Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5908439" data-attributes="member: 70709">(Welcome to my 250th post!)I like it!  When one considers multiple spells per stack it opens up a lot of room to explore.  It could also mitigate some problems D&D-styled spells might have with stacks due to minimum levels above one, and sparsely spaced (or no) upgrades to higher levels.   The one thing I'd avoid is making each spell associated only with a specific slot as opposed to the stack as a whole, because even in themed stacks that might lead to strange situations where casting Harm completely removed the possibility of casting Enervation.  When you said that each stack might have one spell of each level, however, I don't think that is what you meant.Here are some interesting tradeoffs one could imagine.  For example, a caster with 10 stacks but only one spell per stack (as in the OP) vs. a caster with 7 stacks but 3 stacks per spell.  The latter would be more similar to a classic D&D wizard, while the former to a sorcerer.Taking your idea of having each stack have spells from the same school gives me an idea for how to implement something like Wizard specialization.  For example, maybe a generalist wizard has exactly one stack for each available spell school, and each stack contains all the spells the wizard prepares from that school.  Specialization could be reassigning an entire stack from one school to another when.  That effectively makes one school of spells forbidden (since there is no stack in which to prepare them) while simultaneously increasing the flexibility and overall potential with the specialized school.  Compared to the traditional method of simply giving the specialist more slots, this strikes me as more balanced because it doesn't increase the overall potential of the specialist compared to the generalist, but it does make it easier to use a particular school of spells efficiently.One could even take this to its extreme, by letting a wizard assign stacks to schools in any combination.  For example, one might choose 3 necromancy stacks, 3 abjuration stacks, and 2 transmutation stacks.  That would effectively make all other schools forbidden, but the caster would have comparatively amazing flexibility in the schools that remain, all without increasing the actual maximum spell-casting potential.For domains the idea is even more intriguing to me.  For example, maybe a cleric has 4 stacks, and 3 of those are determined by its domains, while the fourth is a stack made of "generalist" cleric spells.  That would make 3/4 of a cleric's spellcasting power come from its domains (and I really want domains/spheres/deities/etc. to matter to an individual cleric) while making sure every cleric has some access to the spells we traditionally associate with the group as a whole.  (It's also a natural module: if the DM wants clerics to be completely defined by domain she declares all the stacks are from domains.  If she wants them to be completely generic, she declares all the stacks generic.  Or anywhere in between.  In any case, the overall spellcasting power is fairly closely preserved because the number of stacks remains invariant.)Furthermore, it might reduce some of the difficulty in writing balanced domains.  In 3/3.5 it was often frustrating to choose domains because some were simply superior in terms of spells.  The fact that a domain slot filled with a crappy spell you'll never use effectively means you have a spell slot you'll never use.  Choosing two domains mitigated this, but not all the time.  In a stack-based setting, however, a few bad spells has a smaller impact because one can still use slots to cast whatever good spells are in the domain.  A stack-based domain with all good spells would still be superior to one with only 5 decent spells, with better flexibility, but the impact on overall casting potential would be muted compared to 3/3.5.Another annoyance of 3/3.5 was that domains with the same spell at the same level provided no benefit, and in fact had the effect of reducing flexibility rather than demonstrating in any way just how much some deity loved to, say, disintegrate stuff.  If domains were stack-based then both stacks would have that spell, which enhances rather than restrains that aspect of the deity.  One might even let a cleric use the same domain for multiple stacks to reflect the focus of their devotion.  It would also means domain writers and homebrewers wouldn't have to worry about stepping on the toes of other domains so much, and could just pick the spells they think best fits the idea behind the domain.  Considering all the toe-stepping that occurred as domains proliferated (I count at least 144 domains) I think this would be a significant improvement.Thanks for your really thought-provoking comment, keterys!</blockquote>

Verification