I'm just curious if anyone else feels like I do. Perhaps with the OneD&D roll-out, maybe a change in the word "Level" for spells might reduce occasional confusion. e.g., a "2nd Level Wizard" cannot cast a "2nd Level spell."
So, why not use a DIFFERENT TERM for spells? A few ideas... Tier, Order, Rank, Stage, Line, Layer, Union, Measure, Power, Station, Step.
To me, I'd rather explain to a new player "a 2nd Level Wizard can cast two 1st Tier spells".
Since they're intending to keep backward compatibility, we're unlikely to see much in the way of renaming of fundamental game terms, especially ones that are so long established.
I think it's a good idea. It does get a bit confusing for beginners that the two fairly close linked terms are referring to pretty different things. Some critique on your suggested terms, though:
Tier - it's fine. That it's used for tiers of play is neither here nor there in my opinion. For one, they're referring to two different concepts. Two, tiers of play is usually encountered after playing for a bit - you don't need to talk about them in the actual game, only for deeper analysis of classes etc which generally comes after you're familiar enough with spell levels that you won't confuse them. Third, you generally say the whole name, tiers of play, and so that differentiates them.
Order - maybe. I'm not that keen on it, but maybe it's just taste.
Rank - this generally implies a persistent hierarchy, which isn't the case. A 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell whether you have 2nd level or 4th level spells or not. Also, it implies an inverted order 1st rank would be better than 2nd rank.
Stage - this implies that a 9th stage spell has an 8th stage, that they have progression. True of some but many don't.
Line - I'm not sure that this is really a logical name.
Layer - see stage.
Union - see line.
Measure - see line.
Power - maybe.
Station - maybe, although I think it's not very related to spells. Better than line, union or measure, but still distant.
Step - see stage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Tiers of play are discussed all the time in discussing campaign arcs and encounter design on this very forum and elsewhere.
I think spell level and class level are easily enough distinguished. I mean I can see the contention when someone is mad that their 9th level spellcaster can't cast Wish, but the DM should be able to correct the PC is a ninth level wizard not yet able to cast ninth level spells. Really, if that wasn't clear to player over the past seven levels where this would also be an issue, the player would have to be trolling.
"I play a ninth level wizard who can cast up to fifth level spells" isn't significantly clarified by "I play a ninth level wizard who cast up to fifth [other noun] spells." Character levels and spell levels are a distinction made at the most elementary beginnings of play and is a system as easily acclimated to as proficiency bonuses or any other set of scaled numerators (don't know if I'm using the word right but it looks cool) different from character level.
We could just invent a new word to distinguish the two, like a backwards spelling for the spell... which... waitaminnit.🤔
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I'm partial to each level having a name - Apprentice, Journeyman, Master, etc. But that would be a pretty bad system for something you need to often reference when you're talking at the table.
I think "tier" would be fine. I do use that word to describe levels of play - as in 3rd-4th tier means the latter 10 levels of the game - but the context is different enough that I don't think it would get confused nearly as much as "levels" does.
To be fair, a lot of the reason gishes don't work well in 5e is because you wind up with combat spells not being worth the action cost of casting them. The 4e style would be to give a paladin the same maximum spell level but fewer spell slots.
To be fair, a lot of the reason gishes don't work well in 5e is because you wind up with combat spells not being worth the action cost of casting them. The 4e style would be to give a paladin the same maximum spell level but fewer spell slots.
Does that not screw with balance at all? I mean, Paladins get fewer slots and lower power levels to account for their melee abilities. I'm not saying it's insurmountable, I've not seen it in practice, but that's what jumps out to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Does that not screw with balance at all? I mean, Paladins get fewer slots and lower power levels to account for their melee abilities. I'm not saying it's insurmountable, I've not seen it in practice, but that's what jumps out to me.
They're totally different systems, but given that the usual advice for casting spells as a paladin is "don't", I would argue that the way 5e handles half-casters really isn't all that functional.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, it's both. That's how 3.5e did it, and while I'll agree it's a little clunky, it's no worse than the issue the OP is about, and I didn't hear people complaining about it then either (though to be fair I wasn't active in D&D spaces online at the time).
Edit: I lied. 3.5 had all the clunk with none of the benefit: The Bless spell says "Clr 1, Pal 1" even though Paladins don't get spells until level 4. There are a few spells that are different levels for different classes though. Heroism is a level 2 Bard spell and a level 3 Wizard spell.
I have to say... I'm so glad that responses so far have been pleasant. You know how it can go in these types of forums. You put something out there, next thing you know, you're being labeled a heretic, stupid, etc.
4th edition made spells have a level equal to the level at which you could acquire them. People hated it.
See, I've never heard anyone talking about this. To me, this seems like the obvious solution. What was the problem?
All I'm seeing from my cursory look is people being confused about the way Wizard powers worked, because it was hella complicated.
I don’t think that was really the problem with 4e. It more that it’s a convention unique to 4e, and so now it’s completely off-limits. If they tried to introduce it, people would complain they’re bringing back 4e and bring out the pitchforks.
Does that not screw with balance at all? I mean, Paladins get fewer slots and lower power levels to account for their melee abilities. I'm not saying it's insurmountable, I've not seen it in practice, but that's what jumps out to me.
They're totally different systems, but given that the usual advice for casting spells as a paladin is "don't", I would argue that the way 5e handles half-casters really isn't all that functional.
Yeah, I'll second that. Builds like Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight can work because they leverage low-level utility spells like Shield or Invisibility. Some things like Hold Person can stay relevant too. But if you've ever tried to build a partial caster that tries to deal damage with its spells - like an artificer or Pelor-help-you a Four Elements monk - you know that it just doesn't work. By the time you get the spell, it's often a pretty bad use of your action. And it never gets better from there.
I'm just curious if anyone else feels like I do. Perhaps with the OneD&D roll-out, maybe a change in the word "Level" for spells might reduce occasional confusion. e.g., a "2nd Level Wizard" cannot cast a "2nd Level spell."
So, why not use a DIFFERENT TERM for spells? A few ideas... Tier, Order, Rank, Stage, Line, Layer, Union, Measure, Power, Station, Step.
To me, I'd rather explain to a new player "a 2nd Level Wizard can cast two 1st Tier spells".
Thoughts?
Since they're intending to keep backward compatibility, we're unlikely to see much in the way of renaming of fundamental game terms, especially ones that are so long established.
Obligatory Order of the Stick
That they used the same term for both of these things annoys that crap out of me.
Tier wouldn't work though, since we already use that for tiers of play.
Well, maybe only AL players talk about tiers - it's not really a term that has any common use at a game table.
I think it's a good idea. It does get a bit confusing for beginners that the two fairly close linked terms are referring to pretty different things. Some critique on your suggested terms, though:
Tier - it's fine. That it's used for tiers of play is neither here nor there in my opinion. For one, they're referring to two different concepts. Two, tiers of play is usually encountered after playing for a bit - you don't need to talk about them in the actual game, only for deeper analysis of classes etc which generally comes after you're familiar enough with spell levels that you won't confuse them. Third, you generally say the whole name, tiers of play, and so that differentiates them.
Order - maybe. I'm not that keen on it, but maybe it's just taste.
Rank - this generally implies a persistent hierarchy, which isn't the case. A 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell whether you have 2nd level or 4th level spells or not. Also, it implies an inverted order 1st rank would be better than 2nd rank.
Stage - this implies that a 9th stage spell has an 8th stage, that they have progression. True of some but many don't.
Line - I'm not sure that this is really a logical name.
Layer - see stage.
Union - see line.
Measure - see line.
Power - maybe.
Station - maybe, although I think it's not very related to spells. Better than line, union or measure, but still distant.
Step - see stage.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Tiers of play are discussed all the time in discussing campaign arcs and encounter design on this very forum and elsewhere.
I think spell level and class level are easily enough distinguished. I mean I can see the contention when someone is mad that their 9th level spellcaster can't cast Wish, but the DM should be able to correct the PC is a ninth level wizard not yet able to cast ninth level spells. Really, if that wasn't clear to player over the past seven levels where this would also be an issue, the player would have to be trolling.
"I play a ninth level wizard who can cast up to fifth level spells" isn't significantly clarified by "I play a ninth level wizard who cast up to fifth [other noun] spells." Character levels and spell levels are a distinction made at the most elementary beginnings of play and is a system as easily acclimated to as proficiency bonuses or any other set of scaled numerators (don't know if I'm using the word right but it looks cool) different from character level.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
We could just invent a new word to distinguish the two, like a backwards spelling for the spell... which... waitaminnit.🤔
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
4th edition made spells have a level equal to the level at which you could acquire them. People hated it.
See, I've never heard anyone talking about this. To me, this seems like the obvious solution. What was the problem?
All I'm seeing from my cursory look is people being confused about the way Wizard powers worked, because it was hella complicated.
Is Aid 3rd level (Cleric) or 5th Level (Paladin)?
I'm partial to each level having a name - Apprentice, Journeyman, Master, etc. But that would be a pretty bad system for something you need to often reference when you're talking at the table.
I think "tier" would be fine. I do use that word to describe levels of play - as in 3rd-4th tier means the latter 10 levels of the game - but the context is different enough that I don't think it would get confused nearly as much as "levels" does.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
1st - 9th Circle would be fine imho
To be fair, a lot of the reason gishes don't work well in 5e is because you wind up with combat spells not being worth the action cost of casting them. The 4e style would be to give a paladin the same maximum spell level but fewer spell slots.
Does that not screw with balance at all? I mean, Paladins get fewer slots and lower power levels to account for their melee abilities. I'm not saying it's insurmountable, I've not seen it in practice, but that's what jumps out to me.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
They're totally different systems, but given that the usual advice for casting spells as a paladin is "don't", I would argue that the way 5e handles half-casters really isn't all that functional.
Fair enough.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, it's both. That's how 3.5e did it, and while I'll agree it's a little clunky, it's no worse than the issue the OP is about, and I didn't hear people complaining about it then either (though to be fair I wasn't active in D&D spaces online at the time).
Edit: I lied. 3.5 had all the clunk with none of the benefit: The Bless spell says "Clr 1, Pal 1" even though Paladins don't get spells until level 4. There are a few spells that are different levels for different classes though. Heroism is a level 2 Bard spell and a level 3 Wizard spell.
I have to say... I'm so glad that responses so far have been pleasant. You know how it can go in these types of forums. You put something out there, next thing you know, you're being labeled a heretic, stupid, etc.
So, thank you all.
I don’t think that was really the problem with 4e. It more that it’s a convention unique to 4e, and so now it’s completely off-limits. If they tried to introduce it, people would complain they’re bringing back 4e and bring out the pitchforks.
Yeah, I'll second that. Builds like Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight can work because they leverage low-level utility spells like Shield or Invisibility. Some things like Hold Person can stay relevant too. But if you've ever tried to build a partial caster that tries to deal damage with its spells - like an artificer or Pelor-help-you a Four Elements monk - you know that it just doesn't work. By the time you get the spell, it's often a pretty bad use of your action. And it never gets better from there.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm