DMG spell points and sorcerers

[Spiritchaser]

How do DMs who use the DMG spell point rules variant deal with sorcerers and flexible casting?

the spell point system looks very appealing, but it does allow everyone to have flexible casting... One of the two special things that sorcerers have, and arguably it lets them do it better than sorcerers ever could.

With the spell point system sorcerers improve their flexible casting at the cost of being able to chain multiple higher level slots, rather than gaining that improved flexible casting for that price.

Does it just turn out to not be a big deal or do people add a small buff to sorcerers to compensate (perhaps allowing them to make more high level slots or to combine point pools?)

Any comments or anecdotes appreciated

[Shaofoo]

I really don't see a problem. I also can't really see what you are trying to put across.

Part of the spell point variant is that you don't have to worry about slots and come with a pool, I would assume all spellcasters will get them. You still have to convert spellslots into slots for use, slots are not eliminated once and for all with the variant.

A lot of people just allow the Sorcerer to have the Spell Point Variant and everyone else have the normal system but really there shouldn't be a problem, Metamagic is much bigger than flexible casting especially since flexible casting is so inefficient (you lose 50% of spell levels trying to convert from spell slots to sorcery points and back).

[Spiritchaser]

My thought was that with all classes using flexible casting, sorcerers have taken a small relative power loss compared to other casters.

[Theodoxus]

My thought was that with all classes using flexible casting, sorcerers have taken a small relative power loss compared to other casters.

Technically, but it's nearly negligible. Sorcerers have the added benefit of a slightly larger spellpoint pool, though in practice, all I've seen is they use metamagic more often than book standard sorcs.

I see this as a net neutral trade. Though I could see, depending on playstyle and what you want to accomplish - a net negative, or positive.

I really like spellpoints (I've hated Vancian casting ror as long as I can remember) and really liked the 3.x psionics for that reason. I wish my group was more inclined to play with them...

[Kane0]

Spell point sorcs work just fine, and become special (in a good way) if they are the only class to do so. It's pretty well balanced.

[MaxWilson]

How do DMs who use the DMG spell point rules variant deal with sorcerers and flexible casting?

the spell point system looks very appealing, but it does allow everyone to have flexible casting... One of the two special things that sorcerers have, and arguably it lets them do it better than sorcerers ever could.

With the spell point system sorcerers improve their flexible casting at the cost of being able to chain multiple higher level slots, rather than gaining that improved flexible casting for that price.

Does it just turn out to not be a big deal or do people add a small buff to sorcerers to compensate (perhaps allowing them to make more high level slots or to combine point pools?)

Any comments or anecdotes appreciated

Simple: sorcerers can use sorcery points interchangeably with spell points to fuel spells. They can also convert spell points into sorcery points at the listed loss ratios, e.g. 7 spell points buys you five sorcery points.

I haven't seen any reluctant to play sorcerers because of it. It's a flexibility boost for everyone, including sorcerers, because you don't experience the normal conversion losses when turning spell slots into other spell slots.

Honestly, spell points has much more of an impact on warlocks than sorcerers.

[DracoKnight]

How I rule it at my table is that - for us - the standard sorcerer uses spell points. Players have to ask for spell slots, if they want those instead. Then for Sorcery Points, they're lumped into the same pool with Spell Points. It's a 1:1 trade. This allows Sorcerers to cast more often - more flexibly - and use Meta Magic more often. In practice this change brought them up to the Wizard in terms of power.

[Spiritchaser]

How I rule it at my table is that - for us - the standard sorcerer uses spell points. Players have to ask for spell slots, if they want those instead. Then for Sorcery Points, they're lumped into the same pool with Spell Points. It's a 1:1 trade. This allows Sorcerers to cast more often - more flexibly - and use Meta Magic more often. In practice this change brought them up to the Wizard in terms of power.

This seems very cool, and is something I've talked about with the DM. My fear is that a sorcerer would have very significant access to metamagic. I take it that hasn't been a problem?

[Spiritchaser]

Honestly, spell points has much more of an impact on warlocks than sorcerers.

I noticed that warlock were specifically exempt from the rules... Presumably because it does have such an impact on them... Does it work anyway?

[MaxWilson]

I noticed that warlock were specifically exempt from the rules... Presumably because it does have such an impact on them... Does it work anyway?

It's a variant rule anyway, so by definition the DM decides which classes spell points applies to. It's straightforward however to apply spell points to warlocks, just like any other caster: you just add up the spell points of all their slots, and let them recharge on a short rest instead of a long rest.

As a DM I grant spell points to warlocks, but since most warlocks stop at level 2 anyway it has had very little effect on the game so far.

[Spiritchaser]

I wasn't so much concerned about the math it's the potential for a very large number of lower level spell slots. I've no idea if it would be broken.

[Shaofoo]

It's a variant rule anyway, so by definition the DM decides which classes spell points applies to. It's straightforward however to apply spell points to warlocks, just like any other caster: you just add up the spell points of all their slots, and let them recharge on a short rest instead of a long rest.

As a DM I grant spell points to warlocks, but since most warlocks stop at level 2 anyway it has had very little effect on the game so far.

Warlocks will then stop gaining spell points at level 10 because all you can gain at most is 4 level 5 spell slots.

Warlocks do not gain 6-9th spell slots, they gain the ability to cast one 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level spell once per day.

The variant only considers spellcasters, Warlocks use pact magic instead.

[Flashy]

It's a variant rule anyway, so by definition the DM decides which classes spell points applies to. It's straightforward however to apply spell points to warlocks, just like any other caster: you just add up the spell points of all their slots, and let them recharge on a short rest instead of a long rest.

As a DM I grant spell points to warlocks, but since most warlocks stop at level 2 anyway it has had very little effect on the game so far.

So do you let them break the spell points out at any level of their choice? Having played a warlock to 8th level I'd often MUCH rather have been able to cast a handful of 1st and 2nd level spells over two 3rd or 4th level spells per short rest.


Warlocks will then stop gaining spell points at level 10 because all you can gain at most is 4 level 5 spell slots.

Not true. Warlocks only have two of their spell slots at 10th level. They gain the third at 11th and the fourth at 17th.

[Shaofoo]

Not true. Warlocks only have two of their spell slots at 10th level. They gain the third at 11th and the fourth at 17th.

Ah yes you are right, my bad.

[MaxWilson]

So do you let them break the spell points out at any level of their choice? Having played a warlock to 8th level I'd often MUCH rather have been able to cast a handful of 1st and 2nd level spells over two 3rd or 4th level spells per short rest.

Yes. I agree that this is a boost, specifically to spell versatility. No longer does the warlock feel bad for casting spells that don't scale, like Mirror Image, out of a fifth level slot. To me that is a feature, not an bug. It prevents the warlock's already-narrow spell list from feeling any narrower; and I like the fluff for spell points better too.

[Flashy]

Yes. I agree that this is a boost, specifically to spell versatility. No longer does the warlock feel bad for casting spells that don't scale, like Mirror Image, out of a fifth level slot. To me that is a feature, not an bug. It prevents the warlock's already-narrow spell list from feeling any narrower; and I like the fluff for spell points better too.

I actually really like it. As is the pressure to pick spells that upcast and upcast well leaves warlocks as one of the few classes in 5e with anything like trap options.

[MaxWilson]

I actually really like it. As is the pressure to pick spells that upcast and upcast well leaves warlocks as one of the classes in 5e with anything like trap options.

Yeah, I agree. It's still not a ton of spell points (14 spell points per short rest at 9th level, 21 per short rest at 11th level) but no longer will you feel bad for casting Armor of Agathys and Hex together (since one relies on getting hit and the other is only worth 7 spell points if you keep it up all day without getting hit). Now you'll have enough spell points to cast AoA V, Hex, and Mirror Image all together if you want to.

[Theodoxus]

Just curious, do you grant Warlocks the full spellpoints for their level? And then let them recharge on a short rest? Seems very OP if you're not forcing them to create only the spell slots a standard Warlock would have access to (2 slots at 3rd level, for instance).

If you're changing the refresh mechanic to a long rest instead, it removes some of the uniqueness of the class, but it probably works better - or at least more balanced. There's still sufficient differentiation through class abilities outside of casting...

[MaxWilson]

Just curious, do you grant Warlocks the full spellpoints for their level? And then let them recharge on a short rest? Seems very OP if you're not forcing them to create only the spell slots a standard Warlock would have access to (2 slots at 3rd level, for instance).

It's not OP. Compare 6 SP at third level per short rest to 14 SP per long rest. At sixth level the warlock has 10 SP per short rest compared to the wizard's 32 per long rest plus 6 more on a short rest. The warlock winds up different, but not stronger, even before you consider the wizard's superior spell list and freedom to swap spells each day. The only time a warlock is clearly superior is at low levels, especially level 2, but at those levels spell points and slots are indistinguishable since every spell costs exactly 2 SP.

[Daishain]

sorc's flexible casting is cost inefficient enough that I have only seen it actually used once, when the player had no other choice.

A feature that is going almost entirely unused being outdone by the use of a variant rule is not really a big consideration to my mind.

Now, giving that kind of flexibility to casters in general can be an issue, as flexibility directly equates to power. But such can be compensated for.

[Talamare]

It doesn't scale right with Warlock

10th level = 64 points for everyone else
... 14 points for Warlock

I would say, make Warlock points equal Warlock Level + Standard Conversion ratio

This would bump our level 10 Warlock to 24, which is much more reasonable... Altho probably still weak

[RickAllison]

It doesn't scale right with Warlock

10th level = 64 points for everyone else
... 14 points for Warlock

I would say, make Warlock points equal Warlock Level + Standard Conversion ratio

This would bump our level 10 Warlock to 24, which is much more reasonable... Altho probably still weak

Noting two things:
1) That's per short rest, so multiply it by three for a standard adventuring day (although how standard it is is up for debate).
2) Invocations are one of the primary sources of power for 'Locks, so they are going to look weaker in terms of spell points since it doesn't take that into account. Of course, that applies to each class's features, so the point may be moot :smallwink:

[SharkForce]

1) the warlock doesn't need to have the same expected points per day as everyone else. they certainly don't get the same number of expected spell slots per day as everyone else.

2) the warlock situation changes quite significantly a single level later. they go to 21 per rest, which ups them to an expected 63 per day plus mystic arcanum... placing them basically right around where they should be.

[Theodoxus]

It's not OP. Compare 6 SP at third level per short rest to 14 SP per long rest. At sixth level the warlock has 10 SP per short rest compared to the wizard's 32 per long rest plus 6 more on a short rest. The warlock winds up different, but not stronger, even before you consider the wizard's superior spell list and freedom to swap spells each day. The only time a warlock is clearly superior is at low levels, especially level 2, but at those levels spell points and slots are indistinguishable since every spell costs exactly 2 SP.

Where are you getting this formula? That was my question. I was under the assumption that the Warlock was receiving the same number of spellpoints as any other caster - yet here you are saying they get fewer... which isn't anywhere else in the discussion... so I'm confused.

[DracoKnight]

Where are you getting this formula? That was my question. I was under the assumption that the Warlock was receiving the same number of spellpoints as any other caster - yet here you are saying they get fewer... which isn't anywhere else in the discussion... so I'm confused.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they're giving them spell points equivalent to the level of spell slot that the Warlock has x2. Since the warlock has x number of slots that all scale - they can't expend a 1st-level spell slot after 3rd level, because they only have 2nd-level spell slots.

[SharkForce]

Where are you getting this formula? That was my question. I was under the assumption that the Warlock was receiving the same number of spellpoints as any other caster - yet here you are saying they get fewer... which isn't anywhere else in the discussion... so I'm confused.

the table is just the number of spell points it would take to cast the number of spells a regular caster gets. for a warlock, that means that at level 9, for example, they get the number of spell points per short rest that it would take to cast 2 level 5 spells.

[MaxWilson]

Where are you getting this formula? That was my question. I was under the assumption that the Warlock was receiving the same number of spellpoints as any other caster - yet here you are saying they get fewer... which isn't anywhere else in the discussion... so I'm confused.

As I mentioned in post #10:


It's a variant rule anyway, so by definition the DM decides which classes spell points applies to. It's straightforward however to apply spell points to warlocks, just like any other caster: you just add up the spell points of all their slots, and let them recharge on a short rest instead of a long rest.

Sorry if this wasn't clear initially. Sometimes I overestimate the obviousness of certain ideas. I certainly did this time.

-Max

[RickAllison]

As I mentioned in post #10:



Sorry if this wasn't clear initially. Sometimes I overestimate the obviousness of certain ideas. I certainly did this time.

-Max

I don't suppose you are a scientist/engineer/mathematician/etc.? I know more than a few who are prone to using phrasing like "obviously" when the matter is question is far less so for the people they're around :smallbiggrin: It's not even a conscious thing, it really is just obvious to them.

[MaxWilson]

I don't suppose you are a scientist/engineer/mathematician/etc.? I know more than a few who are prone to using phrasing like "obviously" when the matter is question is far less so for the people they're around :smallbiggrin: It's not even a conscious thing, it really is just obvious to them.

Yes, I'm a software engineer.

[Carlos Barreto]

I really like the idea behind the Spell Point system from DMG. It looks much cooler than the slot system.

The problem is that it makes everybody a flexible caster in a way that is far better than the original Sorcerer. And flexible casting - the concept, not the class feature itself - should be one of the Sorcerer's trademark, IMHO. And considering how inefective the class feature is, it just screwed up the whole idea because in the end you will be casting less spells in the name of such flexibility.

As someone said above, I think Sorcerers should have the Spell Point system as the standard spell system. Moreover, the Sorcery Points ratio should be a 1:1. I think that would make Sorcerers feeling like real flexible casters.

[Talamare]

I really like the idea behind the Spell Point system from DMG. It looks much cooler than the slot system.

The problem is that it makes everybody a flexible caster in a way that is far better than the original Sorcerer. And flexible casting - the concept, not the class feature itself - should be one of the Sorcerer's trademark, IMHO. And considering how inefective the class feature is, it just screwed up the whole idea because in the end you will be casting less spells in the name of such flexibility.

As someone said above, I think Sorcerers should have the Spell Point system as the standard spell system. Moreover, the Sorcery Points ratio should be a 1:1. I think that would make Sorcerers feeling like real flexible casters.

I disagree it should be 1to1, a few low level spells are not equivalent to a level 5, but the ratio should have been better.

[MaxWilson]

I really like the idea behind the Spell Point system from DMG. It looks much cooler than the slot system.

The problem is that it makes everybody a flexible caster in a way that is far better than the original Sorcerer. And flexible casting - the concept, not the class feature itself - should be one of the Sorcerer's trademark, IMHO. And considering how inefective the class feature is, it just screwed up the whole idea because in the end you will be casting less spells in the name of such flexibility.

As someone said above, I think Sorcerers should have the Spell Point system as the standard spell system. Moreover, the Sorcery Points ratio should be a 1:1. I think that would make Sorcerers feeling like real flexible casters.

Just to clarify:

I think you are saying that there should be a 1:1 conversion ratio between sorcery points and spell points. That is, instead of a 7th level sorcerer having 38 spell points and 7 sorcery points, he should just have 45 points and be able to spend them interchangeably as spell points or sorcery points. So e.g. he could Quicken a cantrip 22 times (22 * 2 = 44), or he could cast a 5th level spell 9 times (9 * 5 = 45).

I think you are not saying that there should be a 1:1 ratio between spell level and spell points. You are not saying that a 3rd level spell should cost only 3 spell points.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[Theodoxus]

As I mentioned in post #10:



Sorry if this wasn't clear initially. Sometimes I overestimate the obviousness of certain ideas. I certainly did this time.

-Max

Ah, yes - sorry, I skimmed your post, and saw you talking about most people dipping, and didn't dig closer into your main point. That's on me.

Hmm...

Let's map this out...

1st level: 2 spell points
2nd level: 4 spell points
3rd and 4th level: 6 spell points
5th and 6th level: 10 spell points
7th and 8th level: 12 spell points
9th and 10th level: 14 spell points
11th through 16th level: 21 spell points (but, you're getting arcanum to help alleviate the 6 level slump)
17th+: 28 spell points.

Given the flexible nature of the spell point spell slot creation, I think this would be really nifty.

Now, multiclassing with another caster gets really whack, you'd need two pools to reference where the spell slots are being generated from... the shallow Warlock pool that flushes and fills quickly vs the deep pool of power the other caster provides... Since it's basically the sorlock on steroids; I assume if you're multiclassing casters, you add the levels together to get the 'class level' - a Cleric 4/Wizard 4 would have 44 spell points, not 34... in this case, other than not having a depth of power, taking a few levels in warlock for the quick charge, 3 levels in sorcerer for metamagic fun and then the rest in whatever class you really want to play - it makes for a much more flexible caster than the Vancian system... adds a lot of options that would otherwise not be available.

Now I really wish the spell points were the default so I could use it without begging my DM.

[MaxWilson]

Now, multiclassing with another caster gets really whack, you'd need two pools to reference where the spell slots are being generated from... the shallow Warlock pool that flushes and fills quickly vs the deep pool of power the other caster provides... Since it's basically the sorlock on steroids; I assume if you're multiclassing casters, you add the levels together to get the 'class level' - a Cleric 4/Wizard 4 would have 44 spell points, not 34... in this case, other than not having a depth of power, taking a few levels in warlock for the quick charge, 3 levels in sorcerer for metamagic fun and then the rest in whatever class you really want to play - it makes for a much more flexible caster than the Vancian system... adds a lot of options that would otherwise not be available.

Now I really wish the spell points were the default so I could use it without begging my DM.

It's not that complicated really. Instead of tracking two separate pools of spell slots (e.g. 4 3 3 2 and 2) you just track two separate pools of spell points (44 and 4). According to the DMG, the down side to using spell points is that it is "more complicated", but I have no idea why they think so. Keeping track of one number instead of five looks simpler to me.

Bear in mind that 5E has no true "spell point" system, since anything 6th level or higher is still basically on slots. (E.g. you can only have one 6th level spell per day no matter how many spell points you have.)

[EvanescentHero]

(E.g. you can only have one 6th level spell per day no matter how many spell points you have.)

Isn't it per short rest, not long?

[SharkForce]

Isn't it per short rest, not long?

only for warlocks, which don't get level 6 spell slots at all (they get a level 6 mystic arcanum, which is not quite the same thing).

[MaxWilson]

Isn't it per short rest, not long?

Nope. Not by DMG rules, and not by my rules either. And warlocks never get 6th+ spell slots at all, they just get Mystic Arcanums, which are slightly less flexible.

[EvanescentHero]

only for warlocks, which don't get level 6 spell slots at all (they get a level 6 mystic arcanum, which is not quite the same thing).

But the Mystic Arcanum spells recharge on a long rest anyway.


Nope. Not by DMG rules, and not by my rules either. And warlocks never get 6th+ spell slots at all, they just get Mystic Arcanums, which are slightly less flexible.

I'm aware of that. Hmm. Every full caster gets two sixth and seventh level slots, so I'd probably change that, but I'm not sure. Next campaign I run will likely run on spell points instead of spell slots because I like that idea better, but I'm not sure I like the idea of making warlocks as flexible as your system allows, considering how they're balanced in the first place. Have you seen this in practice with a warlock?

[MaxWilson]

But the Mystic Arcanum spells recharge on a long rest anyway.

I'm aware of that. Hmm. Every full caster gets two sixth and seventh level slots, so I'd probably change that, but I'm not sure. Next campaign I run will likely run on spell points instead of spell slots because I like that idea better, but I'm not sure I like the idea of making warlocks as flexible as your system allows, considering how they're balanced in the first place. Have you seen this in practice with a warlock?

As a player, I see losing out on the extra 6th and 7th level slots as totally worth it in exchange for spell points; but if my DM said I could have two, I certainly wouldn't object.

As a DM I haven't had any players get up to the level where it matters, but my inclination is not to change things without a reason so I'd default to the DMG method (you only ever get one 6th level slot even at 20th level).

RE: warlocks, the only warlock I've seen in play who went beyond level 2 as a Warlock is 7th level or so and I think I've only ever seen him cast one spell: a single Fireball on a clump of hobgoblins. He's mostly been active in non-combat and exploration scenes, and he's also got a thing about not letting people know he's a warlock or a criminal. (Most of his advancement has come via character tree boost, not fights. The way character trees work is that when one PC goes up a level, an equal-or-lesser-level PC gets to go up along with them, so this guy was bootstrapped by the party Shadow Monk.)

In short, spell points for warlocks hasn't affected play much because nobody has really opted to play warlocks. Make of that what you will.

[EvanescentHero]

As a player, I see losing out on the extra 6th and 7th level slots as totally worth it in exchange for spell points; but if my DM said I could have two, I certainly wouldn't object.

Fair enough. I suppose those spells don't come up too often anyway, and the extra versatility is well worth the loss.


In short, spell points for warlocks hasn't affected play much because nobody has really opted to play warlocks. Make of that what you will.

Interesting. People at my table love the warlock, myself included, but I suppose it's not for everyone. I simply find the extra versatility worrisome on a class balanced at least partially on a lack of versatility. I suspect WotC felt the same, which is why they didn't include rules for using the system with the warlock.

Then again, it could just be laziness. You never know. That being said, if someone in your game gives this version of the warlock a whirl, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the balance of the class.

[MaxWilson]

Fair enough. I suppose those spells don't come up too often anyway, and the extra versatility is well worth the loss.

Interesting. People at my table love the warlock, myself included, but I suppose it's not for everyone. I simply find the extra versatility worrisome on a class balanced at least partially on a lack of versatility. I suspect WotC felt the same, which is why they didn't include rules for using the system with the warlock.

Then again, it could just be laziness. You never know. That being said, if someone in your game gives this version of the warlock a whirl, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the balance of the class.

The implication I see here is that allowing the warlock a little more versatility may make it a little less bad, but it certainly doesn't make it overpowered, or it would be a lot more popular given the spell point variant.

I think using spell points for warlocks puts them in a good place on par with sorcerers--they may not be a popular choice but they're a feasible one. There are a few warlock builds that I would play all the way to high levels, and I've even rolled up a few in my spare time--just that none of them have made it to the table, partly because (unfortunately) I mostly DM.

[EvanescentHero]

The implication I see here is that allowing the warlock a little more versatility may make it a little less bad, but it certainly doesn't make it overpowered, or it would be a lot more popular given the spell point variant.

I think using spell points for warlocks puts them in a good place on par with sorcerers--they may not be a popular choice but they're a feasible one. There are a few warlock builds that I would play all the way to high levels, and I've even rolled up a few in my spare time--just that none of them have made it to the table, partly because (unfortunately) I mostly DM.

Well, the spell point variant in the DMG doesn't allow for warlocks to use it, which is why I'm looking for answers in the first place. Maybe I'll give it a shot next time I start a campaign. I do consider it a shame to see players wave goodbye to spells they like because they don't scale well.

I feel you on mostly DMing though. I'm in the same boat as you there.

[MaxWilson]

Well, the spell point variant in the DMG doesn't allow for warlocks to use it, which is why I'm looking for answers in the first place. Maybe I'll give it a shot next time I start a campaign. I do consider it a shame to see players wave goodbye to spells they like because they don't scale well.

What I mean by "given the spell point variant" is "if my house rule made warlocks overpowered, I'd expect to see more players going beyond 2nd level with them."


I feel you on mostly DMing though. I'm in the same boat as you there.

It's okay--I get a lot of the joy of playing out of working on my hobby projects for automating D&D battles in the web browser. Haven't had much time or energy lately to get it to the next step, but at least when it's done I'll be able to play old Gold Box-style 5E battles on the Internet. 30 goblins vs. 4 5th level PCs, yeehah!