual.

Quote from: daniel_ream;491148The problem I have with "creative" uses of spells is that they almost always involve an anachronistic understanding of physics on the part of the player.  Casting explosive runes on parchment and folding it into a paper airplane to throw at enemies is one of my "favourites", as is using fire spells to evacuate the oxygen from cave/dungeon complexes.

Not sure about the latter, but paper airplanes have been dated back with a fair degree of confidence to at least 1000 AD. And in China they probably date back to 400 or 500 BC (although affixing a certain date is difficult). We have actual diagrams from Da Vinci, who rests pretty firmly in the middle of the "pseudo-historical" era that D&D evokes.

(And as for the latter, I wouldn't be too shocked to discover that miners figured out that open flames "ate the air" or some-such pretty quickly.)