| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 03:23:17
This is an outgrowth of the "Casting 10th level spells post Karsus" thread. During the discussion, SirUrza mentioned a common underlying assumption that has always driven me crazy, and this time I just had to speak out. Here's the quote:
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
Also, something that annoyed me, particularly about the magic change in 4E, "level 9" is a game mechanic term, not a game world term.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I want to mention up front that I'm an old 2e hand, and some of what I'm about to say (especially once I get to magical items) comes from that point of view.
That said, it makes absolutely no sense for a world that has literally tens of thousands of years of magical casting history for someone, somewhere, not to have codified it. More than that, the ability to know what level a spell is is practically assumed in a Vancian system where your spell casters gain access to increasingly higher-level spells. They may not call them spell "levels," true. Personally, I've always referred to them as "steps" in game, but "rungs" or any other height-based analogy would work equally well. As an apprentice, you start on the ground, then learn your first rung of spells, and you're beginning to climb your way to power.
If the Realms were a, for instance, mana-based magic system I could accept this "characters don't know the spell level" idea easier. You're not casting a harder spell, you're just throwing more of your personal energy (or however you want to define mana) into the spell. But the Realms is Vancian. A character can only keep X number of spells of a certain power level in mind at one time. Think about it from the character's perspective: "Argh! I just can't get another magic missile into my brain I've been trying all day. But wait! I can memorize Melf's acid arrow! [gasp] They must be of a different level!"
The entire argument against spell levels being known just seems really foolish. Wizards especially are known to be studious, intellectual people, many of whom spend their entire lives researching the world around them, or their magic. Why wouldn't they have quantified some of the basics of their craft? Especially when it's so easy to see the differences. Spell levels are like electron energy levels: you're either in one, or in another. There isn't a "level 2.25," no sliding scale, just a series of concrete steps that are easily quantifiable by the simple process of seeing, when you absolutely can't memorize another magic missile, what spells you can memorize, and which you can't. Simple, easy, and it identifies every single 1st level spell in your book (or diety's repetoire, or whatever), because you can't memorize any more of that level.
I submit that casters in the Realms, and, indeed, in any Vancian system know the levels of their spells, regardless of the term they might use to define them. They spend too much of their lives studying their magic, and it's way too easy to fill up a level in your mind and then experiment (if indeed, it isn't obvious in the spell formulae) for people not to have figured it out.
My other argument is only valid for versions earlier than 3.5 (like the 2nd edition I play), and that's that no one would know how many "plusses" a weapon has. I submit that the instant you include beings in a world only capable of being hit by weapons of a certain plus (I told you this didn't work for 3.5e), knowing how many "enchant an items" were put into your sword becomes critical, life-saving information. If I'm a fighter and I see a vrock coming towards me, knowing in the first instant whether or not you can hurt the thing, or if you should just turn and run immidiately is crucial.
Now, obviously there are times when your character wouldn't know. If you just grabbed the glowing sword that was on the ground, there's no way you can know and you're going to have to take your chances. But I think the second question out of the fighter's mouth (after "Is it cursed?") when he gets the sword to a mage is going to be "What's the [step/rung/level/whatever] of the enchantment?"
I suppose I'm applying something of a Darwinian standard to my fighter in the above example. Obviously there will be fighers who don't care, and as long as you're just fighting your average orc horde, you can get away without caring. But as soon as you start getting into the weirder creatures, or start plane hopping, our simple fighter had better start caring awful quick, or he's going to get awful dead.
And again, the game mechanics bear out the idea that you can concretely quantify the enchantment on a weapon. There is no "long sword +3.1415." In 2e, you increased the + by casting a specific spell during the process. Though crafting has been simplified in 3.5, it's not unreasonable to assume that there is a similiar process, since the + value on arms and armor is always an integer. So the person crafting the sword/axe/whatever automatically knows the level. And if I'm buying it from the maker, I'm certainly going to ask. If I'm commissioning, I'm going to specify what level I want. All of this just increases my chances of survival, and when it's my life on the line (and not some words on a character sheet), I'm going to do everything I can to maximize my chances of surviving.
Whew! Told you this was a rant. Feels good to get it out at last. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| LordArcana |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 20:41:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The best idea I saw was in an article in Dragon, back in 2E: make cantrips a proficiency. You had a limited number of cantrips you could cast, but that went up per level, and eventually (I think 8th level), that limit went away. And to cast them, you simply had to make a proficiency check -- and this restriction also went away, after a while (level 5, I think). That system, to me, very much captured the right feel for cantrips, and gave a workable system for them.
Oh i totaly agree with this. Infact i have done this since the 3.0 switch. At level 5 when a wizard needs to create a sigil he begins to cast 0 level spells without the need to keep track of them. Within reason! I have had players joke about abusing the system by casting ray of frost every round until a pond freezes over... |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 19:58:10
Yes, well, I never converted to 3e, though I've read most of the books. I'm not going to convert to 4e either. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 16:27:53
I like the Mysteries suggestion from Wooly. Too bad it won't work in 4E as Mystra is KAPUT!!!
:( |
| Caedwyr |
Posted - 19 Jan 2008 : 05:00:18
In the 2nd Edition Wizard's Spell Compendium and Priest's Spell Compendiums, it is mentioned that cantrips and orisons were commonly treated as a single first level spell that is cast once, and allows you to cast any type of cantrip during its duration without limits for an 8 hour period. There are also rules for replacing a single 1st level spell slot with 4 cantrips. Personally, I've always ruled that they can be cast without limit so long as the player has not exhausted their magic for that day (still has spells memorized and unspent, or isn't magically drained in another way).
Then again, I've typically used the 2nd edition cantrips and orisins found in the Wizard's Spell Compendium Volume IV and Priest's Spell Compendium appendices. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 19 Jan 2008 : 03:24:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Dragon 221, "The Little Wish". And sorry, but it was a proficiency. 
Ok, now I've got to look.
[pulls out pick and shovel, ventures bravely into the closet]
[several hours later]
Yep, yep that's the article. I'd remember that crazed wizard and his pinkies anywhere. And you're right, it's a proficiency. I made it a class feature for a mage PC in my group, which is why my memory was mixed up. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 19 Jan 2008 : 02:07:17
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The best idea I saw was in an article in Dragon, back in 2E: make cantrips a proficiency. You had a limited number of cantrips you could cast, but that went up per level, and eventually (I think 8th level), that limit went away. And to cast them, you simply had to make a proficiency check -- and this restriction also went away, after a while (level 5, I think). That system, to me, very much captured the right feel for cantrips, and gave a workable system for them.
House rule one of my DM's use..
Pick 10 cantraps from any book you want for your spellbooks, you prepare whatever number you can normally prepare, but you can cast them as many times per days as you want. Thus, when a low level wizard runs out of Magic Missiles (or whatever your 1st level damage spell is), the wizard has Acid Orb, Ray of Frost, or Electric Jolt (if you're using core only in your campaign) to choose from instead of falling back on a crossbow.
Another interesting house rule he runs for ALL spellcasters, bonus spellslots from having a high INT/WIS/CHA.. the spell you prepare in that slot can be casted a number of times per day equal to your INT/WIS/CHA bonus. Thus, you have even more flexibility with your spells at low level and are still less likely to fall back on your ranged weapon. Doesn't let clerics spontaneously convert the bonus slot anymore, but is ok with cures being prepared into them, lets them actually cast the other spells they prepare sometimes. ;) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Jan 2008 : 01:31:06
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I used that article too, but as I recall, it wasn't a proficiency, but was suggested as simply something any wizard could do. You had a list of suggestions, were encouraged to make up your own, and could do it 1/day/level until IIRC level 5 at which point you were assumed to have the basics down well enough that you could do it at will. It's seemed the most logical way of doing it to me.
And I agree that the terminology would differ from place to place. I've driven my players nuts simply by changing simple terms, and even thought about giving them ancient hand-outs where they were doing math in something other than base 10. I didn't, though, partially because I'm not familiar enough with base 8 or base 6. I retain it as a fond idea, though, and as an example of how it would be completely different from one nation or time period to the next.
Dragon 221, "The Little Wish". And sorry, but it was a proficiency. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 19 Jan 2008 : 01:19:23
I used that article too, but as I recall, it wasn't a proficiency, but was suggested as simply something any wizard could do. You had a list of suggestions, were encouraged to make up your own, and could do it 1/day/level until IIRC level 5 at which point you were assumed to have the basics down well enough that you could do it at will. It's seemed the most logical way of doing it to me.
And I agree that the terminology would differ from place to place. I've driven my players nuts simply by changing simple terms, and even thought about giving them ancient hand-outs where they were doing math in something other than base 10. I didn't, though, partially because I'm not familiar enough with base 8 or base 6. I retain it as a fond idea, though, and as an example of how it would be completely different from one nation or time period to the next. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 23:54:24
That reminds me of something that was in the old FRA that has been sadly lacking in other materials: lists of how known spells are (rare, common, uncommon, etc). That was an excellent bit of flavor that was never repeated...
And on the topic of spells and such... I've never been happy with how cantrips are handled, in the game. We're told in fiction that they are minor magical exercises, useful for simple tasks (like dusting) or for training apprentices how to handle real spells. And then 2E treats them like a 1st level spell, and 3.x makes them both limited (in how many a wizard can know) and something that a mage has to memorize to be able to use! How does that follow the established flavor of cantrips?
The best idea I saw was in an article in Dragon, back in 2E: make cantrips a proficiency. You had a limited number of cantrips you could cast, but that went up per level, and eventually (I think 8th level), that limit went away. And to cast them, you simply had to make a proficiency check -- and this restriction also went away, after a while (level 5, I think). That system, to me, very much captured the right feel for cantrips, and gave a workable system for them.
I used the proficiency msyelf, while playing a half-elf fighter-mage. He was constantly casting cantrips -- warming and spicing his food, drying his clothes after swimming, repairing damage to his clothes, starting a fire, creating a layer of dust to see if there was anything invisible in the room... He was using cantrips more, out of combat, than he was using spells in combat. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 22:57:45
Although Wooly's suggestion has in my opinion some merit, we're talking about a more abstract subject here than just "hardness". That said, I think a more "appropriate" classification would require using "facets" (or "perspectives") and "keywords" rather than simply numbers. The Schools of Magic, for example, could be used for one group of "facets". And I also think that the Schools exist in-setting as well -- not just as "metagame" terminology within the context of the rules. So, IMHO you could say in-character that "This spell belongs to the School of Abjuration, which comprises mostly of protective magic." Then there could be a facet for "purpose" or "function" (as in "how does this spell essentially work and which purpose does it serve?"). Then there could be a "facet" for how spells are cast or triggered -- 'Contingency', for example, comes to mind.
And, of course, the should be a facet for the "power level" of the spell -- probably not as a "hard" number but some kind of "fluffy" term, such as 'Cantrip'.
Yet as there are many "variations" of spells in existence -- you could reserach a Fireball that whistles a tune as you cast it, or you could research it as a higher level spell. And, you can apply an X number of Feats on any spell, some which shape its mechanical attributes while others may simply modify its "appearance" (e.g. 'Spell Thematics'). Not to mention that as Ed has said, there exists many "flawed" versions of spells in the Realms.
Alright, I'm getting 'overanalytical' on this subject, so I'd better stop :) Anyway, those are some quick thoughts on one potential (and "rough") 'classification system' for spells in D&D.
My take on using Spellcraft to identify effects and new spells is that every wizard compares some aspects of the particular spell into his own experience and knowdledge. For example, a wizard who encounters a gem that holds 'Mestil's Acid Breath' might not recognize the spell but would know that "This Evocation spell seems to equal Fireball -- which I know how to cast -- in power and complexity, yet it's effect is a cone of acid. It's most certainly more complex and dangerous than 'Melf's Acid Arrow', which I've read about. This gem holds the spell in a manner that I'm not familiar with -- perhaps this unknown technique is Netherese, or even older, in origin?". I know that some DMs tend to say "Yes, you recognise the spell as you've read all about it -- or maybe your mentor has told you about it." While this is a "valid" method when you encounter more "common" (as in "to be found in PHB") spells, I think that more "exotic" spells should be more "mystical". The *player* may read the spell description, yet his *character* thinks of it in more abstract terms. Anyway, that's my take on this. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 22:20:47
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I can buy the idea that in-setting, wizards might have a codified system to describe the various power levels of spells. But let's face it, there's no getting around that fact that in D&D, using the term "level X spell" in character comes off sounding "gamey" and self-aware (that is, your wizard seems to know that he is just a player character in a Dungeons & Dragons campaign). I'm not surprised that people think it can kill the suspension of disbelief.
This is exactly how I think of this issue. IIRC the 'College of Wizardry' in City of Greyhawk is a pyramid (with nine "tiers"), with each physical "tier" in the building occupied by wizards who are able to cast certain level spells (1st "Tier" for 1-2 level Wizards, 2nd "Tier" for 3-4 level Wizards, etcetera). Of course, in-setting they refer to themselves, for example, as "Neophytes", "Apprentices" and "Master Wizards" (for the 1st, 2nd and 6th "Tier"). Anyway, that's how we've handled it in our Greyhawk campaigns (and in FR, too).
Usually, if someone asks my spellcasters how "powerful" they are, my typical in-character reply is: "Well, the most complex and demanding spell I've mastered is...". Of course, there have been many NPCs and PCs who've just flatly lied about their "rank" or "power" (e.g. I once ran a 2nd-level Zhent Necromancer who managed to convince PCs that he was actually Lord Manshoon's long-time apprentice and an "Arch-Necromancer"   ). And sometimes I've even had Wizard PCs (and NPCs) claiming that their spells were much more powerful than they actually are (especially if no one had any ranks in Spellcraft).
I also agree that there simply *must* exist literally dozens or hundreds of different theories and "spell classifications" -- it is in man's nature to define and classify things into (more or less) "clear-cut" categories. As a librarian, I know how people have classified literature since the ancient Mesopotamians or Chinese came up with the first "library classifications". Why would wizards, bards, sages and certain priesthoods (at least Mystra's and Oghma's) not have analyzed and "codified" how magic works and how it could be "taken apart" and defined into categories? These systems and theories may have varied with each Era or century and with each individual's perspective and personality and even "Arcane Style" (as in "Which Metamagic Feats I know and apply on my spells"). Thus I don't think there is any kind of "Universal Truth" to it -- dozens of Theories and hundreds of written works, certainly, but no "prevalent" systems (except, perhaps, during a certain Era or within a certain Region).
I love to use ancient Tomes in my campaigns, which might contain (sometimes even false or "misleading") Arcane theories on some aspects of magic. Quite often the PCs can benefit from them, and usually I give at least some XP (depending on the "quality" and "relevancy" of the book to that PC -- either in general or in that particular situation). And, if you read a tome about the Planes, you can spend Skill Ranks on 'Knowledge (The Planes)' when you level up and/or take any relevant Feats (I insist that the PCs must have some sort of 'logical' reasons for gaining Skill Ranks and Feats -- e.g. you can't spend any Ranks on 'Ride', unless you've ridden during that level). Also, sometimes the PCs gain a 'Reference Bonus' if they want to research about something (most often about adventure hooks or some background lore). |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 20:39:10
I like Wooly's suggestion. |
| dirtywick |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 19:55:53
Gah! Thanks Wooly! |
| dirtywick |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 19:42:07
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Sick_Boy: Good point about martial arts belt levels. I didn't think of that, and I should have since we have something similiar in fencing with ratings A to E (A being the best). On the other hand, fencing ratings can be a bit deceptive. I'm pretty much an E fencer, but I have a D rating because I got really luck in one tournament a year and a half ago. I've never been able to re-earn it. So you can use things like that as a rough estimate, but it's nowhere near as precise as an actual level-on-the-sheet. The same would apply to the results of wizard competitions, like Alisttair mentioned.
I like to think they'd take a more scientific approach because though the skill of a mage would be difficult to determine (as it is with fencing or martial arts), the spell levels are constant relative to one another (as it is with a diamond always being harder than talc). After all, magic in Faerun has been studied and documented for thousands of years by beings of incomprehendable intelligence. Patterns would begin to emerge.
A good example to illustrate this is Moh's Hardness Scale. Grab a mage, and see if he can cast X spell. If X spell cannot be cast by this mage, but Y spell can, we know that Y spell is of a higher [insert RP appropriate word for level] than X spell, but if said mage can cast it then X <= Y. From there you can begin to quantify all known spells in relation to one another and arbitrarily label your known spell as "level" Z.
I guess the question here is would the patterns have been recognized and recorded? Do they have that type of scientific methodology available?
Perhaps I'm giving this too much thought :D Just my personal ideas on the subject.
quote:
Dirtywick: Well, I stand corrected, there actually IS reference to spell levels in a Realms novel. I agree it's a little strange to read (though on the whole I liked that book, the sole redeeming feature of the Noble's series).
I think the book starts to pick up after the first chapter or two, it starts slow to me. I'm about half way through now and it's getting really interesting.
Mod edit: Added quotation marks around the URL, to make the coding work properly. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 19:01:01
Mystra is the Lady of Mysteries... So spell levels could either be called just plain "Mysteries", or you could add some complexity to it -- perhaps by adding descriptive adjectives to each one (for example, 1st level spells are the Sunlit Mysteries, because any mage can get them (they're at the surface, easy to see), while the 9th level spells would be something like Deepest Mysteries, and epic or 10th+ level spells could be Unfathomable Mysteries). Or maybe each Mystery could be named after particularly noteworthy mages -- for example, 1st level spells could be Falson's Mysteries, because he was one of the first mages to come up with them. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 18:25:20
quote:
Originally posted by Slaygrim
It was my thread that started this debate, and I too thought to myself when it occured that wizards do in fact know there are levels of spells. I thought that was pretty clear when reading "Netheril: Empire of Magic". In there they constantly are talking about researching to the 11th and 12th Level's of magic.
Personally, I would just attribute that to a poor choice of description on the author's part, because as I (and some others) said before, using "gamey" descriptions in a novel can break the fourth wall and take the reader right out of the atmosphere.
Then again, I'm not the kind of person who takes every single word written in a novel as "gospel" just because they are considered "canon". |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 18:22:45
Sick_Boy: Good point about martial arts belt levels. I didn't think of that, and I should have since we have something similiar in fencing with ratings A to E (A being the best). On the other hand, fencing ratings can be a bit deceptive. I'm pretty much an E fencer, but I have a D rating because I got really luck in one tournament a year and a half ago. I've never been able to re-earn it. So you can use things like that as a rough estimate, but it's nowhere near as precise as an actual level-on-the-sheet. The same would apply to the results of wizard competitions, like Alisttair mentioned.
Dirtywick: Well, I stand corrected, there actually IS reference to spell levels in a Realms novel. I agree it's a little strange to read (though on the whole I liked that book, the sole redeeming feature of the Noble's series). |
| SiCK_Boy |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 17:50:49
Interesting discussion. I totally agree with Hoondatha and the idea that spell levels and magic weapons bonuses are quantified and known by characters. They aren't simply game mechanic terms.
Up to a certain point, character level is also an idea that characters can understand and could identify by number. It's easy enough for spellcasters, but the evolution of hit points could also serve as a way to measure a character level, in game.
We have equivalents in real-life, be it the levels of diploma one can get (in Quebec, Canada, you have High School, DEP, DEC, BAC, etc...) that is similar to the concept of character level. In many martial arts, you have degrees associated with belt colors, that are also a form of equivalency. |
| Slaygrim |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 15:43:33
It was my thread that started this debate, and I too thought to myself when it occured that wizards do in fact know there are levels of spells. I thought that was pretty clear when reading "Netheril: Empire of Magic". In there they constantly are talking about researching to the 11th and 12th Level's of magic.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think a Archmage casts Meteor Swarm and yells, "Take a 9th Level Spell you jerk!" or anything like that, but I do believe that wizards refer to Level's of Magic, and that a Meteor Swarm would be considered a "9th Level Spell".
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 14:05:35
I can buy the idea that in-setting, wizards might have a codified system to describe the various power levels of spells. But let's face it, there's no getting around that fact that in D&D, using the term "level X spell" in character comes off sounding "gamey" and self-aware (that is, your wizard seems to know that he is just a player character in a Dungeons & Dragons campaign). I'm not surprised that people think it can kill the suspension of disbelief. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 13:42:01
I can understand arguments for both cases, so I am somewhat neutral in this discussion regarding wether or not wizards can classify their spells by level.
As far as character level goes, obviously they don't count such things. Like from the Mage's Fair Fireball tossing/throwing or whatever its called in the realms, competition, the ball that gives out the most heat wins, judging some degree of power (so 10d6 damage, from a level 10 char will more often produce more heat than a level 6 char., thus the level 10 char. is seen as more proficient or more powerful a spellcaster...should he say roll all 1s and the level 6 char. rolls all 6s, that would be akin to a sports upset). |
| LordArcana |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 13:32:36
My 2 cents..
Wizard "schools" would seem to teach more than just spell casting hence where the idea of skills and non-weapon proficiencies (2nd edition) come into play. Knowing what a vrock is requires a Knowledge: Planes DC 15 for the basics and 20-25 for more specifics.
The way i have handled players asking how powerful their characters are i just used "Quantums" as levels. People having mastered magic missile have mastered the first quantum of magic. There is no predefined number of quantums hence the ability to gain spell slots of 10+ |
| tenacious1 |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 13:30:25
you guys are taking matters of personal opinion and gaming styles and trying to prove which is right, which is impossible.
In my old groups and in my online games ( ) we use the terms "circle" and "enchanted" for spell level and magic weapons respectively.
I agree that the wizards are too dedicated to their craft to not quantify and/or catalogue spells/enchantments of various power.
Now from an RP persective, it's how you handle it, IMO. So a wizard may have a scroll of the 5th "circle" in his posession, and researching/studying it, but "hasn't been able to unlock a key component of the spell yet".
For weapons, wizards are definately going to know the qualities of a magic item, and there would definately be a way to quantify it. "It's enchanted" or "it's REALLY REALLY enchanted" don't cut it and is not practical. As I said it's how you RP it that counts in my opinion.
Shooting from the hip... "Hoondatha, my friend. A word if you will. Over the last several weeks, I've been able to identifiy some of the qualities of the blade you brought to me. The enchantment on it is strong. Near as I can tell, the blade has been enchanted at least 3 times over. There is.... more.... but I've yet to unravel it... it's going to take more time."
my .02 on this, but again, it's a matter of a groups playing style really. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 12:09:38
Let's try to remain civil here fellow scribes. |
| dirtywick |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 07:38:47
I don't see why this discussion can't include formal schools, which the Thayan academies spring to mind immediately where they do teach spells (as well as Arach Tinilith and the Sorcere which are more detailed in various novels), among those other important things. Pick any arbitrary spell level you're comfortable with above 0. It's reasonable to assume that they'd start their way up to whatever level you chose from the weakest cantrips. Therefore they must have a way of categorizing the order in which to teach the spells, correct? |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 07:17:00
This isn't a discussion about formal school systems, mainly because an arcane school isn't going teach up to 9th level spells. And I will laugh, call you an idiot, and never communicate with you again if you try to convince me otherwise.
I can come up with a school system that you'd be in for 14 years (just like our pre-college school systems; pre-k,k,1-12) that "teach" you to be a wizards. Some classes will teach you about the planes, other classes will teach you about summoning, other classes will teach you about item creation, more classes will teach you about scribing and you know what none of the classes will teach you that i just mentioned for "my school"... how to cast any spells.
There's more to "wizards school" then teaching you how to cast magic missile, those important survival classes like teaching you how to not be killed by a creature you summons.
Hence why a "school system" doesn't really work for in-game knowledge of spell power. |
| dirtywick |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 07:07:50
Another weird coincidence because this is the second thread is as many days that I've answered with piece of info I read in The Gift of the Simbul, but in that novel Lauzoril has a conversation with his daughter in which he recollects that at her age, and I quote, "...when he was thirteen he'd already mastered the fourth level of enchantment..." which I found somewhat odd to read in a novel.
Anyway, I think the basic premise here makes sense. If you look at it from an academic point of view, magic academies, guilds, and colleges would have a hard time teaching magic to anyone if there was no way to measure relative skill and difficulty of the subject material. Like a placement exam in college, "Oh, you can create a ball of fire? Well, you're probably ready for Evocation 301. Now, how are you gonna pay?"
You'd start with simple things and move on to more difficult forms of magic, and in order to do that there has to be some kind of categorization for the curriculum and objective way of measuring the competence of the mage. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 07:04:53
The one flaw to your argument Hoondatha is that not all Wizards go to Wizards school and thus have no formal training and since your tier system has no supporting lore behind it, it's really not something that's acceptable.
Until I see otherwise, "Spell Level 1" is a player concept and has no in game equivalent. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 06:51:48
Kentinal: I think there's been a misunderstanding. I'm not saying a character knows they've gone up in level. I agree that, for the most part, the RPG concept of a "character level" is a construct with no in-game correlation. I'm arguing that a PC knows "Magic missile is a 1st level/step/whatever spell, and Fireball is 3rd level," not "I am a 4th level wizard."
Though, spellcasters in a Vancian system are probably the only ones that we could properly nail down a level for.
[Random Gamer] "So, you're a generalist mage, huh? Ok, what's the highest level spell you can cast? Uh huh. [consults PHB] OK, you're seventh level."
But aside from that amusing image, the only way someone would know a character level is if we showed up and told them. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 06:44:55
My argument is that it is *not* metagaming, but rather is something that a character would actually try and disccover. Not all of them, no. You would have to have encountered creatures that can only be hit by magical weapons, and probably more than once to make you want to put the effort in. But if you're a fighter in Sigil, the exact "plus" of your weapon and what I can hit is vital information. It [i[can be quantified, because the creator has to cast X number of enchant an item spells to make a +X weapon. If I, as a fighter,know that the golem/fiend/whatever I'm facing needs a +X to hit (which I could learn from past experience, or talking with others, or research, or any other number of ways), I'll want to know if my weapon is +X or not.
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza[/i]
Please don't take this the wrong way, but what you're talking about is meta gaming, not roleplaying. Unless your fighter is schooled in arcane knowledge, or knowledge monster, or something like that, he has no way of knowing a vrock from a wookie, and would have no idea that a vrock has resistances let alone know what a vrock is called.
|
|
|
