If "enchanted" now officially means "imbued with magical properties" (as used for the wizard's bonded object, the plants in the ranger's woodland stride, the amulet of mighty fists, bracers of armor, etc., etc.) then can we pretty please, with sugar on top, do two things:
1. Change the name of the School of Enchantment, to avoid confusion; and
2. Put the newly-redefined term in the Glossary.
|
1. Change the name of the School of Enchantment, to avoid confusion; and
2. Put the newly-redefined term in the Glossary.
hope not
what would that make of Enchater s and Enchantress who use mind affecting magic to make their bidding? :Slol i woudl prefer that they change "enchanted" than enchantment school.
|
I don't think this is too confusing, personally.
If I see "enchanted" as it relates to an item, then that's the former definition. Otherwise, that's the latter.
I mean. Aren't people able to use their brains to differentiate the two? I feel sometimes like we're playing scrabble instead of a role-playing game. Nothing's better than good old common sense, to me.
I don't think this is too confusing, personally.
If I see "enchanted" as it relates to an item, then that's the former definition. Otherwise, that's the latter.
I have to agree -- I can't think of a single time I've been confused by it, even going back to 1st edition's "Enchant an Item" spell.
Similarly, there's a school of magic called Divination and a spell called Divination. And yet somehow I've never gotten the two confused.
I prefer a rulebook to have as little ambiguity as possible. Even if I know what is meant, it's a lot easier for new players, and leads to a lot less confusion, if there are clear conventions in the use of game terms.
I'm 100% with you on being specific where caster level, character level, or class level are concerned! Those are technical terms which are genuinely ambiguous, even within context. A similar problem exists with the word "weapon"; it's not always clear whether a rule referring to a weapon includes natural weapons, weapon-like spells, etc.
I've just never been confused by the difference between the Enchantment school and an enchanted item. Could you give a specific example that you find confusing?
I've just never been confused by the difference between the Enchantment school and an enchanted item. Could you give a specific example that you find confusing?
I don't personally, but imagine a new player, one who has never played before, and isn't hip to the 1e jargon, who decides he's going to play an enchanter, with, say, necromancy as one of his barred schools. The party necromancer, who has enchantment as a barred school, says he's going to "enchant" a bonded item. The enchanter says, "but, that's not fair! I can't use necromancy on anything without losing my school power! How come he can use enchantment?!" In 3.0, there was a concerted effort to remove that ambiguity, and the word "enchantment," in official products, was reserved to apply to a spell or effect from that school. Why go back to muddled terminology needlessly? Just for fun?
Let me put it this way: does eliminating the 3.0/3.5 convention improve the game in any way? Or is it just laziness?
I'm completely in agreement that ambiguous terms should be eliminated wherever possible. (I actually wish we had some more good alternatives for 'level' too; it's seriously overused.) It's needless and makes the game harder to learn and harder to run. I know it's a bit more effort to write to that specification, but it really does make a huge difference.
|
|
I actually disagree. I think that 3.X is already way too codified and nitpicky. This is what I like the less in its rules. It tries to take the use of brains, consensus and common sense out of the game's equation.
Barring ridiculously nebulous terms, I genuinely believe that players can make a little effort of comprehension to understand the meaning of a word as it relates to context. People have the gift of Reasoning, they might as well use it.
Now the use of "caster level", "character level" and so on seems to be a genuine concern. These are useful terms that should not be eliminated from the game's vocabulary. I agree on this particular point.
|
|
I've just never been confused by the difference between the Enchantment school and an enchanted item. Could you give a specific example that you find confusing?I don't personally, but imagine a new player, one who has never played before, and isn't hip to the 1e jargon, who decides he's going to play an enchanter, with, say, necromancy as one of his barred schools. The party necromancer, who has enchantment as a barred school, says he's going to "enchant" a bonded item. The enchanter says, "but, that's not fair! I can't use necromancy on anything without losing my school power! How come he can use enchantment?!" In 3.0, there was a concerted effort to remove that ambiguity, and the word "enchantment," in official products, was reserved to apply to a spell or effect from that school. Why go back to muddled terminology needlessly? Just for fun?
Let me put it this way: does eliminating the 3.0/3.5 convention improve the game in any way? Or is it just laziness?
Then the GM enlightens them, we're talking about Pathfinder players, not Beer & Pretzel Edition...
|
|
Then the GM enlightens them, we're talking about Pathfinder players, not Beer & Pretzel Edition...
Absolutely. Further, you know, newbies to role-playing games are actually normal people with -let's hope- above average IQs and the ability to understand explanations the DM or books would provide. Seriously. Let's not take people for morons.
If people perceive this as a problem, allow me to suggest:
Use the word "enhance" as in "enhance a weapon," "an enhanced weapon," and "a +4 enhancement." This is the name of the bonus type and therefor inherently more informative than a possibly ambiguous "enchantment."
Also, they sound similar enough that the substitution doesn't seem too invasive.
While I tend to agree that I've never seen it become an issue, and this is far from a top priority, clarity is very important. Since it is already called an "enhancement Bonus," and the word "enhancement" is quite a bit more intuitive to the meaning, we should just start using it for clarity's sake.
Further, you know, newbies to role-playing games are actually normal people with -let's hope- above average IQs and the ability to understand explanations the DM or books would provide. Seriously. Let's not take people for morons.
So, if I understand you correctly, rulebooks should be as confusingly-written as possible, in order to set the bar higher for new player I.Q. requirements? Maybe my problem is that I do a lot of technical writing for a living. Any ambiguity, no matter how slight, that I put into a sentence is there for a calculated reason, and never as a test of the reader's ability to figure it out.
Since it is already called an "enhancement Bonus," and the word "enhancement" is quite a bit more intuitive to the meaning, we should just start using it for clarity's sake.
Or, more accurately, go back to using it. That was the official term in 3.0 and 3.5.
Since it is already called an "enhancement Bonus," and the word "enhancement" is quite a bit more intuitive to the meaning, we should just start using it for clarity's sake.You mean go back to using it. That was the official term in 3.0 and 3.5.
Right. I support the motion on principle.
If it ain't broke...
and then someone does something else that ain't broke...
then... go back to the first thing?
Maybe my problem is that I do a lot of technical writing for a living. Any ambiguity, no matter how slight, that I put into a sentence is there for a calculated reason, and never as a test of the reader's ability to figure it out.
Amen. These are rules for a game. They should read like a textbook, not a section of Finnegans Wake.
Since it is already called an "enhancement Bonus," and the word "enhancement" is quite a bit more intuitive to the meaning, we should just start using it for clarity's sake.Or, more accurately, go back to using it. That was the official term in 3.0 and 3.5.
They used the word "enchant" to mean two different things in 3.5 as well.
From the 3.5 SRD:
"Enchanting a construct takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its market price. To enchant a construct, a spellcaster must spend 1/25 the item’s price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this price (see individual construct monster entries for details)."
"You can create any wondrous item whose prerequisites you meet. Enchanting a wondrous item takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its price. To enchant a wondrous item, you must spend 1/25 of the item’s price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this price."
For the record, I don't care what word they use. I just find the argument "I'm not confused, but I can imagine some hypothetical person who might find it confusing" pretty weak.
For the record, I don't care what word they use. I just find the argument "I'm not confused, but I can imagine some hypothetical person who might find it confusing" pretty weak.
OK, no big issue. Personally, the argument "we could be a lot clearer in the rules, without any loss of game flexibility, but choose not to be because we can't be bothered" makes absolutely no sense to me at all, but obviously YMMV.
They used the word "enchant" to mean two different things in 3.5 as well.From the 3.5 SRD:
"Enchanting a construct takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its market price. To enchant a construct, a spellcaster must spend 1/25 the item’s price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this price (see individual construct monster entries for details)."
"You can create any wondrous item whose prerequisites you meet. Enchanting a wondrous item takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its price. To enchant a wondrous item, you must spend 1/25 of the item’s price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this price."
For the record, I don't care what word they use. I just find the argument "I'm not confused, but I can imagine some hypothetical person who might find it confusing" pretty weak.
Sure enough Hogarth! And might I add, I prefer the style of the term "enchant" over "enhance." I just thought I'd suggest a term before someone offered something more exotic and the flames grew higher.
Friends! The Beta is out! Don't we have better things to nitpick over?
|
|
So, if I understand you correctly, rulebooks should be as confusingly-written as possible, in order to set the bar higher for new player I.Q. requirements?
No. That's taking my statement as the extreme it is not. What I mean is that the terms used in 3.5 and PRPG are clear enough given context and application. I am not a proponent of RPG rulebooks that try to think for the player. I guess I am a child of 1E AD&D in the sense that I think RPGs can potentially elevate players and DMs to a certain level of responsibility as to the way they choose to use the rules, apply its precepts and extrapolate from there (unlike any other game, really), rather than letting them grow complacent by doing everything for them.
I guess I am a child of 1E AD&D in the sense that I think RPGs can potentially elevate players and DMs to a certain level of responsibility as to the way they chose to use the rules, apply its precepts and extrapolate from there (unlike any other game, really), rather than letting them grow complacent by doing everything for them.
OK. Like I said, I guess it's fine if people feel that strongly about it. I don't really see that clear use of terminology is "pandering" to the players or trying to "think for them" -- although I can see areas in the actual 3.5 rules mechanics that are. To each their own, I guess. I personally like ambiguity where it enhances the game, not just thrown in indiscriminately. (I started with 1e, and disliked the vagueness of the term even then.)
|
|
It's alright Kirth. For the record, I never thought we were arguing. I think we both have valid points, really!
Like I said, the use of "caster level", "character level" etc to define what type of level we're talking about in 3.5 is an asset. Blurring these lines in PRPG would lead to countless misunderstandings, and there you're absolutely right!
Like I said, the use of "caster level", "character level" etc to define what type of level we're talking about in 3.5 is an asset. Blurring these lines in PRPG would lead to countless misunderstandings, and there you're absolutely right!
Man, I was so glad when they started calling skill levels "ranks" instead! And they got rid of "levels" of monsters and replaced that with CR instead. Those were a great start, and specifying "caster" vs. "class" vs. "character" pretty much eliminates the rest of the problem -- if only spell "levels" were called something else!
MMmm. Circles? Degrees?
I'd call cantrips "0-Power Spells," and so on, up to 9th Power. Maybe the spell formulae involve equations of that order, thus explaining the congruence in terms.
From the 1st edition AD&D PH: "It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was termed power, and monster strength was to be termed order... however, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem."
The top four ambiguous terms (which are ambiguous even when read in context) I can think of are:
- level (often not clear when character level, class level, caster level is intended; could also mean spell level, but that's usually clear by context)
- weapon (sometimes means manufactured weapon only, sometimes applies to natural weapons and weapon-like spells, too)
- damage (is ability damage also "damage"?)
- attack (sometimes means a "weapon" attack, but sometimes means any hostile action; sometimes not clear which is meant)
This is from Rambling Scribe, last time we all had this discussion:
I appologise if I seem snarky in my response, I just fail to see how people could get all caught up in the semantics of the term "enhancement", provided they read the rule.Have you ever been on a messageboard or to a games convention? People can and will get worked up about any rule inconsistency! ;-)
Seriously, I can interpret and understand the rules, but not everyone can, and not everyone wants to. There are players that will intentionally use semantics to pervert the intention of a rule. And before you say "A good GM won't allow that" be aware that at cons you don't always have a choice about who you play with, and in organized play, there are sometimes non-intuitive by the RAW rulings made for the sake of consistency.
And sometimes even smart players can just misinterpret something that is worded ambiguously. I had a player tell me that summoned animals from summon spells under 3.0 don't follow orders on the round before they disappear because the text said that they 'act normally on the last turn.' which of course meant that they get an action before they disappear. He thought it meant they do whatever animals would normally do.
Personally I feel one of the biggest benefits of the long and public playtest of Pathfinder is that we can find small inconsistencies like this and patch them.
(And yes, I too have been playing D&D since the dawn of time and had to interpret far less clear rules than this.)
So, if I understand you correctly, rulebooks should be as confusingly-written as possible, in order to set the bar higher for new player I.Q. requirements?No. That's taking my statement as the extreme it is not. What I mean is that the terms used in 3.5 and PRPG are clear enough given context and application. I am not a proponent of RPG rulebooks that try to think for the player. I guess I am a child of 1E AD&D in the sense that I think RPGs can potentially elevate players and DMs to a certain level of responsibility as to the way they choose to use the rules, apply its precepts and extrapolate from there (unlike any other game, really), rather than letting them grow complacent by doing everything for them.
There's a really big difference between "trying to think for the player" and "explaining in simple, logical, unambiguous terms".
The books are not cross-referenced, the same words are used to mean different things, and the GM is often busy running the game.
This is my first game. I read the darn books - all the way through. But there is NO WAY a person can comprehend all the rules without a lot of experience - and if the GM has a less-than-perfect grasp of the rules, then what we ended up with are a couple of very confused and frustrated people.
MMmm. Circles? Degrees?I'd call cantrips "0-Power Spells," and so on, up to 9th Power. Maybe the spell formulae involve equations of that order, thus explaining the congruence in terms.
From the 1st edition AD&D PH: "It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was termed power, and monster strength was to be termed order... however, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem."
Order.
As in a 3rd Order spell.
I would back this move. It works nicely in-character.
There's a really big difference between "trying to think for the player" and "explaining in simple, logical, unambiguous terms".
Again, this from last time:
The argument "I'm an old-timer and I know the difference and anyone who doesn't is stupid" is fairly condescending, but more importantly it loses sight of the fact that newer gamers DO have the right to expect the rules to be "spelled out" to them. That's what rules are FOR. It's their entire purpose. Making them as clear as possible isn't "coddling," it's just good writing. Intentionally changing the definitions of terms between paragraphs serves NO useful purpose, except maybe to make old-school people like you and I feel superior, and that's not a good enough reason for me.
Nevertheless, a surprising number of people seem to feel very strongly that "clarity = coddling = bad," and feel so stongly enough that there's very little likelihood of changing their opinion, or of clarification of terms in PFRPG.
That said, at my own table, I use the following, and would recommend houseruling these terms for people who do prefer a bit more clarity and consistency:
1. Enchant: To affect with a spell or effect from the School of Enchantment. Not to be confused with:
2. Imbue: To create a magical item from a masterwork item, or to add further magical properties to an existing magical item.
3. Enspell: To affect with a spell of any school or type.
4. Enhance: To apply an Enhancement bonus.
5. Augment (Informal "Buff"): To apply a bonus of any type, or any magical property, ability, or advantage, by means of a spell or magical effect. An effect that augments a creature or object is an "augmentation effect," or simply an "augmentation."
Another example of imprecise wording that has bothered me all through Alpha (and has not been change in Beta):
Originally, dwarves had this ability:
"A dwarf’s base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load."
Now they have this ability:
"Slow and Steady: Dwarves have a base speed of 20 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance."
Really? A dwarf's speed is never modified by encumbrance? So a dwarf fighter with 20 Str can sprint while dragging a 2,000 lbs weight behind him?
Nevertheless, a surprising number of people seem to feel very strongly that "clarity = coddling = bad," and feel so stongly enough that there's very little likelihood of changing their opinion, or of clarification of terms in PFRPG.
Personally, I just think that truly ambiguous cases should be handled first. For instance, the name of the spell "Sleep" could be changed to "Slumber" in order to avoid any confusion when using the word "sleep", but that doesn't seem necessary. On the other hand, I've seen people arguing whether bonuses on "damage rolls" (like a barbarian's Powerful Blow ability) give a bonus on attacks that do ability damage (like a shadow's touch attack), so that seems more important to me.
Another example of imprecise wording that has bothered me all through Alpha (and has not been change in Beta)...
The examples are legion. We've often discussed before that, while the Pathfinder rules are far superior to 3.5, they would still benefit greatly from some technical proofreading. "Enchant" is more an example of the widespread careless and sloppy technical usage (one that happened to jump out at me), rather than an important issue in and of itself.
|
Some sort of new word, like imbue or empower or embiggen or magick (as in 'with a magicked sword' or 'she magicked the poor fool into giving her his life savings') would be necessary to eliminate ambiguity, since 'enhancement' also has another meaning in D&D, referring to the temporary effects of Transmutation magic such as Bull's Strength (which also doesn't have much to do with magic item creation, although one could certainly 'enhance' an item to cast Bull's Strength, just as one could 'enhance' an item to cast Charm Person).
Or we can just continue explaining to the new player that an 'enhanced' sword just means a sword, that's been 'roided up by performance-enhancing magics, which will make sense to a player who is unaware that 'enchantment' can refer to casting a spell on something.
I dunno. My only quibble with enhance over enchant is that 'enhance' sounds like someone who cheated their way into the Hall of Fame, and 'enchant' sounds magical. It sounds weird to me.
"How much would it cost to get my sword enhanced?"
"I don't know, how small is it?"
"No, I mean my *sword.*"
"Yeah, they all say that. Whip it out then, I'll see if I can 'enhance' that bad boy."
Some sort of new word, like imbue or empower or embiggen or magick (as in 'with a magicked sword' or 'she magicked the poor fool into giving her his life savings') would be necessary to eliminate ambiguity, since 'enhancement' also has another meaning in D&D.
Yes. I've long lobbied, unsuccessfully, to make "imbue" the magic-item-making word (see list above). It says exactly what it means, without any ambiguity. Its only drawback is that "imbuements" as a term for magic item powers is a bit wonky. But we can't use "empower" for magic items, because of the Empower Spell feat.
Some sort of new word, like imbue or empower or embiggen or magick
Any of these options, in addition to "Enspell", would be perfectly cromulant.
|
|
MMmm. Circles? Degrees?I'd call cantrips "0-Power Spells," and so on, up to 9th Power. Maybe the spell formulae involve equations of that order, thus explaining the congruence in terms.
However, once you get to psionic powers, it would be "1st-Power Powers." :p
Like toyrobots, I think "Order" is a nice term for spell/poer "level."
Ensorcell?
That would be "to affect a creature, item, or place with an arcane spell cast by a sorcerer."
However, once you get to psionic powers, it would be "1st-Power Powers." :p Like toyrobots, I think "Order" is a nice term for spell/poer "level."
Nice one! I hadn't thought of that. OK, I agree 100%. "Order" isn't used for anything else (now that there are no more clerics of Celestian running around), so it's a perfect term for that usage.
|
|
Order, ring or circle all work, as does sphere, for priests.
"Seeking a Sorcerer capable of casting spells of the fifth circle of mysteries."
"Through his years of service, Brother Theo had learned the advanced rites of the third Sphere, and could now purge even the deadliest disease."
Levels of spells could also be called bridges (with the student being said to have 'crossed the second bridge') or whatever, with the designation changing with the academy or church that trained them.
An Assassin might refer to their four levels of spells as 'blades.'
"Azima, the Dancer in the Dark, has mastered the secrets of Third Blade, and only one remains before she has attained True Mastery of our craft."
A more esoteric wizardly or sorcerous order, or a priesthood of secrecy or arcane lore might refer to the levels of spells as Mysteries or Secrets ("Shem knows the Fourth Mystery.") or refer to them as citadels or vaults or sanctums that must be entered (on a philsophical / spiritual level, but also in a real-world sense, as they keep their libraries of lore segregated by spell level) consecutively ("Mordante has penetrated the Sixth Sanctum, and plunders the secrets within."}.
Michael Reeves had some novels, the Shattered World and the Burning Realms (which combined some evocative ideas with some atrocious wordplay), in which the wizards wore rings to designate their rank, with each of the ten fingers representing a rank, so that you could look at a wizards hands and determine his level of proficiency. Only when he truly mastered the arts could he remove his ring, and if you saw someone casting spells with no rings on his hands, you knew that you were facing a true master.
A society that tattoos it's spellcasters might have a similar obvious sign of 'spell level.' Once you can no longer see Seoni's skin under the layers of magical formula imprinted on her skin, it's clear to all that she's mastered *many* spells...
Ensorcell?That would be "to affect a creature, item, or place with an arcane spell cast by a sorcerer."
However, once you get to psionic powers, it would be "1st-Power Powers." :p Like toyrobots, I think "Order" is a nice term for spell/poer "level."Nice one! I hadn't thought of that. OK, I agree 100%. "Order" isn't used for anything else (now that there are no more clerics of Celestian running around), so it's a perfect term for that usage.
Order has the benefit of implying that there is an order in which spell levels must be learned, which is true. There must be some reason in the game-world that spells are categorized into 9 orders.
If it were Pathfinder's aim to completely re-organize the magic system, this would be a good start. But I think this is sadly outside their mandate...
The magic system wouldn't have to be changed at all, mechanically-speaking, in order to simply clear up all the ambiguity in terminology. Right now, you have character level, class level, caster level, and spell level, which are almost never spelled out (instead, "level" is often used for all four). Any amount of headache over the Pathfinder rules could easily be avoided if these terms were clarified (does a 5th level cleric with caster level 15th due to some prestige class get the higher-level domain spells/powers? How many times per day does he/she get the first "level" (order) domain spells? At what effective level do they function?). Clearing this up in the RAR wouldn't be "coddling," to my mind; it would be clarification of intent.
As it is, even when the Beta says "caster's level," we don't really know if that means caster level, because of the careless use of terms that pervades the entire document. But if "enchantment" always meant "Enchantment," and "caster level" never meant "class level," etc., then we could be sure that the terms used are indeed the ones intended.
Well, let's us nitpickers just start using "enhancement" and "order," in all of our posts, and see if it catches on. Also, let's report back here on any other ambiguities we run across and settle it by committee!
Power might function well in lieu of caster level. "Caster Power" makes sense for the role of the term, and overlaps quite nicely with existing abilities such as the Red Wizard's "Spell Power" affecting CL. "Spell power" itself might be even more clear. Thoughts?
How about Advance and Plateau? :)
Now that I think of it, valence, magnitude, potency, there are a lot of good alternatives for level. Hm.
Stage? Rung? Tier? "2nd Tier Spells" -- that's a maybe.
Sorry for the thread resurrection, but I did some "playtesting," as much as one can playtest something like terminology.
I had to refer in-character to spell levels via an NPC cleric (Father Zantus, if you must know). I've always hated doing that, because "3rd level spells" just didn't seem to fit in my concept of how magic is perceived, especially divine. But I was backed into a corner on this one, and I had to say something, so I went with Order.
When he said "the third order of prayer," it felt fairly natural, and I could start to understand the in-character aesthetic of nine orders in both divine and arcane magic.
Now, I'm not serving this up as a suggestion for changing the text in Pathfinder RPG. I simply hope that other GMs with a distaste for using the term "level" in character might get some better suggestions. I like many of the other suggestions, and I suspect different magical traditions might have their own words for levels, but Order is the most natural and useful one I've come across in RP.
EDIT: For my money, Caster Level = Magnitude. It's got the "mag" of "magic" right in there!