| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could give deeper suggestions about spells, but there are lots of reasons not to.
One, however, is to change the defining term "spell levels" into "spell circles". Or whatever else, really, but not levels.
There are already levels in the game, and spell levels only ever caused people to lose time specifying between character levels, caster levels, and spell levels.
Using "circles" simplifies everything while also being more evocative and also being a term that can be used in-game, where "I will keep them at bay with a 5th-level spell!" sounds extremely silly in-game.
Don't like "circles"? Fine, find any other evocative and fitting word, but for the sake of all that is good, get rid of spell "levels". That definition has lasted far beyond what it should have, through editions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never had not heard of this problem except on these boards. However, the term circles has a history of hierarchy and other RPGs have made good use of the term (Earthdawn, various GURPS Magic supplements), so I don't see that the change would be anything but neutral to positive.
Long story short: The reason the term "level" has been used in everything from Character level, to spell level, to dungeon level, to (now) Monster level, is that it is well-known and understood after 40 years of use in RPGs and video games. While it would be no doubt cooler to have "Character Ranks" and "spell circle" or "spell power", people would likely just fall back to using "level" anyway, because that's just humans using language...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this was a brand new game, maybe. For an edition change? No thanks. Why confuse people moving from one edition to another?
As to silly, that's in the eye of the beholder: I'd find 'taste my 5th circle spell' as silly as what you seem to think it is with level. Do I get triangle, hexagon and square spells too? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never had not heard of this problem except on these boards. However, the term circles has a history of hierarchy and other RPGs have made good use of the term (Earthdawn, various GURPS Magic supplements), so I don't see that the change would be anything but neutral to positive.
Don't like "circles"? Fine, find any other evocative and fitting word
Just like it wasn't even written. Twice.
Long story short: The reason the term "level" has been used in everything from Character level, to spell level, to dungeon level, to (now) Monster level, is that it is well-known and understood after 40 years of use in RPGs and video games. While it would be no doubt cooler to have "Character Ranks" and "spell circle" or "spell power", people would likely just fall back to using "level" anyway, because that's just humans using language...
Even shorter story: "circles" (or whatever) is crystal clear, cuts a problem, and fits in-game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with this change.
And yes I'm going to keep pushing Circle or some other more flavorful term instead of "spell level."My group has been using "circle" for "spell level" for years for these exact reasons.
Plus, you get to say things in-world like, "He's a Wizard of the 3rd Ciricle."
-Skeld
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Long story short: The reason the term "level" has been used in everything from Character level, to spell level, to dungeon level, to (now) Monster level, is that it is well-known and understood after 40 years of use in RPGs and video games. While it would be no doubt cooler to have "Character Ranks" and "spell circle" or "spell power", people would likely just fall back to using "level" anyway, because that's just humans using language...Even shorter story: "circles" (or whatever) is crystal clear, cuts a problem, and fits in-game.
I'm not sure I agree with it being any clearer, I definitely don't agree that it's a problem (at least it's not been a problem in 30+ years) and it sounds just as silly 'in game' IMO.
/not signed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just like it wasn't even written. Twice.
Wait... You're snarking at me for supporting your statement?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even shorter story: "circles" (or whatever) is crystal clear, cuts a problem, and fits in-game.
crystal clear: Not IMO
Cuts a problem: does it? Where is my elliptical spells...Fits in-game: does it? It does as well as level does...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even shorter story: "circles" (or whatever) is crystal clear, cuts a problem, and fits in-game.
I'm sure it is, just as sure as I am people probably won't use it and will probably use "level" instead, because of cultural inertia. Much as I hate the words "toon", "lulz" and "DPS" on RPG forums, and people JUST KEEP USIN' 'EM ANYWAY!!!... and don't get me started on "feels" as replacement for the PERFECTLY GOOD WORDS "empathy" and "pathos"!!!!
..sorry, it's a trigger for me.... :-) In short, I like the idea, but I believe it would be a futile effort.
P.S. I am quite glad to see "toon" abating a bit in usage, maybe because of the waning of games like World of Warcraft from their high-water mark; apparently, "PC" or "avatar" was just TOO difficult to type, yes sir...
Do you have a circle of friends? What about your ellipse of friends? Triangle of friends?
Circle makes sense with PEOPLE: "a group of persons sharing a common interest or revolving about a common center" Even the circles of hell are based on this: The first circle contains the unbaptized and the virtuous pagans for instance.
For inanimate objects, circle isn't correct unless they are physically round or arranged in that way. Circle isn't the correct term for grouping of non-people. Hence my question on geometric shapes...
Circle also makes sense for levels of initiation, tiers of power and such things, which is why other people have used it in those contexts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Circle also makes sense for levels of initiation, tiers of power and such things, which is why other people have used it in those contexts.
I'll agree to disagree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Circle also makes sense for levels of initiation, tiers of power and such things, which is why other people have used it in those contexts.
Speaking of tiers, personally I'd rather go for "spell tiers". But I guess there are a few more options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Circle also makes sense for levels of initiation, tiers of power and such things, which is why other people have used it in those contexts.Speaking of tiers, personally I'd rather go for "spell tiers". But I guess there are a few more options.
Grades is good too. Or degree.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Circle, degree, echelon, grade, level, rank, stratum, tier, whatever...
I just support defining one word for one definition for an in-game term...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least there is a reason DPS is inaccurate. As a turn-based game, PF relies much more on Damage Per Round. Though given a round is 6 seconds, I suppose you could use DPS=DPR/6.
Personally, I like seeing how language changes. My tank's tank is running empty, even though my tank is more a damage-dealer than a tank.
You’d think that, but I’ve run into people who use “DPS” to refer to any character built to deal large amounts of damage. Instead of a great sword-wielding Barbarian dealing DPS, he IS the “DPS”. :-(
I find language changes fascinating, but unfortunately not while I’m living through it, that’s the part that makes me yell at the kids to get off my lawn. ;-)
My character whom I spent a year developing his personality and motivations and story arc is not a godsforsaken TOON!
Bugs Bunny is a ‘toon, darn it!
I like "circles", or "tiers" or something, but it has been "level" for a good long time.
It is not ideal, but most of the people I play with have been playing for 15 years, so they understand spell "level".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Circles work well in worlds where magic is hermetic and linked to orders. It works well for druids that have druidic organizations, or mages that work in mage guilds. I can think of Dragonlance, for example, with the white, red and black tunics.
I don't think it work at all in Golarion, where such hierarchies do not exist, or if they exist, are local and not global. Sorcerers also don't seem to follow this kind of hierarchy. A sorceror with a powerful bloodline who can cast wish is not part of any circle or whatever. He's just powerful.
I don't think we need to "fix" the spell level problem, but I don't also care it much if they change the name. It's just a minor thing for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Circle also makes sense for levels of initiation, tiers of power and such things, which is why other people have used it in those contexts.
The problem I have with using the term "circle" is that RL history compared spells and sorcery to Satanism (or Devil worship), something that has been previously rumored to be an associate to this gaming genre in the past. (Largely dispersed now, but can resurface again if this path is taken.)
How does this issue correlate to the above? Quite simple, really. Popular books regarding religion (most notably, Dante's Inferno) commonly described Hell being split into 9 (technically 10) rings, each governing a specific facet of sin or tier of deserved suffering for actions committed amongst the living. A ring is synonymous with a circle, as both have the same shape. The further into the rings you travel, the greater the sins committed, all of which are corollary to the levels of spells you can normally acquire (with the innermost ring containing the strongest levels of sin, and by relation, spellcasters of comparable power that exist). There is so much more I can commit to with this theory (that I don't have time to type for at the moment), but you get the idea.
In short, it risks creating a religious upsetting within the game. The fact I can so easily compare spellcasting with this new terminology to popularized Satanism, as described in books like Dante's Inferno, creates a potential demograph that is largely viewed as negative to a lot of religious onlookers for this genre of gaming (and yes, they do exist, I've played with them before). That is the last thing this game needs to have: RL religious conflicts.
I could give deeper suggestions about spells, but there are lots of reasons not to.
One, however, is to change the defining term "spell levels" into "spell circles". Or whatever else, really, but not levels.
There are already levels in the game, and spell levels only ever caused people to lose time specifying between character levels, caster levels, and spell levels.
Using "circles" simplifies everything while also being more evocative and also being a term that can be used in-game, where "I will keep them at bay with a 5th-level spell!" sounds extremely silly in-game.
Don't like "circles"? Fine, find any other evocative and fitting word, but for the sake of all that is good, get rid of spell "levels". That definition has lasted far beyond what it should have, through editions.
Not necessarily opposed to the idea, but I don't think "I will keep them at bay with a 5th level spell" sounds sillier than "I will keep them at bay with a 5th tier spell" or "5th circle spell" or anything else for that matter. The problem is throwing 5th in there, which doesn't really describe what you are doing anyways. Are my casting a really pumped up magic missile? Righteous Might to beat them back with a stick? Contact other plane to learn more about the enemy's defenses a week before fighting them?
Saying 'I will conjure a horde of angels to keep them at bay' or 'I will turn them all into rabbits' or 'I will turn the earth into tentacles to hold them back' works much better.
Unfortunately, for me, with the + Level (give or take) thing, we have a hardcore treadmill. Totally males sense with the 4-tiers of success system.It's a bit off topic so if you want to start another thread about it I think it is worthy of discussion. But for now I'll only say that whether or not it feel like a treadmill is wholly dependent on the world around you. If the world automatically scales to provide challenge appropriate to your level then it will of course feel like a treadmill. Thankfully they've said a tree is just a tree, whether you are level 1 or 20.
Oh good. That provides a nice contrast to 4th edition and PF1, where you started with DCs in the teens to sneak past town guards and scale stone walls and ended up with DCs in the 40s as the campaign evolved to where you were sneaking past devil captains with true sight and scaling the 100ft tall ice walls of Cocytus.
It’s good to know that PF2 Adventure paths will maintain a consistent basis for difficulty across all six volumes and we won’t be seeing ever increasing DCs to keep up with our Skill improvements. I mean DC 55 to find Xin Shalast (as one example of a PF1 AP) just feels like they wanted to keep the difficulty the same even though I’ve spent the entire campaign trying to improve. Will this work with creature based challenges as well, you think, or will those still be on the treadmill? It got frustrating to be a grappling / combat maneuver based build in PF1, but not only not get better over the course of an AP, but actually get worse relative to the new threats we were facing (for example dragons and giants).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, in a game with explicit rules for summoning demons, it's the word "circle" that's going to go beyond the pale for religious conservatives looking for something to hate.Circle also makes sense for levels of initiation, tiers of power and such things, which is why other people have used it in those contexts.The problem I have with using the term "circle" is that RL history compared spells and sorcery to Satanism (or Devil worship), something that has been previously rumored to be an associate to this gaming genre in the past. (Largely dispersed now, but can resurface again if this path is taken.)
How does this issue correlate to the above? Quite simple, really. Popular books regarding religion (most notably, Dante's Inferno) commonly described Hell being split into 9 (technically 10) rings, each governing a specific facet of sin or tier of deserved suffering for actions committed amongst the living. A ring is synonymous with a circle, as both have the same shape. The further into the rings you travel, the greater the sins committed, all of which are corollary to the levels of spells you can normally acquire (with the innermost ring containing the strongest levels of sin, and by relation, spellcasters of comparable power that exist). There is so much more I can commit to with this theory (that I don't have time to type for at the moment), but you get the idea.
In short, it risks creating a religious upsetting within the game. The fact I can so easily compare spellcasting with this new terminology to popularized Satanism, as described in books like Dante's Inferno, creates a potential demograph that is largely viewed as negative to a lot of religious onlookers for this genre of gaming (and yes, they do exist, I've played with them before). That is the last thing this game needs to have: RL religious conflicts.
Considering it links spellcasting to involving the 10 rings (synonym of circles) of Hell, yes, I'd have to say that it creates an implication that does not foster a positive outlook of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer "level" as the non-diagetic mechanical term and to allow people within the diagesis to use whatever replacement term fits their magical tradition or theoretical framework.
I don't know if trying to make these two things the same is a worthy goal since you could have, in the same party, one person who believes magical advancement is like climbing a mountain and another who believes magical advancement is like enlarging a sphere. Really every wizard should have a different metaphor for "how magic works" anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothetical fundamentalists- "Hey! This game has magic in circles, just like Hell!"
Actual Hell in Pathfinder- *whistles casually and polishes its inverted pentacles.*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering it links spellcasting to involving the 10 rings (synonym of circles) of...Yeah, in a game with explicit rules for summoning demons, it's the word "circle" that's going to go beyond the pale for religious conservatives looking for something to hate.Circle also makes sense for levels of initiation, tiers of power and such things, which is why other people have used it in those contexts.The problem I have with using the term "circle" is that RL history compared spells and sorcery to Satanism (or Devil worship), something that has been previously rumored to be an associate to this gaming genre in the past. (Largely dispersed now, but can resurface again if this path is taken.)
How does this issue correlate to the above? Quite simple, really. Popular books regarding religion (most notably, Dante's Inferno) commonly described Hell being split into 9 (technically 10) rings, each governing a specific facet of sin or tier of deserved suffering for actions committed amongst the living. A ring is synonymous with a circle, as both have the same shape. The further into the rings you travel, the greater the sins committed, all of which are corollary to the levels of spells you can normally acquire (with the innermost ring containing the strongest levels of sin, and by relation, spellcasters of comparable power that exist). There is so much more I can commit to with this theory (that I don't have time to type for at the moment), but you get the idea.
In short, it risks creating a religious upsetting within the game. The fact I can so easily compare spellcasting with this new terminology to popularized Satanism, as described in books like Dante's Inferno, creates a potential demograph that is largely viewed as negative to a lot of religious onlookers for this genre of gaming (and yes, they do exist, I've played with them before). That is the last thing this game needs to have: RL religious conflicts.
My church never makes reference to Dante's Inferno. Dante's Divine Comedy is based on folklore of the time, rather than on the Bible. The Bible is plenty to study without adding folklore to it.
The thick book I would use to argue against "circle" is the dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster, "circle" means circles, circular objects and paths, going around in a circle, and:
4: an area of action or influence : realm "within the circle of probability."
6: a group of persons sharing a common interest or revolving about a common center "the sewing circle of her church," "family circle."
7: a territorial or administrative division or district "The province is divided into nine circles."
Circles do not come in numbered levels.
I support changing the name of spell level. I just want a name that still means level.
For those who like the mystical connotations of "circle", how about "sphere" instead? Nested celestial spheres, a medieval notion, were associated with heaven rather than hell.
Circle, degree, echelon, grade, level, rank, stratum, tier, whatever...
I just support defining one word for one definition for an in-game term...
The change in the skill system has freed up the word "rank" for other uses in Pathfinder.
Using tiers is a bad idea, because of things like 1st tier sounding better than 9th tier even though the reverse is true (same things for ranks).
I will accept that about tier. Sadly, my suggestion, celestial spheres, also counted 1st sphere as the most powerful. However, rank counts in both directions, from best to worst or from beginner to expert.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also agree to change the name, but I don't have a valid suggestion (hovewer, I like the word "rank" for "spell rank"). I am positive to every intervention that reduce the lexical confusion.
Yeah, the multiverse adjusts to the distortion the PCs have become, suddenly all doors are made of adamantine, an orc is a 20th level brute, but if you met it a year ago, it would have had 1 HP and with different abilities/features.
Yes, a “feature” of PF1 I’m happy to leave behind. I mean, even the more “sandbox” APs like Kingmaker and Skull and Shackles suffered from these distortions where the pirates (for example) that you were expected to face all of a sudden had huge bonuses and high hit points, when just a few levels ago these same pirates would have have been like 3rd level. It’s like the entire ocean leveled with us, as we stopped running into low level pirates, and every single ship was now a challenge for our high level crew.
I’m sincerely happy to hear that PF2 is moving to the more elegant and immersive 5e model, where DC 5 is a trivial challenge and DC 20 is a hard challenge both at the beginning of the campaign and the end, rather than suddenly only facing DCs in the 40s to 50s in part 6 of the AP, so that our higher bonuses mean squat.
That’s probably the best part of 5e. Since the max DCs in WOTC storylines are only around 20 even at the very end of their campaigns, we actually feel like we have progression as our Skill bonuses move from +4 or +5 to bonuses into the teens as we hit the highest levels. Our ability to succeed at the hardest challenges actually improve and evolve over time rather than stay static, hence getting off of the treadmill referenced above. High level 5e characters actually feel high level relative to the world, and I’ll be highly satisfied if PF2 is the same.
The change in the skill system has freed up the word "rank" for other uses in Pathfinder.
Proficiencies are organized into ranks.
There are five different ranks of proficiency.
Many skill feats grow more and more powerful as your proficiency rank increases.
Your proficiency modifier is based partly on your rank and partly on your level.
etc.
The change in the skill system has freed up the word "rank" for other uses in Pathfinder.Proficiencies are organized into ranks.
There are five different ranks of proficiency.
Many skill feats grow more and more powerful as your proficiency rank increases.
Your proficiency modifier is based partly on your rank and partly on your level.
etc.
Thank you for the heads up. I had missed that.
However, the five skill ranks--Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary--are more like levels than the previous ranks gained from spending skill points. I think now skill ranks will be similar enough to spell levels that we could rename the spells levels to spell ranks, especially if we use the names that willuwontu proposed in comment #36.
However, that would leave PF2 using "rank" for two different categories, which is not ideal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just, no.
Circle also makes sense for levels of initiation, tiers of power and such things, which is why other people have used it in those contexts.The problem I have with using the term "circle" is that RL history compared spells and sorcery to Satanism (or Devil worship), something that has been previously rumored to be an associate to this gaming genre in the past. (Largely dispersed now, but can resurface again if this path is taken.)
How does this issue correlate to the above? Quite simple, really. Popular books regarding religion (most notably, Dante's Inferno) commonly described Hell being split into 9 (technically 10) rings, each governing a specific facet of sin or tier of deserved suffering for actions committed amongst the living. A ring is synonymous with a circle, as both have the same shape. The further into the rings you travel, the greater the sins committed, all of which are corollary to the levels of spells you can normally acquire (with the innermost ring containing the strongest levels of sin, and by relation, spellcasters of comparable power that exist). There is so much more I can commit to with this theory (that I don't have time to type for at the moment), but you get the idea.
In short, it risks creating a religious upsetting within the game. The fact I can so easily compare spellcasting with this new terminology to popularized Satanism, as described in books like Dante's Inferno, creates a potential demograph that is largely viewed as negative to a lot of religious onlookers for this genre of gaming (and yes, they do exist, I've played with them before). That is the last thing this game needs to have: RL religious conflicts.
The religious fanatics who are going to hate roleplaying games are going to hate regardless of how the game refers to spells.
Also, you're letting the people who hate you dictate your actions.
Separate from the above...
I am in favor of using different words when talking about different things. "Spell level" is not different enough from "Level" for my preference.
Other games have solved this by fusing the two. A 3rd level Wizard casts 3rd level spells, but those are usually games that only have 10 levels (new spells appear at the odd levels usually, so 9th level spells are still the cap).
"We have to go up a level before we go down a level where the harder monsters are, but the wizard still won't have access to a new level. Also, I'm not sure if the thief is on the level with us."
