In-game concept of spell levels?

[VirgilCaine]

I'll add too that I use the Circle concept, applied to spell levels. That way the terminology is self-referring. A Wizard of the Third Circle can cast spells of the Third Circle, and if Third Circle spells are comprehensible and castable by you, you are a Third Circle caster.

Indeed in my Shattered World campaign I borrowed the idea that casters often advertise their level of proficiency by wearing a ring. First Circle casters wear it on their right little finger, Second circle on the right ring finger, and so on, until your ring is worn on the left ring finger, indicating mastery of the greatest magics. Though, actually, that's not quite true; some few spellcasters wear their ring on the left little finger: a Wizard (or whatever) of the Tenth Circle. These mighty individuals have proven their worth in some way that sets them apart from the common run (!) of Ninth Circle casters. Usually by defeating demonic lords, or crafting entirely unique approaches to magic, or mastering some ancient magical technique.

I've found that this system actually helps maintain verisimilitude.

This is great. Especially for my campaign where wizards are a self-censoring population--they clean up their own mess and use magic to make sure no one evil or who would likely become evil becomes a wizard. *Yoink*

How can be the terms Valence, Circle of Magic, Order of Power, etc. applied to spell point systems? I'm using EoMR, which has even no spell levels (the power of a spell is simply the amount of magic points used in this spell) and I'm stumbling, how to transfer the definitions from the core.

Gee, I guess there is an upside to the Vancian system after all.

 

[Ry]

How do they account for observable caster-level-related effects?

Spell duration being the obvious one. Your Third Order wizards can (almost always) be placed in one of two categories - the ones whose Shield spells last for five minutes, and the ones whose Shield spells last for six minutes. A Third Order wizard (almost always) produces three missiles with a Magic Missile spell.

On the other hand, a Third Order sorcerer's Shield spell lasts for either six minutes or seven minutes. And he produces either three missiles or four missiles... directly corresponding to the six or seven minute spell duration.

Do none of the Spellcraft lecturers at Wizard U ever address these issues?

-Hyp.

These are just called degrees of power, and while in theory that is a measurable effect, the terms are relegated to vagaries: "You are near the achievement of the Third Order." Magical research in my campaign seems to go more along the lines of historical inquiry and philosophical debate, rather than experimentation - when it isn't a matter completely shrouded in mysticism, that is.

Remember that there wasn't a serious roadblock to scientific enquiry in the Dark ages; systematic natural philosophy just wasn't seen as a fruitful are of enquiry. Larger problems for science included a lack of systematicity, and a lack of a scientific community capable of seeing any particular system through. Obviously economics and technology were aggravating factors, but "doing science" didn't necessarily require either - though results would have been limited pending those developments.

Getting back to my campaign, even a movement corresponding to Scholasticism (bible+aristotle+logic) can't get off the ground due to the difficulty in agreeing on what qualifies as a canonical magical work, and the lack of association between the most organized groups (religion) and those with access to subject matter (wizards). Wizards live in their own towers, corresponding with other wizards, and taking on apprentices. Each has their own pet metaphysical theories, which their apprentices tend to follow, improve on, or reject. To a certain degree, this means there are lots of wizardly researchers throughout history that seem like Plato and Aristotle; at least in the sense that their findings follow a particular theme.

 

[DM_Matt]

For those who deny that there should be character knowledge of caster levels, how mages KNOW how long their spells last, how many cubes they get to distribute with shaped spells, etc, and dont they notice that it all increases at the same time, invariably in the same linear progression that it increased the last time?

 

[Doomhawk]

I don't deny that there can be a character knowledge of spell/caster levels, I deny that there has to be one. It's a side effect of the rules, and not something that the characters necessarily realize. D&D isn't realistic, and it's not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be super-detailed either; so since having all spells function based off of the same caster level is much easier, it's the system that is used.

I'll use a real-life example. I'm very good at math. However, I routinely screw up on the most basic of operations, often because I'm exerting no particular effort. In D&D, I would have a high enough bonus in Knowledge (Mathematics) to never fail such calculations. Oddly enough, this becomes even more emphasized when I exert no particular effort (that is, when I take 10). Under the D&D rules, it is not possible for me to screw up.
Does this mean a character with ranks in a skill can never mess up on simple tasks? No, it simply means that the occurrence of such mistakes is rare and minor enough to ignore - even the best smith will still, on occasion, ruin a piece of work. However, the rules make no account for this. A character with +14 on a skill cannot fail a DC 15 check, much less fail by a margin wide enough to ruin the materials; and yet exactly that situation occurs regularly.
By the same token, a "real-life" spellcaster would not actually have exactly the same durations and ranges on all of his spells of a certain type, but it will usually be close enough that, for the purpose of simplicity, the rules make it exactly the same.

 

[Deadguy]

This is great. Especially for my campaign where wizards are a self-censoring population--they clean up their own mess and use magic to make sure no one evil or who would likely become evil becomes a wizard. *Yoink*

Well, I shouldn't claim credit. The Shattered World is a novel by Michael Reaves. It has some D&D influence in that the different grades all have their own titles (so a Tenth Order spellcaster is a Sorcerer, whilst a Ninth is an Enchanter). Good book, and worth the read.

Oh, and for myself, I point out that Wizards in especial should expect to occasionally be challenged to prove their worth of a particular ring. Usually only by those who lie at the same point (so a Third Circle might be challenged by another Third Circle). Oh, and since Tenth Circle is self-appointed, there can be bitter rivlaries from other Tenths and Ninths contesting their worth.

 

[Gez]

So, I'm the only one who actually named each spell level, everybody else kept numeral values instead.

 

[Voodoo]

Knowledge of caster levels should be immediately apparent to any spell caster with an item creation feat (all wizards for example).

Knowledge of the level of each spell again, I feel, needs to be IC knowledge, else how will the caster decide which spells to ward himself from with the Spell Immunity spell? For that matter there is a whole swath of spells that refer to spell level.

For my game I shall be using the simple ‘third circle spell’ and specific naming of the levels. A wizard needs to express himself very differently when explaining magical concepts to the party’s barbarian as to when he is being pedantic and superior to a sorcerer.

 

[drnuncheon]

To answer the question, the casters in my world do know what spell levels are, and the wizards at least refer to them as 'circles'. Someone capable of casting 6th level spells is a 'Magus of the Sixth Circle' (or M6C if you were abbreviating it with your name like you would Esquire/Esq. or Doctor of Philosophy/PhD)

Give a fighter a bow and a barn door 10 feet away. In six seconds, ask him to sink in as many arrows as he can. The first level dude will put one, the 16th level dude will put four. Almost invariably (a 1 always misses). Unless one has the rapid shot feat, but the same goes for some metamagic feats.

That would give you general areas...but the fifth level guy is also only going to put one, the 40th level guy is also only going to put four, and the first level guy with rapid shot puts in two. (And over in the corner there's the guy loading three arrows on the bow at once.)

The point is, you can't easily look at someone and determine if they fired two arrows because they get two attacks or because they have rapid shot.

Whereas with caster level, there's no fuzziness or die rolling required. Count the glowing darts of energy.

You get an extra magic missile when you get an extra spell level, so the number of missiles don't help you differentiate between, say, 5th and 6th level.

Also, remember that the game rules are only an approximation of the game world. The characters are not forced to move in exact five-foot increments every time they walk, so there's no reason to believe that spell durations are exact six-second increments, either. For that matter, the spell levels themselves might not be as exact as they are in the rules - maybe 'fireball' is actually easier to learn than 'lightning bolt', but not enough easier to be represented by a change in spell level (the distinctions had to be made someplace).

J

 

[Larcen]

...By the same token, a "real-life" spellcaster would not actually have exactly the same durations and ranges on all of his spells of a certain type, but it will usually be close enough that, for the purpose of simplicity, the rules make it exactly the same.

And...

... Also, remember that the game rules are only an approximation of the game world. The characters are not forced to move in exact five-foot increments every time they walk, so there's no reason to believe that spell durations are exact six-second increments, either. For that matter, the spell levels themselves might not be as exact as they are in the rules - maybe 'fireball' is actually easier to learn than 'lightning bolt', but not enough easier to be represented by a change in spell level (the distinctions had to be made someplace).

J

Thanks guys, this is exactly what I was trying to convey in my post about the high level fighters shooting arrows at a barn. The rules, being designed for a game, simplify and systemize things for us but don't necessarily represent exactly what the in-game characters experience in the world around them. So sometimes what is an easily observable "fact" for us, may not be the same thing for the characters.

 

[Alhazred]

I took the "valence" term from Sepulchrave (very good), and also, I named each level.
0: Sepis
1: Igis
2: Andris
3: Ormis
4: Arbis
5: Quamis
6: Caltis
7: Zanis
8: Temenis
9: Celentis
10 (epic): Is

Wizards will categorize among themselves by the numbers of valence of the highest level they are able to use each day. For example, a wizard with three 6th-level spell slot but unable to cast spells of level 7+ will say he is a "Terce of Caltis."

A spellcaster thus is a [Prime, Seconde, Terce, Quarte, Quinte, Hexe, Hepte, Octe, None, Decate, etc.] of [Sepis, Igis, Andris, Ormis, Arbis, Quamis, Caltis, Celentis, Is].

PS: For the name of each spell level, I have stole from Pope Gerbert of Aurillac's names for abacus stones. They were 0 Sipos, 1 Igin, 2 Andras, 3 Ormis, 4 Arbas, 5 Quimas, 6 Caltis, 7 Zenis, 8 Temenias, and 9 Celentis.

I may just have to steal this from you, Gez