OOC spell graphical effects, should they be removed?

[Zakharra]

am i the only one who likes turning their mage into a giant glowing beacon?

That's what you do to the other mages. FIREBALL!!

[Brokenbone]

Maybe remove all the twinkly and other "buff" type effects and see if folks clamour to have SS / BS back. I'm not seeing anything on the proposal about making fireballs or anything else lose its look.

Again as it's an opinion poll, I've never liked how those particular spells make one's clothing look like either wrinkly brown stuff, or flat grey. Plenty of folks like the look and feel of custom clothing, armor, whatever. Spend top coin for it too in many cases, to get the look "just right."

If your PC drinks a barkskin potion, it seems so far the jury is out on whether that PC should all of a sudden look like first cousin to a treant. That's fine.

That said, any good argument for why your chainmail, or religious vestments, or whatever, all of a sudden look like a forest floor (or statuary, if talking about SS?). If the argument is "a need for an OOC hint", go ahead and examine the PC for their buffs with the "Examine" function, not that I'd suggest knowing they've got "decreased charisma, increased skill, damage reduction, or whatever else is knowledge you should treat as IC knowledge anyhow.

Also if removal of effects cuts lag (not clear if there is lag when someone crosses an AT then all of a sudden there's jingling and sparkling), that's a pretty good selling point.

[ç i p h é r]

This is an interesting question.

I like the idea of removing effects to make spells more of a mystery to other players, but at the same time, I think it makes the game more visually appealing to keep them in. Superfluous eye candy? Certainly. But if you strip NWN down far enough simply on the basis that it compromises your imagination, you'll eventually be left with a pen, paper, and set of dice. I prefer to adopt D&D rules but enjoy the graphical and technological advances we've made since the 1970's. What draws me to play D&D on the PC is that I can "see" the world and witness magical things....therein lies some of the appeal.

So, until the visualization of those effects can be regulated on a player basis, I guess I would vote for keeping it OOC knowledge (selectively), though it appears I'm in the vast minority on this one.

[Twiggy]

The problem with making it an individual decision is still LAG. Everytime someone ATs with buffs twinkling all over the place it lags the other PCs as well. This also happens every time the the twinkling PC steps into your perception range. Why is this bad? Try being a scout that stays slightly ahead of the party but runs into a spawn with keen eyesight right about the time the lights display hits your range.

[DMyles]

and it looks like the number 1s have it

[Grey Pilgrim]

which n00bs voted for 2? i demand they be mocked in public!

[dergon darkhelm]

Not to yank this too far off topic ------ but is there any use of spellcraft checks for knowing a spell effect in in place in ALFA?

[Fionn]

Again, this poll is not about removing spell visual effects that are IC. This poll is about removing OOC spell visual effects. If certain spells are found to have an IC effect, we will naturally keep them.

#1 is "remove them all". To me that means IC, OOC, and any other classification. IMO, Ghostly Visage, Etheralness, etc, certainly have an IC visual, so the VFX should remain. If peeps really want to see Stoneskin/barkskin on the OOC list I'm fine with that too.

The downside to that (esp Stonekin) is that I don't normally check the combat log during combat. IC, I should certainly note my blows are doing little harm, while OOC I may not notice the DR part if I'm over 10. Since I don't use a blade IC, that won't affect me much :).

[DMyles]

ghostly vissage should definatly stay protection from spells is ubber cool looking and should probably stay too

[ayergo]

To me anything in the school of transmutation is a physical alteration (hence the root). Not something i'm terribly concerned about, but it makes sense to me.

[Twiggy]

Physical alteration would be the hardening of the skin. In every novel I've read these spells do not change the appearance of it.

[AlmightyTDawg]

To me anything in the school of transmutation is a physical alteration (hence the root). Not something i'm terribly concerned about, but it makes sense to me.

To supplement Twiggy's point, by way of comparison, the spell "Ironwood" is also in the school of transmutation. That one is very explicit about it remaining just like wood in nearly every way - changing the properties does not necessarily mean changing the appearance. I could, though, see someone house ruling that hardened skin might cause a slight difference in action/motility that could be detected with a high spot - but that's a house rule kind of scenario only and not really covered directly in the rules.

Most things in the school of illusion (ghostly visage), or things which create force effects (like shield), would obviously come with some manner of IC effect. We'd be looking at those spells on a case-by-case basis I presume.

[MShady]

I don't have a particular problem with it, besides stuff like stoneskin and barkskin. It may or may not be OOC. I've seen alot of PnP DMs go both ways with it. Certainly when its dropped on me in combat, I would know immediately. There are good reasons why all servers that have elected to remove spell effects have left stoneskin and barkskin in. When I'm in combat, i'm focused on watching my PC. Not reading the numbers or looking at the icon bar. You really have alot at higher levels especially. When it drops, I need to know instantly as possible to replace it. Or more importantly, run.

Moreover, the truth of it is alot of DMs like to know if players have stoneskin up or not and weight encounters based on that somewhat. There is also the issue that DMs especially kind of rely on the visuals because they don't even have the icons. Much the same could be said for barkskin, though its a far less critical thing. While it might offend people's sensibilities... we are playing in a different, far faster paced, medium and visual cues are important to have.

Does removing things like stoneskin effect many people? No it doesn't so I don't really expect keeping them to be popular. Some people don't even like weapons that glow and we used to ban light too. I feel much more comfortable being able to see it then not, because one way or another, its important to be able to see it on your own PC/NPC. That, at least, should at least remain an option. Or, just cast it when you're likely to need it.

Mike

[ayergo]

Physical alteration would be the hardening of the skin. In every novel I've read these spells do not change the appearance of it.

okay, but wouldn't that be visable though? Most of my time in lab when you physically change something it looks different too. i guess we can say its all magic and what not, but from what i've seen it makes sense.

I mean, wouldn't it make someone look like a bad kirk-douglass lookalike after sitting in the hot sun and basting themselves with wine? Heck, i suppose we could say its underneath the skin or something, but point is i think it makes sense that a physical change results in an appearance change of some sort.

[loulabelle]

I voted for 4. The endure elements whatever it is is rather ridiculous not quite sure how upwards snow indicates an immunity to elemental effects. It also lags like crazy especially when everyone decides to cast it at the same time. The others I don't really care about. Ultravision is a bit weird but frankly I don't lose sleep over it. I do however like barkskin and would definitely like to keep that. I suppose stoneskin as well since its a similar physical thing.

But to be totally blunt, I think there are far more important things to worry about than a few pretty sparkles on the screen!!

Lou