| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, it's been mentioned repeatedly in the past that the multiple uses of the word Level just invites confusion. And the more I've been looking at and thinking about the playtest, it's much worse in this edition.
The rules for heightening spells, powers and cantrips makes this all very awkward. Cantrips and powers are automatically heightened to a spell level that is half your level rounded up. So if you're 7th level they're 4th level and grow to 5th level at 9th level.
The addition of item levels makes this even worse, a 4th level wand is a level 8 item and a level 4 wand is 2nd level. The levels of items in the treasure section are sometimes different than the levels on the treasure tables, is this yet another usage of level that isn't fully explained, or are these typos?
And then you've got counteract levels which having read four times in a row, I think I'm finally getting. it's a way to get these different level scales working on the same scale, but the wording and usage of level in different ways is awkward.
Spell levels really need to be renamed (I'd suggest Spell Order, like 4th order spells). Item levels might need to be as well, but possibly not if spell levels change. Then all levels will be on the same scale. And counteract levels, well they need to be clarified and probably given a different name too.
Now someone level with me, are all these different levels on the level or do we need to level the playing field before we can take the game to the next level?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
A good, level-headed analysis. It's about time to get rid of an in-joke which is older than I am.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I desperately want the Paizo team to open a thesaurus.
You want to keep character levels, and spell levels because of tradition. I get it.
A player born in 2005 doesn't care that deeply about Dungeons and Dragons tradition. They care about legibility and comprehension.
A player born in 1995 probably doesn't have a strong emotional connection to the word "level".
I was born in 1984, I don't need you to use the word "level" in order for me to understand tier, order or magnitude for everything.
Help me teach your game, so that it's played by more than OD&D grognards.
You're not making D&D, you're making Pathfinder!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget feats, feats, feats, and feats which are different than feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still prefer 'tier' to 'order' for spells. I'm fine with level on items, because that directly correlates with character level.
I think counteract levels are directly equivalent to spell levels, but it's tricky to think of a different name for that - any of the suggested ones I've ever heard for spells would just sound weird after 'counteract'.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think right now spell levels and counteract levels being on the 10-point scale are the only ones that are not fully analogous in a way that having level for all of them helps.
In some ways, it would be conceptually simpler of everything called level used the 20-point scale, but having 20 different spell levels would get ugly fast, and I imagine if we called the spells 1st, 3rd, 5th, and so on with no even levels, that would be worse.
I still prefer 'tier' to 'order' for spells. I'm fine with level on items, because that directly correlates with character level.
I think counteract levels are directly equivalent to spell levels, but it's tricky to think of a different name for that - any of the suggested ones I've ever heard for spells would just sound weird after 'counteract'.
Tier works too. I'm not wedded to any particular term. Basically anything that is a different word than level is ok, so it's more clear what's being discussed. I keep going back and forth on items levels. But currently I'm thinking you're right. They directly correspond with character levels which makes them probably fine to stay as level. It's the interaction with spell levels that are problematic. Especially since there are two scales of levels, having all levels be 1-20 makes much more sense.
Tier might be a good term for Counteract Levels, if spells are called something else. Or something like Spell Tier Equivalent. A mouthful, but it helps keep things straight. It's a system to match up the different usages of level to get an equivalent, so it's descriptive.
Don't forget feats, feats, feats, and feats which are different than feats.
This doesn't bother me so much personally for some reason. But you do have a point. Just this last playtest session, one of the players got their character mixed up a bit because they assumed feats were interchangeable. And the fact that all skill feats are general feats, but not all general feats are skill feats can be problematic. And Class and Ancestry Feats are something else entirely. Maybe rename class feats to some other name, do something similar to Ancestry Feats, rename General Feats to just Feats and then Skill Feats can stay the same. That would keep Feats only as the name for things where one is a subset of the other and not independent the way Class and Ancestry feats are.
I think right now spell levels and counteract levels being on the 10-point scale are the only ones that are not fully analogous in a way that having level for all of them helps.
In some ways, it would be conceptually simpler of everything called level used the 20-point scale, but having 20 different spell levels would get ugly fast, and I imagine if we called the spells 1st, 3rd, 5th, and so on with no even levels, that would be worse.
The fact that spell and counteract levels work differently than the other things called levels is what I see as the whole problem in the first place.
My assumption was that Spell Levels would be renamed something like Spell Tiers or Spell Orders or whatever. So your cantrips and powers are an Tier equal to half your level rounded up. So you'd have 1st Tier, 2nd tier etc. Changing the name instead of just connecting them directly to character levels, that would be problematic. Just keep the name level for Character level and Monster and Items Levels which are linked to character level.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think right now spell levels and counteract levels being on the 10-point scale are the only ones that are not fully analogous in a way that having level for all of them helps.
In some ways, it would be conceptually simpler of everything called level used the 20-point scale, but having 20 different spell levels would get ugly fast, and I imagine if we called the spells 1st, 3rd, 5th, and so on with no even levels, that would be worse.
The fact that spell and counteract levels work differently than the other things called levels is what I see as the whole problem in the first place.
My assumption was that Spell Levels would be renamed something like Spell Tiers or Spell Orders or whatever. So your cantrips and powers are an Tier equal to half your level rounded up. So you'd have 1st Tier, 2nd tier etc. Changing the name instead of just connecting them directly to character levels, that would be problematic. Just keep the name level for Character level and Monster and Items Levels which are linked to character level.
I think Mark's point is that the name of this thread is a bit misleading, with only spells having this problem meaning there are really only two definitions of level (rather than the four the title implies). I came to this thread a bit curious what the other two definitions were myself.
This doesn't mean spell level being different isn't a problem (I personally agree entirely that spell levels should be retitled), of course, but I think it being down to two was where he was going with that post.
There's an interesting passage in the 1st Ed AD&D DMG about using level so ubiquitously, and that they considered Order for spells, and Rank for monster or dungeon levels or something, and why they went with universal Level.
I remember someone quoting that a while ago. If I recall it wasn't so much a reason as a shrug and "We thought about giving them different names, but decided not to bother. People can tell them apart." Which we can, usually, but it's non-intuitive and requires more thought to work out what's being referred to at the time than should be necessary.
I think Mark's point is that the name of this thread is a bit misleading, with only spells having this problem meaning there are really only two definitions of level (rather than the four the title implies). I came to this thread a bit curious what the other two definitions were myself.
This doesn't mean spell level being different isn't a problem (I personally agree entirely that spell levels should be retitled), of course, but I think it being down to two was where he was going with that post.
Fair enough, I might have misinterpreted what he was saying. The third and fourth I was thinking of were item and interact levels. There's also the Creature and Hazard Levels. I hadn't yet come to the conclusion that not all of those are an issue. This thread has led me to conclude that Item Levels, Creature Levels and Hazard Levels are probably fine. They're on the same scale as character levels and relate to them explicitly. Interact Levels are still a bit of an issue though as are spell levels. But it was also an exaggeration for effect, playing on the absurdity of the multiple uses of level. Maybe I should have toned it down a bit. But it was the interaction of spell levels with item levels and interact levels which led me to create this thread.
Hey, at least we got rid of “class level” and “character level!” :-)
Maybe we should try to open a thread where a bunch of us are invited to participate, and we all agree that we use the term “order”for spells, “level” for characters, “rank” for monsters, “magnitude” for counteract levels, and see how it goes? Any other “level” terms I’m missing that need re-naming?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, I might have misinterpreted what he was saying. The third and fourth I was thinking of were item and interact levels. There's also the Creature and Hazard Levels. I hadn't yet come to the conclusion that not all of those are an issue.
That also sounds fair enough.
This thread has led me to conclude that Item Levels, Creature Levels and Hazard Levels are probably fine. They're on the same scale as character levels and relate to them explicitly.
Yeah, all those interact in a really clear way, to me, and are operating on the same scale (or should be).
Interact Levels are still a bit of an issue though as are spell levels. But it was also an exaggeration for effect, playing on the absurdity of the multiple uses of level. Maybe I should have toned it down a bit. But it was the interaction of spell levels with item levels and interact levels which led me to create this thread.
Uh...do you mean 'Counteract Levels'? Because Interact Levels are really not a thing. There are Interact Actions but those are quite different.
As for 'Counteract Levels' they basically are spell levels in every meaningful way to at least the same degree as Monster Levels and PC Levels are the same as each other. Therefore, I'd strongly argue they should use the same terminology spells get, and that we still only have two really separate things calling themselves 'level'.
Which remains one too many, mind you, but it's not as bad a problem as it might be.
Hey, at least we got rid of “class level” and “character level!” :-)
Maybe we should try to open a thread where a bunch of us are invited to participate, and we all agree that we use the term “order”for spells, “level” for characters, “rank” for monsters, “magnitude” for counteract levels, and see how it goes? Any other “level” terms I’m missing that need re-naming?
Calling monsters and characters different things seems pretty silly to me. Ditto spells and counteract levels. We really only need two terms here, one for things that go to 20 levels, and one for spells and counteract effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think right now spell levels and counteract levels being on the 10-point scale are the only ones that are not fully analogous in a way that having level for all of them helps.
In some ways, it would be conceptually simpler of everything called level used the 20-point scale, but having 20 different spell levels would get ugly fast, and I imagine if we called the spells 1st, 3rd, 5th, and so on with no even levels, that would be worse.
Actually... Why not 20 spell levels? It would really make a lot of the math very natural if everything is on a scale of 20. I suspect it would also open more design space for things like heightening. The idea was proposed by Monte Cook a few years back, I think.
If we recoil from such a big innovation (it may be a little too late for that at this point), then I'd like to strongly support the idea of finding another name for spell levels.
Interact Levels are still a bit of an issue though as are spell levels. But it was also an exaggeration for effect, playing on the absurdity of the multiple uses of level. Maybe I should have toned it down a bit. But it was the interaction of spell levels with item levels and interact levels which led me to create this thread.Uh...do you mean 'Counteract Levels'? Because Interact Levels are really not a thing. There are Interact Actions but those are quite different.
As for 'Counteract Levels' they basically are spell levels in every meaningful way to at least the same degree as Monster Levels and PC Levels are the same as each other. Therefore, I'd strongly argue they should use the same terminology spells get, and that we still only have two really separate things calling themselves 'level'.
Yeah, sorry about that. I meant counteract levels but misstyped. True, they are effectively spell levels but the current wording does make them a bit confusing. I needed to read the section four times before I got it. I'm not sure they really need their own name at all. Just rules for finding the equivalent spell level (or rather whatever we replace the term spell level with) for a given Level, when the effect comes from an item or class ability. Counteract Level, just seems to add another term to the pile that really isn't needed. Something like "When comparing a spell effect and a non spell effect, the non-spell effect is treated as having a spell order (or whatever) equal to half the level of the item or ability enacting it." I'm sure that can be written more clearly than I did, but I think that gets the general point across. I think this might be more or less what you meant by using the same term as with spells. So I think we're basically agreeing here.
I think right now spell levels and counteract levels being on the 10-point scale are the only ones that are not fully analogous in a way that having level for all of them helps.
In some ways, it would be conceptually simpler of everything called level used the 20-point scale, but having 20 different spell levels would get ugly fast, and I imagine if we called the spells 1st, 3rd, 5th, and so on with no even levels, that would be worse.
Speaking only for myself, I would prefer spell levels of 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc. That said, I think just renaming spell levels to something else is a more elegant solution.
If level is universally a 1-20 scale and tiers/orders/whatever are a 1-10 scale, I think that will help teach the game to newbies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My extremely unpopular naming and category revision would look kinda like this:
Level: Character Level
Spells and Powers: Cantrips (0), Minor (1-3), Moderate (4-6), Greater (7-9), Grand (10)
Magic Items: Common (1-4), Uncommon (5-8), Rare (9-12), Legendary (13-16), Artifact (17+)
Feats: Novice (1-6), Paragon (8-12), Epic (14+)
My players in the playtest have been recommending Tier in place of things that are based on half character level, such as Spell Tier or Counteract Tier, because they liked it in Starfinder.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players in the playtest have been recommending Tier in place of things that are based on half character level, such as Spell Tier or Counteract Tier, because they liked it in Starfinder.
I also like tier for spells. The fact that a lvl 4 wizard can make lvl 4 items but not cast lvl 4 spells is counter intuitive.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually... Why not 20 spell levels?
There may well be other reasons but, in my mind, the most important is that this would just be way too big a change at this point for little gain.
They'd either have to do it VERY quickly in order to playtest OR not playtest it and hear the screams of nerdrage when we all disagreed about whether fireball should be a L4, L5 or L6 spell.
All to reduce a reasonably small naming issue?
They'd be insane to do such a thing
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This comes mostly from having run a lot of Exalted, but I've always used "Circle" for spells. As in, fireball is a third-circle spell; wish is a ninth-circle spell.
Sounds nicely mystical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This comes mostly from having run a lot of Exalted, but I've always used "Circle" for spells. As in, fireball is a third-circle spell; wish is a ninth-circle spell.
Sounds nicely mystical.
The idea has been discussed during the playtest previews: Get Rid of Spell Levels, Enter Circles.
That thread is locked, like all the preview threads, but we can mine it for ideas, such as why "tiers" and "degree" might not work as well as "circles". "1st tier" and "1st degree" mean the best, but the spells at 1st tier or 1st degree would be the weakest. "Rank" goes either direction, so it might work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could we just increase the spell levels themselves and just not have any even leveled spells?
lvl 1 -> Lvl 1
lvl 2 -> Lvl 3
lvl 3 -> Lvl 5
etc.
That way you always know when you will get the next set of spells and the level it refers to is the same level as everything else. There aren't many effects that work off of spell level and it would just remove the need for counteract level entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put me in the "spell tiers or spell circles or spell SOMETHING" camp. I'm not sure I understand Counteract levels and some terminology could fix that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another vote for changing it.
Pathfinder 1e stayed reasonably close to D&D 3.5, so it had no choice but to stick with classic conventions. That isn't the case for 2e. Paizo, you only get a chance to do this once a decade, do it now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another vote for tier or circle or order or grade!
I dont' think 'spell levels' is even any kind of a a sacred cow! It's just a bit of legacy confusion!
At the very least, maybe some questions about this should be added to one of the general surveys. Same with the idea of renaming some of the various types of feats. I know the devs like to see actual data instead of just forum chatter, this is the chance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine if we called the spells 1st, 3rd, 5th, and so on with no even levels, that would be worse.
13th Age does that and it works just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget feats, feats, feats, and feats which are different than feats.This doesn't bother me so much personally for some reason. But you do have a point. Just this last playtest session, one of the players got their character mixed up a bit because they assumed feats were interchangeable. And the fact that all skill feats are general feats, but not all general feats are skill feats can be problematic. And Class and Ancestry Feats are something else entirely. Maybe rename class feats to some other name, do something similar to Ancestry Feats, rename General Feats to just Feats and then Skill Feats can stay the same. That would keep Feats only as the name for things where one is a subset of the other and not independent the way Class and Ancestry feats are.
Oh hey, the thing I said would happen happened. Take THAT naysayers on a random blogpost three months ago!
This comes mostly from having run a lot of Exalted, but I've always used "Circle" for spells.
I don't want to use circle unless we're getting spell squares and spell triangles too...
This comes mostly from having run a lot of Exalted, but I've always used "Circle" for spells.I don't want to use circle unless we're getting spell squares and spell triangles too...
(jokingly) What do you think Burst and Cone effects are?
In all seriousness I don't think we need 10 different 'tiers' of spells. Consider the following: are 1st level spells significantly different in terms of power and scope than 2nd level spells? How about 3rd level and 4th level spells? Or 5th and 6th? Why are some spells gated at higher levels when comparably scaled effects are available at lower levels?
For example, for two Actions and a 1st level slot, Burning Hands does 2d6 in a 15-foot cone, with the standard Reflex save to mitigate damage. Fireball does 6d6 in a 20-foot burst within 300 feet for a 3rd level slot; Burning Hands does the damage damage with heightening. Cone of Cold does 11d6 in a 30-foot cone, 60 if you have a crystal or icicle on hand, which is only 1d6 more than Fireball or Burning Hands heightened. The only practical change between a 1st level spell and a 5th level spell in this case is how big your explosion is. What if Burning Hands' cone range increased when you heightened it? What if Cone of Cold started as a level 1 spell?
Air Bubble is a 1st level spell that can be cast as a Reaction to give a nearby character one minute of breathable air. Water Breathing is a 2nd level spell that takes one minute of casting time to give up to five nearby creatures an hour of water breathing, or much longer when heightened. What if these were the same spell? Cast in one minute to allow longer water breathing, or cast in a pinch to not drown when your friend gets grabbed by a Dire Crocodile and is dragged into a bog.
Light is a cantrip that creates a light source for one day. Continual Flame is a 2nd level spell that creates a permanent light source for a small cost in ruby dust. Why isn't Continual Flame just a heightened option for the Light cantrip? To go one step farther, why can't it be a basic ritual anyone with Light can do with some ruby dust and a turn? I don't think allowing people with the Light cantrip to make Continual Flames is going to ruin anyone's immersion.
Honestly, Pathfinder 2.0 already has martial damage spikes built into the system every 4-5 levels or so. Why not just redistribute Spell Levels/Circles/Tiers to those points instead? Circle 1 at 1st level, Circle 2 at 5th level, Circle 3 at 9th level, and so on. Cantrips scale by the highest Circle spell you can cast, so people who multiclass Wizard need to take the feats for stronger spells to increase their Cantrip power. That way casters get a power spike at the same time as martials do, instead of getting one every 2 levels.
People are already complaining about the lack of impact of lower-grade spells, maybe do something like this:
Burning Hands (Spell 1)
Tags: Evocation, Fire
Casting Time: 2 Actions (Somatic & Verbal)
Gouts of flame rush from your hands. You deal 4d6 fire damage to creatures in a 20-foot cone; they must each attempt a Reflex save.
Critical Success: The creature takes no damage.
Success: The creature takes half damage.
Failure: The creature takes full damage.
Critical Failure: The creature takes double damage.
Heightened (+1): The damage increases by 4d6 and the cone extends another 5 feet.
EDIT: Before people see the spell and freak out, this is meant to be equivalent to a current 2nd level spell. Heightening it by 1 would be equivalent to a current 4th level spell. Spellcasters wouldn't get access to Second Circle spells until 5th level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? actual, real people are confused by this? and it's not just internet hyperbole? Because I have never met, in over 30 years of gaming and personally teaching a lot of people, anyone confused by the different uses of 'level'. A simple explanation that class levels and spell levels are different has been sufficient to allay any concerns.
This comes mostly from having run a lot of Exalted, but I've always used "Circle" for spells. As in, fireball is a third-circle spell; wish is a ninth-circle spell.
Sounds nicely mystical.
Now I need to dig up my Earthdawn books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? actual, real people are confused by this? and it's not just internet hyperbole? Because I have never met, in over 30 years of gaming and personally teaching a lot of people, anyone confused by the different uses of 'level'. A simple explanation that class levels and spell levels are different has been sufficient to allay any concerns.
Sure, it can be explained, as can all the other janky things we inherited from D&D 3.0, but that doesn't mean we should. Some people are going to pick the book up without having an old-timer around to explain stuff to them, and it should be playable and make sense to them.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? actual, real people are confused by this? and it's not just internet hyperbole? Because I have never met, in over 30 years of gaming and personally teaching a lot of people, anyone confused by the different uses of 'level'. A simple explanation that class levels and spell levels are different has been sufficient to allay any concerns.
I surprised myself by making this mistake. At first I thought the scaling on cantrips was nice. I thought it related to character level. When I realized it related to spell level it was too late and I was trudging through level 4 achieving nothing in particular with cantrips. But it must be because I've only been gaming for 21 years. Maybe in 9 years I'll be immune to such mistakes. By that time Paizo's probably dancing around the question of whether they're working on v3.
Yes, you could explain that the two terms mean something different. Eventually everyone will get it. But what good reason is there for actually using almost the same name for different things that work differently? So we can pat ourselves on the back for being able to work through unnecessarily obscurantist nomenclature?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, my gaming groups are very experienced at this sort of double talk but we still took quite a few sessions to work out what levels Cantrips were cast at.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? actual, real people are confused by this? and it's not just internet hyperbole? Because I have never met, in over 30 years of gaming and personally teaching a lot of people, anyone confused by the different uses of 'level'. A simple explanation that class levels and spell levels are different has been sufficient to allay any concerns.
Just want to point out, you literally acknowledge that the problem exists in your last sentence. You are playing it off as a small problem, but you can't claim that a problem simultaneously doesn't exist and is small.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? actual, real people are confused by this? and it's not just internet hyperbole? Because I have never met, in over 30 years of gaming and personally teaching a lot of people, anyone confused by the different uses of 'level'. A simple explanation that class levels and spell levels are different has been sufficient to allay any concerns.Just want to point out, you literally acknowledge that the problem exists in your last sentence. You are playing it off as a small problem, but you can't claim that a problem simultaneously doesn't exist and is small.Explaining the difference between 'character levels' and 'spell levels
and everyone getting it in one go means it isn't a problem. Any game terminology needs explanation. It's only a problem if the explanation doesn't work and people are still confused.IME, it's never been a problem. My original group understood it the first time around in B/X when we were 12 with no internet or other experienced players to help us. The same went for all the other gamers I've met who learned the same way at about the same time. The same for those who were introduced in the 3.x period. Even people who had trouble with other aspects of the game had no trouble with this.
There's a difference between explaining a term, and explaining the difference between the two terms.
Explaining the difference is a tacit acknowledgement that there is a potential for confusion. No one is saying that 100% of people will be confused 100% of the time. But rather that the number of people confused is greater than 0%, and it happens more than 0% of the time.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? actual, real people are confused by this? and it's not just internet hyperbole? Because I have never met, in over 30 years of gaming and personally teaching a lot of people, anyone confused by the different uses of 'level'. A simple explanation that class levels and spell levels are different has been sufficient to allay any concerns.I surprised myself by making this mistake. At first I thought the scaling on cantrips was nice. I thought it related to character level. When I realized it related to spell level it was too late and I was trudging through level 4 achieving nothing in particular with cantrips. But it must be because I've only been gaming for 21 years. Maybe in 9 years I'll be immune to such mistakes. By that time Paizo's probably dancing around the question of whether they're working on v3.
Yes, you could explain that the two terms mean something different. Eventually everyone will get it. But what good reason is there for actually using almost the same name for different things that work differently? So we can pat ourselves on the back for being able to work through unnecessarily obscurantist nomenclature?
One of my players made the exact same mistake, seeing the heightened text and thought it referred to character level, not spell level. We didn’t realize it until halfway through the adventure!
The fact that people are actually getting confused by this in real play indicates to me that we should consider changing the terminology.