Jump to content

Talk:Magic in Dungeons & Dragons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Haleth (talk | contribs) at 10:58, 5 February 2021 (→Merger proposal of Weave (Forgotten Realms)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDungeons & Dragons Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
D&D to-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Votes for Deletion archived debate (on articles for individual spells)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The below discussion is a deletion debate over several articles on individual D&D spells moved from VfD

Hmmm ... do we really want/need an article about each and every Dungeons and Dragons spell? Elf-friend 01:19, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • No. Delete--Samuel J. Howard 02:17, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • No we don't. Delete all of them. -- Netoholic 02:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    1. Displacer beast
    2. Magic missile
    3. Magic missle
    4. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.57.255.173
    • >.< ... shakes head in despair. Elf-friend 02:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with deleting all, by the way. --Elf-friend 03:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh man...delete them all, we would, my precious! (conflation of D&D and JRRT just to anger people who would care!)--Samuel J. Howard 03:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Non-encyclopedic minutia. SWAdair | Talk 03:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Finally, we can end this all this D&D psuedo-information. Delete all. Also, may I suggest adding Ray of Frost too? It incorrectly survived and was merged into a 1 item "list" when it was on vfd [1]. Eggy O 03:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all, including Ray of Frost. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The titles of the spells and monsters are such that redirects will inevitably trip over needed or existing articles (e.g. Fireball). The people doing the searching already know what they are, and we are not Gygax Central. Geogre 03:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all, including the non-article that Ray of Frost redirects to. -Sean Curtin 06:50, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Qualified all - campaign settings and major characters are probably notable enough to keep, but individual creatures, spells, magic items and modules aren't. And this from a roleplayer. ;) -- Necrothesp 12:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. DJ Clayworth 14:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this; delete all specific spells, unless they are also the names of attested mythological subjects like evil eye or tarasque. Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. But let's make this just the start of cleaning up minor fiction articles in general--there's anime, manga, Star Trek, Star Wars, JRR, computer game, etc. articles on par with these, which could be either deleted, or condensed into summary articles--EG Genealogy of Peregrin Took, instead of break-out articles for each Hobbit that just happens to get mentioned as a relative. Niteowlneils 15:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all - people, if you want to write a game guide, Wikibooks is sitting there being an appropriate venue. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Bulls strength and Ray of Frost. Keep Displacer beast (2310 Google results). Keep Magic missile (143,000 results) as part of a larger article. On what basis do you consider an article "minor"? I don't have a problem with an article if it is written like an encyclopaedia article (see Wikipedia:Check your fiction). ··gracefool |☺ 05:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge the less-known spells (preferably merge), but the archetypal ones á la Magic Missile or Fireball (both of which I will start tampering on as soon as I get out of bed) are very well known and certainly warrant their own articles. -- Kizor 22:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've now merged Bulls strength, Magic missile and Cantrip to Spells of Dungeons & Dragons. ··gracefool |☺ 01:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Great. When can we start on monsters of Dungeons & Dragons (or creatures of Dungeons & Dragons)? -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • As soon as possible. (: +sj+ 07:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        1. That's a whole lot more work.
        2. Why? I can understand merging when there are a relatively small number of articles, most of which are stubs, but many Dungeons & Dragons creatures (not to mention characters of Dungeons & Dragons) have a decent amount of text. Why is a single huge page so much better than a number of separate pages, especially when those pages are likely to expand?
          • Please do merge all of the small pages. the longer pages usually have more than just "D&D" information.
            • Please wait until the new policy is decided - meanwhile are they really hurting anyone? ··gracefool |☺ 12:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        3. Redirects to headers/sections don't work.
          • they work for me... +sj+]
            • Huh? You can follow a link to a section, but a redirect page will always send you to the top of a page ··gracefool |☺ 12:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
··gracefool |☺ 03:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overhaul Planned

A change I plan to make is detailed below. If this page is deleted, then fine, but there are dramatic problems with this page, and they should be fixed.

  • Re-write all language that is 3rd edition-specific. This is an article about the elements of D&D that have transcended D&D and influenced the genre of tabletop RPGs, not "spells and mechanics we like in 3rd edition"
  • Par down the list of spells to just those which have either
    • become iconic elements of fantasy role playing (Magic Missile comes to mind)
    • or have directly influenced the development of other games (e.g. some games such as Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved specifically set out to create a magic system that does not rely on the existance of a catch-all "Wish" spell)
  • Remove the schools of magic. Mention that they exist would be fine, but listing them and their features is too much detail.

I will re-word this section as appropriate when I get around to the changes.

-Harmil 20:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article ought to be renamed to Magic of Dungeons & Dragons. That way, the schools (an intrinsic part of the magic system) wouldn't need to be removed, and users wouldn't be quite so tempted to add lists of spells that aren't inherently notable. It would also make this page a good target for merging articles about minor D&D magical items. Discussion of the differences in a spell or effect's implementation between editions is probably germane to the topic, but otherwise I do agree with removing 3E-specific references. -Sean Curtin 23:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, but I disagree. This wasn't about the magic system in general (and I don't think an article just about the D&D magic system would be terribly useful), but about specific spells that ended up getting referenced frequently. Please correct me if I'm missing some element of the history, here.... -Harmil 20:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've removed all 3E-specific stuff, except for a few spells that weren't around pre 3E. I don't think the details on schools is too detailed, and the article isn't so big that it needs separating.
I'm okay with removing spells of small importance, and adding more important ones. ··gracefool |☺ 12:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, cearly you're more ambitious than I today :) Thanks for the hand, and I'll poke around sometime after my next game (which I need to spend time preparing for) and see what's left to be done. Thanks! -Harmil 12:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Sean Curtin. "Magic of Dungeons and Dragons" would be a better article, since the magic items are just as important as the spells and the two often interact. I recommend that the article be moved to "Magic of Dungeons and Dragons", and expanded to cover magic items as well as describing the origins and development of the magic in the game. --Jonathan Drain 22:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[2][reply]
I disagree, since not all spells in D&D are 'magic', and in the strictest sense, only Arcane spells are magic (originally granted by godess of magic, Mistra if I remember the name correctly.) --Arny 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That distinction is not supported by the text in the Player's Handbook, as far as I know. All spells are magic, whether divine or arcane. You'll note that dispel magic works just fine against divine effects. The primary effects that are not considered magical are those of psionics -- but those aren't called spells, either, so they wouldn't fall under either considered title. Powers 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debates over the name aside, I have now completed my intended re-write. There is more work that could be done, but the page is now less of a collection of D&D trivia and more of a review of what elements of the spells of D&D affected the role playing game world. I'd still like to add some good examples of D&D elements cropping up in other games (spell-related, that is). Also, someone added Incarnum, which is fine, but a detailed overview of that should go in its own article. I parred down what was here, and also removed the name (you don't sign Wikipedia articles, sorry). -Harmil 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. I'm not sure the Incarnum section belongs here at all, but you did a good job rewriting it at any rate. I added fireball back in; it's at least as iconic a spell as scrying. =) One could also make an argument for searing light on the divine list (it seems a bit short right now), but it's a weaker case. Powers 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took out fireball?! Good catch! -Harmil 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spell list and recent additions

Mailer diablo recently added the spell "Astral trail" to the list. I can't find a reference to it anywhere. Am I wrong in thinking the spells on this list should be as iconic as possible?

Also, when we do add new spells, let's try to add them in alphabetical order, shall we? Powers 14:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Trap

I see no reason for Skull Trap to be listed here (and especially not in its own section, "Necromancy spells"). This isn't supposed to be a comprehensive list of D&D spells, and I don't want to set a bad precedent here. Powers 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate the redirect for deletion. Once that's gone, I have no objection to removing the spell. --Hetar 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

There seems to be some overlap between this article and Magic (Dungeons & Dragons). Perhaps these articles should be merged? --GentlemanGhost 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, they probably shoild be merged --Wootking Tom 18:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
  • Mere collections of public domain or other source material
Merged or just deleted. shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

How about having an article for each general grouping of spells, like a group for spells dealing with fire? That way, we don't have a bunch of unneeded articles, while also having information on the various spells in D&D. The only thing to watch out for is making sure that we don't replace the Spell Compendium or other such volumes. --Luigifan 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say that both articles Spell and Magic should be deleted. WP:NOT states that Wikipedia should no be used to reproduce books or media files such as the SRD. Magic and spells in the D&D game can be explained in the game mechanics in general. Their is not need for a list of either. shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Divine magic (Dungeons & Dragons)

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Divine magic (Dungeons & Dragons) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine magic (Dungeons & Dragons). (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 08:21Z

Move to magic (Dungeons & Dragons)

IMO magic (Dungeons & Dragons) would be a more appropriate title. Warlock spells are known as invocations in 3.5e, and in 4e, spells are being split up into spells (arcane combat powers), prayers (divine combat powers) and rituals (non-combat powers). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving to Magic (Dungeons & Dragons) is a good idea, and merge in any other forks that fall under the subject. Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic of Dungeons & Dragons or magic in Dungeons & Dragons would also work. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Splash - tk 00:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split dweomer

IMO the merging of dweomer was inappropriate. The article itself clearly states that the term isn't exclusive to D&D. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense now that I take a second look at it. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweomer

Your link to wiktionary is broken; there seems to be no wiktionary article on dweomer at all. --Gwern (contribs) 23:56 26 December 2008 (GMT)

Inaccurate descriptions of arcane magic schools

Currently, some of the descriptions of arcane magic schools contain blanket statements which are not accurate for all editions. For example, in 3rd edition most of Enchantment's non-mind-affecting got moved to Transmutation or converted to metamagic feats, with only the mind-affecting spells remaining in Enchantment. There are also some minor recentism issues involving the school names. I intend to do some cleanup, but I don't have any sources for pre-3rd edition information. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most of the school descriptions were plagiarized from the SRD. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added new school descriptions, but they still need pre-3rd edition information. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be broken up into by-edition sections for description; the 3E text needs to be shortened while the earlier stuff needs to be expanded. I know you don't have access, but I'm just kind of stating the obvious. :) 67.175.176.178 (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to organize it up by edition, as much of the information applies to multiple editions. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can still be done; the magic system has changed many times over the years, and there is probably very little that has remained the same from 1974 until 2009. It's a big job though, and I'm sure it's not going to happen any time soon! 67.175.176.178 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it shouldn't be done because it would involve a lot of pointless repetition. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Why not just copy and paste the whole rule book?] Resuna (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

D&D for Dummies has a section on spells: preview here - [3]. I've added a citation for magic missile - I'm sure one of our editors must have this book and can expand elsewhere. Marasmusine (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Net Spellbook and Prayerbook

It would be good to mention The Great Net Spellbook and The Great Net Prayerbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.19.34 (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recommend some reliable sources that discuss them? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity to actual historical mythology

The following sentence was added to the introduction nearly six years ago, erroneously I believe: "There is little if any similarity between these fictional spells and any actual historical mythology." I'm surprised such an edit has lasted this long. A quick perusal of the 1st and 2nd edition Clerical spells demonstrates that many, if not most, of them are derived from biblical or shamanistic myths. Perhaps that sentence applies to the magic-user spells of those or later editions, but even that is debatable considering the blanket nature of the statement. I recommend removing that from the introduction and adding a couple of sentences elsewhere (in the Origins section?) to note that while some spells have no historical reference, many of them do. 68.105.52.22 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should have reliable sources for all claims like that; if we don't have any such sources, then these claims should be removed, rather than just moved. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're referring to the claim of no similarity, or my claim that such a statement is patently false, or both. In the first case, I imagine it would be hard to provide a source for a negative statement, and in the second case, I didn't make the change because I didn't feel like hunting down references to specific miracles in the bible and in shamanistic traditions (e.g., Create Food and Water -> five loaves and two fish, Polymorph Self -> Therianthropy, etc.). In any case, I'll go ahead and remove the offending line, and leave it to others to expand upon the similarities (or lack thereof) to historical myths. 68.105.52.22 (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic of Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for discussion (January 12, 2020)

"Chomatic Orb" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chomatic Orb. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Chromatic Orb" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chromatic Orb. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Faerie fire" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Faerie fire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Finger of Death" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Finger of Death. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Finger of death" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Finger of death. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Dungeons & Dragons Spells" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Dungeons & Dragons Spells. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Dungeons and Dragons Spells" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Dungeons and Dragons Spells. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Magic discipline" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Magic discipline. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ray Of Frost" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ray Of Frost. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Spell Contingency" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spell Contingency. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tanglefoot bags" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tanglefoot bags. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

I propose to merge Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) here, as magic items are just a special case of magic in the genre overall. Both articles are somewhat lacking in organization and sources now, but would present a stronger single article if combined. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking personally that since Magic of Dungeons & Dragons is written mostly about magic spells, and that Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) is both a separate enough topic from that, and it has survived AFD twice, that it would not be necessary to merge them at this time. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge I've been working on editing the Magic in Dungeons & Dragons to fix multiple issues and I really think that that merging the Magic item article will massively bloat the Magic in Dungeons & Dragons article. With the sources I've added to the Magic in Dungeons & Dragons article, I think it is strong enough to stand on its own. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful, then, if the Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) were improved to be less susceptible to challenges to its own quality of sourcing and contents. BD2412 T 22:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge. A lot of the source of the bloat is information that's basically a re-hash of game guides, which has issues with WP:PRIMARY sources, not to mention WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Even the development section isn't really a development section -- at one point is describes the number of pages and the dates the books were published, and at another point it's sourced to a statement by the editor. Once you remove the improperly sourced information and the game guide, I'm not sure there'd be much left to merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to a merge, mostly for the reasons BOZ and Sariel Xilo have mentioned. In my words, the way the two subjects are demarcated now they have very little overlap. If the articles were merged, it would be necessary to explain how the subjects differ and have two introductory sections. I think this would make understanding for the reader more difficult than have the separate articles as it is now, with no great benefit to balance that. Daranios (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Developing Creative Content for Games seems to have quite a bit of meta-info about use of magic items in D&D (RPGs in general?). Maybe someone can/want's to use that to further improve the article?
At the moment there's a slight tendency not to merge, and little input in the discussion. When and how should it be closed? Daranios (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looting the Dungeon: The Quest for the Genre Fantasy Mega-Text (on pages 93-95, and possibly elsewhere) is another secondary source which has a bit to say about the concept in general. So I will go ahead und remove the merge proposal for the time being, based on the slight majority who does not support a merge, and the lack of recent new input. If someone disagrees, please propose another way how to go forward from here. Daranios (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources go into the exhaustive detail needed to support 99% of the GAMEGUIDE content at Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Developing Creative Content for Games does touch on magic items from a game theory perspective along with some evolution of the concept in D&D. The author and publisher are reputable, though not necessarily specialists in the area, but they're fine. Looting the Dungeon: The Quest for the Genre Fantasy Mega-Text devotes only one sentence to specific magic items. And beyond that, it's a doctoral thesis that doesn't appear to be widely cited, meaning it doesn't meet the requirements at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I also support this merge, but culling the vast amount of unsourced game guide content. Woodroar (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the sentence about individual items, Looting the Dungeon has a few more sentences about magic items as a goal in D&D, and their ubiquitousness in contrast to the seminal Lord of the Rings. Does anyone know how extensive Shared Fantasy: Role-playing Games as Social Worlds and Dicing with Dragons, already in the article, are? But be that as it may, I think Developing Creative Content for Games counts as one secondary source with significant coverage. Shouldn't the increasing number of secondary sources which treat either the topic as a whole or individual items in a shorter fashion together be sufficient to support the subject as a stand-alone article? (The disadvantages of merging with regard to clarity and usefullness have already been discussed). Daranios (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 06:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic of Dungeons & Dragons → Magic in Dungeons & Dragons – The more common convention in Wikipedia is to refer to elements in media rather than of media; see, e.g., Magic in Harry Potter, Magic in Artemis Fowl, Magic in the Greco-Roman world. BD2412 T 03:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looking for Dweomer sources (2020)

I can't find any sources on dweomer including for this bit that's in the article: "Gary Gygax encountered the Middle English word dweomercræft in Susan Kelz Sperling's book Poplollies & Bellibones: A Celebration of Lost Words (1977), where it is defined as "the art of magic or juggling." Gygax invented such derivations as dweomered, dweomercræfter, and dweomercræfting".

Doing a keyword search, I've found it used (but not defined) in Dragon #67 (1982) and Tome of Magic (1991). I didn't have luck finding it in other 1e/2e products. A 2012 WoTC article refers to it being used in AD&D and says "Gary Gygax's sesquipedalian writing style elevated their texts above mere game books, in the process sending a whole generation of gamers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up words such as "milieu," "dweomer," and "puissant,"not to mention Latin abbreviations, such as e.g., i.e, and q.v.to cite just a few examples I still remember to this day".

If you can find a source, please add it. Thanks Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Wictionary entry about dweomer/dwimmer be of any help to you? Daranios (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I misunderstood the question. Daranios (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal of Weave (Forgotten Realms)

I propose to merge Weave (Forgotten Realms) into Magic in Dungeons & Dragons#Forgotten Realms. I think that the content in the Weave article can easily be added to the section on campaign setting specifics and that the Weave article itself fails WP:GNG since it currently has 1 secondary source. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • But why not propose a merge to Mystra (Forgotten Realms) instead, since the concept of magic and the Weave in the Forgotten Realms setting (along with the Spellplague event) is intimately tied to the lore and mythology behind this particular deity? I don't think the Weave needs any more then a single large paragraph in Magic in Dungeons & Dragons since it would be WP:Undue, and the current paragraph there summarizes it succinctly. Merging it into Mystra also makes a stronger case for WP:N with that particular article, since Magic in Dungeons & Dragons is unlikely to be targeted for AfD or PROD as it is currently quite well sourced. Haleth (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magic_in_Dungeons_%26_Dragons&oldid=1004984744"