FANDOM


Forums: Helping Hand > Spell Type

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}


I'd like to propose that we remove the type fields from the {{Spell}} infobox template or at least remove it for all but 4e.

First of all, unless I am mistaken, it is a useless field for 1e, 2e, and 3e, because all spells are Vancian. There is not a reason for a field that always will have the same value.

Second, Vancian is not even a D&D term; it's essentially meta-crunch, which is worse than crunch in my opinion. It would be like having a field with the value always being "d20-based". Does 4e actually use this term to describe spells with that mechanic?

It seems to me that the only reason this field exists is because of the major change to magic in 4e, and just like we got rid of origin from {{Creature}} for all but 4e, I feel that we should do the same for the other edition's type fields. They just clutter the infobox with useless information.

~ Lhynard (talk) 21:59, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this and never completely understood why we put it in.

I would also suggest that we make a "components" line that would include v, s, and/or m depending.
Ruf (talk) 23:37, March 17, 2019 (UTC)


The field was put there to make the distinction between 4e spells and the three earlier editions. For those transitioning, it was reminder of the new system vs. the old system. The link to the wikipedia article that explains the magic system Gygax et al. chose for D&D should be kept somewhere for historical purposes, and/or it should get a mention in a Behind the Scenes section of the appendix to the Magic article. If the consensus is to remove it from the 1e, 2e, and 3e sections of the Spell infobox, I can probably do that with the bot.
Moviesign (talk) 23:47, March 17, 2019 (UTC)


Yeah, it makes sense as a field if we didn't have separate stats sections for the editions now. (Side question: Is there a reason we don't have tabs for that?)

I definitely am in favor of describing the history of the magic system in the Appendix of the Magic article, and a link to the wikipedia article is also fine there. I just don't think it needs to be in every single spell article.

Re: components field—I am in favor of that and wouldn't mind additional fields for duration, range, casting time, etc.. It's just easier, I think, to remove a bunch of deprecated information by bot than it is to add new fields to hundreds of spell articles, so I have hesitated suggesting that in the past as well—at least not until I finish my massive overhaul of creature infoboxes, which may never end before I die.

~ Lhynard (talk) 00:04, March 18, 2019 (UTC)


I don't mind the Vancian entry, but a different name specific to the D&D systems or the setting may be preferable. "Per preparation" maybe?


However, the type could be useful for the other magic systems created, ones that don't use Vancian preparation and casting mechanisms but could use the Spell template, such as psionics (sciences & devotions in 2e; points based in 3e), shadow magic (mysteries of the apprentice, initiate, and master paths), truenaming (utterances), and warlocks' and dragonfire adepts' invocations (least, lesser, greater, and dark). These haven't been added to the wiki, and their Realmslore value is small for their passing association, but the line might be better kept and not used than removed and then needed. :)
— BadCatMan (talk) 00:50, March 18, 2019 (UTC)


Adding range, duration, area of effect, casting time, and components to the infobox is practically duplicating the stat block for a spell, which is surely a copyright violation. We sidestep this by describing the stats for the minimum casting level and then say things like "or longer for more experienced casters", but there is no way to do that in the infobox.

The reason the Spell infobox doesn't use tabs is because I like the way it looks without them :-b I like seeing the spell tables all stacked up so you can compare classes and levels across editions. However, if I get outvoted, I will tabbify it.

Moviesign (talk) 01:29, March 18, 2019 (UTC)


For what it's worth, I also prefer the current stacked version because they allow to see the different editions next to each other and because the individual sections are small enough.

The pervasive "Vancian" type serves little purpose at the moment in my opinion. If there are other types on the horizon, that would change things. Would elven high magic spells count as a different type?

Daranios (talk) 19:35, March 19, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.