When having an RP conversation the other day I was struck with the most awkward of realizations. As I was attempting to discuss/prepare my wizard's spell list with another caster I found myself using very cliched, metagamey, terms for the levels of spells and struggled to come up with something interesting on the fly. In truth, I'd never really thought about it before and, folding, said merely "For second level spells I'm thinking of..."
How have some of you described the organisation of spells in your games? Divine or arcane. :)
In a world where organized magic and magic school exist, while they may not use the metagame term spell level, I'm sure they would have some word to describe what level spells a person can cast. I've rarely seen such discussions around my table, though it has been brought up before in questions like, "How do spellcasters know what spell something is? Does everybody use the same name for spells? If not, wouldn't that affect buying and selling scrolls?". Ultimately our answer was, pretty much everybody who did magic agrees on a naming convention and now everybody just rolls with it. You could extend this to, everybody recongnizes the effort it takes to cast a spell and what your maximum output is and say this is equal to spell levels. In RP terms, the game doesn't really give you much to go off of.
You know, I've played a number of spellcasters throughout the years, 20 years in fact with this same group, and this is the first time I've ever been bothered about it. Maybe it's because I'm playing an elven wizard with a very strict schooling/training in the arcane arts and playing with other casters in the group where these conversations are more likely and felt there was a need to "keep it real". :P
Guess I'll have to homebrew some elven, arcane, tiered system!
We've used the term "circle" instead of level when describing spells in character.
It's a one-word alteration, but it sounds like something a mages' guild would use to reference spells of different power.
It makes total sense that, if there are 10 classifications of spells in the world, the world has come up with something to call them when distinctions need to be made. Spell of the fifth order, perhaps. Form. Class(ification). Composition. Or, indeed, you could call them levels.
No lie that it's awkward, though.
You can keep it simple and refer to them as 5th circle/order/etc, which is what I'd prefer.
Alternatively you could do something like in Skyrim, where spells are classified as Novice/Apprentice/Adept/Expert/Master, adding such that there are nine descriptors, or assigning a couple of levels per tier.
0-1: Novice
2-3: Apprentice
4-5: Adept
6-7: Expert
8-9: Master
(Alternatively just call cantrips as they are, shift everything down one level so Master refers to just 9th lvl spells).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We describe things like engines in terms of horsepower and pound-feet of torque in real life. I'm sure magic would have similar jargon in a world where it existed.
In a 3.5 game a friend of mine runs, "Circles" are the term for different spell levels.
My homebrew? Depends on who you're talking to. Less educated Sorcerors call them "Stigmas", Most Wizards call them "Orders" or "Circles", Cleric-y Divine casters call them "Faiths" and Druids call them "Gifts". And those of a particular nation... call them simply levels/tiers.
Honestly though, it only feels meta-gamey if you let it be. Cause honestly, magic is magic. They could call them levels and have it still feel just as organic as anything else.
In my games circles of spells are official in-game term used by wizards and other casters educated in arcane knowledge.
You can keep it simple and refer to them as 5th circle/order/etc, which is what I'd prefer.
Alternatively you could do something like in Skyrim, where spells are classified as Novice/Apprentice/Adept/Expert/Master, adding such that there are nine descriptors, or assigning a couple of levels per tier.
0-1: Novice
2-3: Apprentice
4-5: Adept
6-7: Expert
8-9: Master(Alternatively just call cantrips as they are, shift everything down one level so Master refers to just 9th lvl spells).
I would suggest instead
CantripsApprentice- 1
Novice-2
Intermediate-3
Adept-4
Exceptional-5
Expert-6
Master-7
Archmage-8
Universalist-9
I don't have a problem with calling them "Levels" even in RP.
The word means what it means. Just because we use it as a game term, doesn't mean that our characters MUST use a different word when we RP them.
I'm fine with any RP dialog using terms like "5th circle of power" and "5th level of power" interchangeably, and people who talk about this all the time probably just simplify to "5th circle" and "5th level". So I see no flaw in a couple wizard standing around talking about casting a "5th level" spell - it's a natural language construct for us so it's natural for them, too.
Some nice feedback here - cheers folks! Looking back I can recall similarly describing levels as 'circles' and 'tiers' too but I particularly like the Novice -> Universalist tier approach.
Alzrius - awesome post and blog thank you! Some nice detail there. Will need to look over it more carefully at lunch but could be exactly the sort of thing I was looking for :D
This could make some interesting characterization for sorcerers, oracles, witches and maybe some crazy fringe cleric groups. Since the spontaneous casters might stumble their way into the spell while exploring their own magical abilities, they might refer to it by a different name. I include witches and some clerics since a witch can get their power from their patron while removed from most of society, and some cleric groups might apply different names to "god's blessing"
If I ever make a sorcerer that doesn't put points into spellcraft or knowledge (arcana) (and maybe make INT a dump stat), then I feel obligated now to start off with funny names. "I cast arcane projectile!" "I cast burning orb!" At least until someone tells me off for being silly.
I also just use 'circle', as in 'spell of the third circle'. It works well enough; spells are clearly divided in this way in terms of power in-setting, so why not just call it that? And it sounds better than 'level'.
I think casters actually do say "levels" in game. Why not? there are very clear boundaries, some wizards just can't cast haste no matter what. then learn a bit, pick up some spells that are clearly more powerful than the last "set" and suddenly they can cast haste. It's all very clear really, from even in character perspective. It makes sense that eventually people would work this stuff out and come up with lists and whatnot.
From the Nethys entry in Gods and Magic:
As masters of magic, priests are fully aware of the natural ranking of spell levels and caster levels and use this knowledge to quickly assess where someone fits in the pecking order.
...so an inbred, back woods gnoll cleric of Lamashtu with an INT of 7 that spent their whole life in an underground cave would have full knowledge of the common language names and effects of all possible spells?
That specific example might not be entirely accurate, but it does get to the heart of the matter since it uses a CE deity whose followers might not be the best at mixing well with others and whose personality might not care about the formal specifics. Plus, the clerics might have knowledge of the spell in general, but they might have been taught by a dogmatic and egocentric cult leader and/or deity that might want to rename spells on a whim.
Again, this is more about flavor than anything. A working understanding of magic and a formal understanding can be completely different.
I believe that entry is referring to clerics of the deity of magic.
But I can believe that spell levels might be as clear as shapes in terms of unambiguity. You could actually rank spells that way maybe!
Ah, right, missed that it was talking about a god of magic specifically. His clerics would be obsessive about rankings and formal classifications.
Anyway, for most players, I would imagine they would get at least some exposure to magic rankings if they had to be educated in casting. Even for those that received their powers through bloodlines or the whims of the gods might still get a general gist of the idea if they live in an urban or heavily traveled area.
From the Nethys entry in Gods and Magic:
As masters of magic, priests are fully aware of the natural ranking of spell levels and caster levels and use this knowledge to quickly assess where someone fits in the pecking order....so an inbred, back woods gnoll cleric of Lamashtu with an INT of 7 that spent their whole life in an underground cave would have full knowledge of the common language names and effects of all possible spells?
That specific example might not be entirely accurate, but it does get to the heart of the matter since it uses a CE deity whose followers might not be the best at mixing well with others and whose personality might not care about the formal specifics. Plus, the clerics might have knowledge of the spell in general, but they might have been taught by a dogmatic and egocentric cult leader and/or deity that might want to rename spells on a whim.
Again, this is more about flavor than anything. A working understanding of magic and a formal understanding can be completely different.
I think it's more a case of the gnoll being able to recognize caster levels and spell levels, not that he would necessarily refer to them the same way as say, a cleric of Nethys.
That being said there isn't really any reason he wouldn't (beyond only speaking Gnoll that is). Because all clerics magic works the same way, after all, even if they have slightly different spell lists.
From the Nethys entry in Gods and Magic:
As masters of magic, priests are fully aware of the natural ranking of spell levels and caster levels and use this knowledge to quickly assess where someone fits in the pecking order....so an inbred, back woods gnoll cleric of Lamashtu with an INT of 7 that spent their whole life in an underground cave would have full knowledge of the common language names and effects of all possible spells?
By the rules yes. In order to make sure the game makes sense I would just avoid that backstory.
Sorry, I was going for the most extreme example I could think of. That...was going somewhere a bit dark.