Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5906688" data-attributes="member: 70709">Thanks for your comments, all.I've played with similar systems as well (the homebrew system I play in has a "summoning" check every time one casts a spell) but I have not played DCC.  I didn't really make it clear in the OP, but I'm sharing a thought experiment I found really interesting, not advocating for this system.  I generally like to differentiate casters with unique resource and casting mechanics.  That said, when thinking about D&D the center-of-gravity is clearly around Vancian systems, so I think it's worthwhile to find twists in that formula.  I personally enjoyed the 3e take on spontaneous casting the most of any D&D caster mechanic produced thus far.Indeed I do. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  The idea is that the 4th and 5th level spell slots would remain, not the lower level versions.  I gave some thought to essentially using stacks just like a spell point system with different silos, but the impetus for this little journey was the following question: "What mechanics would encourage a user to save their spells for the long term, but not make them useless if they don't."  A spell point version doesn't really address that because one recovers the least powerful abilities first, but it has its merits.  Certainly it allows tighter control over what people cast then a spell point system with only a single pool of points.I actually like that the caster might effectively escalate in power over the course of the day, which is something that almost never happens in RPGs.  And really, they don't escalate in power, they simply choose to spend their less powerful abilities first.Yes, I'm guessing at the actual scaling.  Both system are linear, so it all depends in the details.  If a basic 3rd level fireball is 5d6 and increases by 2d6 per spell level then the 1, 3, 5,... scaling matches perfectly.  That probably would have been the better choice for the table, all things considered. Based on what we know of 5e, I assumed it was already going to have some sort of progression like this for many spells.  (You can see the sort of thing I envision for increasing spell level in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/322668-prose-terminology-fluff-presentation-spreadsheets-haiku-8.html#post5903010" target="_blank">this</a> post.)  If the gaps between adjacent version of the spell are more than a level or two I feel the gaps are pretty inelegant. I look forward to seeing your ideas on that topic when you get around to writing them up!</blockquote>

Verification