Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 9356719" data-attributes="member: 20564">I am the exact opposite.&nbsp; Overloading the meaning of level yet again causes more confusion.&nbsp; Having a different measure for different things is not a source of confusion.&nbsp; Think of pound and gallon.&nbsp; They don't interfere with each other.&nbsp; But when you have ounce, which could be a measurement of weight or of volume, it's confusing.Having level for one of these vs. four PCs is not at all the same level.&nbsp; Because with action economy this doesn't scale nicely.&nbsp; Two PCs is much weaker than four PCs, not half as weak.&nbsp; Three creatures is much more powerful than one creature.&nbsp; How you rank them should never be confused with a clear linear scaling that has the first priority.If anything, change spell levels to something like spell circles.&nbsp; Make each thing clear.&nbsp; Completely boggled by the idea that a separate term isn't clear but reusing an existing term which cannot help but cause confusion is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 9356719, member: 20564"] I am the exact opposite. Overloading the meaning of level yet again causes more confusion. Having a different measure for different things is not a source of confusion. Think of pound and gallon. They don't interfere with each other. But when you have ounce, which could be a measurement of weight or of volume, it's confusing. Having level for one of these vs. four PCs is not at all the same level. Because with action economy this doesn't scale nicely. Two PCs is much weaker than four PCs, not half as weak. Three creatures is much more powerful than one creature. How you rank them should never be confused with a clear linear scaling that has the first priority. If anything, change spell levels to something like spell circles. Make each thing clear. Completely boggled by the idea that a separate term isn't clear but reusing an existing term which cannot help but cause confusion is. [/QUOTE]

Verification