In-game concept of spell levels?

[Mytholder]

I stole 'valence' too, although I vaguely recall it's not original to Sep.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

There's no way around spell levels as an ingame concept, unless you go to a different system of determining scroll cost and such. There is simply too much that has it worked into ingame going ons. For that matter, I'd like caster level to not be in game but with a rigid uniform progression that every single magic user goes through, I don't see how it could not be.

Well, caster level isn't actually as rigid and uniform as you make it out to be--at least not from the point of view of characters in a game world. Things like domains, practiced spellcaster, Spellpower, Orange Ioun Stones, beads of karma, etc screw that up. I can see characters asking each other how skilled a caster they are--do their unaugmented summonings last 30 seconds, a minute, or what, but the actual interrelation between caster level, extend spell, and the various other feats and effects which I take to be common mean that, while a generalized concept of caster skill probably exists, I can't see a specific concept of caster level. Even seemingly straightforward tests like: "cast magic missile--how many bolts show up?" would generate some questionable interpretations since someone who can conjure three bolts can't necessarily cast 3rd level spells (sorcerers and practiced spellcaster) and, at the high end, there is no easily observable difference between characters of obviously different skills. Range generates similar problems since it advances differently depending upon the range of the spell and close range spells advance at a 1/2 lvl rate rather than at a 1/1 ratio. So, I'm not certain that people would readily observe enough information to quantify caster levels or would necessarily connect all of the disparate effects of caster level and separate them from the seemingly similar measures of how powerful and how many spells can be cast.

Spell level, on the other hand, is quite readily discernable--especially if wizards tend to have a lot of spells in common. Either you can cast fireball or you can't. Either you can cast teleport or you can't. Casters have to know that they can fill the fireball slot with a fly and the teleport slot with a feeblemind and that a ring of counterspells can hold a disintegrate but not a finger of death. Thus the concept of spell levels is fairly intuitive. (And probably would be, even in a non-Vancian spell-point system as long as spells tended to congregate in large and discrete cost-groupings--if all 1st level spells cost 1 point, 2nd level spells 3 points, 3rd level spells 5 points, etc then that's a sensible and intuitive nomenclature as long as there aren't two point, and four point spells. X-PsiHB style augmentation might muddy the waters a little but would probably just introduce the concept of variable-level spells).

Now, it seems that most people in this thread have taken that concept and run with it to the extent that spell levels are discernable but have attempted to disguise the fact that the "meta-game" knowledge is in-game knowledge as well by coming up with alternative terminology. Epic spell or "id." It refers to the same concept. First level or first circle. The only difference is that your characters are using Ultima terminology rather than D&D terminology. There's some logic to doing so if the illusion works and Ultima terminology feels more "magical" but the differences between the terms are all in our perception and reaction to them rather than in their content. (Is the lady a prostitute or a whore?) Personally, I would be tempted to run a little further with the idea and make different terminologies for different areas and organizations. In Stromgald, they refer to spell levels as "rings" and an initiate of the Ebon Hand wears a ring for every ring he can cast. Once he reaches the fifth ring, he is called a master. (And none but Lim Dul has ever mastered the tenth ring. It is said that, aquiring the 9th ring requires his personal training and none have done so without taking on the mantle of undeath). On the other hand, in Erathia, the enchanters refer to spells of the xth house, but measure their potency by the number of magic missiles they can produce. (Practiced Spellcaster is unknown in the lands of Erathia). Thus there is no formal measure of power among masters of the 5th orb for they have all arrived and are treated as equals in the great conclave. It is acknowledged that some casters master the orbs more easily than the houses but this is not seen as a difficulty. One side effect of this is that, despite Erathia's preference for enchantment magic, no member of the conclave has evocation as a banned school. In the more practical kingdom of Kailendrom, the masters of magic have charted the various levels of the spells and refer to them by the "spell level" terminology. Like the inhabitants of Stromgald, they refer to their power in levels (thus a "5th level" wizard can cast 5th level spells) but unlike them, they wear no visible sign of their power in public (though they arcane mark one star on their collar for each level they can cast to be seen by those who detect magic) because there all wizards are considered equally noble no matter what their power.

Three kingdoms. Three separate terminologies loosely related to social customs (In Erathia, the libraries of the conclave hold different spell level spells in different houses, etc.)

In a more scientifically modelled or unified world, one common terminology might win out but in a world where the various guilds and magical socieities are isolated from each other or are established with a long history of official power to set terminology (I'm sure the French academy still has a list of French terms for nearly every bit of scientific jargon and insist that French scientists use them) the use of one term over another would signal one's education and history.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Oh, WRT the fighter question, I suspect that the reason one generally doesn't think about BAB tests in the same way that one might naturally think of ranking wizards by their spell abilities is that BAB is much less dramatic.

BAB based attacks go from one to four. That's a lot less than one to nine.

BAB based attacks are always more of the same. A 9th level wizard can teleport and a 17th level wizard can stop time. A 16th level fighter can attack four times as fast as a first level fighter and is more likely to hit with every attack but it's still the same kind of thing: an attack.

Finally, there are very significant differences in combat ability other than BAB. The feats, abilities, and strategies of a combatant are very important. Thus, the character who can fire three arrows per round is not necessarily a better archer than the one who can only fire two. (Consider a Fighter 4/Ranger 2 with as 12 dex and rapid shot from ranger levels but no other archery abilities as compared to a 4th level elf fighter with weapon specialization longbow, point blank, precise, and rapid shot. The character who fires fewer arrows per round is a dramatically better archer in most situations). Spellcasters scale in a much more linear manner. Having Greater Spell Focus and Greater Spell Penetration will not usually make up for being two levels lower.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I stole 'valence' too, although I vaguely recall it's not original to Sep.

I think it may have been Psion who originally posited the idea that spells could only occupy discrete levels, much like the quantum shells of an atom as an explanation of "why there are spell levels." But I could be wrong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Tell that to a sorcerer

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.

Perhaps.

But are you telling me they're so approximate that you can't tell the difference between a spell with a duration of five hours, and one with a duration of six hours?

-Hyp.

 

[Doomhawk]

No, we're telling you that the designers decided that a duration of "24d4 minutes per caster level" was way too much freakin' effort, even though it still averages out to the same duration. The D&D system is just a set of rules to imitate a fantasy setting, not necessarily the way that the characters themselves would see things.

For instance - in older editions of D&D, arcane spellcasters could not use armor. Period. This was because of game balance issues mainly, and also because it interfered with their movements (now represented by ASF). The Dragonlance campaign setting tried to rationalize this, by saying that wizards couldn't use armor because the gods had realized how powerful arcane magic was, and in an attempt to limit it, they had forbidden arcane spellcasters from wearing armor. OK, kinda iffy, but under 2e rules, it made sense.
Then 3e came out, and suddenly wizards can wear armor and cast (although not necessarily well) by the RAW. Now, an explanation introduced in Dragonlance as a piece of fluff trying to justify OOC knowledge suddenly became an inconsistency, and looked like some kind of corny joke. What was formerly the logical fluff conclusion of crunch mechanics, had become an illogical limitation artificially placed upon the mechanics.
Now, I personally like Dragonlance, and I certainly don't hold the above occurrence against them. If you have a good in-game reason to introduce spell levels as IC knowledge, go with it (the above post by Elder-Basilisk about how the three kingdoms have different ways of tracking spell levels is a good example of this, I think). But if you use it only because "there's no way around having it as IC knowledge", then what will happen if, for instance, D&D 4.0 arrives and fractional spell levels are introduced? Does everyone become something such as a Caster Who's Kind of Straddling The Second and Third Circles? You have to pull a trick like the Dragonlance one above, which feels fishy and places annoying limitations on players unless there's a good reason for it (the Dragonlance one actually isn't so bad, since the gods used to be quite active - it's not hard to believe that they actively forbade arcane casters from wearing armor, so it meshes at least moderately well with the setting).

I still don't like the idea of my character being aware that he's casting a 4th-level spell, for the same reason I don't like the technobabble names of psionic powers; it just doesn't seem to fit. Some people, however, love to spew psionic technobabble in-character; that's their game, I'm not going to interfere with them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But if you use it only because "there's no way around having it as IC knowledge", then what will happen if, for instance, D&D 4.0 arrives and fractional spell levels are introduced?

Changes in mechanics necessitate changes in setting.

In the FR novel Azure Bonds, it's noted that there's no such thing as a halfling bard.

In 3E, there's no problem with halfling bards.

Change in mechanics, and thus a change in setting is required.

If fractional spell levels are introduced, flavour text relating to integral spell levels will need to be changed.

So?

-Hyp.

 

[diaglo]

Changes in mechanics necessitate changes in setting.

In the FR novel Azure Bonds, it's noted that there's no such thing as a halfling bard.

In 3E, there's no problem with halfling bards.

Change in mechanics, and thus a change in setting is required.

If fractional spell levels are introduced, flavour text relating to integral spell levels will need to be changed.

So?

-Hyp.

don't forget the Dwarven Doodad in the Cleric Quintet either.