D&D General Why are spells grouped into "levels"?

[Fenris-77]

Order does not work, at least in some settings, because adventuring companies are often named "Order of....."

I'll take two Purple Knights and a side of Magic Missile. Is that the sort of confusion you're envisioning? Or PCs trying to do a Magic Missile in between division and subtraction? IDK, I don't see it.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I'll take two Purple Knights and a side of Magic Missile. Is that the sort of confusion you're envisioning? Or PCs trying to do a Magic Missile in between division and subtraction? IDK, I don't see it.

But what would the Chaotic mages do? They are not into Law and Order.

 

[happyhermit]

Is it worth pointing out that 4e removed asynchronous character and spell levels? For example: wish was a 29th level spell that you could get when you were 29th level.

Which points to the greater conspiracy, because to balance the scales they had to apply the term to items instead. "Does that mean I can only use that item when I get to lvl 10?" "Why did I get a lvl10 item when we are all at lvl11?" "Is that the lvl x or y version of Z?"

 

[jasper]

I'll take two Purple Knights and a side of Magic Missile. Is that the sort of confusion you're envisioning? Or PCs trying to do a Magic Missile in between division and subtraction? IDK, I don't see it.

Sorry all I have is lavender knights or Plum Knights. Which would you prefer?

 

[Fenris-77]

Sorry all I have is lavender knights or Plum Knights. Which would you prefer?

I'll have the Lavender then, the Plum wasn't good last time and the Halfling got sick. Two Lavenders to go and a side of Urban Intrigue please. Oh, and a litre of cola. Thanks.

 

[Hriston]

Chainmail (3rd Ed.) uses the term complexity, of which there are six (erm) levels (actually “values”). I think “9th-complexity spell” has a nice ring to it.

 

[The Green Hermit]

Chainmail (3rd Ed.) uses the term complexity, of which there are six (erm) levels (actually “values”). I think “9th-complexity spell” has a nice ring to it.

Where did you find that?

 

[Eyes of Nine]

So, to make things more complicated, but only somewhat parallel to D&D, Paizo made the decision in Starfinder to give equipment levels. Sheesh.

 

[Hriston]

Where did you find that?

Page 33 of Chainmail, 3rd Edition, under the “Wizards” entry. It’s presented as an optional rule, but “complexity value” seems to be what was later called “level”. Also, each of the listed spells on pp 31-32 is given a complexity value at the bottom of its entry.

The optional mechanic is basically a chance of spell failure.

I like the term because it gives an in-world reason for the categories. You need to be a higher level wizard to cast certain spells because they are more complex.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, wait. You think that changing the term makes it less meta to talk about the concept in-character?

So, I’m still unclear on why talking about spell levels in character is meta, outside of the meta-feeling name?

and I say meta feeling because...it isn’t actually necessarily a name that wouldn’t exist in game. It wouldn’t be especially wierd if a martial art used levels rather than something more esoteric.

Speak for yourself! I'm up to V4 or so on my own Warlord homebrew! So I'm doing SOMETHING on that front!

Yeah I need to get mine into the next draft and post it.