Spell Point variant vs Slots

[Elite Hatter]

So I posted a thread yesterday about a Sorcerer I may be playing soon. Looking into it I found that Spell points, while equaling the same effective casting slots, is vastly superior to flat slots. At level 20 you get 133 total points, taking out for your 6th-9th slots your left with 90. you can blow all of them on 5th level and get 12 5th level castings with enough for 2 2nd level slots or 3 1st level.... Is it just me, or is that just ridiculous.

Now of course this is an extreme scenario, but the point is you can manage your slots WAY more effectively. Especially on a Sorcerer this really seems to work. Has anyone played with the variant, if so how did it work?

[R.Shackleford]

A lot of times lower level spells are good enough, you don't need to boost them to level 5 or use a level 5 spell.

The candle that burns the brightest, burns twice as fast.

Or whatever Scruffy says...

Plus shield and fig cloud work just fine out of a 1st level slot throughout the game.

[Elite Hatter]

A lot of times lower level spells are good enough, you don't need to boost them to level 5 or use a level 5 spell.

The candle that burns the brightest, burns twice as fast.

Or whatever Scruffy says...

Plus shield and fig cloud work just fine out of a 1st level slot throughout the game.


True, but even on the low end you could have (for the sake of the discussion) 45 1st level spells. Like Shield. Or even 35 with 20 points left over for higher stuff if its needed.

The whole Variant just seems Superior in general.

[R.Shackleford]

True, but even on the low end you could have (for the sake of the discussion) 45 1st level spells. Like Shield. Or even 35 with 20 points left over for higher stuff if its needed.

The whole Variant just seems Superior in general.

It is superior because having options plus having flexibility is king. The wizard is the prime example of this.

You have options, lots of good options. They have flexibility as they can change those options and gain more options with time and money.

So if you make any class more flexible with good options They are just going to get better.

Especially since your at will options are good and the game is balanced around having a certain number of spells per day.

[Elite Hatter]

That is all the verification I needed. Just wanted to make sure I understood it right.

Now I just have to convince my DM it isn't going to be Over-powered....

[R.Shackleford]

That is all the verification I needed. Just wanted to make sure I understood it right.

Now I just have to convince my DM it isn't going to be Over-powered....

Taking the opinions of one random, faceless, voice off the internet isn't exactly what I would call verification.

[Elite Hatter]

Lol. Yes. Let me rephrase....

Now that I know my math and understanding wasn't wrong, I.E. I was over looking some rule or misusing the points, I feel confident about approaching my DM with this option for my Sorc.

:D

[MaxWilson]

So I posted a thread yesterday about a Sorcerer I may be playing soon. Looking into it I found that Spell points, while equaling the same effective casting slots, is vastly superior to flat slots. At level 20 you get 133 total points, taking out for your 6th-9th slots your left with 90. you can blow all of them on 5th level and get 12 5th level castings with enough for 2 2nd level slots or 3 1st level.... Is it just me, or is that just ridiculous.

Now of course this is an extreme scenario, but the point is you can manage your slots WAY more effectively. Especially on a Sorcerer this really seems to work. Has anyone played with the variant, if so how did it work?

I use the spell point variant exclusively (with separate pools for warlock vs. everything else's spell points).

Casting 5th level spells exclusively is one way to do it, but the other powerful thing to do is to eke out your lower-level spells. It's really nice for example not to ever have to blow a 4th level spell slot on Shield because you used up the lower levels already. Warlocks benefit from the extra flexibility particularly so they can e.g. cast Mirror Image with 3 spell points instead of a full 5th level slot.

And yes, being able to Conjure Elemental multiple times when you need to is a powerful capability. I'm not knocking the 5th level spells.

I like spell points in 5E for several reasons: they're simpler than slots, they are more efficient, and IMO they are more fun because there's less need to hoard multiple kinds of slots for emergencies--just make sure you have ten or twenty spell points in the bank and you're good. For my NPCs, it's nice to just write down one number (38 spell points) and be done. My players enjoy it too.

The DMG claims that the potential downside to spell points is "extra complexity" but it's kind of funny to me that it doesn't mention the extra power borne of flexibility, which is substantial. However, I'm okay with that extra power (which officially doesn't exist) since there are no really good feats for spellcasters comparable to Sharpshooter/GWM/Polearm Master/Mounted Combatant. Spell points is how wizards in my game express themselves more efficiently/effectively; weapon feats are how fighters express themselves more efficiently/effectively. And that's good because PCs in my sandbox sometimes run into things that are an order of magnitude above Deadly on the encounter balance scale (e.g. three level 3 PCs stumbling across a threat that would be Deadly for five level 20 PCs).

[R.Shackleford]

Last I heard the Warlock was not privy to the spell point variant. Kudos for your DM allowing it.

[Elite Hatter]

Yea, I've had to shield with a 2nd level slot before. It did the job and felt like a waste. Q.Q

I just looked into the Spell Points today. I haven't used it yet and I'm really looking forward to it the more I look into it.

The 5th level example was just how i did the math originally to see the blasting potential. I agree that it is actually overall simpler than slots and massively more efficient. Could you imagine a Flavored Soul with this? Hitting things and saving slots for Healing Words and Shields? O.O

[MaxWilson]

The 5th level example was just how i did the math originally to see the blasting potential. I agree that it is actually overall simpler than slots and massively more efficient. Could you imagine a Flavored Soul with this? Hitting things and saving slots for Healing Words and Shields? O.O

Don't overlook the impact on Goodberry.

[Elite Hatter]

I'm really not seeing a reason to not use Spell Points for like, the rest of 5e. Slots just seem obsolete XD

[R.Shackleford]

I'm really not seeing a reason to not use Spell Points for like, the rest of 5e. Slots just seem obsolete XD

They have been obsolete since 3e, they are just a hold over from prior editions because people thinks that is what makes a wizard a wizard.

Perhaps a spell slot version for a simple wizard (though Warlock works fine) and then spell points for all other wizards.

[Elite Hatter]

Simple Wizards? Excuse my ignorance, but I'm rather new to D&D

[R.Shackleford]

Simple Wizards? Excuse my ignorance, but I'm rather new to D&D

Nothing to excuse.

What I mean is that there are always classes that are "simple" and "complex". The champion fighter is said to be the simple introductory class.

What I propse is that we have a simple wizard (much simpler than even the evocation wizard) for new players that use spell slots and a more advanced wizard that uses spell points.

The simple wizard would look more like the champion fighter and wouldn't have as much choices as the Wizard but would gain a few staples.

[Elite Hatter]

Ah, ok. We have a 13 year old in our group and actually made him a Human variant GWF Champion.

I agree that each class should have a Introductory staple. I think the "Quick Build" section in the PHB before each class is a good start though.

[DivisibleByZero]

At our table, casters all use slots, except for Sorcerers. Sorcerers use Points.
A multiclass Sorc/Whatever uses whichever he has more casting levels of. If they are even, they use slots. So a Pally 6 / Sorc 4 has 3 "caster levels" of Pally and 4 of Sorc, so he would use points. If he were a Pally 4 / Sorc 2, he'd have 2 "caster" levels of each, and would then default to Pally and use slots.

Sorcs kind of get the short end of the arcane stick in this edition. Making Sorcs use Points instead of Slots really works to fix that. And it feeds right back into what a Sorc is all about. Less spells, but WAY more flexibility in what he can do with those spells that he knows.

[Demonic Spoon]

I use the spell point variant exclusively (with separate pools for warlock vs. everything else's spell points).

Casting 5th level spells exclusively is one way to do it, but the other powerful thing to do is to eke out your lower-level spells. It's really nice for example not to ever have to blow a 4th level spell slot on Shield because you used up the lower levels already. Warlocks benefit from the extra flexibility particularly so they can e.g. cast Mirror Image with 3 spell points instead of a full 5th level slot.

And yes, being able to Conjure Elemental multiple times when you need to is a powerful capability. I'm not knocking the 5th level spells.

I like spell points in 5E for several reasons: they're simpler than slots, they are more efficient, and IMO they are more fun because there's less need to hoard multiple kinds of slots for emergencies--just make sure you have ten or twenty spell points in the bank and you're good. For my NPCs, it's nice to just write down one number (38 spell points) and be done. My players enjoy it too.

The DMG claims that the potential downside to spell points is "extra complexity" but it's kind of funny to me that it doesn't mention the extra power borne of flexibility, which is substantial. However, I'm okay with that extra power (which officially doesn't exist) since there are no really good feats for spellcasters comparable to Sharpshooter/GWM/Polearm Master/Mounted Combatant. Spell points is how wizards in my game express themselves more efficiently/effectively; weapon feats are how fighters express themselves more efficiently/effectively. And that's good because PCs in my sandbox sometimes run into things that are an order of magnitude above Deadly on the encounter balance scale (e.g. three level 3 PCs stumbling across a threat that would be Deadly for five level 20 PCs).

You don't have to hoard your slots though. A wizard who is not committed to playing optimally and mathing out the exact right time to use resources will just run out of slots rather than overthinking it, and that is way simpler than spell points. I would argue that is the average case.

I personally would be leery of using spell points. As you mention, it's a big power boost, but I definitely don't see full casters as needing a boost

[R.Shackleford]

Ah, ok. We have a 13 year old in our group and actually made him a Human variant GWF Champion.

I agree that each class should have a Introductory staple. I think the "Quick Build" section in the PHB before each class is a good start though.

Oh good, from what I've seen, way to many new players pick Ranger or Paladin. Then they get frustrated with all the extra stuff they need to remember.

Would love to see a simple Paladin like in 13th age for new players to jump into (smites, simple healing).

[Elite Hatter]

Oh good, from what I've seen, way to many new players pick Ranger or Paladin. Then they get frustrated with all the extra stuff they need to remember.

Would love to see a simple Paladin like in 13th age for new players to jump into (smites, simple healing).

......We also have a Ranger, who thinks his class needs more damage. He's been on that for over a year. It's fun cause on one hand he argues the Rangers versatility with Spells. Next thing you know he's all q.q why can the Rogue out sneak me, Barbarian out damage me, and Wizard out utility me?!?!

[R.Shackleford]

......We also have a Ranger, who thinks his class needs more damage. He's been on that for over a year. It's fun cause on one hand he argues the Rangers versatility with Spells. Next thing you know he's all q.q why can the Rogue out sneak me, Barbarian out damage me, and Wizard out utility me?!?!

Hunter or Beastmaster?

Hunters do good damage while Beastmaster... Need optimization in order to keep up, they can be tricky and are essentially a trap.

[Elite Hatter]

Hunter. Lol.

He doesn't understand how bound accuracy works and doesn't realize 3d8+2d6+10 (30 with Sharpshooter) is fine consistent damage. 2 attacks, colossus slayer, and hunter's Mark. 20 Dex

[R.Shackleford]

Hunter. Lol.

He doesn't understand how bound accuracy works and doesn't realize 3d8+2d6+10 (30 with Sharpshooter) is fine consistent damage. 2 attacks, colossus slayer, and hunter's Mark. 20 Dex

Send in more minions, let him slaughter more stuff and he will feel as if he is doing more damage.

[Strill]

That is all the verification I needed. Just wanted to make sure I understood it right.

Now I just have to convince my DM it isn't going to be Over-powered....

My group uses spell points, but only for sorcerers, because metamagic alone is nowhere near comparable to all the stuff bards or wizards get.

[Elite Hatter]

My group uses spell points, but only for sorcerers, because metamagic alone is nowhere near comparable to all the stuff bards or wizards get.

I'm actually playing a Lore Bard right now.

[Louro]

I tried both.
Spell points is superior. By faaaaaaaaar.
Yes, by far I mean OP.

[Elite Hatter]

I tried both.
Spell points is superior. By faaaaaaaaar.
Yes, by far I mean OP.

I can see the potential. Thats why I'm hounding my DM for them

[R.Shackleford]

I can see the potential. Thats why I'm hounding my DM for them

Compromise is the foundation of all relationships.

Offer to give something up, like not using certain OP/Powerful combo spells or MM spell combinations, twinned haste comes to mind (use twin enlarge person instead).

This way it shows that you want X but you are willing to work with your DM to make what you want happen.

[Elite Hatter]

Honestly I just want them so I don't have to be put in a situation where I'm forced to use a 2nd level slot for Shield or a 5th level for Greater Invis. or just Using an above level slot for a spell that doesn't scale. It just seems like a better resource than flat slots.

[R.Shackleford]

Honestly I just want them so I don't have to be put in a situation where I'm forced to use a 2nd level slot for Shield or a 5th level for Greater Invis. or just Using an above level slot for a spell that doesn't scale. It just seems like a better resource than flat slots.

I'm all honesty, if that is your issue, dont worry about it. Using a 5th level slot for shield is worth it if it makes a hit a miss.

The game is mostly balanced around the idea of you have X spell slots, so unless you are ignoring your cantrips and blowing all your spells every chance you get, you should be fine.

I think you might be over thinking it.

[Elite Hatter]

I'm all honesty, if that is your issue, dont worry about it. Using a 5th level slot for shield is worth it if it makes a hit a miss.

The game is mostly balanced around the idea of you have X spell slots, so unless you are ignoring your cantrips and blowing all your spells every chance you get, you should be fine.

I think you might be over thinking it.

This is probably true.

[Citan]

So I posted a thread yesterday about a Sorcerer I may be playing soon. Looking into it I found that Spell points, while equaling the same effective casting slots, is vastly superior to flat slots. At level 20 you get 133 total points, taking out for your 6th-9th slots your left with 90. you can blow all of them on 5th level and get 12 5th level castings with enough for 2 2nd level slots or 3 1st level.... Is it just me, or is that just ridiculous.

Now of course this is an extreme scenario, but the point is you can manage your slots WAY more effectively. Especially on a Sorcerer this really seems to work. Has anyone played with the variant, if so how did it work?


Hi!

Allow me to jump into the discussion, as I shared this kind of interrogation about potential OPness of spell points when I first read the DMG.

If your DM is afraid it's too big a boost compared to slots, especially in how to get many low-level spells, change the cost of spells by making a 1 point increase each spell level, starting with 4 points cost at lvl 1.
4>5>6>7>8>9>10>11>12

Why do that ?
With spell slots, considering the silly idea that you burn nearly all slots into lvl 1 slots, it makes 20 spells.
As is, with spell points, you could cast 66.
With this change, 33. This is still very powerful.

Lvl 2 spells?
Spell slots: 16
Spell points (official): 44
Spell points (variant): 26

Etc...



Lvl 1
Lvl 2
Lvl 3
Lvl 4
Lvl 5
Lvl 6
Lvl 7
Lvl 8
Lvl 9


Spell slots (classic)
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1


SP (official) to cast always same level
66
44
26
22
19
14 (1)
13 (1)
12 (1)
10 (1)


SP (variant cost) to recreate the usual array of slots
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
1


SP (variant cost) to always cast same level
33
26
22
19
16
13 (2)
12 (2)
11 (1)
10 (1)



As is, it would make you "weaker" than with spell slots because of the global cost increase: using points to create the same number of slots by level as the spell slot system would cost 150 points.

So, if you recreated exactly the same number of slots for each level as a slot spellcaster (including 2*lvl 6 and 2*lvl7), it would be as if you lost a few lvl 1 / lvl 2 slots (or ~1 lvl 5 and 1 lvl 6 slots).
This seems to me a small price to pay to compensate the fact that you virtually never "waste" a slot. And you still have many many more potential slots to use for lvl1-5 spells when it counts than with classic spell slots.

If really necessary, you could compensate a bit by upping the max pool to 140 by starting with 12 points instead of 4 and repercussing this change along the way until last level (so you can cast your 4 lvl 1 spells as usual).


Spell level
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1


Spell points (variant with 140 points) if you recreate the same slots
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
1
1


Spell points (variant with 140 points)
35
28
23
20
17
15 (2)
14 (2)
12 (1)
11 (1)


This limits the total "loss" while keeping nearly the same number of low-level slots you could spam a day.

Another simple way to nerf just enough to avoid OPness is state that cantrips cost 1 sp.

As a note, the spell points variants make much much more attractive multiclass characters with third or half casters, precisely because of that: since they rarely know spells higher than 3rd or 4th level anyways and often use utility or non-scalable spells, using spell points system instead of spell slots roughly equals doubling or tripling their spellcasting efficiency per day.
Ex: lvl 20 Eldricht Knight = lvl 7 spellcaster (not 6 ;)).
Spell slots : 4/3/3/1.
Spell points: 38 points either for the same array, or 19 lvl1, or 12 lvl2, or 7 lvl3, or 6 lvl4 spells.

A thing that may affect power balance depending on team composition and spell choice. :)

[Kane0]

At our table, casters all use slots, except for Sorcerers. Sorcerers use Points.
A multiclass Sorc/Whatever uses whichever he has more casting levels of. If they are even, they use slots. So a Pally 6 / Sorc 4 has 3 "caster levels" of Pally and 4 of Sorc, so he would use points. If he were a Pally 4 / Sorc 2, he'd have 2 "caster" levels of each, and would then default to Pally and use slots.

Sorcs kind of get the short end of the arcane stick in this edition. Making Sorcs use Points instead of Slots really works to fix that. And it feeds right back into what a Sorc is all about. Less spells, but WAY more flexibility in what he can do with those spells that he knows.

I really like that idea. Imma steal it.

[Officer Joy]

I've been reading this and the privious tread about Sorcerer/spellpoints.

And i homebrewed the rule that the flexible casting feature makes it so that you cast with spellpoints.

So a Sorcerer starts with 2 lv 1 slots at level 1
and starting level 2 they lose their slots and gain 8 spellpoints (6+2)

So anyone can have acces to spellpoint for a lvl 2 dip in Sorcerer

[Anonymouswizard]

I agree that Spell Points just make far more sense for the Sorcerer, but I'm also the kind of person who would rather not have level 6+ spells in the game (my ideal campaign would run from level three to about level 10 just to avoid them). Even if it is a massive boost for the Sorcerer, they either need a boost to their casting potential (e.g. as many spells as a bard, even more flexible casting then they have with just the PhB) or better access to metamagic.


They have been obsolete since 3e, they are just a hold over from prior editions because people thinks that is what makes a wizard a wizard.

So true. I have only seen one game where spell points work. That's Legend of the Five Rings, where 1) they are basically a set of 5 spell point pools (1 for each element with Void also acting as a wild card) and 2) can be explained in-game as the arguably sentient Kami giving you favours. Unlike D&D where more powerful spells are limited by being unable to cast them as often, a slot lets you cast a spell of any level, but more powerful ones may take longer (to the point that most combats should be over by the time Shugenja pull out their Mastery Level 4 spells).


Nothing to excuse.

What I mean is that there are always classes that are "simple" and "complex". The champion fighter is said to be the simple introductory class.

What I propse is that we have a simple wizard (much simpler than even the evocation wizard) for new players that use spell slots and a more advanced wizard that uses spell points.

The simple wizard would look more like the champion fighter and wouldn't have as much choices as the Wizard but would gain a few staples.

Oh, let me try! This is totally based off of L5R, but it's better than the current wizard.

The Arcanist is a Wizard Tradition, but new and simplified. Ninth level spell slots? Memorizing spells? You don't need any of this stuff.

Spell Slots: unlike other wizards an Arcanist has a smaller number of spell slots, although they are not limited by level. An Arcanist has Spell Slots equal to his Arcanist level, which can be used to cast any Arcanist spell at 1st level from her spellbook.

Enhanced Casting: At 3rd level an Arcanist learns how to increase the power of her magic. By spending a number of full round actions equal to half the spell level of the spell she wishes to cast an Arcanist can cast a spell at a level that a normal wizard of her wizard level would be able to cast. e.g. casting Fireball as a 4th level spell requires an Arcanist level of 7 and requires 2 rounds.

Worth taking to the Homebrew sub-forum and developing further?