Level, level and level (Not to be confused with level).

[Staffan Johansson]

In my experience, explaining character/class level versus spell level usually goes like this:

"At 3rd level, you get to cast 2nd level spells."
"Wat"
"You heard me. They are different things. For full casters, the top spell level they can cast is half their level rounded up."
"Well that makes PERFECT sense." **rolls eyes and gets on with it**

It's never not been an issue, but it's never been a big one. The bigger problem comes when combining uses of level in a sentence, as in "Clarence the 7th level wizard is using the Spell Power ability from being a Red Wizard to cast fireball at 9th level and he's also using the Heighten Spell feat to cast it as a 4th level spell." That's a bit confusing.

[Drejk]

Mark Seifter wrote:

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.

It was kinda annoying in 13th Age.

Spell levels could be renamed into already mentioned Circles, or Tiers, Ranks, Thresholds...

I'd avoid Orders because Druids, also that term would imply more of a division into groups akin to schools, not tiers of power.

EDIT: Magnitudes! 3rd magnitude spell!

[sadie]

Are there any translators or non-English speakers with insight into how this would affect the game in translation? Do other languages have suitable equivalent words for "Level" and "Tier" (for example) that would make sense?

I'm still in favour of changing it. This is our once-a-decade opportunity to make the game better, let's go for it.

[Ascalaphus]

I'm fairly sure all full-fledged languages will have sufficient different words available for it.

I think part of the confusion with cantrip heightened levels is that if they were actually referring to character levels, the cantrips would feel like they're appropriately powerful. So the technically wrong interpretation felt more plausible.

[Joey Cote]

I am one of those people that have been around since Basic D&D, and I think the idea of changing spell levels to spell ranks is a great idea. Not order though, order sounds more like something that would apply to things like divine, arcane, primal, occult.

[Vic Ferrari]

Joey Cote wrote:

I am one of those people that have been around since Basic D&D, and I think the idea of changing spell levels to spell ranks is a great idea. Not order though, order sounds more like something that would apply to things like divine, arcane, primal, occult.

Check out the 1st Ed AD&D DMG, it has some comments, ways to go on this.

[sadie]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Joey Cote wrote:

I am one of those people that have been around since Basic D&D, and I think the idea of changing spell levels to spell ranks is a great idea. Not order though, order sounds more like something that would apply to things like divine, arcane, primal, occult.

Check out the 1st Ed AD&D DMG, it has some comments, ways to go on this.

Such as?

[Vic Ferrari]

sadie wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Joey Cote wrote:

I am one of those people that have been around since Basic D&D, and I think the idea of changing spell levels to spell ranks is a great idea. Not order though, order sounds more like something that would apply to things like divine, arcane, primal, occult.

Check out the 1st Ed AD&D DMG, it has some comments, ways to go on this.

Such as?

I will have to dig in and find the passage, and we all know how easy it is with that book, ha, but yeah, they mention why the use of ubiquitous Level, and how they pondered things such as Order and Rank (for spells and monsters, respectively, IIRC).

If anyone has a copy, please dig in, I guarantee it's in there, unless it's in the PHB, but I am pretty sure it's in the DMG (that freaky, wonderful tome).

[Alchemaic]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

sadie wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Joey Cote wrote:

I am one of those people that have been around since Basic D&D, and I think the idea of changing spell levels to spell ranks is a great idea. Not order though, order sounds more like something that would apply to things like divine, arcane, primal, occult.

Check out the 1st Ed AD&D DMG, it has some comments, ways to go on this.

Such as?

I will have to dig in and find the passage, and we all know how easy it is with that book, ha, but yeah, they mention why the use of ubiquitous Level, and how they pondered things such as Order and Rank (for spells and monsters, respectively, IIRC).

If anyone has a copy, please dig in, I guarantee it's in there, unless it's in the PHB, but I am pretty sure it's in the DMG (that freaky, wonderful tome).

I dunno, I didn't see it in the DMG. I skimmed through the rules section on spells and the closest thing was a note for "refereeing" which refers you to the PHB for creating new spells. Pretty sure it's the 1e AD&D DMG too, it's the one with the City of Brass on the cover.

[Vic Ferrari]

Alchemaic wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

sadie wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Joey Cote wrote:

I am one of those people that have been around since Basic D&D, and I think the idea of changing spell levels to spell ranks is a great idea. Not order though, order sounds more like something that would apply to things like divine, arcane, primal, occult.

Check out the 1st Ed AD&D DMG, it has some comments, ways to go on this.

Such as?

I will have to dig in and find the passage, and we all know how easy it is with that book, ha, but yeah, they mention why the use of ubiquitous Level, and how they pondered things such as Order and Rank (for spells and monsters, respectively, IIRC).

If anyone has a copy, please dig in, I guarantee it's in there, unless it's in the PHB, but I am pretty sure it's in the DMG (that freaky, wonderful tome).

I dunno, I didn't see it in the DMG. I skimmed through the rules section on spells and the closest thing was a note for "refereeing" which refers you to the PHB for creating new spells.

It is in there, I guarantee it, skimming is usually hopeless in 1st Ed AD&D.

[Zaister]

sadie wrote:

Are there any translators or non-English speakers with insight into how this would affect the game in translation? Do other languages have suitable equivalent words for "Level" and "Tier" (for example) that would make sense?

I'm still in favour of changing it. This is our once-a-decade opportunity to make the game better, let's go for it.

I'm on the team for the German translation, and in German, we actually use a different term for spell levels.

Character and class level have always been Stufe (lit. "step") This has been the standard term for this since Das Schwarze Auge and BECMI D&D from 1983 on

Spell level is Grad (lit. "degree"), and has been since the translation of AD&D 2nd edition from 1989. Before that, the term Spruchstufe was used, which is basically the same as "spell level", albeit in one word.

[sadie]

Zaister wrote:

Spell level is Grad (lit. "degree")

"I cast Fireball, second degree."

[MerlinCross]

Heck, I still trip up over Caster level and spell level.

[Vic Ferrari]

Alchemaic wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

sadie wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Joey Cote wrote:

I am one of those people that have been around since Basic D&D, and I think the idea of changing spell levels to spell ranks is a great idea. Not order though, order sounds more like something that would apply to things like divine, arcane, primal, occult.

Check out the 1st Ed AD&D DMG, it has some comments, ways to go on this.

Such as?

I will have to dig in and find the passage, and we all know how easy it is with that book, ha, but yeah, they mention why the use of ubiquitous Level, and how they pondered things such as Order and Rank (for spells and monsters, respectively, IIRC).

If anyone has a copy, please dig in, I guarantee it's in there, unless it's in the PHB, but I am pretty sure it's in the DMG (that freaky, wonderful tome).

I dunno, I didn't see it in the DMG. I skimmed through the rules section on spells and the closest thing was a note for "refereeing" which refers you to the PHB for creating new spells. Pretty sure it's the 1e AD&D DMG too, it's the one with the City of Brass on the cover.

Ah, found it, PHB, page 8.

"It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem."