Spell Points: What are the benefits/drawbacks?

[MadBear]

I saw that it was fairly popular to use the spell point variant rules. Having not used them before, I'm interested in those who have used them, and what they found they liked about it, and what maybe was a some unforeseen consequences.

[JellyPooga]

The biggest drawback, for me at least, is that it encourages the "alpha-mage" who only ever casts his biggest, baddest, highest level spells and then usually complains that everyone needs a Long Rest, or he'll be "useless".

At least under the normal rules this type of player is forced to use a few lower level spells before flaking out on everyone.

[Spiritchaser]

Two:

1: low level spells like shield become very powerful

2: A minor one but: Relatively it devalues the sorcerer, as it takes one of the special things they can do and let's everyone do it

Better.

Yes the sorcerer gets to do it better too, but it's still a relative loss.

Now if the DM permits you to combine sorcery points and spell points, and interchange them as desired, you get your special back.

[JackOfAllBuilds]

Only let the Sorcerers use Spell Points, keep the Wizards to structured slots. It gives them vastly different feelings and play styles. Returns the Sorcerer to the "spontaneous caster" as he can use the points to fire off all 5th level spells and a couple first, unlike the 5/4/3/2/1 rigid wizard slots

[JakOfAllTirades]

Only let the Sorcerers use Spell Points, keep the Wizards to structured slots. It gives them vastly different feelings and play styles. Returns the Sorcerer to the "spontaneous caster" as he can use the points to fire off all 5th level spells and a couple first, unlike the 5/4/3/2/1 rigid wizard slots

Interesting idea.

Has anyone looked at using spell points for Warlocks? Is it even possible?

[Kane0]

Seconding the sorc only approach. We also bundle sorcery points and spell points into one big pool as well, works wonders. It gives sorcs a unique feel and adequate compensation for their few spells known with sheer casting flexibility using their metamagic.

As for trying with warlocks, just allocate a number of points per short rest equal to what they would get in spell slots. Mystic Arcanum would remain unchanged.
Eg level 1 a warlock would get the SP of 1x 1st each short rest, at level 5 2x 3rd level slot equivalent and so forth.

The only thing worth looking out for is spamming more low level spells or wasting all one's points on a few high level spells, neither of which tend to happen using spell slots. Spell points have a lower floor and higher ceiling when it comes to the fine art of resource management.
Also some magic items are weird with spell points. How many spell points would a pearl of power get you (ie 3x 1st level spells is a different cost to 1x 3rd level spell)?

[CaptainSarathai]

Interesting idea.

Has anyone looked at using spell points for Warlocks? Is it even possible?

Absolutely, and it's my "house rule" that Warlocks always use Spell Points as in many ways, it makes the class actually playable as a caster.
2 slots per short rest is utterly worthless when most Warlock tactics are built around using Hex. Hex doesn't scale. If you were a Sorcerer with Magic Initiate for Hex, you would only ever burn your 1st level slots for it, unless you wanted it to stay on target for a longer duration (note that I disallow the "crush a cricket" method of maintaining Hex).

Warlocks naturally have a silly progression.
I can cast 1 spell
I can cast 2 spells
I can cast 2 big spells
I can cast 2 bigger spells
I can cast 3 bigger spells
I cannot scale into 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th level slots.

Giving them Spell Points means that they have a more standard progression like other casters, they just have fewer slots at any given time. It seems they were intended for this, it was just too complicated a scheme to put into the PHB.

[Kileonhardt]

Absolutely, and it's my "house rule" that Warlocks always use Spell Points as in many ways, it makes the class actually playable as a caster.
2 slots per short rest is utterly worthless when most Warlock tactics are built around using Hex. Hex doesn't scale. If you were a Sorcerer with Magic Initiate for Hex, you would only ever burn your 1st level slots for it, unless you wanted it to stay on target for a longer duration (note that I disallow the "crush a cricket" method of maintaining Hex).

Warlocks naturally have a silly progression.
I can cast 1 spell
I can cast 2 spells
I can cast 2 big spells
I can cast 2 bigger spells
I can cast 3 bigger spells
I cannot scale into 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th level slots.

Giving them Spell Points means that they have a more standard progression like other casters, they just have fewer slots at any given time. It seems they were intended for this, it was just too complicated a scheme to put into the PHB.

Warlocks are indeed the class that makes the most use out of it. I can't count the number of times I've wanted to make a warlock in games using standard casting and gone "well I'll be stuck blasting since I only have two spell slots and don't want to play bladelock, guess I'll just play Wizard."

[MadBear]

How would you handle the regaining of spell points during a short rest for both the wizard and the warlock (or would they lose those features)

[Theodoxus]

I also use Spell Points. I've allowed everyone to use them, though I have since taken the stance that wizards should remain Vancian.

My warlock players tend to like it, though one decided it was too much trouble tracking points, so he stuck with slots. Another player was playing a sorlock and LOVED the versatility of combining the points - with the warlock points regenerating on a short rest. I do combine sorcery points and spell points - seems silly not to.

I'm using spell points on my 8th level cleric and definitely enjoy the ability to cast more 3rd and 4th level spells. But it's in an Out of the Abyss game, so there's a lot of travel and downtime - going nova is less of a concern. But the DM has caught on; there's been a couple times when I've been low and we ended up in a new fight. And the wizard player enjoys the game of 'who has more spell points' at any given moment. He is a bit sadistic and likes to see me squirm trying to keep folks alive while running on fumes as he's nearly full, only using cantrips and personal buffs...


Hex doesn't scale. If you were a Sorcerer with Magic Initiate for Hex, you would only ever burn your 1st level slots for it, unless you wanted it to stay on target for a longer duration (note that I disallow the "crush a cricket" method of maintaining Hex)..

I don't understand this... you don't have to keep Hex "active" to maintain concentration on it. Once your last target is dead, the spell doesn't end. It just waits until you use a bonus action to put it on a new target.

[Spiritchaser]

Interesting idea.

Has anyone looked at using spell points for Warlocks? Is it even possible?

I do this with warlocks, it tends to make them much stronger, more flexible and less dependent on EB spam.

[Sianthus]

I don't understand this... you don't have to keep Hex "active" to maintain concentration on it. Once your last target is dead, the spell doesn't end. It just waits until you use a bonus action to put it on a new target.

I remember the specific wording being "on your subsequent turn" so yes. Must it be the turn right after though? Can you hold it for one or more turns before transferring because you have other uses for your bonus action at that moment? Always been curious about that.

But yes I love spell points for warlocks. The flexibility is so much better than just having 2+ slots, with one of them typically being used for Hex. In my current campaign, I MCed Paladin 2 for proficiencies, fighting style and the 2 lvl 1 spell slots (just great for the previously mentioned hex if needed). Spell points would have given me more choice rather than just blasting/whacking with cantrips/weapons. Pity my DM's not a fan of too many homebrew rules, especially changing them in the middle of an campaign :)

[Drackolus]

We usually use a gestalt system I cooked up that uses spell points, and picking two casters gives you half of the lesser class.
For warlocks, they stay slots. If you were something like a warlock/sorcerer, I would totally allow a warlock to use normal spellcasting as desired. Normally, you choose which one to be major and which one to be minor, i.e. half the spell points or half the slots (both rounded up). Probably best to just turn mystic arcanum into spell points.

Oh, and for the wizard/land druid ability, just change it to "spell points equal to class level." It works out roughly the same.

We don't let sorcerers mix the pools. I'm also the only one who plays sorcerers, and I am of the opinion that they are one of the better classes as-is. Quicken, empower, and twin are phenominally powerful if used well.
Converting sorcery points into spell slots is frankly always the wrong choice once you get metamagic. Sorcery points are strictly better. Trying to convert slots into slots via flexible casting is also silly. You can give up a 5th level slot for a 3rd with no benefits. Or, you can give up 3 shields and a misty step for a haste... Which is a net loss in most cases.
Even as seperate pools, spell points benefits sorcerers the most, primarily because you can always convert the best ratio of spell points to sorcery points. 7 spell points to 5 sorcery points is HUGE. Also, you aren't inclined to have at least one spell for every spell level, freeing up your spell selections a lot. Once you get past 3rd level spells, you run into issies where your higher level spells can be WORSE than your lower level spells due to the best options not being on your list and metamagic choices changing the power of certain spell choices. You really can just cast 3rd level empowered fireballs and twinned hastes all day.
Sorry if I am confrontational when it comes to sorcerers. It irks me when people play them horribly inneficiently and then claim that the class is the problem.

EDIT: this post is a rambly vomit of gramatical errors and I am ashamed and sorry.

[Tanarii]

I remember the specific wording being "on your subsequent turn" so yes. Must it be the turn right after though? Can you hold it for one or more turns before transferring because you have other uses for your bonus action at that moment? Always been curious about that.

On a subsequent turn. At any point after the original target is reduced to 0 has, you can choose a new target within range and spend a bonus action to Hex it.

so yes, Hex scales very well with higher slots. Provided you can maintain concentration ... as others always point out to me. That's not necessarily a small task, so YMMV. But other than that, Hex can easily last through a short rest. Or even a long one, since there's nothing that indicates natural sleep breaks concentration.

[DragonSorcererX]

Spell Points, benefits and drawbacks for me.

Benefits:

It makes more sense than Vancian Magic, and puts Spellcasters back in their place as BEST CLASSES like they were in 3.5.

It not only makes Full Casters stronger, but it increases how many times those hippie Rangers can cast Hunter's Mark and how many times a Paladin can Smite.

Drawbacks:

Unless you are dumber than me (and I think this is a little hard for you guys, because I see you all as at least level 1 in the Nerd class) you will have a bit of problems with the numbers.

Just to say how dumb I am: I failed to progress because of grades three times in high-school.

[Drackolus]

Just to say how dumb I am: I failed to progress because of grades three times in high-school.

Doesn't mean much if you're in the U.S. Our education system does more harm than good at this point.

There is something to be said about the idea that martials are lagging behind casters already. I'm not sure if I feel that way, but that's a common opinion.

[DragonSorcererX]

There is something to be said about the idea that martials are lagging behind casters already. I'm not sure if I feel that way, but that's a common opinion.

I don't know, since I take this game a little too much seriously and I love Spell Casting, I rank classes like this:

1. Full Casters.
2. Half-Casters, 1/3-Casters.
3. Sort of magical, almost magical, or at least fantastical melee archetypes (Rogue Assassins or Swashbucklers, Fighter Battle Masters, Totem Barbarians or any Monks that aren't the Four Elements one).
4. Mundane Peasants that should be NPC Classes, it doesn't matter how powerful they are... they are still flavorless like Champions and Thieves.
5. Four Elements Monk (do I need to say anything about these poor souls).

I'm not really an optimizer, I just like characters to be playable enough to don't be TPK'd by the things that shouldn't TPK them, and I love character building that involves discovering new powers or spells, or having special knowledges that doesn't need to be magical, just the tactical knowledge of a Battle Master to instruct other Fighters to make Shield Walls and stuff like that is cool enough for me.

[Silavor]

Or even a long one, since there's nothing that indicates natural sleep breaks concentration.

This is where I'd have to disagree. Sleeping targets are unconscious. Unconscious creatures are considered incapacitated. Concentration is lost when a target is incapacitated. Therefore, I'd rule concentration cannot be maintained during a long rest if you sleep. Short rests should be fine, though.

[Tanarii]

Sleeping targets are unconsciousNo they aren't. No rule says natural sleep causes the unconscious condition. Also, there's no justification for it under a 'common English' argument either, since in English sleep and unconsciousness are two separate things.

Edit: Your ruling is a common enough house-rule. It's hardly surprising, since the magical Sleep spell causes the unconscious condition. OTOH that's magical slumber. But common house rules are common, so worth taking into account when talking about the value of something. Or at least checking with the DM about.

[Drackolus]

No they aren't. No rule says natural sleep causes the unconscious condition. Also, there's no justification for it under a 'common English' argument either, since in English sleep and unconsciousness are two separate things.

That's just not true. Unconciousness is very much in the definition of sleep.


the natural periodic suspension of consciousness during which the powers of the body are restored

[Tanarii]

That's just not true. Unconciousness is very much in the definition of sleep.
No it isn't. They're two completely different things. That's, like, actual science and ****. I guess merriam-webster isn't in the loop.

Here ya go, wikipedia telling you not to confuse the two:
Loss of consciousness should not be confused with the notion of the psychoanalytic unconscious or cognitive processes (e.g., implicit cognition) that take place outside awareness, and with altered states of consciousness, such as delirium (when the person is confused and only partially responsive to the environment), normal sleep, hypnosis, and other altered states in which the person responds to stimuli.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconsciousness

Of course, the really relevant point to me is the rules don't say natural sleep causes the unconscious condition. But for others they apparently want to house-rule it does because of a mis-apprehension that they're the same thing.

[Drackolus]

No it isn't. They're two completely different things. That's, like, actual science and ****. I guess merriam-webster isn't in the loop.

Here ya go, wikipedia telling you not to confuse the two:
Loss of consciousness should not be confused with the notion of the psychoanalytic unconscious or cognitive processes (e.g., implicit cognition) that take place outside awareness, and with altered states of consciousness, such as delirium (when the person is confused and only partially responsive to the environment), normal sleep, hypnosis, and other altered states in which the person responds to stimuli.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconsciousness

Of course, the really relevant point to me is the rules don't say natural sleep causes the unconscious condition. But for others they apparently want to house-rule it does because of a mis-apprehension that they're the same thing.
Well I'll be. Still, if concentration can be broken by being on too rocky a boat (example in the text), it's too strenuous to do in your sleep, surely.
Nothing in the book says you can't fight while sleeping either, but it's still absurd and most DMs would rule that you must wake up to stand up and swing your sword at the goblins.
Also, you lose concentration for being incapacitated, not merely unconscious. A sleeping person is at least that.

[Tanarii]

Well I'll be. Still, if concentration can be broken by being on too rocky a boat (example in the text), it's too strenuous to do in your sleep, surely.
Nothing in the book says you can't fight while sleeping either, but it's still absurd and most DMs would rule that you must wake up to stand up and swing your sword at the goblins.Yeah, I'm never really sure how to respond to these kinds of arguments. They're made on all sorts of assumptions going on inside your head about what the rules mean in terms of simulation, that have nothing to do with what the rules actually say.

Which is kind of my whole point, to be honest.

Also, you lose concentration for being incapacitated, not merely unconscious. A sleeping person is at least that.The unconscious condition is what causes the incapacitated condition, isn't it? I could have sworn that's the argument being made: sleep = unconscious, unconscious = incapacitated, incapacitated = no concentration, therefor sleep = no concentration. This seems like moving the goalposts.

[Drackolus]

Yeah, I'm never really sure how to respond to these kinds of arguments. They're made on all sorts of assumptions going on inside your head about what the rules mean in terms of simulation, that have nothing to do with what the rules actually say.

Which is kind of my whole point, to be honest.
The unconscious condition is what causes the incapacitated condition, isn't it? I could have sworn that's the argument being made: sleep = unconscious, unconscious = incapacitated, incapacitated = no concentration, therefor sleep = no concentration. This seems like moving the goalposts.
There is no rule stating that a blindfold gives you the blinded condition. It still does at any reasonable table, though. The original argument did use the unconscious argument sense, in everyday speech they are used synonymously. However, if you want to bring science terms into a work not written by scientists, incapacitated is the actual status that prevents concentrating.

[tkuremento]

The thing that is a little off-putting for me is that 6th+ spells can only be cast once per long rest. This basically turns full casters into Warlocks in that respect. And if one allows Warlocks to have spell points alongside others it means they can actually get more spell points depending on short rests taken per long rest. It takes lots of short rests to do that though. Overall I LOVE Spell Points, but I sort of dislike the limiting factor on 6+ spells.

Also in the end it seems to buff those who want to buff and debuff and control because you don't have to spend higher slots to cast something that doesn't scale or can scale but would be overkill for the situation. Sure this could apply to any spells but I feel like it benefits them the most.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The thing that is a little off-putting for me is that 6th+ spells can only be cast once per long rest.
As opposed to normal rules, where casters only get a second level 6+ slot at (flip flip flip) level 19? (It's one slot of each level 6th or high)

[jaappleton]

This topic and another Warlock topic convinced me to explore the option of using a Warlock with spell points. It's alleviated all my qualms, and I'm excited to try it! I tried a Fiendlock before, and the spell slot system left me a bit unfulfilled as a caster.

[tkuremento]

As opposed to normal rules, where casters only get a second level 6+ slot at (flip flip flip) level 19? (It's one slot of each level 6th or high)

Assuming the average game is level 12, it doesn't matter. However doing high level stuff because why not, it can make a difference. Sure, it isn't much of a difference but a difference nonetheless.

[MadBear]

I'm still confused how you'd run spell points with warlocks. Would they regain spell points on a short rest? If so wouldn't that give them a ridiculous amount of spells to cast?

[tkuremento]

I'm still confused how you'd run spell points with warlocks. Would they regain spell points on a short rest? If so wouldn't that give them a ridiculous amount of spells to cast?

At level 11 they have three 5th level slots and at level 17 they have four 5th level slots. This is 21 and 28 spell points respectively. At levels 11 and 17, a Wizard would have 73 and 107 respectively. Of course you'd have to consider a Wizard would be using Spell Points to cast anything 6+ whilst a Warlock uses a class feature to do so.

EDIT: Warlock Spell Points



Level
Spell Slots
Slot Level
Spell Points


1
1
1
2


2
2
1
4


3
2
2
6


4
2
2
6


5
2
3
10


6
2
3
10


7
2
4
12


8
2
4
12


9
2
5
14


10
2
5
14


11
3
5
21


12
3
5
21


13
3
5
21


14
3
5
21


15
3
5
21


16
3
5
21


17
4
5
28


18
4
5
28


19
4
5
28


20
4
5
28

[jas61292]

I'm still confused how you'd run spell points with warlocks. Would they regain spell points on a short rest? If so wouldn't that give them a ridiculous amount of spells to cast?

Also, remember that slots, or in this case points, reset to the max in a short rest. While, in theory you have a lot of points, you can't just stack them up. If you don't spend them they are wasted. A wizard with spell points could spend only 1 or 2 between rests, but then half of the entire days worth before the next rest. For a warlock, is pre rationed for you.

[CursedRhubarb]

My curiosity got me wondering...
Just pure curiosity here since I can see either side of the arguement working for sleep breaking concentration and I've no preference other than wanting to know which way it goes at the game start.

How would you rule it for elves since they don't actually sleep, but meditate?

[Petrocorus]

Doesn't mean much if you're in the U.S. Our education system does more harm than good at this point.

Not just in the US.



There is something to be said about the idea that martials are lagging behind casters already. I'm not sure if I feel that way, but that's a common opinion.
This is true at high level, not forcibly at low to mid-level.


No they aren't. No rule says natural sleep causes the unconscious condition.
You're right, no rule says that sleeping make you unconscious. But would you really make this argument to your DM? How would you react if a player was making this argument in a game you run to maintain Hex through his natural sleep? I'm not even sure i would allow this for a trancing elf.


I'm still confused how you'd run spell points with warlocks. Would they regain spell points on a short rest? If so wouldn't that give them a ridiculous amount of spells to cast?
To maintain the core concept of the Warlock, you would need to let him regain spell points on a short rest, but obviously, you'd need to adapt the said umber of spell points to match the number of spell slot they normally receive. Your level 5 Warlock would receive 10 spell point per short rest while your level 5 Wizard receive 27 on a long rest. Yes, that allows the Warlock to cast a big number of level 1 spell, but it also allows him to cast only 2 level 3 spell per rest, like usual.

It just gives the Warlock the same additional flexibility that it gives to other casters. Yes, the Warlock can maybe take a better advantage of this with Hex, and maybe Darkness, but how many times he needs to cast Hex before the rest of the party want a short rest anyway?

[tkuremento]

To maintain the core concept of the Warlock, you would need to let him regain spell points on a short rest, but obviously, you'd need to adapt the said umber of spell points to match the number of spell slot they normally receive. Your level 5 Warlock would receive 10 spell point per short rest while your level 5 Wizard receive 27 on a long rest. Yes, that allows the Warlock to cast a big number of level 1 spell, but it also allows him to cast only 2 level 3 spell per rest, like usual.

It just gives the Warlock the same additional flexibility that it gives to other casters. Yes, the Warlock can maybe take a better advantage of this with Hex, and maybe Darkness, but how many times he needs to cast Hex before the rest of the party want a short rest anyway?

I made a table earlier for all the levels of Warlock :P hidden in a spoiler

[Theodoxus]

I'm still confused how you'd run spell points with warlocks. Would they regain spell points on a short rest? If so wouldn't that give them a ridiculous amount of spells to cast?

Others have handled the mechanical aspect of this - I just wanted to touch on the logical. The warlock receives the same number of slots either way - if you have an issue with 2 slots per rest, you'd have the same issue with 10 spell points per rest.

The sole difference is instead of being forced to always upcast their 2 slots, they can instead choose to create a lower level slot with fewer points. Yes, they get more slots that way, but they're also less powerful - generally not a concern with say, Hex - but that fireball is still going to cost you 5 spell points - same as the wizard. Versatility =! power.

Ironically, a warlock using spell slots defines the problem someone noted before, about using all your points to upcast your spells, novaing your lot and wanting a rest... At least it's a short rest - but anyone who plays spell points that way, should just play a book standard warlock :smallbiggrin:

[jaappleton]

Others have handled the mechanical aspect of this - I just wanted to touch on the logical. The warlock receives the same number of slots either way - if you have an issue with 2 slots per rest, you'd have the same issue with 10 spell points per rest.

The sole difference is instead of being forced to always upcast their 2 slots, they can instead choose to create a lower level slot with fewer points. Yes, they get more slots that way, but they're also less powerful - generally not a concern with say, Hex - but that fireball is still going to cost you 5 spell points - same as the wizard. Versatility =! power.

Ironically, a warlock using spell slots defines the problem someone noted before, about using all your points to upcast your spells, novaing your lot and wanting a rest... At least it's a short rest - but anyone who plays spell points that way, should just play a book standard warlock :smallbiggrin:

I agree with all of this. Though allowing the Warlock to use the Spell Point Variant system, even a modified version to replenish on short rests, still allows the Warlock to cast first level spells. It means an Archfey Warlock can cast Faerie Fire at level 1, instead of forcing it to be upcast with added benefit of utilizing a 4th level slot, for example.

[Drackolus]

But versatility IS power. If it wasn't, nobody would be saying that sorcerers are underpowered for their lack of versatility in spells.
It would probably benefit warlocks, paladins, and sorcerers the most (versatility in smiting is pretty good too). That said, it's not too obscene.
The bigger question is: how do you deal with multiclass warlocks? That's the main reason I kept them slotted. If you let them just gain whatever they would by virtue of their warlock levels, they can try to cheese two short rests to get all their non-warlock points. It's probably only an issue in theory, though.

In a setting I'm (very, very) slowly writing, I'm planning on setting a rule where every character has a minimum spell points equal to their level, and then have several items that use those points. That gives non-casters a bone too. Some items will just be spell effects, but some will be more martial-focused (like an ability that lets you spend a spell point to blink up to 20 feet between attacks, not spending extra movement). My only fear is that characters with more points can abuse those more, but it's basically only giving them more "spells," whilst the champion/barbarian gets a free resource.
I also won't be having any items that give flat bonuses (no +1 longswords or rings of protection). I hate items that you forget about by the beginning of the session after you got them.

[Theodoxus]

The bigger question is: how do you deal with multiclass warlocks? That's the main reason I kept them slotted. If you let them just gain whatever they would by virtue of their warlock levels, they can try to cheese two short rests to get all their non-warlock points. It's probably only an issue in theory, though.

Here's how I handle it. I had a player who was a Warlock 2/Sorcerer 6 This gave him a total of 42 spell points (4 for 'lock + 32 for 6th level sorc + 6 sorcery points). We presumed that the warlock points would be used first whenever he cast a spell - why wouldn't you? Then, every short rest, he would regain up to 4 points. Even if he only threw one fireball, thus spending 5 points, we didn't want to overcomplicate the ruling by stating the pools had to be separate or quantified - so he'd still get 4 back on a short rest.

So, the only "hard" bookkeeping was at level up, when determining the number of spell points you had and how many returned on a short rest. Once those calculations were done, it was quite easy using a single pool with a subset that regenerated on a short rest.

OTOH, I'm not really sure warlock 2 is contributing much by way of pure casting power (EB and invocations certainly make a difference), though I guess using spell points as sorcery points doubles the number of sorcery points the warlock would normally provide...

Were I to refine the spell point system, I think I'd limit the the number of sorcery points used for metamagic to be equal to their sorcerer class level + Proficiency Bonus per day. I don't think many people convert spell slots to sorcery points - but adding 2-6 "free" conversions per day is probably on par.

[Oramac]

Here's a question:

How does the Wizard's Arcane Recovery function with Spell Points?

Say I'm 12th level, so normally I could recover up to 6 levels of spell slots.

Should I just regain 9 points (1 6th level spell), or should I regain 12 points (6 1st level spells)?

Obviously, the latter is better, but which is correct?

[tkuremento]

Here's a question:

How does the Wizard's Arcane Recovery function with Spell Points?

Say I'm 12th level, so normally I could recover up to 6 levels of spell slots.

Should I just regain 9 points (1 6th level spell), or should I regain 12 points (6 1st level spells)?

Obviously, the latter is better, but which is correct?

Given the versatile nature of the Spell Point variant, I'd say you'd regain the 9 even if it seems like less. Because whilst that is only 1 6th level spell, that is also 4 1st level spells, or 3 1st level and 1 2nd level, etc. The fact that it could be a combination of spells slots at any given time means less IS more, or something.

[Oramac]

Given the versatile nature of the Spell Point variant, I'd say you'd regain the 9 even if it seems like less. Because whilst that is only 1 6th level spell, that is also 4 1st level spells, or 3 1st level and 1 2nd level, etc. The fact that it could be a combination of spells slots at any given time means less IS more, or something.

I'm sorry? Can you clarify this please?

[JakOfAllTirades]

I made a table earlier for all the levels of Warlock :P hidden in a spoiler

I'm still not sure how this should work; does that table apply to Pact Magic only or should it also include Mystic Arcanum spells?

Sorry if that seems like a dumb question but I've been trying to figure out how to do this in a "game-balanced" way for a while and I keep running into problems.

[CursedRhubarb]

I'm still not sure how this should work; does that table apply to Pact Magic only or should it also include Mystic Arcanum spells?

Sorry if that seems like a dumb question but I've been trying to figure out how to do this in a "game-balanced" way for a while and I keep running into problems.

The table would be Pact Magic only. The Mystic Arcanum are a class feature that's separate from their Pact Magic. It's basically gaining 1/long rest ability but you get to pick what you get to use when you gain the feature. Once you pick a spell for each, that spell is the only one that can be used at that level, and you can't change the one you pick. So choose wisely.

Warlocks are weird. I love them, but they are weird. If they were a Pokemon they would be a Slowpoke because they go at their own tempo and do what they want, nevermind the rules everyone else has to follow.

[Theodoxus]

Here's a question:

How does the Wizard's Arcane Recovery function with Spell Points?

Say I'm 12th level, so normally I could recover up to 6 levels of spell slots.

Should I just regain 9 points (1 6th level spell), or should I regain 12 points (6 1st level spells)?

Obviously, the latter is better, but which is correct?

Well, for one, you can't regain a 6th level spell slot with Arcane Recovery, so that's not an option.
Second, this is one reason I keep wizards Vancian. However, you run into the exact same issue with Land Druids, so you might as well come up with a reasonable ruling on the matter.

So, my recommendation would be to simply grant a number of spell points back equal to their level. This makes it the equivalent of 1st level slots on even levels, and is a slight nerf at odd levels. Trading on the versatility of spell points in lieu of the boost of Vancian spell slots in regards to arcane recovery (the rounding up of level, specifically).

[tkuremento]

I'm sorry? Can you clarify this please?

Without Spell Points you could gain a combination of spell slots, but those spell slots are locked in at the level you chose. By getting Spell Points, they are one of the higher level slots or multiple of lower levels. It remains versatile because Spell Points are versatile. Of course a DM could rule any way they wish given it is a variant rule in the end.

[Drackolus]

I feel that, if you're going to be converting warlock slots into points, it feels more elegant (though not necessarily balanced) to convert Mystic Arcanum as well. You can either let the Warlock learn free 6-9th spells as appropriate, or even force them to use their "spells known." (if it's good enough for sorcerers...) This would allow them to upcast past level 5 as well. Just keep the "one each of 6+ per day" rule enforced.
This is the table you would use. The "rest" column is what the warlock would get on short rests, which is their maximum until level 11 when they can access 6th level spells.

levelMaxRest
122
244
366
466
51010
61010
71212
81212
91414
101414
113021
123021
134021
144021
155121
165121
177128
187128
197128
207128

[Ninja-Radish]

That's just not true. Unconciousness is very much in the definition of sleep.

Not necessarily. If you're asleep, you can wake up when you hear a noise. If you're unconscious, that's not the case.

[Morphic tide]

In a setting I'm (very, very) slowly writing, I'm planning on setting a rule where every character has a minimum spell points equal to their level, and then have several items that use those points. That gives non-casters a bone too. Some items will just be spell effects, but some will be more martial-focused (like an ability that lets you spend a spell point to blink up to 20 feet between attacks, not spending extra movement). My only fear is that characters with more points can abuse those more, but it's basically only giving them more "spells," whilst the champion/barbarian gets a free resource.
I also won't be having any items that give flat bonuses (no +1 longswords or rings of protection). I hate items that you forget about by the beginning of the session after you got them.

Sounds a little bit Dark Sun. Seriously, just swap out Spell Points for Power Points and you have a good house rule for a variant of Dark Sun. It gives the actual Psions more PP to use for extra survivability, much needed in Dark Sun, and it gives the other classes a way to use some of the Psionic feats that don't require manifesting and Psionic item access. Which makes sense for Dark Sun, being a place of many Psionic folk with almost no common magic.