Spell Points

[jjordan]

I'm looking at spell points (DMG. 288-289) and doing a little pondering. If I'm reading this right (and it's been a long day so...) each character is assigned a pool of spell points and can create a spell slot using those points. Now, this replaces the default, Vancian spell slot assignments. So a 6th level wizard with 32 spell points can cast 6 fireball spells (at 5 points a pop for each 3rd level spell cast) instead of the maximum 3 fireballs they'd be able to cast under the default rules. Essentially it allows for spell-spamming as long as you keep the spells below level 6.

Is this correct?

[micahaphone]

Correct. It's effectively Sorcerer's Flexible Casting but with perfect conversion.

[cutlery]

Yep, it is a great increase in flexibility.

[MaxWilson]

Yep, it is a great increase in flexibility.

It's particularly great for warlocks because it prevents 80% of the warlock list from becoming obsolete trash at later levels. E.g. Mirror Image out of a 5th level slot is pretty bad, so bad you wouldn't take it, but with spellpoints you still have the option to cast it as a regular 2nd level spell. Ditto Hex. There's still the concentration opportunity cost to consider, but at least the spell list itself doesn't feel like it's shrinking.

[cutlery]

It's particularly great for warlocks because it prevents 80% of the warlock list from becoming obsolete trash at later levels. E.g. Mirror Image out of a 5th level slot is pretty bad, so bad you wouldn't take it, but with spellpoints you still have the option to cast it as a regular 2nd level spell. Ditto Hex. There's still the concentration opportunity cost to consider, but at least the spell list itself doesn't feel like it's shrinking.

Oh, 100%.

I am still a bit mad they didn’t add a short rest table for spell points for warlocks. I suppose they could handwave it as incentive to multiclass into a long rest caster (and it is most certainly that), but playing a warlock in a game with spellpoints for full casters would suck.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, 100%.

I am still a bit mad they didn’t add a short rest table for spell points for warlocks. I suppose they could handwave it as incentive to multiclass into a long rest caster (and it is most certainly that), but playing a warlock in a game with spellpoints for full casters would suck.

I don't see the problem? The warlock spell point table is simple enough that I don't even need to look it up, I have it memorized.

Level 1: 2 SP
Level 2: 4 SP
Level 3-4: 6 SP
Level 5-6: 10 SP
Level 7-8: 12 SP
Level 9-10: 14 SP
Level 11-15: 21 SP
Level 16-20: 28 SP

[Edea]

I'm not sure I'd ever consider playing a sorc in a game with that variant, not gonna lie.

[cutlery]

I don't see the problem? The warlock spell point table is simple enough that I don't even need to look it up, I have it memorized.

Level 1: 2 SP
Level 2: 4 SP
Level 3-4: 6 SP
Level 5-6: 10 SP
Level 7-8: 12 SP
Level 9-10: 14 SP
Level 11-15: 21 SP
Level 16-20: 28 SP

Oh, sure, they should have just said so in the DMG instead of basically saying don’t use spell points with warlocks.

I’d allow short rest points just like that for locks, and probably for warlocks before anyone else (sorcerers a second).

[MaxWilson]

Oh, sure, they should have just said so in the DMG instead of basically saying don’t use spell points with warlocks.

I’d allow short rest points just like that for locks, and probably for warlocks before anyone else (sorcerers a second).

Oh. I guess I just felt like they expected DMs to do their own math--after all, it's in the "DM's Workshop" section IIRC, which is all about changing the rules how you like.

I do wish they had more explicit discussion of the pros and cons, especially for warlocks. It wouldn't take much to say what we've said on this thread: "spell points for warlocks adds flexibility and keeps early spells cost-effective at high levels."

[jjordan]

So do casters have to decide which spell slots to prepare after each long rest? Do they have to select which specific spells they are preparing? Or are they free to create the spell slots as needed?

[Cybren]

Oh. I guess I just felt like they expected DMs to do their own math--after all, it's in the "DM's Workshop" section IIRC, which is all about changing the rules how you like.

I do wish they had more explicit discussion of the pros and cons, especially for warlocks. It wouldn't take much to say what we've said on this thread: "spell points for warlocks adds flexibility and keeps early spells cost-effective at high levels."

5e in general could do with more transparency on the parts of the developers and rules about what the intended function of various rules are so that DMs and homebrew designers know what areas of the rules are more load-baring than others. Then again sometimes when they state their reasoning for something it is so transparently a lie I guess that isn't worth it for wotc to waste ink on.

[Kireban]

Well, according to the DMG this variant rule is only for classes with the spellcasting feature. Its not meant for warlocks, so there is no need to write a short rest table for them.

[MaxWilson]

So do casters have to decide which spell slots to prepare after each long rest? Do they have to select which specific spells they are preparing? Or are they free to create the spell slots as needed?

For spella under 5th level, there are no slots (although there's still a limit on how many spells you can prepare / know). You just say "I'm casting Mirror Image" and the DM says "that'll be three spell points please," and you pay them and move on. Much simpler than tracking spell slots.

At higher levels though you still have to track slots.

[Asisreo1]

Oh, 100%.

I am still a bit mad they didn’t add a short rest table for spell points for warlocks. I suppose they could handwave it as incentive to multiclass into a long rest caster (and it is most certainly that), but playing a warlock in a game with spellpoints for full casters would suck.
For the record, by RAW, a Warlock cannot use the spellpoint variant. That's only reserved for casters with the Spellcasters feature.

[ProsecutorGodot]

For the record, by RAW, a Warlock cannot use the spellpoint variant. That's only reserved for casters with the Spellcasters feature.

There isn't really "RAW" in this case, it's a system intended for DM's to tweak and take inspiration from. Quote from the DMG:

If you’re confident that the answer to both questions is yes, then you have nothing to lose by giving it a try. Urge your players to provide feedback. If the rule or game element isn’t functioning as intended or isn’t adding much to your game, you can refine it or ditch it. No matter what a rule’s source, a rule serves you, not the other way around.

Not being applicable to warlocks simply because they didn't want to waste book space on a pact magic specific table looks like room for refinement to me.


I'm not sure I'd ever consider playing a sorc in a game with that variant, not gonna lie.
In our current mad mage campaign our Sorcerer is allowed to use it, incredibly strong, we've decided in the future that only Warlocks will be given the option to use it.

[Asisreo1]

There isn't really "RAW" in this case, it's a system intended for DM's to tweak and take inspiration from. Quote from the DMG:


Not being applicable to warlocks simply because they didn't want to waste book space on a pact magic specific table looks like room for refinement to me.

I mean, you can easily make a new feat that does something like give martials an extra attack then complain that it isn't necessarily balanced, but it's because you've used a variant that you designed yourself.

I wouldn't call giving warlocks spellpoints RAW unless you'd call allowing multiclassing with no ability score requirements RAW. If it's more fun for you, more power to ya but the way it works, by RAW, is that Warlocks don't get spell points because of their pact magic.

I also think this was purposeful as the warlock with spell points probably have access to *way* too many spells. They'd also probably be able to horde spell points with short rests similar to a coffeelock. They'd also be able to upcast past 5th-level spells which is beyond what the designers had in mind for a warlock class.

[RSP]

First, I’d only let Sorcerers use this: otherwise they just are awful with other casters getting a better version of one of their signature abilities.

Warlocks are fine, power and definitely flexibility-wise, but if giving them SPs anyway, I’d separate out their Pact Magic from Mystic Arcanum (which would still work the same way).

[MaxWilson]

I also think this was purposeful as the warlock with spell points probably have access to *way* too many spells. They'd also probably be able to horde spell points with short rests similar to a coffeelock. They'd also be able to upcast past 5th-level spells which is beyond what the designers had in mind for a warlock class.

What kind of a spell point system are you imagining that would make these things possible? Why not just give the warlock spell points per the table above (e.g. Level 6 = 10 SP), and they regain any used points when they rest? No sorlock style hoarding, no upcasting beyond 5th level (unless you also revamp Mystic Arcana to run off of invocations and spell points).

If you just implement warlock spellpoints in the obvious, straightforward way the DMG does for everyone else, these problems don't occur. Why make it harder than necessary?

[jjordan]

Thank you all for the responses.

I'm looking at the spell points variation because it seems to allow for some flexibility I'd like to have in my games/settings. It could allow, with minimal tweaking:
- Teams of casters (mostly NPCs but I like logical consistency) working together to accomplish bigger spells.
- Recovering spell points like you recover hit points.
- Spells that allow you to gather spell points in various ways.
- An easier implementation of my thaumovore Nothic.
- Greater flexibility for spellcasters and an end to tracking spell slots and the whole Vancian mechanics.
- Opens up some avenues for new magical items (wands that amplify spell points, staves that store spell points, rings that cost a single spell point to active their function, and etc....). Which works because a single spell point is less than spending a 1st level spell slot.
- Possibly even skill-based casting.

[KorvinStarmast]

For spella under 5th level, there are no slots (although there's still a limit on how many spells you can prepare / know). You just say "I'm casting Mirror Image" and the DM says "that'll be three spell points please," and you pay them and move on. Much simpler than tracking spell slots. At higher levels though you still have to track slots. Mystic Arcanum are once per long rest, but the slot system recharges on a short rest. How do you resolve that? This may be obvious, but I'm not seeing it. (Also, are you tallking about up-casting beyond fifth?)

In our current mad mage campaign our Sorcerer is allowed to use it, incredibly strong, we've decided in the future that only Warlocks will be given the option to use it. How to you intend to roll the Mystic Arcanum into this?
Also, are any spells gained via invocation (once per long rest) inside the box, or outside the box, for this spell point method? Some of them require a spell slot. (Example, Polymorph under the Sculptor of Flesh invocation)

Warlocks are fine, power and definitely flexibility-wise, but if giving them SPs anyway, I’d separate out their Pact Magic from Mystic Arcanum (which would still work the same way). Once per long rest, got it. Can you upcast spells of level 5 and lower under this approach?

[ProsecutorGodot]

How to you intend to roll the Mystic Arcanum into this?
Also, are any spells gained via invocation (once per long rest) inside the box, or outside the box, for this spell point method? Some of them require a spell slot. (Example, Polymorph under the Sculptor of Flesh invocation)
I don't roll it in. Even with a slight increase in spells per short rest under spell points I still think it's alright to keep them recharging on a short rest. If I wanted to try a long rest warlock is look into a way to roll it in.

I don't see an issue with those invocations, you spend spell points now, why wouldn't they just roll over? They already work as if they were an extra spell known.

Can you upcast spells of level 5 and lower under this approach?
They still don't have 6th level slots when converting to spell points so I reason that they're still locked into 5th and below for regular casting.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't see an issue with those invocations, you spend spell points now, why wouldn't they just roll over? They already work as if they were an extra spell known. But they specifically do not recharge as a known spell on a short rest.

A niggling detail, but it's one of the things that makes the invocations a bit different from regular Warlock spells.

The intent is "once pre long rest for invocation spells of this kind" and 'Recharge on a short rest all other spells known"

But I do see your point in "OK, this now becomes "one more spell known" as the invocation benefit.

Pretty sure that doesn't break anything.

[RSP]

Once per long rest, got it. Can you upcast spells of level 5 and lower under this approach?

I think you accidentally added my comments on to Prosecutor’s, but just to clarify: I wouldn’t allow Warlocks to use SPs (I’d allow only Sorcerers to do so; as, otherwise, Sorcerers are just even further downgraded from all other casters, and lose their Flexible Casting schtick - not to mention it’s nust a straight up buff to casters and furthers the divide in balance with non-casters).

My post was recommending that, if allowing Warlocks to use SPs, that the rule keep MA separate from the SP pool (from Pact Magic), and just have MA work as normal.

Warlocks are fine with balance and flexibility and don’t need more of either. Their only issue is if the recommended allotment of SRs:LRs isn’t used, but giving them SR-recharging SPs doesn’t impact that at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think you accidentally added my comments on to Prosecutor’s, but just to clarify You are right, the multiquote didn't quite work as I'd intended. .

My post was recommending that, if allowing Warlocks to use SPs, that the rule keep MA separate from the SP pool (from Pact Magic), and just have MA work as normal.
I like that idea. Simpler, to be sure.

Warlocks are fine with balance and flexibility and don’t need more of either. Their only issue is if the recommended allotment of SRs:LRs isn’t used, but giving them SR-recharging SPs doesn’t impact that at all. Got it.

[MaxWilson]

Mystic Arcanum are once per long rest, but the slot system recharges on a short rest. How do you resolve that? This may be obvious, but I'm not seeing it. (Also, are you tallking about up-casting beyond fifth?)
How to you intend to roll the Mystic Arcanum into this?
Also, are any spells gained via invocation (once per long rest) inside the box, or outside the box, for this spell point method? Some of them require a spell slot. (Example, Polymorph under the Sculptor of Flesh invocation)
Once per long rest, got it. Can you upcast spells of level 5 and lower under this approach?

In that particular post I was responding to a question about all "casters", not just warlocks. So yes, needing to track slots as well as points is about 6th+ level spells (whether upcast or native). This may or may not be applicable to warlocks depending on whether or not you convert Mystic Arcana to run off of spell points and invocations or not.

5E greatly restricts access to spells over 5th level, and the DMG's approach to spellpoints is to restrict how many times you can cast an Nth level spell per day when N >= 6, but I find that clunky, so one alternative I sometimes have offered at chargen is for a PC to run off a different SP variant which just charges exponentially growing spell point costs above 6th level (to the point where casting two 9th level spells and one 8th level spell leaves a 20th level caster with, like, 2 spell points IIRC).

If you want to convert warlock Mystic Arcana, my favorite fix to offer is: Mystica Arcana are just invocations now which say "you know spell XYZ." At every level where you would gain a Mystic Arcana, instead gain one extra invocation and a corresponding long-rest-only spell slot (or spell points, if using the DMG spell points option--I've never combined this with my own exponentially-increasing-costs spell points). If you spend them on learning and casting that spell, it works exactly like vanilla Mystic Arcana, but now you have other choices such as picking no 7th level spell invocation and just upcasting Conjure Fey, getting two 9th level spells (True Polymorph and Foresight?) as invocations even though you can only cast one per day, or just spending all of the invocations and spellpoints on lower level stuff like Agonizing Repelling Spear of Hadar's Lethargy + Armor of Agathys VIII, if you want to feel really gishy.

[cutlery]

This ensuing discussion is exactly why I wish they had simply added a short-rest "eldritch points" table for warlocks to pair with spellpoints for other casters.

Instead, there is a variant rule that, if used, makes playing a warlock even more painful than it usually is, as far as casting goes.

[MaxWilson]

This ensuing discussion is exactly why I wish they had simply added a short-rest "eldritch points" table for warlocks to pair with spellpoints for other casters.

Instead, there is a variant rule that, if used, makes playing a warlock even more painful than it usually is, as far as casting goes.

Which rule are you referring to, and how does it make it more painful?

If you just do the simplest thing and don't convert Mystic Arcana to spell points at all (leaving them on their 1/long rest schedule), do you find that painful?

[cutlery]

Which rule are you referring to, and how does it make it more painful?


Playing a base warlock alongside spell point sorcerers/wizards/etc would not be fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you want to convert warlock Mystic Arcana, my favorite fix to offer is: Mystica Arcana are just invocations now which say "you know spell XYZ." At every level where you would gain a Mystic Arcana, instead gain one extra invocation and a corresponding long-rest-only spell slot (or spell points, if using the DMG spell points option--I've never combined this with my own exponentially-increasing-costs spell points). If you spend them on learning and casting that spell, it works exactly like vanilla Mystic Arcana, but now you have other choices such as picking no 7th level spell invocation and just upcasting Conjure Fey, getting two 9th level spells (True Polymorph and Foresight?) as invocations even though you can only cast one per day, or just spending all of the invocations and spellpoints on lower level stuff like Agonizing Repelling Spear of Hadar's Lethargy + Armor of Agathys VIII, if you want to feel really gishy. Hmmm, I think that I like the "leave Mystic Arcana Alone" idea better, as it's less complicated. But I would like the option to choose to drop one of the lower ones and add a newer one at levels 18, 19, and 20 as is done with spels on the way up. Mabye still cap the 9th level one at 2.

[MaxWilson]

(A) Hmmm, I think that I like the "leave Mystic Arcana Alone" idea better, as it's less complicated. (B) But I would like the option to choose to drop one of the lower ones and add a newer one at levels 18, 19, and 20 as is done with spels on the way up. Mabye still cap the 9th level one at 2.

(A) Yeah, leaving Mystica Arcana alone is less complicated. Only do that if you feel dissatisfied with Mystica Arcana in the first place (inability to upcast, only one choice per level, etc.). I mentioned it only because you were asking specifically about them, but adjusting Mystic Arcana is really orthogonal to the spell points vs. slots issue except that they both fix unsatisfying things about warlocks.

(B) I didn't get this part, especially the "as is done with spells on the way up". I need a rephrase to understand it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But they specifically do not recharge as a known spell on a short rest.

A niggling detail, but it's one of the things that makes the invocations a bit different from regular Warlock spells.

The intent is "once pre long rest for invocation spells of this kind" and 'Recharge on a short rest all other spells known"

But I do see your point in "OK, this now becomes "one more spell known" as the invocation benefit.

Pretty sure that doesn't break anything.

To be clear, I still don't see the problem here. Whether you were spending slots or points the invocation only lets you cast the spell once per long rest. There was already the interaction where you spent a slot to polymorph, short rested and couldn't cast it again. Switching warlock to spell points doesn't change the interaction at all.

I probably shouldn't have said they work like an extra spell known, it didn't communicate my point well.

[RSP]

Playing a base warlock alongside spell point sorcerers/wizards/etc would not be fun.

I feel this way about playing anything alongside full casters with SPs (excepting the Sorc).

I’d much rather play a base Warlock alongside a SP full caster than a Sorc alongside a Wizard using SPs.

Seriously, the SP variant just gives every caster one of the Sorc’s signature abilities. The variant rule really should have covered something to replace the Sorc’s loss of ability and unique feel.

[MaxWilson]

I feel this way about playing anything alongside full casters with SPs (excepting the Sorc).

I’d much rather play a base Warlock alongside a SP full caster than a Sorc alongside a Wizard using SPs.

Seriously, the SP variant just gives every caster one of the Sorc’s signature abilities. The variant rule really should have covered something to replace the Sorc’s loss of ability and unique feel.

I've no real objection to giving sorcerers back quasi-Domain spells. Have done it before (dragon sorcs got a list of spells themed around fear/domination/communication for empire-building; wild sorcs got a completely random list of spells rolled individually on the PHB sorc tables, resulting in odd spells like Jumping getting more gameplay than they usually do). Stopped only because WotC backed away from it and it wasn't worth having an extra houserule for without a reason, but if a player felt as dissatisfied as you seem to I'd offer it again.

Also, sorcs benefit too. Spell points are more efficient than flexible casting, and of course sorcerers still have SADness advantages for paladins and sorlocks, while having metamagic and subclass abilities to give them a niche independent of bards. I still see plenty of sorcs, especially Divine Souls--but if a player provided the necessary motivation I'd still give them back their "domain spells" because I actually rather enjoyed them.

[cutlery]

Seriously, the SP variant just gives every caster one of the Sorc’s signature abilities. The variant rule really should have covered something to replace the Sorc’s loss of ability and unique feel.

It would feel a bit lackluster to play a sorcerer in this case, but not as bad as a warlock.

[Vogie]

I've allowed a full-conversion spell point sorcerer at the table for a CoS game - both the converted spell slots and sorc points were intermingled into just 'mana'.

It didn't really hurt anything - yes, that player could go friggin' NOVA, but they'd burn through them so fast it was insane. I think, psychologically, that the large amount of points makes each one seem less valuable.

While that game didn't get high enough for 6+ level spells, I'd abide by the rule in the DMG - You only get one of each. Yes, that means they'd get 1 less 6th and 7th level spell, but the number of 5th level spells they can sling would more than make up for it.

[Asisreo1]

What kind of a spell point system are you imagining that would make these things possible? Why not just give the warlock spell points per the table above (e.g. Level 6 = 10 SP), and they regain any used points when they rest? No sorlock style hoarding, no upcasting beyond 5th level (unless you also revamp Mystic Arcana to run off of invocations and spell points).

If you just implement warlock spellpoints in the obvious, straightforward way the DMG does for everyone else, these problems don't occur. Why make it harder than necessary?
There is a problem with this. That being that you must intentionally restrain the warlock's spellcasting from going beyond 5th-level.

A straight conversion gives an 11th-level warlock access to 6th level spells. Easy to account for? Probably.

But it does provide a second problem: a small dip in warlock gives a spellcaster the ability to cast their higher level spells on short rests. The way you'd prevent that is by making a multiclassing warlock's spell points a completely separate pool of points. The problem with that would be now you have 3 point-based resources that a player must keep track of. 1 for long rests and 2 for both long and short rests.

These are alot of numbers and even if a group thinks they can handle it, it does go against the simplistic design of 5e. Even the other variants seem to take into account the simple nature of 5e's design and if they make something more complex, there's almost a big glowing sign in red saying "Watch Out: Complexity."

Even the base spell point variant considers their greater complexity as a cost in design.

[MaxWilson]

There is a problem with this. That being that you must intentionally restrain the warlock's spellcasting from going beyond 5th-level.

Well, yeah. That's how warlocks work already. Same as anybody else: you can't cast spells at levels you wouldn't normally have slots for. A 3rd level wizard may have 14 spell points, but that doesn't mean he can cast Burning Hands IX for 13 spell points. He can only cast 2nd level spells.

Warlocks are the same way, they just never progress beyond 5th level spell slots, and therefore spell points naturally should work the same way.


A straight conversion gives an 11th-level warlock access to 6th level spells. Easy to account for? Probably.

Huh? A straight conversion of warlock (as discussed previously on this thread) gives him 21 spell points per short rest (usable on spells up to 5th level), plus one 6th level Mystic Arcanum.

What kind of system are you imagining instead?


But it does provide a second problem: a small dip in warlock gives a spellcaster the ability to cast their higher level spells on short rests. The way you'd prevent that is by making a multiclassing warlock's spell points a completely separate pool of points. The problem with that would be now you have 3 point-based resources that a player must keep track of. 1 for long rests and 2 for both long and short rests.

I go with completely separate pool of points because it's simplest. "You've got 38 spell points plus 4 short rest spell points for first-level spells only." It's honestly not that complicated because it's literally the same as PHB spell slots converted to spell points.


These are alot of numbers and even if a group thinks they can handle it, it does go against the simplistic design of 5e.

Turning 4/3/3/3/2 + 2 per short rest into 44 + 4 per short rest decreases complexity. It's simpler than the PHB way.


Even the base spell point variant considers their greater complexity as a cost in design.

I never understood why they said this. In practice it's much simpler, and even new players learn it easily. "I cast Fireball." "That'll be five spell points please." Done.

[cutlery]

There is a problem with this. That being that you must intentionally restrain the warlock's spellcasting from going beyond 5th-level.


Not really.

Pact magic only works up to 5th level. The restraint is built in to the pact magic feature - offer them only points for pact magic.

Give warlocks short rest "eldritch points" that work like spell points but cannot be used to create slots of a higher level than the warlock would have access to via the pact magic feature, and offer them as many points as they would need to cast their pact magic slots (e.g. 14 at level 9; 21 at level 11).

As a warlock can never cast a 6th level spell or upcast to a 6th level slot with pact magic, they can't with eldritch points. Mystic Arcana then work as normal.

[Vogie]

Pact magic only works up to 5th level. The restraint is built in to the pact magic feature - offer them only points for pact magic.

It's also built into the Spell Point variant in the DMG:

Spells of 6th level and higher are particularly taxing to cast. You can use spell points to create one slot of each level of 6th or higher. You can't create another slot of the same level until you finish a long rest.

[Asisreo1]

Not really.

Pact magic only works up to 5th level. The restraint is built in to the pact magic feature - offer them only points for pact magic.
Pact Magic does not innately restrict warlocks from casting 6th+ level spells using their spell slots. The only thing preventing them from doing so is their spell slot table in their level up chart having a maximum of 5th-level slots.

However, spell points only convert 5th-level spells to 7 spell points each, then they give the limit to spells castable with a clause about once per long rest and the side of the spell point table.

Theoretically, with no further DM setup, the warlock could cast 2 6th-level spells. One from their arcana and one from upcasting with their points.

[Asisreo1]

Well, yeah. That's how warlocks work already. Same as anybody else: you can't cast spells at levels you wouldn't normally have slots for. A 3rd level wizard may have 14 spell points, but that doesn't mean he can cast Burning Hands IX for 13 spell points. He can only cast 2nd level spells.

Warlocks are the same way, they just never progress beyond 5th level spell slots, and therefore spell points naturally should work the same way.



Huh? A straight conversion of warlock (as discussed previously on this thread) gives him 21 spell points per short rest (usable on spells up to 5th level), plus one 6th level Mystic Arcanum.

What kind of system are you imagining instead?

Upcasting 6th-level spells. Since upcasted 6th-level spells are, for all intents and purposes, no different from innately 6th-level spells.



I go with completely separate pool of points because it's simplest. "You've got 38 spell points plus 4 short rest spell points for first-level spells only." It's honestly not that complicated because it's literally the same as PHB spell slots converted to spell points.



Turning 4/3/3/3/2 + 2 per short rest into 44 + 4 per short rest decreases complexity. It's simpler than the PHB way.

Working with one big number tends to be alot harder to deal with than a group of smaller numbers when counting down. I'll use your own example as a means to show you where the complexity arises.



I never understood why they said this. In practice it's much simpler, and even new players learn it easily. "I cast Fireball." "That'll be five spell points please." Done.
It's subtle, but the game has already been slowed. The player needs the DM to tell them how many spell points they need to expend unless the player themselves have the reference or remembers it outright.

The player then needs to subtract 5 from 44. Not terribly difficult math but it's more math than is normally in the game. And its more math for the player to get wrong.

[MaxWilson]

Pact Magic does not innately restrict warlocks from casting 6th+ level spells using their spell slots. (A) The only thing preventing them from doing so is their spell slot table in their level up chart having a maximum of 5th-level slots.

However, spell points only convert 5th-level spells to 7 spell points each, then they give the limit to spells castable with a clause about once per long rest and the side of the spell point table.

(B) Theoretically, with no further DM setup, the warlock could cast 2 6th-level spells. One from their arcana and one from upcasting with their points.


Upcasting 6th-level spells. Since upcasted 6th-level spells are, for all intents and purposes, no different from innately 6th-level spells.

(C) Working with one big number tends to be alot harder to deal with than a group of smaller numbers when counting down. I'll use your own example as a means to show you where the complexity arises.

It's subtle, but the game has already been slowed. (D) The player needs the DM to tell them how many spell points they need to expend unless the player themselves have the reference or remembers it outright.

The player then needs to subtract 5 from 44. (E) Not terribly difficult math but it's more math than is normally in the game. And its more math for the player to get wrong.

(B) I see two reasons why they couldn't do this. (1) Vanilla Mystic Arcana doesn't make you "know" the spell, so you have no feature that allows you to convert spell points to that spell, period. (2) I'm AFB but the DMG probably has a clause saying that you can only spend spell points on spells of a level that you could cast without the spell point rule, and if it doesn't have that clause it should. 3rd level wizards should not be upcasting Magic Missile IX just because it costs 13 out of their 14 spell points.

(C) FWIW I count up instead of down, for both HP and spell points, but I don't know how my players count. Either way players will just count however is easiest for them.

(D) I suppose that's possible. Honestly I don't normally even see that much dialogue--normally the player would just say "I cast Fireball" and I let them mark off their own spell points, but for a newbie I help them learn the costs--but you're not wrong that the complexity didn't go away, it just moved elsewhere. Good point. Maybe that's why the DMG says it is "more complex."

On the other hand, I will assert that learning that Fireball costs 5 spell points isn't that different from learning that Fireball costs a 3rd level spell slot. Either way it's just something you have to write on your character sheet or know, so I think spell points are still simpler overall--but I can see why you might not agree.

(E) Again, I count up not down**, but this math is already in the game for HP.

** Partly for narrative reasons. I like to describe to the players all the damage that's been inflicted, instead of all the HP that monsters have remaining. An uberzombie that just took 100 HP of axe to the face and is still trying to eat your guts out is more impressive/fun than an uberzombie that only has 7 HP left, even if they're the same monster! I do give ways after combat for players to learn monster stats though, through autopsies (Medicine or Arcana depending), research, or divinations.

[cutlery]

Pact Magic does not innately restrict warlocks from casting 6th+ level spells using their spell slots. The only thing preventing them from doing so is their spell slot table in their level up chart having a maximum of 5th-level slots.


Which is why one sentence can fix this - you can't create slots greate than slots you can cast with the pact magic feature.

But, if you find that confusing, add in the following: You cannot ever create slots greater than 5th level with eldritch points.

It simply isn't that hard to restrict the special spell points we'd give warlocks here.

And, as I have said already:

This is why I wish they'd just done it in the DMG. People seem incapable of figuring out how it would work while keeping both the short rest recovery and already existing restrictions on casting 6th-9th level spells warlocks already have.

Here's a hint, though: Mystic Arcanums are not part of pact magic. Pact magic only ever goes as high as 5th level. MA are their own, separate feature and mechanic.





It's subtle, but the game has already been slowed. The player needs the DM to tell them how many spell points they need to expend unless the player themselves have the reference or remembers it outright.



This isn't much more intellectual labor that remembering that fireball is a level 3 spell and subtracting one from the number of level 3 slots - also, from remembering that you can use 4th level slots on fireball but not 2nd level slots on it.

If the player can't manage this in the time when other players are acting, they should perhaps not be playing a caster.

[KorvinStarmast]

Here's a hint, though: Mystic Arcanums are not part of pact magic. Pact magic only ever goes as high as 5th level. MA are their own, separate feature and mechanic.
The way you explained that gave me a thought: they are more like an invocation than like pact magic in that they are "once per long rest" when it comes to spells (other than the ones that become at will)

[MaxWilson]

The way you explained that gave me a thought: they are more like an invocation than like pact magic in that they are "once per long rest" when it comes to spells (other than the ones that become at will)

Yes, that's why I find it logical to convert Mystic Arcana into invocations + spell slots/points. They're halfway there already.

[cutlery]

Yes, that's why I find it logical to convert Mystic Arcana into invocations + spell slots/points. They're halfway there already.

And tossing a couple of similarly level-gated melee-ish invocations as options would be easy if they did that, too; though that contributes to choice bloat for the class.

[RSP]

Also, sorcs benefit too. Spell points are more efficient than flexible casting, and of course sorcerers still have SADness advantages for paladins and sorlocks, while having metamagic and subclass abilities to give them a niche independent of bards. I still see plenty of sorcs, especially Divine Souls--but if a player provided the necessary motivation I'd still give them back their "domain spells" because I actually rather enjoyed them.

Sorc get a slightly more efficient version of an ability they already have; all other casters get that same ability for free. That doesn’t help the Sorcerers in how they feel compared to any other class.

For me, personally, I like that Warlocks have Pact Magic slots and invocations instead of the Spellcasting ability; there should be different mechanical options in the game.

I like the idea of leaning into SPs for Sorcerers for that same reason: it gives them more of an identity than other casters. It’s one they already have due to FC, but the design is a bit off on how much pressure the chassis of the class puts on Sorc Points as the class’s only resource; hence I’m for making it more efficient.

Giving that to other classes just ruins the Sorc, in my opinion. It’s like if you said “I’m going to give Bladesingers’ Bladesong to every full caster as a houserule, but I’ll increase the AC benefit by +1 for everybody using it, so that BS get something out of this as well.” Yeah, that rule slightly benefits the BS, but every other caster is now way better. You’ll probably see less BS, if any, at your tables by arguing the merits of Song of Defense. The feel of the subclass just wont be unique any more.

(Side note: I’ve never really cared about the lack of spells known, so domain spells don’t really do it for me. I care more about the feel of the class and the Sorc’s FC gives it more uniqueness, than worry over its limited spells known. That might be just me though.)

I’m also not sure I agree with the argument that the Sorcerer has an advantage over other classes in that its easier to stop being a Sorcerer (that is, multiclassing out of it). It’s basically saying “you know you only want Metamagic, so get it and get out ASAP.”

[Asisreo1]

Which is why one sentence can fix this - you can't create slots greate than slots you can cast with the pact magic feature.

But, if you find that confusing, add in the following: You cannot ever create slots greater than 5th level with eldritch points.

It simply isn't that hard to restrict the special spell points we'd give warlocks here.

And, as I have said already:

This is why I wish they'd just done it in the DMG. People seem incapable of figuring out how it would work while keeping both the short rest recovery and already existing restrictions on casting 6th-9th level spells warlocks already have.

Here's a hint, though: Mystic Arcanums are not part of pact magic. Pact magic only ever goes as high as 5th level. MA are their own, separate feature and mechanic.
At this point, you've homebrewed a whole separate mechanic just for a single class to work alongside a variant feature. Besides, it's probably as it is for balance or flavor. Just because nobody at a specific table doesn't break anything doesn't mean someone determined for minmaxing cannot. You have to have extremely particular language when adjusting a class that doesn't play by everyone else's rules like the Warlock. Saying this foesn't break anything doesn't make it any less RAW either.


This isn't much more intellectual labor that remembering that fireball is a level 3 spell and subtracting one from the number of level 3 slots - also, from remembering that you can use 4th level slots on fireball but not 2nd level slots on it.

If the player can't manage this in the time when other players are acting, they should perhaps not be playing a caster.
In the official character sheet, and through all manners of tracking spell slots, nobody I know subtracts the number of slots expended from the maximum slots to find remaining slots. It's actually the opposite. Players, myself included, count up from the number of slots expended. Use one fireball, that's a tally on the 3rd-level slot on the character sheet. On a long rest, just erase the tallies.

These aren't just old nerds playing this game. Some of the children I play with really struggle with mathematics like subtraction going from something like 15 to 6. I'm often rechecking their math on HP. Even some adults find the larger numbers more tedious while not exactly complex.

[cutlery]

At this point, you've homebrewed a whole separate mechanic just for a single class to work alongside a variant feature. Besides, it's probably as it is for balance or flavor.


A table has three casters; a 9th level fiend tome warlock, a 9th level evocation wizard, and a 9th level draconic sorcerer. The table has a range of fights in a wide space; and we'll assume the sorcerer hasn't replaced fireball and the wizard was asleep at level up and is still using it.

First combat of the day: wizard, warlock, and sorcerer each let fly two 5th-level fireballs. Everything explodes. Both sorcerer and wizard are still sitting at 43 points, so feel no need to take a rest. On goes the party. The warlock is down to eldritch blasting for the day, no utility spells. They may be able to levitate at will.

The sorcerer and wizard are capable of tossing out six more 5th-level fireballs each before a rest. Six. Unless, of course, we are to pretend there will be two or three short rests before the adventuring day is over. That isn't likely, and it would take three for the warlock to keep pace.

Spell points not only let other casters move their slots around as a sorcerer with font of magic can do, but they *also* let them use all of their spell slots to throw 5th level spells, all the time, making a warlock that wants to do that redundant. Spell points are far more efficient than converting slots for the sorcerer, too - so they gain plenty with them.

Converting casters to spell points without changing anything about the warlock would be a problem. Converting only the sorcerer with the rules as written in the DMG would be a problem; allowing only only full caster class to use spell points would be badly balanced.


In the official character sheet, and through all manners of tracking spell slots, nobody I know subtracts the number of slots expended from the maximum slots to find remaining slots. It's actually the opposite. Players, myself included, count up from the number of slots expended. Use one fireball, that's a tally on the 3rd-level slot on the character sheet. On a long rest, just erase the tallies.

These aren't just old nerds playing this game. Some of the children I play with really struggle with mathematics like subtraction going from something like 15 to 6. I'm often rechecking their math on HP. Even some adults find the larger numbers more tedious while not exactly complex.

Tracking spell points is no more difficult than tracking hit points.

[Asisreo1]

A table has three casters; a 9th level fiend tome warlock, a 9th level evocation wizard, and a 9th level draconic sorcerer. The table has a range of fights in a wide space; and we'll assume the sorcerer hasn't replaced fireball and the wizard was asleep at level up and is still using it.

First combat of the day: wizard, warlock, and sorcerer each let fly two 5th-level fireballs. Everything explodes. Both sorcerer and wizard are still sitting at 43 points, so feel no need to take a rest. On goes the party. The warlock is down to eldritch blasting for the day, no utility spells. They may be able to levitate at will.

That's mismanagement on the warlock's, and the whole party's, part.

If the party knew better, they'd understand to take a short rest, especially since the wizard can recover spell slots too.

It's partially the warlock's fault as well. Apparently, the party was either not facing a threat that would constitute the warlock expending all their spell slots. If they were facing such a threat, they'd have lost significant HP and everyone would like to have some version of rest regardless.

[cutlery]

If the party knew better, they'd understand to take a short rest, especially since the wizard can recover spell slots too.


Why should they? The DM has arranged things (by allowing a variant rule that particularly pumps up full casters) so that the wizard and sorcerer are fine. Without some added juice to short rest resource classes; most particularly warlocks but also battlemasters - why stop?

Spell points make spell slots go farther. Spell points without a fix to warlock pact magic makes the shortcomings of that system even more stark. The variant rule as written in the DMG makes this worse, not better.




It's partially the warlock's fault as well. Apparently, the party was either not facing a threat that would constitute the warlock expending all their spell slots. If they were facing such a threat, they'd have lost significant HP and everyone would like to have some version of rest regardless.

So, they should just eldritch blast all the time anyway? In a spell point game?


So, thus far, your main points have been: (1) subtracting spell points from a spell point total is too hard, and (2) warlocks simply shouldn't be casting spells as often as sorcerers and wizards. Is that correct?

[Asisreo1]

Why should they? The DM has arranged things (by allowing a variant rule that particularly pumps up full casters) so that the wizard and sorcerer are fine. Without some added juice to short rest resource classes; most particularly warlocks but also battlemasters - why stop?

Spell points make spell slots go farther. Spell points without a fix to warlock pact magic makes the shortcomings of that system even more stark. The variant rule as written in the DMG makes this worse, not better.

The party, with a sensible understanding of tactics, will stop, because a sensible party sees that they have a much higher survival chance if they do. It doesn't matter how many fireballs the wizard and sorcerer can do over the course of an adventuring day, they can only produce 2 per turn combined.

It's the same reason a group would stop to wait for the wizard to cast their ritual, it's only foolish not to take advantage of it.

Had Exhaustion not been a thing, would you think it wise of a party to forgo long rests if 2 of their party members were at full health while one had only 1 hp left? I determine that such actions would be nonsense in terms of efficiency and tactics and this lack of cooperation falls mostly on the team that cannot see past their individual needs in a group game.



So, they should just eldritch blast all the time anyway? In a spell point game?


So, thus far, your main points have been: (1) subtracting spell points from a spell point total is too hard, and (2) warlocks simply shouldn't be casting spells as often as sorcerers and wizards. Is that correct?
Warlocks shouldn't be casting leveled spells as often during combat. Warlocks have other features which they can take advantage of during combat. The warlock usually will use eldritch blast if they're wanting for damage but they can also supply other at-will or SR dependent effects like invocations, cantrips of any class, familiars, pact weapons.

A warlock can and usually will eldritch blast a few times but they can be much more than that when they are allowed to be.

[cutlery]

Warlocks shouldn't be casting leveled spells as often during combat.

Based on what?

Without spell points, this isn't even remotely how the classes are balanced; with a caveat for font of magic recharge.


5 minute adventuring day, one encounter, 9th level.

Wizards (and everyone other than warlocks and sorcerors) get 1 5th level spell.

Sorcerers get 1 5th level spell, and the rather expensive option to convert 7 sorcery points into one more. as a bonus action.

Warlocks get 2 5th level spells.

With no short rests, wizards at 9th aren't ever casting more than that; with short rests warlocks get two more.


Casting more leveled spells in combat is the main thing warlocks are meant to excel at. Spell points take that and give it to every other caster; while leaving warlocks far behind.

Yes, they have eldritch blast. And fighters have attack.

Contrast with as many as 8 hold monsters or walls of force per long rest with spell points.


Warlocks cast just as many 6th-9th level spells per long rest as any other caster between 11th and 17th level, and 11th-20th level if spell points are being used.

They are casters.

[Asisreo1]

Based on what?

Without spell points, this isn't even remotely how the classes are balanced; with a caveat for font of magic recharge.


5 minute adventuring day, one encounter, 9th level.

Wizards (and everyone other than warlocks and sorcerors) get 1 5th level spell.

Sorcerers get 1 5th level spell, and the rather expensive option to convert 7 sorcery points into one more. as a bonus action.

Warlocks get 2 5th level spells.

With no short rests, wizards at 9th aren't ever casting more than that; with short rests warlocks get two more.


Casting more leveled spells in combat is the main thing warlocks are meant to excel at. Spell points take that and give it to every other caster; while leaving warlocks far behind.

Warlocks have invocations, pact boons, light armor proficiency, simple weapon proficiencies, and the ability to cast spells out of combat in a way that won't immediately effect their spellcasting within combat.



Yes, they have eldritch blast. And fighters have attack.

Hardly comparable. A fighter does less ranged damage than a warlock's EB and would need to be in melee to outpace it.

The only change is when feats are introduced.

But thay's ignoring the fact that fighter and warlock are essentially on two separate islands in terms of playstyle.




Warlocks cast just as many 6th-9th level spells per long rest as any other caster between 11th and 17th level, and 11th-20th level if spell points are being used.

They are casters.
Mystic Arcanum should not be compared to a spellcaster's upper level spells. Mystic Arcana cannot be upcast, they cannot be swapped, and they cannot use up spell slots.

[cutlery]

Hardly comparable. A fighter does less ranged damage than a warlock's EB and would need to be in melee to outpace it.


If you're talking a warlock with one invocation and a fighter with no feats; sure. But fighters get bonus ASIs, and CBE+Sharpshooter can quite handily outdamage eldritch blast; asymptotically keeping pace with it using a heavy crossbow as AC climbs above 20.

A longbow with only sharpshooter outpaces EB+AB until AC climbs particularly high; and a fighter remains more capable in melee.

So, very comparable as I have just compared them.

Yes, feats are required. Are you arguing that feats are uncommon, or that fighters don't have more of them to play with, or that spell sniper can do what sharpshooter can do?






Mystic Arcanum should not be compared to a spellcaster's upper level spells. Mystic Arcana cannot be upcast, they cannot be swapped, and they cannot use up spell slots.


Sorry, but this is absurd.

In the context of spell points (thus, this thread), a full caster has a maximum of one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th slot per long rest. So MA are perfectly comparable - the largest negative for the warlock is restricted and permanent selection.

Using your logic here would mean that the sorcerer isn't comparable to the wizard, due to limits on their selection.

A better argument would be that the warlock can be comparable to the fighter at ranged combat, even with feats in the equation, and the wizard with 6th+ level spells, and that's something - they are ultimately behind in both; but going with spell points changes that entirely. You haven't made this argument, though, instead you are arguing that they are comparable to neither.

For what it is worth, allowing spell points makes the mostly short rest fighter fall dramatically behind the sorcerers and wizards, too.


My argument is this:

Going to spell points radically improves both the flexibility and staying power of both the sorcerer and wizard (and every other full caster). This hits the warlock hard; and enabling spell points without offering warlock something is a bad choice. WotC made a mistake not offering a companion variant rule for warlocks.

[MaxWilson]

My argument is this:

Going to spell points radically improves both the flexibility and staying power of both the sorcerer and wizard (and every other full caster). This hits the warlock hard; and enabling spell points without offering warlock something is a bad choice. WotC made a mistake not offering a companion variant rule for warlocks.

Just to be clear, by "offering spellpoints without offering warlock something" do you mean (A) "offering spell points to everybody but the warlock" or (B) "offering spell points to everybody including the warlock but not offering the warlock something additional on top of that"?

The DMG outlines rules that can be used for (A), but (B) is also straightforward to derive from DMG rules.

[cutlery]

Just to be clear, by "offering spellpoints without offering warlock something" do you mean (A) "offering spell points to everybody but the warlock" or (B) "offering spell points to everybody including the warlock but not offering the warlock something additional on top of that"?

The DMG outlines rules that can be used for (A), but (B) is also straightforward to derive from DMG rules.

I mean A.

I agree, something fair that fits within B seems simple to derive, but most of the arguments happening in this thread are assuming A, because A is closer to RAW (even if for a variant rule).

[MaxWilson]

I mean A.

I agree, something fair that fits within B seems simple to derive, but most of the arguments happening in this thread are assuming A, because A is closer to RAW (even if for a variant rule).

Fair enough.

(A) seems like a travesty of justice to me. I'd be fine with someone e.g. offering DMG spell points specifically only to sorcerers (the DMG talks about adding it to a specific class), but if you're going to add it to Bards, Clerics, Druids, Eldritch Knights, Paladins, Rangers, Arcane Tricksters, Sorcerers, and Wizards, it seems unfair to single out Warlocks as the only spellcasters who don't get it. It feels as unfair as giving everybody except Wizards the ability to swap out one spell known/prepared per long rest for any other spell on your class's list of the same level.

[Asisreo1]

If you're talking a warlock with one invocation and a fighter with no feats; sure. But fighters get bonus ASIs, and CBE+Sharpshooter can quite handily outdamage eldritch blast; asymptotically keeping pace with it using a heavy crossbow as AC climbs above 20.

A longbow with only sharpshooter outpaces EB+AB until AC climbs particularly high; and a fighter remains more capable in melee.

So, very comparable as I have just compared them.

Yes, feats are required. Are you arguing that feats are uncommon, or that fighters don't have more of them to play with, or that spell sniper can do what sharpshooter can do?

Feats are uncommon. Feats usually aren't introduced into my games until I know the players can handle the extra options and bookkeeping. Alot of my players never want to use feats. They aren't about to go online to find the optimal feat pattern. I'm certain groups with a less intimate understanding of the inner machinations of the system don't use them as well. Which would be the majority of non-adventure league groups I've played in.

Plus, fighters do not have spells or powerful at-will features save for action surge and indomitable much later down the line. Even EK doesn't even come close to a warlock's ability to change the dynamics of a combat. Even the battlemaster struggles to come close.




Sorry, but this is absurd.

In the context of spell points (thus, this thread), a full caster has a maximum of one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th slot per long rest. So MA are perfectly comparable - the largest negative for the warlock is restricted and permanent selection.

Using your logic here would mean that the sorcerer isn't comparable to the wizard, due to limits on their selection.

Sorcerers and Wizards shouldn't be compared. Neither should warlocks and the two aforementioned classes.

Warlock isn't a wizard subclass. You can't just compare a feature to the same leveled feature and call the whole class undertuned.

It's always been non-realistic hypotheticals when trying to argue about class comparisons but it never amounts to anything but whiteroom analysis misconstuctions.

Put up a series of encounters, any number you desire, with a team of any classes you desire and I can promise you that throughout the adventure a Warlock can contribute meaningfully and near equally even with their companions using spell points. I actually, genuinely, want you to do so.



A better argument would be that the warlock can be comparable to the fighter at ranged combat, even with feats in the equation, and the wizard with 6th+ level spells, and that's something - they are ultimately behind in both; but going with spell points changes that entirely. You haven't made this argument, though, instead you are arguing that they are comparable to neither.

For what it is worth, allowing spell points makes the mostly short rest fighter fall dramatically behind the sorcerers and wizards, too.

Though I understand my argument isn't something you may desire to take part in, I would rather you remained focused on the argument in which I present. I'm not interested in what someone else imagines to be a better stance as my stance doesn't merely change because someone would prefer to agree with it. I make my statements because I believe them to be true and I wish for others to meaningfully engage with them.

You are engaging with my stances but I would appreciate the argument not drift into a theoretical, imaginary me that would engage in a way that would make you more comfortable.

Yes, I am arguing that warlock's Mystic Arcanum is incomparable to higher level slots and spell points.



My argument is this:

Going to spell points radically improves both the flexibility and staying power of both the sorcerer and wizard (and every other full caster). This hits the warlock hard; and enabling spell points without offering warlock something is a bad choice. WotC made a mistake not offering a companion variant rule for warlocks.
This does increase the flexibility of other casters, including even the third casters. This does not have an effect on warlocks. Neither absolutely nor relatively.

Warlocks were never meant to sling leveled spells in an encounter in such a way as a wizard or sorcerer. Yes, they have roughly the same number of highest tier spell slots until level 7 and 9 where they pull ahead by 1, but there's no doubt that the number of leveled spells (including the lower leveled ones) are much less numerous within a fight. This is why nearly every single combat oriented leveled spell in a warlock's list has a duration that easily extends beyond a typical combat.

The playstyle of a warlock is, and almost always will be, to cast a duration spell or two in combat while relying on their superior at-will damage.

This is also compensated by their incredible ability to use their OOC spells almost as frivolously as a wizard's rituals. An invisibility that comes back in an hour is extremely valuable in infiltration campaigns, charm person in intrigue campaigns, fly in practically every campaign ever.

And the warlock is able to just repeatedly use them. A wizard with spell points get 5 fireballs and that's it. Only rituals and cantrips from that point forward. If the party has the sense to, they can let the warlock cast their OOC spells to save their in-combat spells, giving the warlock an extremely useful niche even after 10 fireballs have flown during the rougher parts of the adventure (which would probably require the short rests anyways).

[cutlery]

Feats are uncommon.



My experiences don’t support that assertion, so I’ll need some outside evidence.





Sorcerers and Wizards shouldn't be compared. Neither should warlocks and the two aforementioned classes.



If you think that, there is nothing else to discuss re: how spell points impact different classes differently.

Classes don’t exist in a vacuum, and comparing them to each other is entirely reasonable. If won’t or think it is impossible, why interject in a discussion about how a variant rule impacts classes differently?

[Asisreo1]

My experiences don’t support that assertion, so I’ll need some outside evidence.

There's no evidence to provide about how many feats a playerbase that doesn't frequent forums play with. For the record, though, of all the fighters in D&D beyond, 16% of them take sharpshooter. Take that info as you will but I wouldn't call it conclusive.




If you think that, there is nothing else to discuss re: how spell points impact different classes differently.

Classes don’t exist in a vacuum, and comparing them to each other is entirely reasonable. If won’t or think it is impossible, why interject in a discussion about how a variant rule impacts classes differently?
Classes do not exist in a vaccuum. However, you must be extremely careful on how you compare them. You can easily see how misleading saying something like "Land Druid not only gets Arcane Recovery, but they also have a large list of preparable spells, therefore making them more versatile than a wizard.

It's true. A 1st-level wizard prepares the same number of spells but can only swap from a selection of 6. A druid can swap from a selection of 16 every day. This doesn't include the permanently prepared spells from their Circle. Druids also get healing spells which can be very important in impromptu situations. They also get wildshape which is basically an extra sack of HP. They also get d8 HD and medium armor proficiency.

But no one's calling the wizard's spellcasting weak and obsolete because this specific claim doesn't give the whole picture of either classes nor their spellcasting. Versatility runs deeper than spells known and spell preparation lists. A wizard is not instantly redundant when a land druid is in the party despite certain mechanical overlap with some leeway towards a druid.

The same caution is advised when comparing warlock and wizard. Warlock is a spellcaster that can cast powerful magic repeatedly over a day, needing only a couple of hours out of an adventure to cast spells at an impressive capacity. The whole group really doesn't have to stick their neck out unless the adventure is running at an absolute breakneck pace. The warlock doesn't need their companions to rest themselves. While they're searching a room, rest. While they're solving a puzzle, rest. While someone's scouting ahead, rest.

The whole group doesn't have to be literally sitting down with the warlock the entire time he rest. Heck, when the PC's are talking to an NPC, a warlock can take the hour to rest and talk with them so long as they meditate when they need to.

[MaxWilson]

There's no evidence to provide about how many feats a playerbase that doesn't frequent forums play with. For the record, though, of all the fighters in D&D beyond, 16% of them take sharpshooter. Take that info as you will but I wouldn't call it conclusive.

We also know that as of Feb 2019, approximately 58% of Tier 3+ PCs on D&D Beyond had at least one feat. It seems reasonable to infer that at least 58% of all high-level tables allow feats, although of course it's possible that tables with feats are larger or smaller than the average table. It's also possible that high-level tables are more or less likely than lower-level tables to allow feats, and it's possible that some PCs are allowed to take feats but would rather take ASIs.

https://www.enworld.org/attachments/screenshot-2019-02-21-at-18-49-17-png.112324/

Source: https://www.enworld.org/threads/here-are-the-most-popular-d-d-feats-war-caster-leads-the-pack.666137/