Disguising talking about semi-OOC game mechanics in-game with euphemisms? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Disguising talking about semi-OOC game mechanics in-game with euphemisms? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JulesCARV
12-10-07, 09:37 AM Many people would find a wizard who said something like "mirror image is a second-level spell" to be a bit tacky. It just doesn't feel right, y'know?

At the same time, with the exception of some sorcerer who had no contact with other mages, knowledge of something like spell levels is sure to exist among the wizard's guilds, temples, and such. They'll eventually figure out something like "hey! I just noticed that the ink, paper, and such necessary components to scribe a scroll of charm person, unseen servant, feather fall, and comprehend languages all cost 12.5 gp, while the components needed to scribe a scroll of scorching ray, invisibility, alter self, and levitate all cost 75 gp! On the other hand, I don't know of any spells which always costs, say, 40 gp to scribe into a scroll! Do you think there might be a connection?"

There are other things like that: basically, where directly referring to the game mechanics would be tacky, while pretending that people within the game context are entirely ignorant of the game mechanics is both inconvenient and implausible. For instance, how do you describe the difference between a +1 longsword with no other enchantments and a +4 longsword with no other enchantments, other than saying that the latter is more magically powerful, and the wizard who made the first used 1000 gp of stuff to enchant it and took two days, while the cleric who who made the other used 16,000 gp of stuff and took a bit more than a month? You don't want your fighter saying "I have a plus three greatsword," but at the same time you want the wizard to be able to cast identify and intelligibly communicate the difference between a +3 greatsword and a +4 greatsword.

I guess one approach would be to come up with an in-game vocabularly that's just different enough from the out-of-game vocabulary of D&D mechanics to make it seem like you're not talking about mechanics.

For instance, instead of a "spell level," you could have a "Hermetic Circle," where a spell is defined as being in a Hermetic Circle equal to 11 - spell level. So mage hand and cure minor wounds are in the Eleventh Hermetic Circle. Teleport is a spell of the Sixth Hermetic Circle. Astral Projection is in the Second Hermetic Circle. Only epic spells are considered to be in the First Hermetic Circle. Lower-numbered (i.e., more powerful) Hermetic Circles are said to be "inward," and higher-numbered Hermetic Circles are "outward." The First Hermetic Circle is the "innermost," and the Eleventh is the "outermost." Gaining the ability to cast a new spell level is known as "unlocking a further-in Hermetic Circle" or the like.

If you don't like Hermetic Circles, you could use another term. If you want a pseudo-scientific feel, you could go with a "Leomund Ceofficient" or the like. You could also change the formula however you want -- maybe the Leomund Ceofficient is approximately 1.8^spell level: that could convey a sense of the differential in the power of spells: an 8th level spell has a Leomund Coefficient of 110, while a 6th level spell only has a Leomund Coefficient of 34.

Other terms might be used to differentiate a +3 weapon from a +4 weapon.

Anyway, ideas on how this might work? What mechanical aspects of D&D have you noticed that are evident enough in their in-game effect to be noticed, but which are too tacky to talk about directly? What are some good ways of talking about them without making your game seem like early Order of the Stick comics?
Sunic_Flames
12-10-07, 09:50 AM Spell of the xxx circle, where xxx is the spell level. I've seen them referred to this way in books, so it's actually official. More to the point, this was used to refer to mages. A 9th level wizard is called a mage of the 5th circle, for example.

Least, lesser, moderate, strong, greater = aura strengths for the +x items.

Communicating cost of crafting = saying pounds of material sounds better than quoting a number of coins. 1 pound of platinum = 50 pp = 500 gp for example. No idea about the XP cost though, but they would obviously know it has a life force cost.
Urithair
12-10-07, 12:32 PM I always thought that spell level was how they were really refered to in the game universe. Sometimes the mechanic term is just too useful to discard. Think about slashing weapons, it is a term that makes sense both in and out of game. You can use a different word that means the same thing, but in the end it is just so much semantic acrobatics.

On the other hand, different terminology would be a great way to give institutions and individuals fluffy flavor. I would figure that most mages would use the terminology derived from the temples of Boccob, but more isolated groups would probably have their own vernacular. After all, there is a precedent in cantrip vs orison (sp?).
Voran
12-10-07, 04:38 PM If you've got the tolerance for it, go for it. I've never seen it work out well in the various groups I've been in over the years, its like you learn 1 language, but then instead of communicating in that language, you have to use ANOTHER language to communicate what you meant from that 1st language.

We've always just played it where OOC char concepts get translated into some sorta appropriate technobabble in the IC.
cheezgrater
12-10-07, 05:01 PM I have played with a wizard you used the number of pages to indicate the power of a spell.

(More powerful spell = more complicated = more space taken up when written down.)

"That spell seemed a lot less effective than some of the others I've seen you cast" "Meh, it was just a Two-Pager."
BigGus
12-10-07, 05:38 PM I think wizards would probably have a numbering system for their spell levels; wizards are intellectual, bookish types, so an ordered, numerical system seems natural for them. I don't think sorcerers would have such a system, as their magic is intuitive and they're less likely to form guilds; they'd probably use vague descriptors like easy, moderate, hard. I'm less sure about how divine casters would do it; clerics would probably have some kind of rating system, but not necessarily numerical. Perhaps something like orison, prayer, blessing, benediction, grace, miracle, or based on clerical rank; subdeacon, deacon, priest, monsignor, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, high priest. As for druids, I think in 1st Ed the levels were called Initiate of the 1st Circle etc., so it could be something based on that. But being nature-types and often solitary, it doesn't seem to fit them as well as wizards. Possibly based on plants or something (root, stem, branch, crown, or ash, elm, yew, oak, holly, mistletoe)?
TimelordSimone
12-10-07, 05:59 PM But being nature-types and often solitary, it doesn't seem to fit them as well as wizards.

Ah, but they can't be entirely solitary.
Someone has to teach them to speak druidic.
So that person could also teach them traditions and stuff.
Which would probably include naming conventions.
tyrandor
12-10-07, 06:26 PM Why not just use levels? Especially for mage, which are a bookish, intellectual type.

After all, IRL, when talking about Karatee Black Belt, people simply say '3rd Degree Black Belt' not '3rd fist of the hundred pheonix lodge black belt' or such nonsense.

Something as simple as using a different phrase structure might give the 'fluff' you really want. Just saying 'He's casting a spell of the 2nd level from the school of Abjuration' does sounds a lot more scholary then 'He's casting a level 2 abjuration spell' without needing to invent an entire new vocabulary.
cheezgrater
12-10-07, 06:29 PM Alternatively, for flavor, instead of some kind of level/numbering system, you could create a completely unique set of names.

Wizard 0 level spells are called cantrips, cleric/druid 0 levels are called Orisons.

Perhaps you could extend this to other levels?

Divine Spells
0 - Orison
1 - Lesser Benediction
2 - Greater Benediction
3 - Lesser Beatitude
4 - Greater Beatitude
5 - Lesser Blessing
6 - Greater Blessing
7 - Lesser Grace
8 - True Grace (Greater Grace just sounds wrong)
9 - Consecration
Epic - Ultimate Consecration

Just an idea.....We could refine these and do the same with arcane spells...
Salla
12-10-07, 07:46 PM We've always just played it where OOC char concepts get translated into some sorta appropriate technobabble in the IC.

Ditto. I've been in games that tried similar things, but it usually winds up falling back to the old standbys simply because you're more familiar with the book terms. For example, someone renamed the coins from simply 'piece' to more descriptive things ... something like copper bits, silver crescents, so on, so forth ... and this would happen:
"That'll be five crescents." (Apparently, nobody ever said the metal ...)
"Uh ... is that gold or silver?"
"Silver."

Similarly, if you're going to do this with spell levels, include a number somewhere. :)
Artector
12-10-07, 08:14 PM *cough*http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html*cough*

But yeah, most of the time we assume its translated, I'd rather not have to memorize 18 different naming systems (unless I was really into it.)
Alpha_Moose
12-10-07, 08:19 PM I was thinking of a similar thing recently, but including almost all in-game mechanics. Damage is actually pretty easy, considering that spells will deal average damage and thus destroy an average amount of a certain material.
Levels are really easy since spells exist. You could even figure out caster levels as a spellcaster can lower his CL but only in whole amounts (i.e. CL 5 and CL 14, but not CL 13.5). Combined with the damage section or with spells that can only effect a certain max amount (like fabricate) it would be easy to ascertain what "Caster Level" a spellcaster is using.
Now experience points is something that would be really interesting to do. A bored Wizard of some guild could have tracked a large amount of people and noticed a certain amount of encounters/duels/time that it took them to cast certain spells. He would naturally notice a certain pattern and, combined with his knowledge of magic item creation (which costs XP) could figure out a whole system for experiance. Of course they wouldn't use the same numbers as we use, but it'd be pretty easy to make a connection. Now before anyone thinks that this is silly, we in real life do these sort of things all the time, with standardized tests and such. In fact, considering that all the rules we use is their laws of science, they'd probably figure out each and every one of them.
The only problem I have is figuring out names. I'm really tempted to write up a whole paper about this though from an in-game viewpoint.
BigGus
12-10-07, 08:20 PM Ah, but they can't be entirely solitary.
Someone has to teach them to speak druidic.
So that person could also teach them traditions and stuff.
Which would probably include naming conventions.

You're quite right. I was just thinking that wizards, tending towards being members of guilds and orders, would be more likely to put numbers on things so they knew precisely what level they were at in the hierarchy, whereas a druid who has just one teacher wouldn't have so much use for them.
Edymnion
12-10-07, 10:04 PM For magical items, I use the term "tiers".
The reason for this is so that, on standard guild made items (for Eberron, that would be Cannith made weapons/armors), an image of a step pyramid can be worked into the design that indicates the base plus value of the weapon.

The reason I chose this symbol is because I feel that it accurately reflects what making a magical weapon/suit of armor would "feel like" to the creator.

You start with a mundane item, and start infusing it with magical energy. I liken this to pushing a stone up a hill. If you push that stone up the hill far enough, you hit a plateau where it becomes stable. If you don't put enough energy into the item, the enchantment fails as the stone rolls back down the hill. If you put too much into it, the stone rolls back down to the plateau and stays there. The plateau is the straight plus value. If you enchant up to a +0.9, its still nonmagical. If you enchant it up to +1.5, it rolls back down to being a plain +1.

So, anyone who would be familiar with the tier system (in character) would know to look for the emblem and see how many levels the pyramid has, to know the base plus value of the item.

A +1 would be a single layer:/=====\
A +2 would be two layers: /===\
/=======\
All the way up to a +5: /\
/====\
/========\
/============\
/================\Of course, weapons and armor not made by whatever governing body is generally in charge of magic (and if we admit it or not, there is always a main magic guild of one kind or another) would not necessarily have the mark, and the mark could be forged easily enough.
ArcTan
12-11-07, 04:11 AM Notice that they have to know about XP too, since XP gets used up for certain spells and for crafting and therefore imposes a natural limit on how much those spells can be used. The books come right out and talk about XP as "spiritual energy" and character level as the "power of your soul". The Truenaming section of Tome of Magic, for instance, indicates that Truenamers are aware of creatures' ability to advance in HD and become more difficult to Truename -- they grow in "significance" over time and therefore their name becomes steadily more "significant" (and hard to use) too.
Count Arioch the 28th
12-11-07, 01:30 PM I know that there should be some sort of name for magical weapons.

At the very least, a successful appraise check should be able to tell a +3 sword is more valuable than a +2 sword.
Alpha_Moose
12-11-07, 03:08 PM For magical items, I use the term "tiers".
The reason for this is so that, on standard guild made items (for Eberron, that would be Cannith made weapons/armors), an image of a step pyramid can be worked into the design that indicates the base plus value of the weapon.

The reason I chose this symbol is because I feel that it accurately reflects what making a magical weapon/suit of armor would "feel like" to the creator.

You start with a mundane item, and start infusing it with magical energy. I liken this to pushing a stone up a hill. If you push that stone up the hill far enough, you hit a plateau where it becomes stable. If you don't put enough energy into the item, the enchantment fails as the stone rolls back down the hill. If you put too much into it, the stone rolls back down to the plateau and stays there. The plateau is the straight plus value. If you enchant up to a +0.9, its still nonmagical. If you enchant it up to +1.5, it rolls back down to being a plain +1.
Another thing you can compare it to is electrons in an atom and how they can only form specific orbits with specific amounts on it. You can't have 1.5 electrons in an atom, it's either 1 or 2.
I really like your idea of "tiers". I seem to remember that in one of the Dreaming Dark books the Artificer mentions that she hasn't yet mastered the "fifth circle", most likely referencing 5th level spells. I personally like the idea of using the word "quantum" for spells somehow.
agnor550
12-11-07, 03:57 PM Everyone seems to have already said what I would say, but I just wanted to throw this bit in.

I remember a bit of text in one campaign/adventure book about a school of wizards who had a field/area for competitions. For example, they'd take turns shooting Fireballs up a ramp (think a quarter-pipe for skateboards) and then compare the height it reaches vertically, and the heat from the flames, in order to judge who's more powerful (since the range depends on level and of course so is the damage).

So, spell levels work for power rankings of spells ("1st circle", etc) but things like what I mentioned above could help casters determine relative power amongst each other without resorting to "Hi, I'm a 7th wizard--how about you?"
CCS
12-12-07, 01:25 AM 99.999% of the time I've simply not worried about the phrasing of OOC things while in character. And I'm not likely to do so in the future.
That other .000000000000001%? Where I do worry about it? That's reserved for serious LARP style events.
The difference being that although I could go to such in depth lengths for "normal" gaming, I just see no reason or need to do so.

So how do I make it work for me? I simply "translate accordingly". Regardless of what comes out of my mouth, it's assumed to sound correct from a characters PoV.
The rest of the people I play with also follow this style.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 12-10-07, 09:37 AM	Many people would find a wizard who said something like "mirror image is a second-level spell" to be a bit tacky. It just doesn't feel right, y'know? At the same time, with the exception of some sorcerer who had no contact with other mages, knowledge of something like spell levels is sure to exist among the wizard's guilds, temples, and such. They'll eventually figure out something like "hey! I just noticed that the ink, paper, and such necessary components to scribe a scroll of charm person, unseen servant, feather fall, and comprehend languages all cost 12.5 gp, while the components needed to scribe a scroll of scorching ray, invisibility, alter self, and levitate all cost 75 gp! On the other hand, I don't know of any spells which always costs, say, 40 gp to scribe into a scroll! Do you think there might be a connection?" There are other things like that: basically, where directly referring to the game mechanics would be tacky, while pretending that people within the game context are entirely ignorant of the game mechanics is both inconvenient and implausible. For instance, how do you describe the difference between a +1 longsword with no other enchantments and a +4 longsword with no other enchantments, other than saying that the latter is more magically powerful, and the wizard who made the first used 1000 gp of stuff to enchant it and took two days, while the cleric who who made the other used 16,000 gp of stuff and took a bit more than a month? You don't want your fighter saying "I have a plus three greatsword," but at the same time you want the wizard to be able to cast identify and intelligibly communicate the difference between a +3 greatsword and a +4 greatsword. I guess one approach would be to come up with an in-game vocabularly that's just different enough from the out-of-game vocabulary of D&D mechanics to make it seem like you're not talking about mechanics. For instance, instead of a "spell level," you could have a "Hermetic Circle," where a spell is defined as being in a Hermetic Circle equal to 11 - spell level. So mage hand and cure minor wounds are in the Eleventh Hermetic Circle. Teleport is a spell of the Sixth Hermetic Circle. Astral Projection is in the Second Hermetic Circle. Only epic spells are considered to be in the First Hermetic Circle. Lower-numbered (i.e., more powerful) Hermetic Circles are said to be "inward," and higher-numbered Hermetic Circles are "outward." The First Hermetic Circle is the "innermost," and the Eleventh is the "outermost." Gaining the ability to cast a new spell level is known as "unlocking a further-in Hermetic Circle" or the like. If you don't like Hermetic Circles, you could use another term. If you want a pseudo-scientific feel, you could go with a "Leomund Ceofficient" or the like. You could also change the formula however you want -- maybe the Leomund Ceofficient is approximately 1.8^spell level: that could convey a sense of the differential in the power of spells: an 8th level spell has a Leomund Coefficient of 110, while a 6th level spell only has a Leomund Coefficient of 34. Other terms might be used to differentiate a +3 weapon from a +4 weapon. Anyway, ideas on how this might work? What mechanical aspects of D&D have you noticed that are evident enough in their in-game effect to be noticed, but which are too tacky to talk about directly? What are some good ways of talking about them without making your game seem like early Order of the Stick comics?
Sunic_Flames 12-10-07, 09:50 AM	Spell of the xxx circle, where xxx is the spell level. I've seen them referred to this way in books, so it's actually official. More to the point, this was used to refer to mages. A 9th level wizard is called a mage of the 5th circle, for example. Least, lesser, moderate, strong, greater = aura strengths for the +x items. Communicating cost of crafting = saying pounds of material sounds better than quoting a number of coins. 1 pound of platinum = 50 pp = 500 gp for example. No idea about the XP cost though, but they would obviously know it has a life force cost.
Urithair 12-10-07, 12:32 PM	I always thought that spell level was how they were really refered to in the game universe. Sometimes the mechanic term is just too useful to discard. Think about slashing weapons, it is a term that makes sense both in and out of game. You can use a different word that means the same thing, but in the end it is just so much semantic acrobatics. On the other hand, different terminology would be a great way to give institutions and individuals fluffy flavor. I would figure that most mages would use the terminology derived from the temples of Boccob, but more isolated groups would probably have their own vernacular. After all, there is a precedent in cantrip vs orison (sp?).
Voran 12-10-07, 04:38 PM	If you've got the tolerance for it, go for it. I've never seen it work out well in the various groups I've been in over the years, its like you learn 1 language, but then instead of communicating in that language, you have to use ANOTHER language to communicate what you meant from that 1st language. We've always just played it where OOC char concepts get translated into some sorta appropriate technobabble in the IC.
cheezgrater 12-10-07, 05:01 PM	I have played with a wizard you used the number of pages to indicate the power of a spell. (More powerful spell = more complicated = more space taken up when written down.) "That spell seemed a lot less effective than some of the others I've seen you cast" "Meh, it was just a Two-Pager."
BigGus 12-10-07, 05:38 PM	I think wizards would probably have a numbering system for their spell levels; wizards are intellectual, bookish types, so an ordered, numerical system seems natural for them. I don't think sorcerers would have such a system, as their magic is intuitive and they're less likely to form guilds; they'd probably use vague descriptors like easy, moderate, hard. I'm less sure about how divine casters would do it; clerics would probably have some kind of rating system, but not necessarily numerical. Perhaps something like orison, prayer, blessing, benediction, grace, miracle, or based on clerical rank; subdeacon, deacon, priest, monsignor, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, high priest. As for druids, I think in 1st Ed the levels were called Initiate of the 1st Circle etc., so it could be something based on that. But being nature-types and often solitary, it doesn't seem to fit them as well as wizards. Possibly based on plants or something (root, stem, branch, crown, or ash, elm, yew, oak, holly, mistletoe)?
TimelordSimone 12-10-07, 05:59 PM	But being nature-types and often solitary, it doesn't seem to fit them as well as wizards. Ah, but they can't be entirely solitary. Someone has to teach them to speak druidic. So that person could also teach them traditions and stuff. Which would probably include naming conventions.
tyrandor 12-10-07, 06:26 PM	Why not just use levels? Especially for mage, which are a bookish, intellectual type. After all, IRL, when talking about Karatee Black Belt, people simply say '3rd Degree Black Belt' not '3rd fist of the hundred pheonix lodge black belt' or such nonsense. Something as simple as using a different phrase structure might give the 'fluff' you really want. Just saying 'He's casting a spell of the 2nd level from the school of Abjuration' does sounds a lot more scholary then 'He's casting a level 2 abjuration spell' without needing to invent an entire new vocabulary.
cheezgrater 12-10-07, 06:29 PM	Alternatively, for flavor, instead of some kind of level/numbering system, you could create a completely unique set of names. Wizard 0 level spells are called cantrips, cleric/druid 0 levels are called Orisons. Perhaps you could extend this to other levels? Divine Spells 0 - Orison 1 - Lesser Benediction 2 - Greater Benediction 3 - Lesser Beatitude 4 - Greater Beatitude 5 - Lesser Blessing 6 - Greater Blessing 7 - Lesser Grace 8 - True Grace (Greater Grace just sounds wrong) 9 - Consecration Epic - Ultimate Consecration Just an idea.....We could refine these and do the same with arcane spells...
Salla 12-10-07, 07:46 PM	We've always just played it where OOC char concepts get translated into some sorta appropriate technobabble in the IC. Ditto. I've been in games that tried similar things, but it usually winds up falling back to the old standbys simply because you're more familiar with the book terms. For example, someone renamed the coins from simply 'piece' to more descriptive things ... something like copper bits, silver crescents, so on, so forth ... and this would happen: "That'll be five crescents." (Apparently, nobody ever said the metal ...) "Uh ... is that gold or silver?" "Silver." Similarly, if you're going to do this with spell levels, include a number somewhere. :)
Artector 12-10-07, 08:14 PM	coughhttp://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.htmlcough But yeah, most of the time we assume its translated, I'd rather not have to memorize 18 different naming systems (unless I was really into it.)
Alpha_Moose 12-10-07, 08:19 PM	I was thinking of a similar thing recently, but including almost all in-game mechanics. Damage is actually pretty easy, considering that spells will deal average damage and thus destroy an average amount of a certain material. Levels are really easy since spells exist. You could even figure out caster levels as a spellcaster can lower his CL but only in whole amounts (i.e. CL 5 and CL 14, but not CL 13.5). Combined with the damage section or with spells that can only effect a certain max amount (like fabricate) it would be easy to ascertain what "Caster Level" a spellcaster is using. Now experience points is something that would be really interesting to do. A bored Wizard of some guild could have tracked a large amount of people and noticed a certain amount of encounters/duels/time that it took them to cast certain spells. He would naturally notice a certain pattern and, combined with his knowledge of magic item creation (which costs XP) could figure out a whole system for experiance. Of course they wouldn't use the same numbers as we use, but it'd be pretty easy to make a connection. Now before anyone thinks that this is silly, we in real life do these sort of things all the time, with standardized tests and such. In fact, considering that all the rules we use is their laws of science, they'd probably figure out each and every one of them. The only problem I have is figuring out names. I'm really tempted to write up a whole paper about this though from an in-game viewpoint.
BigGus 12-10-07, 08:20 PM	Ah, but they can't be entirely solitary. Someone has to teach them to speak druidic. So that person could also teach them traditions and stuff. Which would probably include naming conventions. You're quite right. I was just thinking that wizards, tending towards being members of guilds and orders, would be more likely to put numbers on things so they knew precisely what level they were at in the hierarchy, whereas a druid who has just one teacher wouldn't have so much use for them.
Edymnion 12-10-07, 10:04 PM	For magical items, I use the term "tiers". The reason for this is so that, on standard guild made items (for Eberron, that would be Cannith made weapons/armors), an image of a step pyramid can be worked into the design that indicates the base plus value of the weapon. The reason I chose this symbol is because I feel that it accurately reflects what making a magical weapon/suit of armor would "feel like" to the creator. You start with a mundane item, and start infusing it with magical energy. I liken this to pushing a stone up a hill. If you push that stone up the hill far enough, you hit a plateau where it becomes stable. If you don't put enough energy into the item, the enchantment fails as the stone rolls back down the hill. If you put too much into it, the stone rolls back down to the plateau and stays there. The plateau is the straight plus value. If you enchant up to a +0.9, its still nonmagical. If you enchant it up to +1.5, it rolls back down to being a plain +1. So, anyone who would be familiar with the tier system (in character) would know to look for the emblem and see how many levels the pyramid has, to know the base plus value of the item. A +1 would be a single layer:/=====\ A +2 would be two layers: /===\ /=======\ All the way up to a +5: /\ /====\ /========\ /============\ /================\Of course, weapons and armor not made by whatever governing body is generally in charge of magic (and if we admit it or not, there is always a main magic guild of one kind or another) would not necessarily have the mark, and the mark could be forged easily enough.
ArcTan 12-11-07, 04:11 AM	Notice that they have to know about XP too, since XP gets used up for certain spells and for crafting and therefore imposes a natural limit on how much those spells can be used. The books come right out and talk about XP as "spiritual energy" and character level as the "power of your soul". The Truenaming section of Tome of Magic, for instance, indicates that Truenamers are aware of creatures' ability to advance in HD and become more difficult to Truename -- they grow in "significance" over time and therefore their name becomes steadily more "significant" (and hard to use) too.
Count Arioch the 28th 12-11-07, 01:30 PM	I know that there should be some sort of name for magical weapons. At the very least, a successful appraise check should be able to tell a +3 sword is more valuable than a +2 sword.
Alpha_Moose 12-11-07, 03:08 PM	For magical items, I use the term "tiers". The reason for this is so that, on standard guild made items (for Eberron, that would be Cannith made weapons/armors), an image of a step pyramid can be worked into the design that indicates the base plus value of the weapon. The reason I chose this symbol is because I feel that it accurately reflects what making a magical weapon/suit of armor would "feel like" to the creator. You start with a mundane item, and start infusing it with magical energy. I liken this to pushing a stone up a hill. If you push that stone up the hill far enough, you hit a plateau where it becomes stable. If you don't put enough energy into the item, the enchantment fails as the stone rolls back down the hill. If you put too much into it, the stone rolls back down to the plateau and stays there. The plateau is the straight plus value. If you enchant up to a +0.9, its still nonmagical. If you enchant it up to +1.5, it rolls back down to being a plain +1. Another thing you can compare it to is electrons in an atom and how they can only form specific orbits with specific amounts on it. You can't have 1.5 electrons in an atom, it's either 1 or 2. I really like your idea of "tiers". I seem to remember that in one of the Dreaming Dark books the Artificer mentions that she hasn't yet mastered the "fifth circle", most likely referencing 5th level spells. I personally like the idea of using the word "quantum" for spells somehow.
agnor550 12-11-07, 03:57 PM	Everyone seems to have already said what I would say, but I just wanted to throw this bit in. I remember a bit of text in one campaign/adventure book about a school of wizards who had a field/area for competitions. For example, they'd take turns shooting Fireballs up a ramp (think a quarter-pipe for skateboards) and then compare the height it reaches vertically, and the heat from the flames, in order to judge who's more powerful (since the range depends on level and of course so is the damage). So, spell levels work for power rankings of spells ("1st circle", etc) but things like what I mentioned above could help casters determine relative power amongst each other without resorting to "Hi, I'm a 7th wizard--how about you?"
CCS 12-12-07, 01:25 AM	99.999% of the time I've simply not worried about the phrasing of OOC things while in character. And I'm not likely to do so in the future. That other .000000000000001%? Where I do worry about it? That's reserved for serious LARP style events. The difference being that although I could go to such in depth lengths for "normal" gaming, I just see no reason or need to do so. So how do I make it work for me? I simply "translate accordingly". Regardless of what comes out of my mouth, it's assumed to sound correct from a characters PoV. The rest of the people I play with also follow this style.