Spell point pools, multi-classing and the Awakened Mystic

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all, question about spell points.

I was under the impression (from a couple of posts on here) that using the spell point variant allowed for stacking of spells per day. For example, say I use the spell point variant and roll up a sorcerer. I get to level 5 (so thats a pool of 27 spell points a day, or per long rest) and I decide to go into cleric. Using the spell point variant, I would get 5 spell points at cleric level 1. This brings my total spell points to 32 and I can use all 32 to cast any spell I know, either cleric or sorcerer.

I was also under the impression (again from this forum) that most people are assuming a 1-to-1 conversion between the new Psy points and Spell points for the purposes of multitasking as the teased release of the Mystic.

Now, I have been allowed to play a mystic by my DM, and I will be playing an Immortal one. At the end of 5 levels, and assuming it hasnt been released or updated by then, I will go fighter and then eldritch knight. My DM didnt want to homerule any further levels in mystic and didnt want me to play as one without getting new character abilities (something I was happy to do, so long as my psypoints increased as spell points do). Fair enough. He also said that if I become an eldritch knight, he would rule that my spell points and psy points would not stack and would be different pools. Ok, i can live with that. Sort of goes against what most people have been saying here but whatever.

Its what he said next that really confused me. "I would rule that the pools have to be separate, just like every other multiclass in the game." After asking him to clarify, he said a sorcerer level 5 that multiclassed into a wizard level 1 would have a sorcerer pool of 27 points, and a wizard pool of 5, and could only cast 5 points worth of wizard spells or 27 points of sorcerer ones. If he then became a cleric, that would be a third independent pool.

Isnt that completely missing the point of spellpoints? Or did I get the wrong end of the stick when reading up on them?

[SharkForce]

spell points should just use the regular multiclass rules but applied to spell points.

if you're a level 5 wizard/1 cleric, you have spell points as a level 6 caster. ranger and paladin levels count for half, eldritch knight and arcane trickster count as 1/3.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I believe he is incorrect. It doesn't seem to be explicitly spelled out in the spell point system, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that the normal multiclassing rules do not apply to it, and I know of no DM, besides yours, who rules otherwise.

(If your dm is dubious, convert the amount of spell slots granted on the multiclass table to the equivalent amount of spell points, and compare it to the spell points table, and note how (if your maths is correct) the values are exactly the same.)

EDIT: Oh my, I've been accosted by a ninja shark!

[Citan]

Hi all, question about spell points.

I was also under the impression (again from this forum) that most people are assuming a 1-to-1 conversion between the new Psy points and Spell points for the purposes of multitasking as the teased release of the Mystic.

He also said that if I become an eldritch knight, he would rule that my spell points and psy points would not stack and would be different pools. Ok, i can live with that. Sort of goes against what most people have been saying here but whatever.

Its what he said next that really confused me. "I would rule that the pools have to be separate, just like every other multiclass in the game." After asking him to clarify, he said a sorcerer level 5 that multiclassed into a wizard level 1 would have a sorcerer pool of 27 points, and a wizard pool of 5, and could only cast 5 points worth of wizard spells or 27 points of sorcerer ones. If he then became a cleric, that would be a third independent pool.

Isnt that completely missing the point of spellpoints? Or did I get the wrong end of the stick when reading up on them?
Hi! :)

Answers in order to each quoted paragraph.
1) People assume that because, for the 5 disclosed levels, the Mystic psy points progression is exactly the same as the spell point progression system. So they supposed that (at least if WoTc keeps this kind of balance progression) they would follow it up to level 20.

2) Seems fair enough ruling to me, since Mystic has explicitely been presented as not being a caster in the sense of arcane or divine caster, and not using Concentration IIRC (AFTB).

3) This is imo an unfair and unjustified ruling. I guess he wants this to reflect your different mastery of spellcasting styles. But since multiclassing already ruled out how to manage spellcasting from several casters (Warlock aside) as enabling the cast of any known (and prepared) spell with any available slot, there is no reason to do differently with spell points. Because it doesn't really change anything to potential abuse problem.

Yes, a single level dip in Cleric with 5 level Sorcerer would allow you to cast 16*lvl1 OR 10*lvl2 OR 6*lvl3 OR 4 lvl1 + 3*lvl2 + 3*lvl3 (exactly the same as usual spell slots) Cure Wounds spell in a single day. Would it be weird fluff-wise? Probably (but exactly the same with classic multiclass). Would it break anything? No, since pure Cleric could already do so.
Would you be enticed to do it? Unless you're the only one with healing capability of the group and DM is harsh on you, there is little chance you'd consume everything on a spell with don't relate to your main focus and build so...

Another, more day-to-day argument in favor of common pool: much easier to track, for you as for him. :)

[Daishain]

There is no reason to treat wizard, sorcerer, and cleric spellpoint pools separately. The book fails to explicitly state that the same multiclassing rules apply, but there's no reason to think otherwise, especially from a convenience point of view.


Now, the spellpoint/psipoint transparency is another issue. Arcane and psionic magics are explicitly different affairs with little direct interaction between them. Your DM is well within his rights to deny them stacking, or even to ban the use of the Mystic entirely (as the class is both incomplete and has a few notable balance concerns).

With that stated, there are two characters in my current campaign that have a Mystic dip. Both stack spell and psi points, neither have broken the game yet. (EK+immortal and Wiz+awakened, fluff wise the latter has been teaching the former)Both have been very fun to play, they're versatile builds, but aren't significantly OP by comparison to similar setups.

If your DM wants the opinion of another DM, stacking spellpoints and psipoints together like every other full caster can is not a problem. However, some of the specific Mystic abilities can be. Some level of tweaking is suggested.

[YCombinator]

A lot of folks seem to disagree. I can't say I really have strong feelings either way. But I will say I think it's relatively reasonable to think that the Mystic's spell points will not pooled together with the Spell Casting classes slots per day. The reason for this being that the Mystic is not casting spells and does not have the Spell Casting class feature.

So it might very well combine in a similar way to the Warlock where the spell slots are separate instead of going into multiclass spell slot table from the multiclass chapter of the PHB. This would potentially present issues for the Mystic since and there might be some kind of allowance for them to interplay. For example that same chapter spells out that if you have the Pact Magic feature you can cast spells from other classes with Pact Magic slots. There might be some way to explicitly allow transfer of points to spell slots (maybe similar to Flexible Casting from the Sorcerer) even though the point pools are totally separate from the spell slots. Using the spell point variant of the Wizard along with a Mystic might very well mean that you have two independent pools. That might be annoying. I definitely don't think it's unreasonable though. After all the multiclassing rules about unifying the spell slots into one table if you're a caster exclusively applies to classes that give you the Spell Casting feature and the Mystic does not.

[Tenmujiin]

2) Seems fair enough ruling to me, since Mystic has explicitely been presented as not being a caster in the sense of arcane or divine caster, and not using Concentration IIRC (AFTB).

Actually every single one of their abilities requires concentration. The concentrate on an ability set, getting a static bonus, and then use psi-points to use the related abilities.

I see no reason to make this ruling and it seems to stem from your DM completely failing to understand the spellcasting multiclass rules.

Edit: mystic and spellcasting don't go together as well as you might think since you have to chose between using mystic abilities and using concentration spells.

[Citan]

Actually every single one of their abilities requires concentration. The concentrate on an ability set, getting a static bonus, and then use psi-points to use the related abilities.

I see no reason to make this ruling and it seems to stem from your DM completely failing to understand the spellcasting multiclass rules.

Edit: mystic and spellcasting don't go together as well as you might think since you have to chose between using mystic abilities and using concentration spells.

Indeed, but wasn't there a hot debate as to know whether the "Mystic concentration" was the same as "Spellcaster concentration" or in fact something entirely different?
I remember such a thread on the forum but didn't read until the end. :)

Anyways, the Mystic is NOT a spellcaster (as indicated by their fluff), so, considering its abilities come from a different source than arcane/divine spells, its points should not mesh with points for spellcasting. Seems evident enough to me and avoid any potential cheese. :)

[Daishain]

Indeed, but wasn't there a hot debate as to know whether the "Mystic concentration" was the same as "Spellcaster concentration" or in fact something entirely different?If there was, I'm not sure why it existed. Whether you're concentrating on the arcane symbols needed to maintain that fog bank, or holding in your mind the perfect image of shaped reality for the sake of psionic abilities, your mind is occupied in a specific task. If you can't spare the processing power to maintain two spells at once, there's no reason to think you can manage both a spell and a psionic discipline. It doesn't matter that the two forms of magic use a different mechanic, for the same reason most people can't compose a symphony and solve differential equations at the same time in spite of them being entirely differing disciplines, even if capable of doing both.

Which is a large part of why I'm less concerned about pooling spell and psi points together from a mechanical POV, concentration keeps the potential for cheese down.

From a fluff perspective, yeah, they're differing things, but both measure a form of mental reserves, drawing from the same pool and applying it in different ways is not much of a stretch. Besides, fluff can and often should be changed, especially if a neat concept is in the works. For example, the wizard I mentioned before is an avid studier of the planes, awakened psionic potential through contact with the far realms, and has since been finding that his new mental abilities allow him to tap into the raw weave of magic more easily (IE the spellpoints vs normal spell slots), which implies many things about the nature of magic that has him off on a tear doing more research.

[Citan]

Whether you're concentrating on the arcane symbols needed to maintain that fog bank, or holding in your mind the perfect image of shaped reality for the sake of psionic abilities, your mind is occupied in a specific task. If you can't spare the processing power to maintain two spells at once, there's no reason to think you can manage both a spell and a psionic discipline.

From a fluff perspective, yeah, they're differing things, but both measure a form of mental reserves, drawing from the same pool and applying it in different ways is not much of a stretch.

---- excerpt only (full post just above). -----

Fair points (note that I was already agreeing with point on the point of Concentration, just pointing out the potential discussion).

Counter-argument in favor of keeping pools separated: Warlock case. Warlock can cast the same spells as other casters, still because their balance is mechanically different they are treated as a separate case.
As Mystics's mechanics are also very specific, it seems not far-stretched to consider a separation also needed for them.

And I see easy ways to gain much power with combined pools. Such as Paladin gaining the effect of a lvl 6 Magic Weapon for the cost of a 3rd level spell.
Or a Favored Soul Sorcerer becoming equal to lvl 20 Fighter for a good period of time thanks to lvl 3 Celerity discipline.
Or an Eldricht Knight Fighter who just casts a non-concentration spell sometimes and then gains either a lvl6 Magic Weapon (which he should never get) or 3 action nova turn + 2 action for a number of other turns.
Not even talking about other abilities which can make some feats pretty superfluous.

Granted, it's not "overpowered" in itself, compared to other ways such as Haste (since it also requires concentration), but it seems to me too powerful compared to usual ways to attain similar result, partly because discipline also provides additional bonus, mainly because you need a much lower multiclass dip than usual.

With that said, there is a high chance that when (if) Mystic gets published officially, the whole class will have been rewritten so that some of the most powerful abilities we see here in the playtest will be either toned down or available much later (it's obvious that they just wanted to test many ideas with no regard to balance, just to assess the fun potential).

So, at that time, I may agree with you that you can mix all pools. As is, I still think it's safer and simpler to keep them separated. :)
But hey... DM is always the law in fine. :) As long as everyone has fun, whatever is fine by me. ^^

EDIT: I think I recall what the debate was about in fact, on the question of fate of abilities such as Augmented Weapon if you end concentration. Should it disappear as well?
+ it's an effect of a Discipline.
- it describes a flat duration.
- some abilities effectively provide a "permanent" effect as actions (such as Initiative boost: you'd obviously keep the same Initiative even if you end Discipline later... Or wouldn't you?)
First case: then many potential cheeses are flat out.
Second case: huge cheese potential.

[SharkForce]

the only discussion about concentration with the mystic that i can recall was a point about some language that specifically addresses spells, which was so obviously not intended to allow the mystic to bypass concentration restrictions that i can't see anyone allowing it (basically, certain mechanics specifically reference spells - iirc, the barbarian's rage is one such mechanic).

on a side note, celerity is not as good as action surge.

[Citan]

the only discussion about concentration with the mystic that i can recall was a point about some language that specifically addresses spells, which was so obviously not intended to allow the mystic to bypass concentration restrictions that i can't see anyone allowing it (basically, certain mechanics specifically reference spells - iirc, the barbarian's rage is one such mechanic).

on a side note, celerity is not as good as action surge.
So, how would you decide what happens to, say, an Iron Resistance (that can last up to 1 hour) if you end the Discipline just minutes away after starting sustaining it? Should it be considered "outside" the Discipline since it's a flat duration? As I read the rules, it should be, quoting the "Activation and Concentration" part.
"Ending concentration on a discipline immediately ends all the discipline's effects, unless the discipline's description says otherwise". Which is the case for Iron Resistance and Augmented Weapon.
So a Paladin with Mystic 3 could use a bonus action to start Psionic Weapon, immediately spending 5 Mystic Points to get Augmented Weapon (= Magic Weapon lvl6), then end the discipline and cast a normal concentration spell (or attack) with his action. >>> Paladin 6 / Mystic 3 would have better action and spell economy than Paladin 9. Doesn't feel quite right to me.
Hence my opinion as to if using spellpoints, pools should be separated.

Also, could you explain your opinion on the fact that Celerity, or rather, Surge of Action (I suppose), is "not as good as action surge"?

I agree that it is not useful for everyone since it costs something and uses bonus action but...

For martials with spellcasting, it's basically another Extra Attack for the price of a 3rd level spell. It's expensive, sure, but can be worthwhile.
For martials without spellcasting, it provides a good and versatile use of their Concentration slots for a few levels dip: although Surge of Action it is not so interesting because too expensive for a limited pool, you get three Disciplines for great versatility.

For spellcasters, it's basically an expensive Quickened metamagic but without the need to dip Sorcerer (or, as a Sorcerer, keep your Metamagic option to Twin it or Heighten it).

Sure, you can do the same with Action Surge, and it's "free", but it's one per short rest (unless pure Fighter).
Surge of Action feature can be used each turn.

And since it comes from a Discipline, for one Concentration slot, you get abilities replacing other spells, feats or class abilities (Expeditious Retreat, Mobile etc).

Is it, by itself, worth dipping three levels? Certainly not.
Is it in all cases a lesser choice than Action Surge? Certainly not (especially with spell-points system if you combine the pools). :)

Also, again, the final Mystic will probably be nothing like this playtest version, so the point I make here is only for the current version.

[SharkForce]

you can't dip 3 levels for surge of action. mystics don't get to spend 5 points (the cost of the surge of action) until they reach level 5.

costing a bonus action is not a completely terrible cost, but it is a cost. therefore, surge of action is not as good as action surge.

and none of those mystic abilities specify that they last after the concentration ends (saying it can last for a minute or an hour is not the same thing as specifically saying it doesn't follow the earlier rule), so they don't.

[Citan]

you can't dip 3 levels for surge of action. mystics don't get to spend 5 points (the cost of the surge of action) until they reach level 5.

costing a bonus action is not a completely terrible cost, but it is a cost. therefore, surge of action is not as good as action surge.

and none of those mystic abilities specify that they last after the concentration ends (saying it can last for a minute or an hour is not the same thing as specifically saying it doesn't follow the earlier rule), so they don't.
Ok, fair points. :) Thanks for correcting my mistake on Mystic dip. I cannot agree with you on a fact that Action Surge is always better though, confer last post. Let's agree we disagree, it's a matter of opinions after all since too case-dependent anyways.

Also, if you're right on how fixed duration abilities interact, there is indeed only little OPness potential. I'm not totally convinced though, since it seems to me that specifying a fixed duration is in itself an exception to the more general rule. But hey, let's wait for the official release if it comes someday. Until then, DM fiat rules.