Is Spell Points variant system Overpowered?

[Destro2119]

So recently I was doing some research on this topic when I realized that spell points are vastly OP compared to vancian.

For example: Suppose a vancian caster gets 5/5/5/4/3 spells per day. That's (5*1)+(5*3)+(5*5)+(4*7)+(3*9)=5+15+25+28+27=100 spell points.

They could, for example, spend those points to cast 11 5th level spells, or 14 4th level spells, or 20 3rd level spells, or 33 2nd level spells, or 100 1st level spells.

Personally, it seems to me that being able to pull off literally 20 of a single spell at a go seems super OP, and so is beaning enemies to death with 100+ magic missiles.

I know the argument against OP-ness people always trot out is that points is only more flexible, but it seems to me that spell points objectively give casters literally hundreds of extra spells they can cast compared to a normal wizards 3-5 spells per day. There is literally no downside to the system.

So therefore spell points are wildly OP.

EDIT: To clarify a point, my point is that most people pretend that the only upside to Spell Points is increased flexibility, but I am arguing that Spell Points 1000% trump normal casting because it gives you dozens upon dozens of extra spells to cast. It is hardly fair that a 10th level vancian caster gets 5 spells per day and the 10th level points caster gets like 50-100 spells.

[Eldonauran]

Did you account for the costs of casting the spells at their full caster level? You arent spending the same amount of spell points to cast a 3rd level fireball (5d6) as you are a 3rd level fireball (10d6). A lot of people forget (overlook) this part of the spell point system. Try taking a lok at the psionic system, which spell points are loosely based around.

[Destro2119]

Did you account for the costs of casting the spells at their full caster level? You arent spending the same amount of spell points to cast a 3rd level fireball (5d6) as you are a 3rd level fireball (10d6). A lot of people forget (overlook) this part of the spell point system.

Otherwise, it is slightly more powerful than normal spellcasting, but not much.

If it is more powerful, then how? Once again, if it is because the wizard gets 20 more spells than the other guy, than it is too OP.

Also, what about utility spells? Does levitate need extra spell points or is that just for blast spells? What about Dimension door?

[Tzardok]

I'm not quite sure where you got this "a normal wizard gets 3-5 spells per day" when the wizard you used to calculate your spell points has 5+5+5+4+3= 22 spells per day. Yes, this wizard can only cast 3 5th-level spells compared to the spell point user's 11. But he still has 19 spells of other grades left and the other wizard doesn't.

[Destro2119]

I'm not quite sure where you got this "a normal wizard gets 3-5 spells per day" when the wizard you used to calculate your spell points has 5+5+5+4+3= 22 spells per day. Yes, this wizard can only cast 3 5th-level spells compared to the spell point user's 11. But he still has 19 spells of other grades left and the other wizard doesn't.

I am using a hyperbolic example. My point still stands that a Spell points is OP because he gets so many more powerful spells a day, as you admitted. I would much rather drop 11 fireballs/cloudkills than only 3.

[Eldonauran]

If it is more powerful, then how? Once again, if it is because the wizard gets 20 more spells than the other guy, than it is too OP.

Also, what about utility spells? Does levitate need extra spell points or is that just for blast spells? What about Dimension door?
Spell points are a variant system and that implies heavy GM/DM interaction. I don't use the system myself (and I don't use psionics either) but I could easily reduce the issue by making the character spend spell points equivalent to the 'spell level' normally tied to the caster level they are trying to replicate.

For example, a 5d6 fireball is the base for a wizard at 5th caster level (3rd level spell). To cast it @ 7d6, they will need to spend the equivalent of a 4th level spell cost.

The variant system makes special note of controlling the costs for spells. Personally, I'd just go through the spells and assign a spell point cost to them individually. But again, I dont use it.

[Destro2119]

Spell points are a variant system and that implies heavy GM/DM interaction. I don't use the system myself (and I don't use psionics either) but I could easily reduce the issue by making the character spend spell points equivalent to the 'spell level' normally tied to the caster level they are trying to replicate.

For example, a 5d6 fireball is the base for a wizard at 5th caster level (3rd level spell). To cast it @ 7d6, they will need to spend the equivalent of a 4th level spell cost.

The variant system makes special note of controlling the costs for spells. Personally, I'd just go through the spells and assign a spell point cost to them individually. But again, I dont use it.

So is it OP, as I have stated?

If not, someone point me to some math that says it is not OP compared to vancian.

[PhantasyPen]

So is it OP, as I have stated?

It's not, but you've clearly convinced yourself that it is anyways.

[Xervous]

As written the spell point variant makes wizards into arcane casting psions who can remake their spells know list daily and have vastly larger spells known list because INT boosts prepared spell qty on top of the spell point pool.

It’s been almost 10 years since I last ran the math comparing spell points to spell slots but I recall the slots being ‘worth’ more than the points if you treated them as points at their face value. So in theory a hive mind player could stretch the slotted wizard further but that’s just not going to be the case.

Spell points does allow for dumber play, like tossing 9s after 9s at trivial encounters you probably could have solved with 5s. So careless players can be even more inefficient as spell point users.

You’ll see the forum talk about schrodinger wizards that have just the right spells prepared in just the right quantities to punch well above their weight class. Spell point wizards start the day with incomprehensible permutations of spell casts ahead of them. So long as there are points remaining and the wizard prepared one relevant spell they will have the square peg for the square hole. Encounters shift from “do I use X or Y suboptimal spells here, or use my universally applicable spell W?” to “what’s the cheapest option I’ve got prepared today?” Situational spells will never be used when a universal one or niche counter is prepared. By only needing one preparation slot for unlimited* castings the wizard gets even more spells prepared, so that means more niche counters. The sole limiting factor on the wizard’s dominance of a scene is the spell point pool and how they budget it.

Ironically it nerfs blasting which didn’t deserve it.

OP doesn’t properly describe it. It’s imbalanced because it is extremely likely to make the game more lopsided and have the spotlight stolen by do-everything casters being able to decide on a whim to own the scene. Even if the fighter can kill more things than the wizard could zap, the wizard being able to choose zap or no zap leaves the fighter feeling like they’re being given permission to participate whenever the wizard doesn’t zap.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A while back I played a Battle Sorcerer in a low-op game with spell points. I took Improved Familiar for a Blink Dog and primarily used Benign Transposition, Wraithstrike, and Lesser Rod of Maximized Fireball. Having spellpoints for basically unlimited uses of Benign Transposition, with a companion that can teleport at will, was a bit absurd.

[Firebug]

If it is more powerful, then how? Once again, if it is because the wizard gets 20 more spells than the other guy, than it is too OP.

Also, what about utility spells? Does levitate need extra spell points or is that just for blast spells? What about Dimension door?From Spell Points (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)(about half way down) on the SRD.
Spellcasters use their full normal caster level for determining the effects of their spells in this system, with one significant exception. Spells that deal a number of dice of damage based on caster level (such as magic missile, searing light, or lightning bolt) deal damage as if cast by a character of the minimum level of the class capable of casting the spell. Spells whose damage is partially based on caster level, but that don’t deal a number of dice of damage based on caster level (such as produce flame or an inflict spell) use the spellcaster’s normal caster level to determine damage. Use the character’s normal caster level for all other effects, including range and duration.
...
A character can pay additional spell points to increase the dice of damage dealt by a spell. Every 1 extra spell point spent at the time of casting increases the spell’s effective caster level by 1 for purposes of dealing damage. A character can’t increase a damage-dealing spell’s caster level above his own caster level, or above the normal maximum allowed by the spell.Utility casters(ie, non-damage) are actually more powerful with Spell Points, as most buff spells tend to be lower level anyway and get full CL. And Debuff/CC spells generally don't care about CL unless they have spell resistance.

Let's look at the 10th level wizard example and really dumb it down to "Wizard likes Fireballs". Basically, every spell slot 3rd and above is a Fireball, and the Wizards in question have a 20 Int. Note: it doesn't have to be Fireball, as every damage/caster level spell functions this way. In a way, each spell point is worth 1 die of damage when spent on damage spells.

Vancian Wizard prepares 3+1+1 = 5 Fireballs in 3rd level slots
3+1+1=5 in 4th
2+1+1=4 in 5th
Vancian Wizard has 14 Fireballs at 10d6.

Spell Point Wizard has 72 +2+5+10+17+26=132 spell points.
Casting a Spell Point Fireball at 10d6 costs 10 Spell Points, so can cast 13 Fireballs.

The Vancian Wizard still has all of its 1st and 2nd level spell slots remaining. And 'wasted' power by memorizing lower level spells. IE the Vancian Wizard could have taken Empower Spell for 'free' damage on those 5th level slots where the Spell Point Wizard has to pay separately for Empower. IE, Spell Point could cast Empowered CL 10 Fireballs... at 14 spell points each. So 9 of those for the whole day compared to the Vancian's 4 empowered and 10 non-empowered(and 1st and 2nd slots).

Now, if you wanted to compare the same Wizards but with a 5th level spell like Cone of Cold. The Spell Point wins because it can cast 13 Cone of Colds, because a CL 10 spell costs the same no matter what level the spell is. But that isn't more damage if you didn't need the extra area of effect. Bump up the Wizards to CL 15 and we have the same problem as the lower level Fireball. The Spell Point pays extra for CL (ie, damage) and the Vancian doesn't.

Going back to the OP, sure this same Spell Point Wizard could cast 132 Magic Missiles... at CL 1. So only 1d4+1 damage and a standard action. Is that even worth your time? The Vancian would have another 4+2+1 1st and 4+1+1 2nd slots. All dedicated to Magic Missile (and the 3rd, 4th and 5th) and its a total of 27 slots. At 5 missiles each for CL 9+, that's 135 missiles. If the Spell Point used CL 9 Magic Missiles it would only get 70 total.

[Destro2119]

As written the spell point variant makes wizards into arcane casting psions who can remake their spells know list daily and have vastly larger spells known list because INT boosts prepared spell qty on top of the spell point pool.

It’s been almost 10 years since I last ran the math comparing spell points to spell slots but I recall the slots being ‘worth’ more than the points if you treated them as points at their face value. So in theory a hive mind player could stretch the slotted wizard further but that’s just not going to be the case.

Spell points does allow for dumber play, like tossing 9s after 9s at trivial encounters you probably could have solved with 5s. So careless players can be even more inefficient as spell point users.

You’ll see the forum talk about schrodinger wizards that have just the right spells prepared in just the right quantities to punch well above their weight class. Spell point wizards start the day with incomprehensible permutations of spell casts ahead of them. So long as there are points remaining and the wizard prepared one relevant spell they will have the square peg for the square hole. Encounters shift from “do I use X or Y suboptimal spells here, or use my universally applicable spell W?” to “what’s the cheapest option I’ve got prepared today?” Situational spells will never be used when a universal one or niche counter is prepared. By only needing one preparation slot for unlimited* castings the wizard gets even more spells prepared, so that means more niche counters. The sole limiting factor on the wizard’s dominance of a scene is the spell point pool and how they budget it.

Ironically it nerfs blasting which didn’t deserve it.

OP doesn’t properly describe it. It’s imbalanced because it is extremely likely to make the game more lopsided and have the spotlight stolen by do-everything casters being able to decide on a whim to own the scene. Even if the fighter can kill more things than the wizard could zap, the wizard being able to choose zap or no zap leaves the fighter feeling like they’re being given permission to participate whenever the wizard doesn’t zap.

So I am right and it is OP?

[Destro2119]

It's not, but you've clearly convinced yourself that it is anyways.

No, several others here have already agreed with me and said it is imbalanced.

Once again, if someone wants to definitively prove it is not, feel free to do so.

However, until then I will still contend that the system is OP since, as I define it, it is wildly better than normal casting in every way, when a variant system really ought to just emphasize a different concept.

[Eldonauran]

No, several others here have already agreed with me and said it is imbalanced.

Once again, if someone wants to definitively prove it is not, feel free to do so.

However, until then I will still contend that the system is OP since, as I define it, it is wildly better than normal casting in every way, when a variant system really ought to just emphasize a different concept.
Firebug summed it up pretty well above, but I'll leave you with this bit of advice:

If a first party variant seems overpowered and highly abusable, I would suggest you pause and consider that you have misunderstood the system or made an error somewhere in your own math. This system has quite a few years on it and several people have already disagreed with you about its OP-ness. It is entirely possible that you are wrong.

[Melcar]

So recently I was doing some research on this topic when I realized that spell points are vastly OP compared to vancian.

For example: Suppose a vancian caster gets 5/5/5/4/3 spells per day. That's (5*1)+(5*3)+(5*5)+(4*7)+(3*9)=5+15+25+28+27=100 spell points.

They could, for example, spend those points to cast 11 5th level spells, or 14 4th level spells, or 20 3rd level spells, or 33 2nd level spells, or 100 1st level spells.

Personally, it seems to me that being able to pull off literally 20 of a single spell at a go seems super OP, and so is beaning enemies to death with 100+ magic missiles.

I know the argument against OP-ness people always trot out is that points is only more flexible, but it seems to me that spell points objectively give casters literally hundreds of extra spells they can cast compared to a normal wizards 3-5 spells per day. There is literally no downside to the system.

So therefore spell points are wildly OP.

EDIT: To clarify a point, my point is that most people pretend that the only upside to Spell Points is increased flexibility, but I am arguing that Spell Points 1000% trump normal casting because it gives you dozens upon dozens of extra spells to cast. It is hardly fair that a 10th level vancian caster gets 5 spells per day and the 10th level points caster gets like 50-100 spells.

I would assume it depends on how Manu points a spell costs... like where does it say a spell costs 1 point/lvl and not 2/lvl?

[JNAProductions]

Here's the SRD on it. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)

A 10th level Wizard with 22 Int has...

4 Cantrips
6 1st Level Slots
6 2nd Level Slots
5 3rd Level Slots
4 4th Level Slots
3 5th Level Slots

...or...

101 Spell Points

Meaning they can cast, if we try to ape regular casting...

5 Cantrips
6 1st Level Spells (6)
6 2nd Level Spells (18)
5 3rd Level Spells (25)
4 4th Level Spells (28)
2 5th Level Spells (18)
And 6 spell points left over, for another 4th level spell.

But those are all at minimum caster level. Which is a lot worse.

[Remuko]

From Spell Points (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)(about half way down) on the SRD.Utility casters(ie, non-damage) are actually more powerful with Spell Points, as most buff spells tend to be lower level anyway and get full CL. And Debuff/CC spells generally don't care about CL unless they have spell resistance.

Let's look at the 10th level wizard example and really dumb it down to "Wizard likes Fireballs". Basically, every spell slot 3rd and above is a Fireball, and the Wizards in question have a 20 Int. Note: it doesn't have to be Fireball, as every damage/caster level spell functions this way. In a way, each spell point is worth 1 die of damage when spent on damage spells.

Vancian Wizard prepares 3+1+1 = 5 Fireballs in 3rd level slots
3+1+1=5 in 4th
2+1+1=4 in 5th
Vancian Wizard has 14 Fireballs at 10d6.

Spell Point Wizard has 72 +2+5+10+17+26=132 spell points.
Casting a Spell Point Fireball at 10d6 costs 10 Spell Points, so can cast 13 Fireballs.

The Vancian Wizard still has all of its 1st and 2nd level spell slots remaining. And 'wasted' power by memorizing lower level spells. IE the Vancian Wizard could have taken Empower Spell for 'free' damage on those 5th level slots where the Spell Point Wizard has to pay separately for Empower. IE, Spell Point could cast Empowered CL 10 Fireballs... at 14 spell points each. So 9 of those for the whole day compared to the Vancian's 4 empowered and 10 non-empowered(and 1st and 2nd slots).

Now, if you wanted to compare the same Wizards but with a 5th level spell like Cone of Cold. The Spell Point wins because it can cast 13 Cone of Colds, because a CL 10 spell costs the same no matter what level the spell is. But that isn't more damage if you didn't need the extra area of effect. Bump up the Wizards to CL 15 and we have the same problem as the lower level Fireball. The Spell Point pays extra for CL (ie, damage) and the Vancian doesn't.

Going back to the OP, sure this same Spell Point Wizard could cast 132 Magic Missiles... at CL 1. So only 1d4+1 damage and a standard action. Is that even worth your time? The Vancian would have another 4+2+1 1st and 4+1+1 2nd slots. All dedicated to Magic Missile (and the 3rd, 4th and 5th) and its a total of 27 slots. At 5 missiles each for CL 9+, that's 135 missiles. If the Spell Point used CL 9 Magic Missiles it would only get 70 total.


Here's the SRD on it. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)

A 10th level Wizard with 22 Int has...

4 Cantrips
6 1st Level Slots
6 2nd Level Slots
5 3rd Level Slots
4 4th Level Slots
3 5th Level Slots

...or...

101 Spell Points

Meaning they can cast, if we try to ape regular casting...

5 Cantrips
6 1st Level Spells (6)
6 2nd Level Spells (18)
5 3rd Level Spells (25)
4 4th Level Spells (28)
2 5th Level Spells (18)
And 6 spell points left over, for another 4th level spell.

But those are all at minimum caster level. Which is a lot worse.


people have done the math as seen above. its not "OP".

[Destro2119]

people have done the math as seen above. its not "OP".

But Spell Points still gets more spells, as they admit, and is more useful for one of the best caster methods in the game. Even though it is "first party variant" it seems unbalanced and OP to me.

However, this *could* be me misinterpreting the logic of above quotes. If OG posters and/or other posters could explain to me why Spell Points is not OP despite the points I enumerated above, please feel free to.

[JNAProductions]

They don’t. They get less, at a lower caster level.

They can nova harder, with more higher level slots, at the cost of EVERY OTHER slot for the day.

[Quertus]

Spell points have their advantages and disadvantages. They are horrible for the totally OP school of Evocation. They are great for giving the party Water Breathing when it suddenly comes up (which, as that means that you didn't spend WBL on potions, it's a stealth buff for everyone, but mostly for muggles, who more *need* the WBL).

It's really easy for an unskilled player to use… and really easy for an unskilled player to nova themselves to uselessness.

It more readily allows for characterization of a character, with more of a "signature spell" feel.

Personally, I think that, for those with a Playgrounder Determinator bent, it's *usually* stronger than pure Vancian (although, against a true chess master opponent, it can be a huge liability), but not usually so much of a difference in power level as to be OP.

[Vaern]

But Spell Points still gets more spells, as they admit, and is more useful for one of the best caster methods in the game. Even though it is "first party variant" it seems unbalanced and OP to me.

However, this *could* be me misinterpreting the logic of above quotes. If OG posters and/or other posters could explain to me why Spell Points is not OP despite the points I enumerated above, please feel free to.

They aren't OP. They're better than standard spell slots at some things, but worse at others. There are builds and play styles that they're better suited for, but as for versatility and potential spells per day goes, it's no more overpowered than just playing a psionic character and taking the psionic equivalent of whatever spells you want to cast. That's literally all spell points are - applying the psionics casting system to traditional caster classes.

[Destro2119]

They aren't OP. They're better than standard spell slots at some things, but worse at others. There are builds and play styles that they're better suited for, but as for versatility and potential spells per day goes, it's no more overpowered than just playing a psionic character and taking the psionic equivalent of whatever spells you want to cast. That's literally all spell points are - applying the psionics casting system to traditional caster classes.

But aren't Psionics infamously more OP than normal magic? Meaning that Spell points is OP?

[Destro2119]

Spell points have their advantages and disadvantages. They are horrible for the totally OP school of Evocation. They are great for giving the party Water Breathing when it suddenly comes up (which, as that means that you didn't spend WBL on potions, it's a stealth buff for everyone, but mostly for muggles, who more *need* the WBL).

It's really easy for an unskilled player to use… and really easy for an unskilled player to nova themselves to uselessness.

It more readily allows for characterization of a character, with more of a "signature spell" feel.

Personally, I think that, for those with a Playgrounder Determinator bent, it's *usually* stronger than pure Vancian (although, against a true chess master opponent, it can be a huge liability), but not usually so much of a difference in power level as to be OP.

"personally, I think that, for those with a Playgrounder Determinator bent, it's *usually* stronger than pure Vancian"

So it actually is OP?

[Destro2119]

They don’t. They get less, at a lower caster level.

They can nova harder, with more higher level slots, at the cost of EVERY OTHER slot for the day.

"They can nova harder, with more higher level slots, at the cost of EVERY OTHER slot for the day."

But doesn't that mean it is better? I mean, 20 cloudkills/fireballs >>> 2 fireballs and 2 water breathing spells.

Or is this still not OP, objectively (ie according to math/theoretical strategic situations)?

[Zulwarn]

But aren't Psionics infamously more OP than normal magic? Meaning that Spell points is OP?

No Psionics are consider more balanced than normal magic, and vastly considered better.

[InvisibleBison]

"They can nova harder, with more higher level slots, at the cost of EVERY OTHER slot for the day."

But doesn't that mean it is better? I mean, 20 cloudkills/fireballs >>> 2 fireballs and 2 water breathing spells.

Or is this still not OP, objectively (ie according to math/theoretical strategic situations)?

Your repeated use of hyperbole is really not helping your case. It makes it seem like you don't actually understand the subject, which in turn makes us inclined to simply dismiss your arguments.

As for your actual argument: Yes, in a situation where you need to cast 11 cloudkills in one day being able to cast only 3 cloudkills is going to be a problem. But how often does that situation actually arise?

[JNAProductions]

"They can nova harder, with more higher level slots, at the cost of EVERY OTHER slot for the day."

But doesn't that mean it is better? I mean, 20 cloudkills/fireballs >>> 2 fireballs and 2 water breathing spells.

Or is this still not OP, objectively (ie according to math/theoretical strategic situations)?

At 10th level, using the above example...

Spell Points
You can get ten 10d6 Fireballs plus one 1st level and five cantrips spell per day.

Vancian
You can get twelve 10d6 Fireballs plus six 2nd and six 1st level spells per day, as well as four cantrips.
Four of those Fireballs can have one level of Metamagic on them.
The last three can have up to two levels.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But aren't Psionics infamously more OP than normal magic? Meaning that Spell points is OP?

Very much not. Psionics is substantially less potent in the upper end than standard magic and since it was built on a point system its balanced around that system -and- the standard game expectations. There're arguments to be made about how good or poor a job was done for the latter for both systems but in terms of absolute upper limits, magic is pretty dramatically more "OP." The only thing that can cross the gap is a certain interpretation of the spell to power erudite.

Also, there's a multiquote button at the bottom of each of the posts you'd like to answer it. Looks like a quote mark with a little plus symbol beside it. Click that on each of the posts you'd like to address and when you hit "reply to thread" at the bottom of the page it'll put up quote tags and text for all of them. It'll help you to avoid multi-posting.

[Ramza00]

If your goal is "endurance" and with the right party Spell Points is very good, but in other situations it is inferior. *shrug* it is not 1:1 system A is superior to system B.

For example if you can build a build that takes advantage of level 3 slots you can have amazing endurance. Haste, Dimension Step (give your allies free move actions, allowing full attacks), Wall of Smoke, etc. Using metamagic rods of quicken which is still expensive but still cheap.

It is not clear how metamagic like sculpt spell would work? Would you have to pay the extra 2 spell points?

-----

But with other types of builds such as a direct damage build or you only want to cast high level spells then you have far less endurance. This may not be a problem if your DM does not throw enough encounters at you. Throwing lower level monsters can be used to just waste spell slots.

-----

So like I said earlier depends on your build and your party whether it is stronger or weaker.

[Vaern]

But aren't Psionics infamously more OP than normal magic? Meaning that Spell points is OP?
Psionics are typically considered OP because of specific powers, not due to the casting system itself. There are psionic powers that literally let you rewrite your character, swapping out feats and skill points at will. That sort of thing would still be OP if it cost a spell slot rather than power points.

As a counterpoint, a 9th level wizard with 100 spell points can dump all of those points into blasting spells - fireball, lightning bolt, what have you - dealing probably 1d6 per point spent, 9d6 at a time over 11 spells cast to deal 100d6 per day. A warlock at the same level can eldritch blast at-will for 5d6 damage 14,400 times per day.
A wizard with 100 spell points can cast a 1st-level utility spell he has prepared 100 times in a day. A warlock can use any invocation he knows at-will up to 14,400 times in a day, including the ability to dispel magic, fly, or create undead at this point (effectively 3rd and 4th level spells, which would cost the wizard 5 or 7 spell points apiece).
A wizard needs to rest to regain his spell points. The warlock does not.

Is the warlock OP?

[Firebug]

"They can nova harder, with more higher level slots, at the cost of EVERY OTHER slot for the day."

But doesn't that mean it is better? I mean, 20 cloudkills/fireballs >>> 2 fireballs and 2 water breathing spells.

Or is this still not OP, objectively (ie according to math/theoretical strategic situations)?

Here's the SRD on it. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)

A 10th level Wizard with 22 Int has...

4 Cantrips
6 1st Level Slots
6 2nd Level Slots
5 3rd Level Slots
4 4th Level Slots
3 5th Level Slots

...or...

101 Spell PointsSo, comparing Cloudkill a level 5 spell.
Vancian has 3 Cloudkills at CL 10, 5 CL 10 Fireballs in 3rd level slots, and 4 CL 10 Fireballs in 4th level slots.
Spellpoints has 3 Cloudkills at CL 10(apples to apples), and 7 other CL 10 spells, which can also be Cloudkills or Fireballs.
Vancian 12 vs Spell Point 10... and Vancian has 1st and 2nd slots still. But, it's also 3 vs 10 Cloudkill if you only wanted Cloudkill.

Spellpoints isn't good for lower level Damage spells, because they cost the same as using your highest slot. But its "OP" for everything else.

[Quertus]

"personally, I think that, for those with a Playgrounder Determinator bent, it's *usually* stronger than pure Vancian"

So it actually is OP?

420 is larger than 419, but that doesn't make 420 OP.

Also, if, for some reason you want an odd number, or a prime number, or are playing "closest without going over", 419 could be better than 420.

Similarly, Spell Points is often better for my purposes than Vancian, but it is neither strictly better nor innately OP.

I *do* think that it is more fun, but, well, that's a matter of taste.

[Crake]

Why are you all backward calculating spellpoints? There's a table for it, a 10th level wizard gets 72 spellpoints base, plus an extra 29 spellpoints for having 22 int. You do not get extra spellpoints for class features that would normally give you extra spell slots (like school specialization or domain spell slots), you instead get more spells prepared per day, adding versatility, not staying power. So a 22 int 10th level wizard would indeed have 101 spell points, but if that wizard is suddenly a focused specialist, he STILL only has 101 spell points, even though his vancian mirror has an equivalent of 50 more spell points.

[Firebug]

Why are you all backward calculating spellpoints? There's a table for it, a 10th level wizard gets 72 spellpoints base, plus an extra 29 spellpoints for having 22 int. My first example of the 10th level Wizard having 132 spell points added the whole row, but the example by JNAProductions calculated it correctly. Which I used in my previous post to compare cloudkill.
JNAProductions was calculating what the Vancian Wizard slots were worth in Spell Points (and ignoring CL).

[Fizban]

I generally find the spell point "system" given in Unearthed Arcana broken.

The spell system was already on shaky ground with spells including all manner of inconsistent durations, base effects, and scaling, where the only proper constants are precise number of spells of a each level per day and casters either having a fixed list of spontaneous spells known or a prepared list with finite castings.

And then you mix in a half-baked spell point add-on which completely removes the only two constants the system had. Now "prepared" casters are actually spontaneous casters with changeable spells known lists (a flat-out unarguable massive upgrade), there are no reliable limits on how many castings of a spell anyone has, and the gap between spells with unchanging effects that don't care about caster level and spells where every aspect cares about caster level is even more ridiculously huge.

So, "spell points" are super broken, and there is no fixing it, because the entire rest of the game is written with vancian casting in mind, specifically Clerics and Wizards (and even then spells still have huge problems). Sure, you can play the game with broken stuff, people do it all the time, but whether or not it works okay is entirely up to the individuals and game involved.


As for psionics- well yeah, it is OP in some ways. Even if the total damage per day is lower, the built in die upgrade combined with all energy types available on all shapes at all times, means that they're just better than non-Warmage blasters simply by taking a couple of blasting spells. And the fact that anyone can be a full power "summoner" with a single Expanded Knowledge feat, gaining access to all 1-9 "levels" of Astral Construct, is pretty absurd. Even if many other things about the system are better considered and the high level effects simply don't compare to the broken-ness and/or glut of high level spell slots that 3.5 vancian casters have, that just means both systems have problems at different levels, and which problems stand out more depend on what level and optimization/power/cheese/whatever level you play at.


I think the best solution is what I've been crafting the Sorcerer into- give them "Psion" progression of a proper 2 spells per level/ new spell levels on 3rd and every odd after, same as everyone else, boom your spontaneous caster is fixed. Then have a feat that lets you create your own "augmentable" spell by letting you define a 3-spell series based on one that you already know, and automatically learn the the remainder when you're the appropriate level. Then, if you're finding high level casters have too many slots, just cut the number of high level slots by -1 or even -2 for everyone.

No, this doesn't "fix" the spell slot system, because those constraints are baked too deeply into the game to wash away easily.

[Malphegor]

My thought on spell points especially on a wizard is that it encourages a wizard to seek out unique spells and use them more often rather than always prepare the old trusty workhorse spells. It makes magic more fun since it encourages the user to experiment more and not be boring.

[Zanos]

They aren't OP. They're better than standard spell slots at some things, but worse at others. There are builds and play styles that they're better suited for, but as for versatility and potential spells per day goes, it's no more overpowered than just playing a psionic character and taking the psionic equivalent of whatever spells you want to cast. That's literally all spell points are - applying the psionics casting system to traditional caster classes.
Counterpoint, something can be better at one thing and worse at another and still be OP if the stuff it's better at is good and the stuff its worse at isn't good anyway. In this case spell point wizards are worse at using spells to deal damage with spells that deal a number of dice of damage dependent on caster level, yes, but that's one of the least effective things you can use wizard casting for in the first place, and they aren't even that much worse at it. One usually wouldn't frame a 14 str 14 int wizard as being a tradeoff to a 8 str 18 int wizard because a wizard is only going to seldomly leverage a good strength score.

Meanwhile you are vastly more versatile, both in that you only have to prepare spells once and that you can effectively move your power allocation between spell levels as needed. And you don't have to use more points to cast good spells at higher caster level.

So yes, spell point wizards are OP in that they are just better at everything good than regular wizards, while only being marginally worse at the one thing they are worse at.

That said, they probably aren't so OP as to warrant the hilarious amount of vitriol coming from the OP.

[Akkristor]

i do not find Spell Points overpowered.

Spell points can enhance staying power, but for primary casters, you eventually end up playing nuclear rocket tag anyway, so high initiative and spell variety wins over spell quantity. All that matters is going first and landing the spell that will take the opponent out. The more variety, the more chances to get around contingencies and immunities.

That said, i also restrict the variant to spontaneous casters with limited spells known anyway. Sorcerers, Bards, and their ilk.

Additionally, I change the "sell calculation" part to be simply "Effective Caster Level = Points Spent", so even things like Mage Armor or Haste need to have extra points spent for extra duration, and Fireball's range. It's mostly a consistency issue for me, but I find it makes the system overall cleaner.

[Asmotherion]

Overpowered in relation to what exactly?

Towards Mid and up to High tears of optimisation? People can basically cast Wish at-will in high, and in mid they might as well have their spells at-will, with buffstacks that last 24 hours. Nothing really changes there.

To Lower tears of optimisation, I'd suggest it just gives better versatility, rather than power. You can use all your spell points to cast a ton of low level spells, or you can conserve your lower level equivalent "slots" to cast more high level spells.

[Darg]

Spell points kinda takes away spirit shaman's whole thing and gives it to other casters while giving them more flexibility in how to distribute spell use. I don't know about OP, but it does step onto some toes that really don't need stepping on.

[GeoffWatson]

It's more powerful in that the Wizard gets more flexibility - access to his entire spellbook (and Metamagic) rather than having to prepare in advance, and also has the option to cast more of the highest level spells than he could normally (or more of the lowest level spells if that's what's needed).

[Arkhios]

Well, it IS an optional/variant rule, so obviously it's different compared to vancian casting. IIRC, the rule itself recommends NOT to use spell points AND vancian magic at the same time; only either or. Use it only if you're prepared and willing to allow a slight increase in power. Complaining whether it's too powerful or not is asinine when you consider the suggested boundaries of the rule.

Aside from that, spell point versatility is no more powerful than psionics (which, as pointed out already, is slightly more powerful than spell points, merely because psionic characters get relatively more points to spend).

[Rynjin]

Psionics are typically considered OP because of specific powers, not due to the casting system itself.

I'm pretty sure Psionics is "infamously considered OP" because people never got the memo that 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed/3.5 Psionics function completely differently (and GMs let players get away with spending more PP on a Power than their level because they didn't read the rules all the way through).

[Quertus]

the Wizard gets more flexibility - access to his entire spellbook (and Metamagic) rather than having to prepare in advance,

Uh, it doesn't do that.

Now, that might be a nice argument for why know stones are OP, but it doesn't apply to spell points.

[Destro2119]

It seems to me quite a few people on this thread agree that spell points are broken since they are clearly superior to the inferior vancian system, and they even have given evidence as well.

So, in light of this, how would you "fix" the system(s)? Could you, for example, combine the systems in some way? Or make vancian better somehow?

[Crake]

So, comparing Cloudkill a level 5 spell.
Vancian has 3 Cloudkills at CL 10, 5 CL 10 Fireballs in 3rd level slots, and 4 CL 10 Fireballs in 4th level slots.
Spellpoints has 3 Cloudkills at CL 10(apples to apples), and 7 other CL 10 spells, which can also be Cloudkills or Fireballs.
Vancian 12 vs Spell Point 10... and Vancian has 1st and 2nd slots still. But, it's also 3 vs 10 Cloudkill if you only wanted Cloudkill.

Spellpoints isn't good for lower level Damage spells, because they cost the same as using your highest slot. But its "OP" for everything else.

Worth noting that the caster level is always 10 for all spells you cast with the spellpoints, it's only when you have damage that scales with dice that you need to spend extra spell points. So a CL10 cloudkill would only be 9 spellpoints, while a 10d6 fireball would be 10 spellpoints. However, if you spent 5 spellpoints on that fireball, it would still be CL10, for all other purposes other than it's damage, overcoming spell resistance, being counterspelled by a dispel magic, it's range, etc.

A better example however, would be that that level 10 wizard could in fact cast 101 CL10 charm person spells, or close to 34 CL10 blindness/deafness spells, or 20 CL10 hold person spells etc.

Looking at what a wizard can do at the top end is completely ignoring the vast increase in usability for bottom-end spells, and also, by far the greatest increase in power for a spellpoint wizard: the huge leap in versatility. You go from being entirely limited to the specific spells you prepared each day, having to prepare multiple copies of spells just to be able to cast them more than once, to being literally a sorcerer who can change their spells known each morning at the cost of slightly lower spellpoints.

[Destro2119]

Worth noting that the caster level is always 10 for all spells you cast with the spellpoints, it's only when you have damage that scales with dice that you need to spend extra spell points. So a CL10 cloudkill would only be 9 spellpoints, while a 10d6 fireball would be 10 spellpoints. However, if you spent 5 spellpoints on that fireball, it would still be CL10, for all other purposes other than it's damage, overcoming spell resistance, being counterspelled by a dispel magic, it's range, etc.

A better example however, would be that that level 10 wizard could in fact cast 101 CL10 charm person spells, or close to 34 CL10 blindness/deafness spells, or 20 CL10 hold person spells etc.

Looking at what a wizard can do at the top end is completely ignoring the vast increase in usability for bottom-end spells, and also, by far the greatest increase in power for a spellpoint wizard: the huge leap in versatility. You go from being entirely limited to the specific spells you prepared each day, having to prepare multiple copies of spells just to be able to cast them more than once, to being literally a sorcerer who can change their spells known each morning at the cost of slightly lower spellpoints.

So how would you "balance" this system or fix Vancian/normal casting so it can compete?

[Crake]

So how would you "balance" this system or fix Vancian/normal casting so it can compete?

There's no need to fix it, just make it a campaign-wide decision. Either all casters are vancian, or all casters are spellpoint based. Personally, I think spellpoints are just an overall nicer system to use, and if you feel like it's too powerful compared to other classes at that point, just cut back on how many spellpoints the classes get.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Uh, it doesn't do that.

Now, that might be a nice argument for why know stones are OP, but it doesn't apply to spell points.

Nah. Knowstones are exorbitantly expensive as a balancing factor. Same cost as a pearl of power of the same level spell. Getting even a couple extra of your highest level spells will really leave you hurting for other equipment.


It seems to me quite a few people on this thread agree that spell points are broken since they are clearly superior to the inferior vancian system, and they even have given evidence as well.

So, in light of this, how would you "fix" the system(s)? Could you, for example, combine the systems in some way? Or make vancian better somehow?

I wouldn't. I'd just use psionics instead. All the work's already done.

[Destro2119]

There's no need to fix it, just make it a campaign-wide decision. Either all casters are vancian, or all casters are spellpoint based. Personally, I think spellpoints are just an overall nicer system to use, and if you feel like it's too powerful compared to other classes at that point, just cut back on how many spellpoints the classes get.

Once again, does anybody have any *real* solutions to this problem other than just a vague handwave?

[Quertus]

Nah. Knowstones are exorbitantly expensive as a balancing factor. Same cost as a pearl of power of the same level spell. Getting even a couple extra of your highest level spells will really leave you hurting for other equipment.

Which is a nice argument for why Knowstones aren't OP, not for why that logic (EDIT: the logic of "it allows access to 'all the spells', so it's OP") wouldn't be more aptly applied to them. :smallwink:

[JNAProductions]

Once again, does anybody have any *real* solutions to this problem other than just a vague handwave?

Spell points aren’t broken-spells are.

If you want a non-broken 3.5, you’ll need either good and skilled players who work with you on achieving parity between themselves and the enemy, or a gakton of work.

[Zanos]

Once again, does anybody have any *real* solutions to this problem other than just a vague handwave?
What exactly is the problem? It's a variant rule. It's just an idea UA proposed, you don't have to use it and it doesn't even exist unless you decide it does.

If you want to bring it more in line with regular wizards you can just make it work like psions do and have all their scaling spells be at minimum CL unless they pay points to augment them.

[Fizban]

Once again, does anybody have any *real* solutions to this problem other than just a vague handwave?

Spell points aren’t broken-spells are.
Thus the fix: dump all existing spells and write your own to match the spell point system and your expectations of the game.

Also known as a gakton of work.

[Rynjin]

Once again, does anybody have any *real* solutions to this problem other than just a vague handwave?

There is, as far as I can tell, only one person who agrees with you there's even a problem to begin with; he's the guy who, among other things, thinks the Shield spell is overpowered, so make of that what you will.

Nobody here is going to do a ton of unpaid work for you to fix a problem only you think exists with a variant rule you don't even need to use in the first place.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Which is a nice argument for why Knowstones aren't OP, not for why that logic (EDIT: the logic of "it allows access to 'all the spells', so it's OP") wouldn't be more aptly applied to them. :smallwink:

The fact you -can't- get "all the spells" is why knowstones aren't OP. It's too expensive. Being able to access your entire class' spell list at one time is potentially pretty broken if there's no other limiting factor.

The entire sorc/wiz list any time, as long as you have slots/ points, yeah that's pretty ridiculously OP. The rainbow warsnake is considered TO for getting access to the entire cleric list, slots permitting. The entire psion/ wilder list* until you pick the 3rd or 4th unique power for the day (erudite mechanic at low-ish level) on the other hand, that's pretty solid.


*subject to your ability to find and learn them, with the associated xp costs, of course.

[Nousos]

Actually, someone on the playground already converted vancian into psionic mechanics back in 2011. Haven't used it myself, but a few years ago I gave it a read through and it seemed good.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?194002-3-5-A-Translation-of-Vancian-Spellcasting-to-Psionic-Mechanics

Edit-It appears Ernir even made a website for it, linked at the last post in the thread.

[Zanos]

There is, as far as I can tell, only one person who agrees with you there's even a problem to begin with; he's the guy who, among other things, thinks the Shield spell is overpowered, so make of that what you will.

Nobody here is going to do a ton of unpaid work for you to fix a problem only you think exists with a variant rule you don't even need to use in the first place.
I hope you're not referring to me because I agreed with him that spell points are more powerful than normal wizards, but I never said anything about shield being overpowered. :smallconfused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

I hope you're not referring to me because I agreed with him that spell points are more powerful than normal wizards, but I never said anything about shield being overpowered. :smallconfused:

He was talking about Fizban. He's posted a selection of his houserules in another thread recently and a nerf to shield was amongst them. If it works for him and his group, more power to 'em.

[Darg]

Once again, does anybody have any *real* solutions to this problem other than just a vague handwave?

Use the Vitalizing variant with the optional Con to point pool.

Maximum number of spells per level you can cast per day is equal to your casting ability modifier + Con modifier.

[Destro2119]

Actually, someone on the playground already converted vancian into psionic mechanics back in 2011. Haven't used it myself, but a few years ago I gave it a read through and it seemed good.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?194002-3-5-A-Translation-of-Vancian-Spellcasting-to-Psionic-Mechanics

Edit-It appears Ernir even made a website for it, linked at the last post in the thread.

Just a quick rundown of that-- beyond the obvious changes, are the OG PHB spells changed beyond adding an "augment" to each of them?

[Destro2119]

There is, as far as I can tell, only one person who agrees with you there's even a problem to begin with; he's the guy who, among other things, thinks the Shield spell is overpowered, so make of that what you will.

Nobody here is going to do a ton of unpaid work for you to fix a problem only you think exists with a variant rule you don't even need to use in the first place.

How am I wrong in saying it is OP? The points raised by Fizban are perfectly valid.

So essentially vancian is inferior system and Spell points is the superior system compared to it, solely based on mechanics. Please prove me wrong if you disagree.

[JNAProductions]

How am I wrong in saying it is OP? The points raised by Fizban are perfectly valid.

So essentially vancian is underpowered and Spell points is OP. Please prove me wrong if you disagree.

Vancian isn’t underpowered.

Not even close to it-because again, it’s not the casting that’s broken. It’s specific spells-lots of them.

[Rynjin]

Why? You'll just ignore it like every other post that disagrees with you. I'm not sure why you made this thread in the first place.

You are clearly unwilling to be swayed. There is no point in conversing with you. You'd be better off making a new thread entitled "Spell points are OP, here's how I'm fixing them"; at least that would be a productive-ish use of your time rather than repeatedly asking people to prove you wrong and then completely ignoring them when they do.

[Destro2119]

Vancian isn’t underpowered.

Not even close to it-because again, it’s not the casting that’s broken. It’s specific spells-lots of them.

Explain how it is not inferior system compared to the Spell points. Based on actual mechanics of the systems.

"It’s specific spells-lots of them."

We are specifically debating actual casting systems, but explain this if you want.

[JNAProductions]

The thing is, spell points is, for a lot of people, more potent than vancian. Most people aren’t the best planners.

But when a well-played Wizard is a 2,000 on the power scale, upping them to 2,020 with spell points doesn’t matter much-not when a Fighter is at 30 and a Monk at 10.

Spell points could be a significant buff for players who aren’t good at planning and spam mediocre spells-but a more optimized Wizard can do more with less spells.

If you want to claim vancian casting is underpowered, you’ve got literally over a decade of evidence showing the opposite. Deal with that.

[Destro2119]

The thing is, spell points is, for a lot of people, more potent than vancian. Most people aren’t the best planners.

But when a well-played Wizard is a 2,000 on the power scale, upping them to 2,020 with spell points doesn’t matter much-not when a Fighter is at 30 and a Monk at 10.

Spell points could be a significant buff for players who aren’t good at planning and spam mediocre spells-but a more optimized Wizard can do more with less spells.

If you want to claim vancian casting is underpowered, you’ve got literally over a decade of evidence showing the opposite. Deal with that.

"over a decade of evidence"

Where? If you mean the editions of the game, then it cycles back to the point that spell points is OP since it is simply a linear upgrade on vancian and therefore vancian is inferior.

[Destro2119]

Why? You'll just ignore it like every other post that disagrees with you. I'm not sure why you made this thread in the first place.

You are clearly unwilling to be swayed. There is no point in conversing with you. You'd be better off making a new thread entitled "Spell points are OP, here's how I'm fixing them"; at least that would be a productive-ish use of your time rather than repeatedly asking people to prove you wrong and then completely ignoring them when they do.

I am only still claiming it since even the people saying it isn't OP admit it does the important things better. And then people like Fizban outright state why it IS OP.

So it seems to me that your arguments are thus objectively untrue.

[JNAProductions]

Define what you mean by OP.

I feel like you’re using it not how the others are taking it.

[MoiMagnus]

Personally, it seems to me that being able to pull off literally 20 of a single spell at a go seems super OP, and so is beaning enemies to death with 100+ magic missiles.

Sure, but it takes 20+ rounds to use.
IME, fight rarely last more than 3 rounds (a side often run away or capitulate before round 4).
Days were you get more than 10 turns in which it is relevant to cast a spell are quite rare.

Spell points are definitely stronger than Vancian, and much more exploitable in the hand of any player that has some experience with 5e 3e. But IMO, at mid-high level (and except for healing spells), the game would not change that much if level 1 spells were at-will. IME, action economy is much more significant to combat than abundant resources like level 1 spell slots.

[Kelb_Panthera]

"over a decade of evidence"

Where? If you mean the editions of the game, then it cycles back to the point that spell points is OP since it is simply a linear upgrade on vancian and therefore vancian is inferior.

Here. You're in the 3.5/ pathfinder subforum, my dude. A lot of pretty smart people have been studying this system in-depth for almost 20 years now, more than half of that since new material for D&D 3e stopped being produced. If it were a thing, some of us would have PhDs in 3e by now.

More technically and accurately; it's neither vancian preparation nor spell-point expenditure as a casting method that is "overpowered." The latter is -slightly- more potent than the former, sans any other consideration.

What -is- overpowered is the things that you can -do- with either method. The effects of the spells themselves, if you understand the game's meta below a certain depth, allow virtually any caster or even anyone who knows how to balance their WBL ledger properly to "break the game" pretty severely. That being the case, and the point of comparison being those who have no or limited access to that entire subsystem next to dedicated casters, shows -both- as being pretty severely overpowered by the reckoning of most of the very learned people here. Dramatically moreso by those with only a shallow understanding of the system.

Coupled with the existing, complete sorcerer/wizard or cleric list;

If your go-to casting method is "blast this one, blast that one, blast all the things" then spell-points are probably a little sub-par. You'll get a bit more boom for your buck but basically nothing else on a given day.

If your go-to is "buff my allies, debuff the enemies, and/or alter the battlefield to advantage my team" then it's moderately more potent than vancian preparation since it lets you pick on the fly from a much larger and more variable list of spells than a standard spontaneous caster.

If you're a full-tilt, "I've memorized large sections of the above spell lists and meditated in-depth on both how and when to use them and how to enable myself to do so most efficiently" then the casting method is laregely irrelevant and you're going to have to sand-bag to hell and back for most GMs anyway.


I am only still claiming it since even the people saying it isn't OP admit it does the important things better. And then people like Fizban outright state why it IS OP.

So it seems to me that your arguments are thus objectively untrue.

Fizban's pretty firmly of the opinion that the power creep that started with the launch of the complete series, if not sooner, makes most of the content of 3e pretty OP. He can, of course, correct me if I'm misrepresenting his opinion but I've seen him around for a -long- time and I'm pretty sure I'm not too far off the mark.


Define what you mean by OP.

I feel like you’re using it not how the others are taking it.

This could -really- help if you address it with something more complete than "it means overpowered." What exactly constitutes -appropriate- power? Where is the mark that is being overtaken by spell-points that isn't being overtaken by vancian to the same or a -very- similar degree?


Sure, but it takes 20+ rounds to use.
IME, fight rarely last more than 3 rounds (a side often run away or capitulate before round 4).
Days were you get more than 10 turns in which it is relevant to cast a spell are quite rare.

This is mostly accurate. The system was designed for the average length of a combat to be about 5 rounds or so and 4 encounters in a day is also somewhat presumed but a spell-slinger will almost never have need to cast a spell in every single round of every encounter (not all of which will even be combat encounters) in a given day. A -lot- of common situations can be essentially solved in a single spell; reducing big portions of combat to what amounts to cleanup unless an unexpected complication is inserted into the encounter.


Spell points are definitely stronger than Vancian, and much more exploitable in the hand of any player that has some experience with 5e

Don't know much of 5e so I won't speak to that. As I said, in detail, above; there's a lot of assumption baked into spell-points/ vancian is more powerful/ better/ "OP" but they're -very- comparable regardless. The difference is fairly slight. So much so that the psion/ erudite that was built on a point-based system is considered by many to be -better- balanced against the rest of the system than the vancian prepared casters of the core game and are undeniably less overall powerful.


But IMO, at mid-high level (and except for healing spells), the game would not change that much if level 1 spells were at-will. IME, action economy is much more significant to combat than abundant resources like level 1 spell slots.

Even unlimited healing wouldn't make much difference. It'd just take one more element out of the resource management aspect of the game since you can only do so much healing at any one time. Just means down-time between encounters gets a whole lot shorter.

[Fizban]

Just a quick rundown of that-- beyond the obvious changes, are the OG PHB spells changed beyond adding an "augment" to each of them?
Significantly- for example, not only were all blasting spells converted to the psionic standard of any energy type of your choice upon casting, but Fireball was also reduced to 2nd level.

Core classes were also modified heavily, with a Bardic Performance menu, Clerics gaining several domains over time, Paladins running on a series of bonus feats, Sorcerers being Wilders but with twice as many spells, and Dragon Disciple having full spell points and caster level but no spells known.

It's got a heavy dose of the author's idea of 3.5 balance fixes, which is why I don't automatically recommend it. Writing the system yourself from scratch is a pain, adapting psionics is a pain- and adapting their system is also a pain, unless you agree with all of the extra changes. If for no other reason than because you have to read through the entire book making notes on what you disagree with, and any changes, and then have them available for cross-referencing or edit your own version of the document, when avoiding all that is the whole reason you went there in the first place.

Fizban's pretty firmly of the opinion that the power creep that started with the launch of the complete series, if not sooner, makes most of the content of 3e pretty OP. He can, of course, correct me if I'm misrepresenting his opinion but I've seen him around for a -long- time and I'm pretty sure I'm not too far off the mark.
Depends on which parts you're looking at. People say "completes" like they're all the same thing, but they most certainly are not.

Stuff like Incantatrix started in 3.0 Forgotten Realms material.
The early Completes and even some 3.5 updates have some obvious power increases (3.0 Flame Arrow to Scorching Ray, Eldritch Knight), but as most of their content was still based on extremely conservative 3.0 stuff, they're mostly fine and there are plenty of underpowered things that could use a fix.
PHB2 again has some obvious power increases, the simple existence of Weapon Mastery for example (a single feat that gives +2 attack and +2 damage, which is so huge it must obviously be some sort of response), but those are often eclipsed by the existence of the Beguiler and Duskblade, which themselves are pretty instantly polarizing.
And then you reach the Complete Mage and Complete Champion era, and all bets are off. Theurge everything with everything plus more class features at little or no cost, pounce everything, free quickened spells, even free metamagic uses with no restriction on feat (and that's on the Anima Mage, in the book of weak magic systems)- and yet, the actual quality of the individual spells often goes down, with hardly anyone mentioning spells like Deadly Lahar, Form of the Threefold Beast, or Blood Boil - but wait, enabling spells also go up with Arcane Fusion and Arcane Spellsurge (literally undoing parts of the 3.5 Haste nerf!), personal buffs go up (Heart of X!), and yet many prestige class abilities written from the non-caster perspective are still being ultra conservative (Sanctified One wants a Unicorn or Griffon mount? Lose BAB! Holy Scourge wants Smite Evil with spells? Lose a casting level!, Dragon Lord? More like dragon chump! Hand of the Winged Masters? Big capstone is Darkstalker but with a -10 penalty!). Meanwhile, MM3 has monsters that when compared directly to MM1 just blow the original book out of the water- and yet, MM4 and 5 have a marked decrease in power, but with more gimmicky abilities and monster families.

None of this should be news to anyone. 3.5 is not some monolithic entity. It was written by dozens of people over several years, and there was a very obvious jump in power level in the middle, that was also obviously walked back from. Gee, it's almost like they started out working from conservative early material, then some writers started listening to the internet and giving them what they wanted while others kept on their own ideas of what was appropriate. No one was actually in charge of Maintaining Balance of The Game as Whole: barely anything has cross-book references, even in the later books, making it quite obvious that most of these books, most of which were written concurrently, were effectively independent from each other. And mixing them all together with no goal other than allowing everything leads to obvious, predictable problems.


If I had to name my target, it would be the early Completes (Arcane, Warrior, and Adventurer)/PHB 2, but how they were "supposed" to be. Hexblades (and base class Paladins) being good, prestige classes with interesting features that are worth taking, but not so good that they're no-brainers, "required," or "unstoppable." Warmages are a good idea, Warlocks are actually the Most Balanced Class Possible*, Weapon Mastery is an appropriate response to Fighters lacking punch compared to Barbarians, Beguiler is not an appropriate response to desire for a "spellcaster rogue," there are several trapfinding classes with different specialties, metamagic is good and has limited reducers but is not ridiculous, Tome of Battle is good but not required, etc. This should not be so radical of a position, but because I'm usually arguing from a less than perfect-OP level and actually care about little details, the predictable happens.

In fact, if anything I've probably got too much power creep in *my own* tweaks and brew. 'Cause I like Sorcerers, and the best way to fix them is psion/wizard parity, and so everything is being compared to a Sorcerer-that-doesn't-suck. Meanwhile I do expect more than zero optimization, so class fixes are also compared to later ACFs, which other classes might not have available. But that's where I also remember that having multiple power levels within the body of work is 100% okay, and only a problem if I fail to do my job and let the party split too low and too high.

*Almost no variance between ability scores, and a short list of always available abilities the DM can directly evaluate, no tricks.

[yarrowdeathbloo]

Seems like you're starting with a conclusion and working backwards ignoring people who disagree with you...

[Destro2119]

Here. You're in the 3.5/ pathfinder subforum, my dude. A lot of pretty smart people have been studying this system in-depth for almost 20 years now, more than half of that since new material for D&D 3e stopped being produced. If it were a thing, some of us would have PhDs in 3e by now.

More technically and accurately; it's neither vancian preparation nor spell-point expenditure as a casting method that is "overpowered." The latter is -slightly- more potent than the former, sans any other consideration.

What -is- overpowered is the things that you can -do- with either method. The effects of the spells themselves, if you understand the game's meta below a certain depth, allow virtually any caster or even anyone who knows how to balance their WBL ledger properly to "break the game" pretty severely. That being the case, and the point of comparison being those who have no or limited access to that entire subsystem next to dedicated casters, shows -both- as being pretty severely overpowered by the reckoning of most of the very learned people here. Dramatically moreso by those with only a shallow understanding of the system.

Coupled with the existing, complete sorcerer/wizard or cleric list;

If your go-to casting method is "blast this one, blast that one, blast all the things" then spell-points are probably a little sub-par. You'll get a bit more boom for your buck but basically nothing else on a given day.

If your go-to is "buff my allies, debuff the enemies, and/or alter the battlefield to advantage my team" then it's moderately more potent than vancian preparation since it lets you pick on the fly from a much larger and more variable list of spells than a standard spontaneous caster.

If you're a full-tilt, "I've memorized large sections of the above spell lists and meditated in-depth on both how and when to use them and how to enable myself to do so most efficiently" then the casting method is laregely irrelevant and you're going to have to sand-bag to hell and back for most GMs anyway.



Fizban's pretty firmly of the opinion that the power creep that started with the launch of the complete series, if not sooner, makes most of the content of 3e pretty OP. He can, of course, correct me if I'm misrepresenting his opinion but I've seen him around for a -long- time and I'm pretty sure I'm not too far off the mark.



This could -really- help if you address it with something more complete than "it means overpowered." What exactly constitutes -appropriate- power? Where is the mark that is being overtaken by spell-points that isn't being overtaken by vancian to the same or a -very- similar degree?



This is mostly accurate. The system was designed for the average length of a combat to be about 5 rounds or so and 4 encounters in a day is also somewhat presumed but a spell-slinger will almost never have need to cast a spell in every single round of every encounter (not all of which will even be combat encounters) in a given day. A -lot- of common situations can be essentially solved in a single spell; reducing big portions of combat to what amounts to cleanup unless an unexpected complication is inserted into the encounter.



Don't know much of 5e so I won't speak to that. As I said, in detail, above; there's a lot of assumption baked into spell-points/ vancian is more powerful/ better/ "OP" but they're -very- comparable regardless. The difference is fairly slight. So much so that the psion/ erudite that was built on a point-based system is considered by many to be -better- balanced against the rest of the system than the vancian prepared casters of the core game and are undeniably less overall powerful.



Even unlimited healing wouldn't make much difference. It'd just take one more element out of the resource management aspect of the game since you can only do so much healing at any one time. Just means down-time between encounters gets a whole lot shorter.

I define "OP" as a so called "variant" being clearly an upgrade to the system in all the ways it counts instead of being a "side-grade" like a variant should be. You yourself admit that spell points is overall more potent, so I rest my case as your own arguments work against yourself.

[Batcathat]

I define "OP" as a so called "variant" being clearly an upgrade to the system in all the ways it counts instead of being a "side-grade" like a variant should be. You yourself admit that spell points is overall more potent, so I rest my case as your own arguments work against yourself.

Even if spellpoints are a little more powerful (which far from everyone in the thread has agreed on) calling it overpowered compared to vancian casting might still be misleading since the power difference is very small compared to, say, the difference between any sort of casting and most non-casting abilities. If car A can reach 200 kilometers per hour and car B can reach 210 kilometers per hour, I wouldn't really call car B "overpowered", especially if cars C, D and E max out at 50 kilometers per hour.

[Remuko]

Even if spellpoints are a little more powerful (which far from everyone in the thread has agreed on) calling it overpowered compared to vancian casting might still be misleading since the power difference is very small compared to, say, the difference between any sort of casting and most non-casting abilities. If car A can reach 200 kilometers per hour and car B can reach 210 kilometers per hour, I wouldn't really call car B "overpowered", especially if cars C, D and E max out at 50 kilometers per hour.

exactly this.

[Tzardok]

That's like saying: "I made a new class that's exactly like the monk, but it gets 2 skill points more than the monk. Now my neo-monk is totally OP."

[ApologyFestival]

I really like spell-to-power erudites and spell points, because I just don't have the mental bandwidth to do high-Int spell preparation and chess in five dimensions.

But the spell points rules only cover two uses of spell slots: casting spells, and metamagic costs. Everything else -- class features, magic items, etc -- is up in the air. In the absence of any rules, we should assume that for all other uses of spell slots, the default rules hold. Anything else is homebrew.

That is, you wanna use this prestige class ability that requires expending spell slots? You don't have spell slots. You have spell points. Take the good with the bad.


If you use this variant, consider adding other game elements that influence (or are influenced by) spell points. These might include magic items that grant (or cost) spell points, feats that grant bonus spell points (or make certain spells cost fewer spell points to cast), special abilities that drain spell points from casters, and so forth.
This is not a guarantee that these magic items, feats, or special abilities exist. It's a weak appeal to your DM to consider homebrewing some stuff for you. And your DM is, honestly, well within their rights to say no. You wanna be a spell points wizard in a world where every other wizard is vancian? That makes you powerful in your own way. But all those prestige classes, feats, and magic items discovered by your forebears just don't work for you. You're just too different.

The only magic item that gets anything close to rules support is the pearl of power. Even then, it is qualified as being "[pearls of power for spell points] can work, but differently" -- a suggestion for the DM to make a house rule -- not "do work".

When your vancian cousins get a wealth of support in magic items, and powerful class features that revolve around expending spell slots, I think they still have the advantage. It is, at the very least, worth considering.

[Xervous]

Assuming the wizard isn’t clueless or sandbagging the spell point variant is generally an applied power boost if you accept that the typical campaign does not intend to fully drain a caster’s resources by the end of the day (handcuffing casters, red carpets for Martials etc).

Spell points increase a (non blasting) wizard’s probabilistic efficiency. Short of picking each and every spell slot perfectly, addressing every obstacle with the most efficient combination of resources, the slotted wizard will need to expend resources sub optimally in order to produce the same impact (if their spells even allow that). Sleep would have worked great here but it’s not prepared, so you’re forced to throw out a glitterdust. You’re out of Fly so you have to Teleport the party across the chasm. The point wizard does not encounter this issue where prepared spells are as limited in casting quantities.

Looking to the Sorcerer we can compare the 5/4/3/2/1 spells known at 10th level to a wizards 4/4/3/3/2 + INT benefits + specialization. A 10th level wizard for our considerations will trivially have 24 INT, adding 2/2/2/1/1 on top of the 1/1/1/1/1 for specialization. 7/7/6/5/4 spells prepped for the day. 15 for the sorc to 29 for the wizard. A 10th Psion only knows 21 powers. If a Sorc can get enough general options in the 15, that leaves the wizard 14 more memorization options that will hyper efficiently counter specific circumstances.

The main limiter on a wizards power is that they are forced to commit to a given “hand of cards” for the day. The point wizard may have a hand of smaller value, but they can pencil in every card as they play it so long as they included that name on a list at the start of the day. The only ways a wizard fails to be able to apply a decent spell is through poor choices (but again note they are given a lot more coverage than a typical slot wizard) or by exhausting their hand.

As for a fix? Spell point wizard needs to memorize individual castings each day, paid for in advance out of their pool. Poof, no more schrodinger spells, the wizards options again diminish as the day goes on.

[Crake]

I define "OP" as a so called "variant" being clearly an upgrade to the system in all the ways it counts instead of being a "side-grade" like a variant should be. You yourself admit that spell points is overall more potent, so I rest my case as your own arguments work against yourself.

I think this is where you're going wrong. Variants aren't supposed to be side grades. There are plenty of variants that make players more powerful or less powerful, intentionally so. A variant like this is simply for different gameplay, and was not built to be a side grade, upgrade, or downgrade, it just is what it is.

Edit: In fact, the Behind the Curtains sidebar on spellpoints specifically acknowledges that this variant will make spellcasters more powerful, so seems like the developers were well aware of this, so this was never intended to be balanced against vancian. It's something you either use in your campaign or you don't it's not a player's choice, it's a DM's choice, and thus there's no need for it to be balanced vs vancian or not.

Now, if you want to nerf wizards (or prepared casters in general) specifically, a simple fix would be to remove the wizard's bonus spells memorized for the day from high intelligence score (or wisdom for druids and clerics). This should help bring down their huge boost in versatility, and make it more in line with the sorcerer, who instead trades a static spell list for more spellpoints (perhaps also increase the sorcerer's spellpoint total to make it a more significant increase over the wizard's, or give sorcerers the ability to cast damaging spells without expending extra spellpoints to make them more blasting specialists).

[Vaern]

There's no need to fix it, just make it a campaign-wide decision. Either all casters are vancian, or all casters are spellpoint based. Personally, I think spellpoints are just an overall nicer system to use, and if you feel like it's too powerful compared to other classes at that point, just cut back on how many spellpoints the classes get.
Honestly, I've felt like going half-and-half seems like an appropriate approach. Specifically, Vancian casting's spell slots seem fitting for a wizard's rigid, structured method of harnessing magic, while the more freeform spell point casting system seems highly appropriate for a sorcerer's innate magical talent and natural mastery of arcane power. Besides, shouldn't a talented sorcerer tapping into his own person wells of energy have the option to throttle back some of his spells to save a bit more for later?
Rather than allowing players to pick and choose on a per-character basis, lock each class to a specific casting system. For the sake of simplicity, let's just say all prepared casters get Vancian casting and all spontaneous casters get spell points in this hypothetical case. Having both systems present within your world would make the differences between wizards and sorcerers a lot more significant than "more spells known with a higher skill cap vs. more spells per day and easy to play." A well-played sorcerer gets a significant buff in the process, but still may not necessarily be on-par with a well-played Vancian wizard.

[Eldonauran]

Honestly, I've felt like going half-and-half seems like an appropriate approach. Specifically, Vancian casting's spell slots seem fitting for a wizard's rigid, structured method of harnessing magic, while the more freeform spell point casting system seems highly appropriate for a sorcerer's innate magical talent and natural mastery of arcane power. Besides, shouldn't a talented sorcerer tapping into his own person wells of energy have the option to throttle back some of his spells to save a bit more for later?
I like this suggestion. A lot. Im going to toy with this at my table and see how it plays out, and maybe it'll make its way into my houserules.

[Caelestion]

I would have thought that the obvious balancing method would be to count your effective caster level as equal to the amount of spell points you spend on each spell, in a similar fashion to psionics.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I would have thought that the obvious balancing method would be to count your effective caster level as equal to the amount of spell points you spend on each spell, in a similar fashion to psionics.

That's the augmentation rules. You always manifest at full ML it's just that a lot of stuff doesn't automatically scale with ML.

An energy ray fired by a level 12 psion is fired at ML 12. He rolls 1d20+12 against spell/power resistance and his maximum range is 55 ft.

What varies with pp spent is how many d6s of damage he does; from just 1d6 if he spends a single pp to 12d6 if he wants to go full-tilt.

This is mirrored in the spell-point system for damaging spells.

Psionics, however, goes much further and more completely than spell-points does in extending that principle to other types of spells. It really does do everything spell points was trying in a way that's less problem-prone than converting a wizard or sorcerer.

[DMVerdandi]

I am going to say, not only is it balanced, but it's WAY more balanced than vancian and reduces bad play.
Now after we have seen arcanists in pathfinder, and wizards in 5e, really, the cat should be out of the bag.


Giving everyone spell points does a couple things:

Ends the wizard game permanently

Ends the goofy vancian game permanently [thank god]

Gives half casters much needed variety in spellcasting

Acts as protectionism for melee damage


unlike the common understanding, giving even the T1 casters more versatility is a boon for not only the parties when they need a pocket spell cast multiple times, it allows for non-spells to finally be cast. Floating disk becomes much stronger of a pick to choose, and the game is no longer pick the most powerful spell, it's more so covering your bases.

water breathing makes sense to prepare now.



lower level spells become so much more viable.



Everyone becomes more useful. Not "STRONGER", more useful.


Its also more intuitive IMO.

[Crake]

That's the augmentation rules. You always manifest at full ML it's just that a lot of stuff doesn't automatically scale with ML.

An energy ray fired by a level 12 psion is fired at ML 12. He rolls 1d20+12 against spell/power resistance and his maximum range is 55 ft.

What varies with pp spent is how many d6s of damage he does; from just 1d6 if he spends a single pp to 12d6 if he wants to go full-tilt.

This is mirrored in the spell-point system for damaging spells.

Psionics, however, goes much further and more completely than spell-points does in extending that principle to other types of spells. It really does do everything spell points was trying in a way that's less problem-prone than converting a wizard or sorcerer.

To be fair though, psions also get a lot more power points than casters get spellpoints, likely to make up for all the extra augmentation required.

Also, augmentation usually comes paired with DC increases, making augmented powers usually more effectively high level spells, and sometimes actually specifically covering higher level spells. Psionic charm and dominate for example cover both charm/dominate person and, with sufficient augmentation, charm/dominate monster.

[Xervous]

Acts as protectionism for melee damage.

Not quite sure I’m following unless this is a reference to the martial cleanup crew that scrubs the stage after the casters decide if the scene was worth their time or not.

[Destro2119]

I think this is where you're going wrong. Variants aren't supposed to be side grades. There are plenty of variants that make players more powerful or less powerful, intentionally so. A variant like this is simply for different gameplay, and was not built to be a side grade, upgrade, or downgrade, it just is what it is.

Edit: In fact, the Behind the Curtains sidebar on spellpoints specifically acknowledges that this variant will make spellcasters more powerful, so seems like the developers were well aware of this, so this was never intended to be balanced against vancian. It's something you either use in your campaign or you don't it's not a player's choice, it's a DM's choice, and thus there's no need for it to be balanced vs vancian or not.

Now, if you want to nerf wizards (or prepared casters in general) specifically, a simple fix would be to remove the wizard's bonus spells memorized for the day from high intelligence score (or wisdom for druids and clerics). This should help bring down their huge boost in versatility, and make it more in line with the sorcerer, who instead trades a static spell list for more spellpoints (perhaps also increase the sorcerer's spellpoint total to make it a more significant increase over the wizard's, or give sorcerers the ability to cast damaging spells without expending extra spellpoints to make them more blasting specialists).

So you admit that it is OP and I am right?

[ciopo]

I am confused only by one thing : don't you still need to prepare the given spells? Spell points allow for a bigger granularity, but the limitation of "these are the spells you can use today" is srill the same, no?

In a way, it's kinda like 5e prepared spellcasters, but with a finer comb than slots

You still won't have "all the spells" ready to go. You have your x spells but you're basically a spontaneous for the day .

Most of you are giving me the impression that a first level spell point wizard would 0ick and choose from any and all spells he knows during the day, but the rules says that he's preparing "X different spells" just the same?

[Destro2119]

Honestly, I've felt like going half-and-half seems like an appropriate approach. Specifically, Vancian casting's spell slots seem fitting for a wizard's rigid, structured method of harnessing magic, while the more freeform spell point casting system seems highly appropriate for a sorcerer's innate magical talent and natural mastery of arcane power. Besides, shouldn't a talented sorcerer tapping into his own person wells of energy have the option to throttle back some of his spells to save a bit more for later?
Rather than allowing players to pick and choose on a per-character basis, lock each class to a specific casting system. For the sake of simplicity, let's just say all prepared casters get Vancian casting and all spontaneous casters get spell points in this hypothetical case. Having both systems present within your world would make the differences between wizards and sorcerers a lot more significant than "more spells known with a higher skill cap vs. more spells per day and easy to play." A well-played sorcerer gets a significant buff in the process, but still may not necessarily be on-par with a well-played Vancian wizard.

This half and half idea is on the right track.

Here is my own version for how to do this:

Casters use spell slots, but they have a separate pool of spell points equal to casting stat modifier + CL. They expend spell points to bolster the spells using metamagic feats, expending a number of spell points equal to the spell LA of the feat. More importantly, they can expend a number of spell points equal to spell level (?) to replace a spell with a different one in their spell book of the same level. At a certain level, they can expend spell points to recover a spell of their choice from their spellbook a la this feat: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/rogue-genius-games/general-feats/extra-spell-slots/.

How about it? Please leave reviews!

[Xervous]

I am confused only by one thing : don't you still need to prepare the given spells? Spell points allow for a bigger granularity, but the limitation of "these are the spells you can use today" is srill the same, no?

In a way, it's kinda like 5e prepared spellcasters, but with a finer comb than slots

You still won't have "all the spells" ready to go. You have your x spells but you're basically a spontaneous for the day .

Most of you are giving me the impression that a first level spell point wizard would 0ick and choose from any and all spells he knows during the day, but the rules says that he's preparing "X different spells" just the same?

There’s a frightening leap in applied power when you go from Sleep, Magic Missile, Minor Image etc. as your preloaded spell bullets to any arrangement of those spells that you need. The day may not call for Sleep but you have wasted 0 spell points on preparing it. The day might call for spamming sleep, slotted wizard would have to improvise with Minor Image and ping with Magic Missile. This spans across all spell levels. A 7th level wizard who sees no need for a 4th level spell in the day doesn’t have to cast one. The slotted wizard has 4ths and will be inefficient relative to the spell point wizard when casting them in this consideration. Look to a day where a specific 4th level spell is amazingly potent, the spell point wizard can muster far more than the slot wizard can dream of.

Also extremely noteworthy is that the slot wizard needs to prepare dupes to have dupes. Point wizard does not, so gets more unique spells memorized in the general applied case.

Glance up thread at the numbers on “spells known” comparison between a spell point sorc and wiz. The wizard doubles the sorcerer at various points of comparison while only lacking a sliver of the spell point pool.

[Crake]

So you admit that it is OP and I am right?

OP means overpowered. I admit it's stronger, yes, but saying it's OP implies it's too powerful, which I disagree with. Your assertion that if it's stronger than vancian, then it's OP is one that I simply disagree with.

[Caelestion]

So is it OP, as I have stated?

If not, someone point me to some math that says it is not OP compared to vancian.


So I am right and it is OP?


But aren't Psionics infamously more OP than normal magic? Meaning that Spell points is OP?


"personally, I think that, for those with a Playgrounder Determinator bent, it's *usually* stronger than pure Vancian"

So it actually is OP?


"They can nova harder, with more higher level slots, at the cost of EVERY OTHER slot for the day."

But doesn't that mean it is better? I mean, 20 cloudkills/fireballs >>> 2 fireballs and 2 water breathing spells.

Or is this still not OP, objectively (ie according to math/theoretical strategic situations)?


So you admit that it is OP and I am right?

Is this entire thread just have to people validate your opinions online and, failing that, to ask the same question again and again until someone finally agrees with you?

[ciopo]

There’s a frightening leap in applied power when you go from Sleep, Magic Missile, Minor Image etc. as your preloaded spell bullets to any arrangement of those spells that you need. The day may not call for Sleep but you have wasted 0 spell points on preparing it. The day might call for spamming sleep, slotted wizard would have to improvise with Minor Image and ping with Magic Missile. This spans across all spell levels. A 7th level wizard who sees no need for a 4th level spell in the day doesn’t have to cast one. The slotted wizard has 4ths and will be inefficient relative to the spell point wizard when casting them in this consideration. Look to a day where a specific 4th level spell is amazingly potent, the spell point wizard can muster far more than the slot wizard can dream of.

Also extremely noteworthy is that the slot wizard needs to prepare dupes to have dupes. Point wizard does not, so gets more unique spells memorized in the general applied case.

Glance up thread at the numbers on “spells known” comparison between a spell point sorc and wiz. The wizard doubles the sorcerer at various points of comparison while only lacking a sliver of the spell point pool. but the limitation is not on spell known, just the same? I'll filter it from my druid point of view. The only functional difference is that I can't keep slots unprepared for emeegency 10 minutes "we really need that spell" if I had 2 second level slots, I'd prepare barkskin and halo of sans. If I were a spellpoint druid, I still would have had barkskin and halo of sand, I still wouldn't have been able to cast any other 2nd level spells than those two. Spellpoint bonus is the flexibility to cast two of one instead of one and one, or sacrifice spell alots of different levels to cast more barkskin. But for that specific day, I am still locked to barkskin and halo of sand for my prepared 2nd level spells.

So, going back to the wizard, hypothetical wizard that choosed X,Y,Z for his prepared spells, still won't be able to cast a spell that isn't X,Y,Z. Modulo "leaving slots unprepared" which is no different than before for "can afford 10 minutes" to lock in a prepared for the day

The gain is in not preparing dupes, yeah, and the flexibility of "I sacrifice a fireball for some sleep", but I don't see where there is the perceived extra flexibility of "I can cast ALLL the spells i know", that isn't the case? I'm confused

[MoiMagnus]

So, going back to the wizard, hypothetical wizard that choosed X,Y,Z for his prepared spells, still won't be able to cast a spell that isn't X,Y,Z. Modulo "leaving slots unprepared" which is no different than before for "can afford 10 minutes" to lock in a prepared for the day

The gain is in not preparing dupes, yeah, and the flexibility of "I sacrifice a fireball for some sleep", but I don't see where there is the perceived extra flexibility of "I can cast ALLL the spells i know", that isn't the case? I'm confused

The point here is that a Vancian wizard that have a fixed "battle plan" would be preparing X,X,X,Y,Y,Z,Z to be able to cast the same spells in every encounter.

The same wizard but with spellpoints and with the same fixed "battle plan" would be preparing X,Y,Z and then would have 4 additional slots A,B,C,D for unexpected situations.

It is correct that a wizard that was already playing flexible by having a variety of spells don't win that much. But a mono-maniac wizard is now able to have backup plans.

[Xervous]

but the limitation is not on spell known, just the same? I'll filter it from my druid point of view. The only functional difference is that I can't keep slots unprepared for emeegency 10 minutes "we really need that spell" if I had 2 second level slots, I'd prepare barkskin and halo of sans. If I were a spellpoint druid, I still would have had barkskin and halo of sand, I still wouldn't have been able to cast any other 2nd level spells than those two. Spellpoint bonus is the flexibility to cast two of one instead of one and one, or sacrifice spell alots of different levels to cast more barkskin. But for that specific day, I am still locked to barkskin and halo of sand for my prepared 2nd level spells.

So, going back to the wizard, hypothetical wizard that choosed X,Y,Z for his prepared spells, still won't be able to cast a spell that isn't X,Y,Z. Modulo "leaving slots unprepared" which is no different than before for "can afford 10 minutes" to lock in a prepared for the day

The gain is in not preparing dupes, yeah, and the flexibility of "I sacrifice a fireball for some sleep", but I don't see where there is the perceived extra flexibility of "I can cast ALLL the spells i know", that isn't the case? I'm confused

“Cast all the spells” isn’t a claim I’ve seen anyone here make. I did mention that something approaching a true schrodinger slot wizard is needed to compete with the applied functionality of a spell point wizard.


Rereading spell points I caught a blunder I made on calculating spells prepared, but I did find the other detail you pointed me towards. Spell Points Variant explicitly states spell preparation works the same, so you can leave memorization slots unfilled and spend 10min later to select a spell. This is even more powerful now that I think about it. Prepare only the high efficiency staples and expected necessities while leaving the rest open for on the spot assignment. Unlike the slot caster you always have access to the spell points such an empty slot would otherwise represent.

[HouseRules]

Rereading spell points I caught a blunder I made on calculating spells prepared, but I did find the other detail you pointed me towards. Spell Points Variant explicitly states spell preparation works the same, so you can leave memorization slots unfilled and spend 10min later to select a spell. This is even more powerful now that I think about it. Prepare only the high efficiency staples and expected necessities while leaving the rest open for on the spot assignment. Unlike the slot caster you always have access to the spell points such an empty slot would otherwise represent.

A Vancian caster could

prepare all spell slots in 1 hour
prepare half spell slots in 30 minutes, round down on first half
prepare quarter spell slots in 15 minutes, round down on first three quarters


A Spell Points Variant clearly is more flexible and decrease the gap between prepared casters and spontaneous casters. Spontaneous casters could be said to use a spell point system where they have separate spell points to each spell level.

[yarrowdeathbloo]

Is this entire thread just have to people validate your opinions online and, failing that, to ask the same question again and again until someone finally agrees with you?

Seems like it.

[Quertus]

The system was designed for the average length of a combat to be about 5 rounds or so and 4 encounters in a day is also somewhat presumed but a spell-slinger will almost never have need to cast a spell in every single round of every encounter (not all of which will even be combat encounters) in a given day. A -lot- of common situations can be essentially solved in a single spell; reducing big portions of combat to what amounts to cleanup unless an unexpected complication is inserted into the encounter.

This is the classic Psion issue - having a power pool makes it much more likely that most players will drain their batteries faster, and thus it's a stealth nerf in games with the potential for atypical numbers of encounters per day.


“Cast all the spells” isn’t a claim I’ve seen anyone here make.

You missed it then:



the Wizard gets more flexibility - access to his entire spellbook (and Metamagic) rather than having to prepare in advance