Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5990927" data-attributes="member: 54877">Spell level is a fairly decent measure of spell power.&nbsp; There are minor problems, sometimes because a spell is off by a level, other times because the spell is so situational that it is hard to peg cleanly for a given campaign (that is, it moves depending on the playstyle).&nbsp; &nbsp;Spell level is a lousy measure of complexity of the spell, even though they have somewhat tried to shoehorn complexity into the equation over the years.&nbsp; There are many reasons for this, but the main relevant one to this discussion is that trying to measure spell power and complexity with one value is like trying to measure area of a wall by adding the height and width.&nbsp; &nbsp;Three dimensions gives a game system sufficient flexibility to neatly express a wide range of behavior, if you keep the dimensions clean.&nbsp; I again suggest:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spell level - raw power and effectiveness</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spell complexity - the simple, complex, and exotic labels from Arcana Evolved, but unlike AE focused exactly on complexity with more mechanical differences in handling, not merely access</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spell focus - the Next cantrip, spell, and ritual distinctions, with primarily an emphasis on the time and materials needed</li>
</ul>It is not necessary to &quot;fill out the grid&quot; in all 81 or 90 combinations (9 or 10 spell levels, 3 each of the other dimensions), and certainly not in a given caster.&nbsp; If there are no high level, simple rituals, no big deal.&nbsp; Still, if the dimensions are kept reasonably clean, and someone comes up with an offbeat effect that fits high level, simple ritual, then you've got the conceptual and mechanical spot for it to go.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5990927, member: 54877"] Spell level is a fairly decent measure of spell power. There are minor problems, sometimes because a spell is off by a level, other times because the spell is so situational that it is hard to peg cleanly for a given campaign (that is, it moves depending on the playstyle). Spell level is a lousy measure of complexity of the spell, even though they have somewhat tried to shoehorn complexity into the equation over the years. There are many reasons for this, but the main relevant one to this discussion is that trying to measure spell power and complexity with one value is like trying to measure [B]area[/B] of a wall by [B]adding[/B] the height and width. Three dimensions gives a game system sufficient flexibility to neatly express a wide range of behavior, if you keep the dimensions clean. I again suggest: [LIST] [*]Spell level - raw power and effectiveness [*]Spell complexity - the simple, complex, and exotic labels from Arcana Evolved, but unlike AE focused exactly on complexity with more mechanical differences in handling, not merely access [*]Spell focus - the Next cantrip, spell, and ritual distinctions, with primarily an emphasis on the time and materials needed [/LIST]It is not necessary to "fill out the grid" in all 81 or 90 combinations (9 or 10 spell levels, 3 each of the other dimensions), and certainly not in a given caster. If there are no high level, simple rituals, no big deal. Still, if the dimensions are kept reasonably clean, and someone comes up with an offbeat effect that fits high level, simple ritual, then you've got the conceptual and mechanical spot for it to go.:D [/QUOTE]

Verification