Spell points alternatives?

[Eric Diaz]

I cannot bring myself to manage all the spell slots, so I want to try the spell point variant.

However, the alternative rules for spell points in the DMG are barely an improvement over spell slots. It gives spellcasters more flexibility with no cost, so makes them even more powerful, a boost they do not need IMO.

I wanted something simpler (for example, 3 spell points to cast a 3rd level spell etc.) and make the number a lot smaller, but I couldn't make this work. This would be ideal - my players have a hard time with spellcasters.

Then I though of keeping the spell point cost and just reducing the numbers at higher levels but I think it would be completely arbitrary - it there a particular level in which spellcasters are too powerful or too weak?

Anyway, have you seem any homebrew versions of spell points that do this differently? Maybe the work is already done and I haven't found it.

[PhantomSoul]

One thing I've considered is having spell points be short-rest based (and reduce the number you have at a time accordingly), which helps drop down the numbers to manage (plus increasing -- rather than decreasing -- the use of short rests appeals to me since in my experience it's been having most players not benefit much from a short rest that leads the party to always want long rests instead of short rests). Reducing at the max level is definitely appealing, though, for regular points!

Alternatively using something like Monk spellcasting as a baseline (you get 1 pt/level per SR and spells cost their level in points) could be a simpler solution; you always know the maximum and the cost quite readily (but you'll have less casting ability if the goal is a full caster, unless increasing e.g. to double).

I've gotten used to spell point costs as being intuitive (it's essentially spell level + spell tier), but I know that isn't going to be true for everyone!

[Eric Diaz]

One thing I've considered is having spell points be short-rest based (and reduce the number you have at a time accordingly), which helps drop down the numbers to manage (plus increasing -- rather than decreasing -- the use of short rests appeals to me since in my experience it's been having most players not benefit much from a short rest that leads the party to always want long rests instead of short rests). Reducing at the max level is definitely appealing, though, for regular points!

Alternatively using something like Monk spellcasting as a baseline (you get 1 pt/level per SR and spells cost their level in points) could be a simpler solution; you always know the maximum and the cost quite readily (but you'll have less casting ability if the goal is a full caster, unless increasing e.g. to double).

I've gotten used to spell point costs as being intuitive (it's essentially spell level + spell tier), but I know that isn't going to be true for everyone!

Thanks! Yeah, I am considering a monk-like approach, with double the SP.

I love the idea of giving some extra SP by short rest, since now the wizard becomes weaker in the long rest, stronger in the short rest.... similarly to other classes.

EDIT: one advantage ok keeping spell cost as written are sorcery points. Maybe make the wizard a sorcerer with less metamagic and more spellcasting power.

[Mutazoia]

I cannot bring myself to manage all the spell slots, so I want to try the spell point variant.

However, the alternative rules for spell points in the DMG are barely an improvement over spell slots. It gives spellcasters more flexibility with no cost, so makes them even more powerful, a boost they do not need IMO.

I wanted something simpler (for example, 3 spell points to cast a 3rd level spell etc.) and make the number a lot smaller, but I couldn't make this work. This would be ideal - my players have a hard time with spellcasters.

Then I though of keeping the spell point cost and just reducing the numbers at higher levels but I think it would be completely arbitrary - it there a particular level in which spellcasters are too powerful or too weak?

Anyway, have you seem any homebrew versions of spell points that do this differently? Maybe the work is already done and I haven't found it.

I think you might be looking for something like the original Iron Heroes magic rules.


THE MECHANICS OF MAGIC
When Morthoth the arcanist attempts to cast a spell, he must gather magical energy, focus it into the form he desires, then unleash it into the world. The process of gathering the energy can place a strain on his mind and body, but as he trains and studies, he learns to gather mana without injuring himself.

As an artist gains skill throughout his career, an arcanist can improve his ability to form spells. Not only can he create more powerful effects, but the simple effects he mastered as an apprentice become easier to shape. Unfortunately, every mage—from the simplest initiate to the mightiest archmage—faces a simple, insurmountable problem: The process of shepherding a fully-formed spell from the space between dimensions to reality is fraught with peril. Random fluctuations in planar geometry and the volatility of mana can cause a spell to take on almost any form. Morthoth can reduce the chance of losing control of a spell by gathering as little mana as possible to achieve his intended effect.

In game terms, casting a spell involves three steps:
1. First, an arcanist must determine how much mana to gather. If he tries to gather more than he can normally handle, he might push his body and mind beyond their levels of endurance.
2. Next he decides what he wants to do with the mana and sculpts it into his desired form.
3. With the spell shaped to his liking, the arcanist then attempts to channel it into reality. This last step is the most important portion of the process. If the arcanist successfully channels the spell, it has its desired effects. If he fails, the spell runs wild.

STEP 1: GATHER MANA
Every spellcaster can draw on mana to shape his spells. An arcanist’s mana limit (see the Arcanist Class Features and Mastery table in Chapter Three) represents his ability to gather points of mana. The mana limit does not represent a supply of energy that a caster taps into. Rather, it measures the total energy that he can gather without stretching his mental and physical abilities beyond their capacity. Think of it as the total distance a runner can travel before tiring. This measure shows the limit of what an arcanist is capable of handling, not a discrete supply of energy that he can access.

When you use mana to shape a spell, you reduce your total available mana by the amount spent on the spell. If casting a spell reduces your available mana to less than zero, track the negative total. When you cast a spell that leaves you with a negative mana total, make a Fortitude save (DC 15 + your negative mana total; ignore the minus sign on your total when you determine this Difficulty Class).

STRAIN
If you fail this saving throw, you suffer strain. Strain is temporary ability score damage equal to your negative mana total. You suffer this damage to all of your ability scores. You can continue to cast spells after your mana total drops below zero, but you must continue to make Fortitude saves. If you fail another saving throw, you again suffer temporary ability score damage equal to your negative mana total. You do not reset your mana total after taking damage. You cannot reduce your mana pool to less than 0 – your Constitution score. If your pool somehow drops below this value, you immediately die from the traumatic strain.

Example: Morthoth currently has 2 points of available mana. He casts a spell that costs 4 mana, dropping him to –2. He must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC 17 [15 + 2, since he’s at –2 mana]) or suffer 2 points of damage to his ability scores. Later, he casts another spell that costs 8 mana, bringing his available mana down to –10. He must make a Fortitude save (DC 25 [15 + 10 for his negative mana]) or suffer 10 more points of damage to each of his ability scores. If he failed both saves, his scores would each suffer 12 points of damage. As you can see, pushing your mana pool below zero can prove risky.

{NOTE: For the record, spell casters start with a mana limit of 12, which increases by 3 each level}

The players build their spells rather than relying on a pat list (although there are some samples of premade spells available) and decide the thematic effect (such as the color/shape of a fireball) themselves.

Later versions of Iron Heroes had the spell casting system replaced with True Sorcery (https://greenroninstore.com/products/true-sorcery-pdf) which is a pretty cool casting system in its own right. (If I remember, True Sorcery uses pretty much the above method more or less as is and just expands on it.)

Regardless, using a system like this means that your players don't have to track their spells, they just have to track how much damage they are doing to themselves by continuing to cast beyond their means.

[Segev]

Can you explain what it is that makes tracking spell slots hard for you and your players? I ask because anything that is suggested to make it simpler might also trip the same issues, so I need to know what the core of the problem is to try to propose solutions.

[Theodoxus]

Granting all spellcasters short rest mechanics (especially using spell points, since rebalancing spell slots would be a pain if you're not cribbing the Warlock, and then, what's the point of Warlock?) is pretty easy, but you'll (probably) want to address Land Druid and Wizard recovery mechanics. I'm not sure what would be appropriate, though the easiest would simply grant them a few extra points (maybe, equal to the highest level of spell they can cast? - depending on how you're generating the points in general).

So, using the DMG version, a 2nd level Wizard would get 2 extra points - able to cast an extra 1st level spell. This does make the ability stronger than they get normally, as they get 1 extra spell per short rest, rather than 1 extra per long rest.

At 3rd level, they'd get 3 extra points.
At 5th level, they'd get 5 extra points.
At 7th level, they'd get 6 extra points.
At 9th level and above, they'd get 7 extra points.

I personally would cap it at 7 points (or equivalent of 5th level in whatever fashion you choose). That way the initial boost is quite powerful, but tapers off as the character gets more powerful and it's less of a crutch.

I'd also consider providing an extra point per tertiary mental attribute mod they get. Just to give Wizards a reason for some Charisma, Bards a reason for Wisdom and Clerics a reason for Intelligence...

[Mutazoia]

Can you explain what it is that makes tracking spell slots hard for you and your players? I ask because anything that is suggested to make it simpler might also trip the same issues, so I need to know what the core of the problem is to try to propose solutions.

I could hazard a guess that it's a matter of people casting more X-level spells than they should actually have?

If that's the case, something like DnDbeyonds character sheet might be in order. In the old days of BattleTech, we would put our mech sheets into sheet protectors and use wax pencils to mark off armor hits. These were easily cleaned off and the mechs ready to use for the next game (obviously you could swap out whichever mech you needed)

It might take some work, or someone may have already done it, but designing a character sheet, or perhaps a separate spell list sheet, with checkboxes for the number of spell slots available for each level might be a tool you can utilize along with the aforementioned sheet protectors and wax pencils (both available at places like Office Depot).

[Eric Diaz]

Thanks for all the answers! Lots of good, useful stuff.

About what makes tracking spell slots hard for me and my players, might just be a preference. Feels like too much stuff to keep track of - too many slots, too many spells, etc.

I think the best way to describe what I want is something close to a homebrew sorcerer that ONLY uses sorcery points.

I know sorcery points only take you to level 5 spells, but I don't mind 6th level spells or more, these are easier to manage - you've basically got one casting per day and that's it until level 19th (an I don't usually play through levels 15+ anyway).

[Segev]

Thanks for all the answers! Lots of good, useful stuff.

About what makes tracking spell slots hard for me and my players, might just be a preference. Feels like too much stuff to keep track of - too many slots, too many spells, etc.

I think the best way to describe what I want is something close to a homebrew sorcerer that ONLY uses sorcery points.

I know sorcery points only take you to level 5 spells, but I don't mind 6th level spells or more, these are easy to manage - you've basically got one casting per day and that's it until level 19th.

In terms of "too many slots," I personally find tracking spell points no easier. Perhaps it's how I track spell slots: I just have a list of spell levels, and a number of slots I have for each. I then put a tally mark next to the spell level as I cast it. (Or, if electronic, I increment the "number cast" entry.) I find this no harder than debiting spell points from a pool, which is why I question whether using SP will solve your problem.

In earlier editions, where pseudo-Vancian casting meant you prepared exactly the spells you were going to cast, it was actually even easier to track during play: write out your list of prepared spells, and then just start crossing them off as you cast them.

I am not sure how to make anything that would be easier to track that wouldn't either utterly mess with the action economy or cause the spells to be essentially "free" to cast.

[Eric Diaz]

In terms of "too many slots," I personally find tracking spell points no easier. Perhaps it's how I track spell slots: I just have a list of spell levels, and a number of slots I have for each. I then put a tally mark next to the spell level as I cast it. (Or, if electronic, I increment the "number cast" entry.) I find this no harder than debiting spell points from a pool, which is why I question whether using SP will solve your problem.

In earlier editions, where pseudo-Vancian casting meant you prepared exactly the spells you were going to cast, it was actually even easier to track during play: write out your list of prepared spells, and then just start crossing them off as you cast them.

I am not sure how to make anything that would be easier to track that wouldn't either utterly mess with the action economy or cause the spells to be essentially "free" to cast.

Yeah, I'm not sure SP will work either. But since we are not the biggest fan of spell slots, might be worth a shot.

You're right about earlier editions; it was a bit easier, although I like the idea of flexible casting.

[GeneralVryth]

One short rest variation I thought of for spell slots is you get 1 spell slot for spell level 1 through 5 (you get the slot itself when you gain access to the spell level so class/character levels 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9). Those slots re-charge on a short rest. The only other change you need to make is abilities like the Wizard Arcane recovery is a free action and only works on your highest short rest slot (or a variation I think is more balance the highest spell level you can cast - 1, minimum 1).

If you convert the spells to points and you compare with the Warlock and it's slots converted to point you discover the numbers are pretty close.

I personally like this for building caster NPCs because it keeps them from being able to dump a full load of spell slots against a group that ideally should only be using a portion of their power.

Whether this counts as simple I don't know though.


Thanks for all the answers! Lots of good, useful stuff.

About what makes tracking spell slots hard for me and my players, might just be a preference. Feels like too much stuff to keep track of - too many slots, too many spells, etc.

I think the best way to describe what I want is something close to a homebrew sorcerer that ONLY uses sorcery points.

I know sorcery points only take you to level 5 spells, but I don't mind 6th level spells or more, these are easier to manage - you've basically got one casting per day and that's it until level 19th (an I don't usually play through levels 15+ anyway).

I have always thought Sorcerers should use a spell point system. What you're describing can be done pretty easily, just use the spell point system and add the Sorcerer's level to the amount of points they get and state they can use those points for spells and metamagic, and remove "Sorcery Points" or just call the spell points "Sorcery Points" (this is probably a very common homebrew for Sorcerers). You can take or leave the once per day restrictions on casting 6+ level spells with points depending on preference.

[Segev]

Yeah, I'm not sure SP will work either. But since we are not the biggest fan of spell slots, might be worth a shot.

You're right about earlier editions; it was a bit easier, although I like the idea of flexible casting.

What method do you use to track spell slots right now?

And yeah, if the core issue is that you just dislike them, aesthetically, simplicity of tracking won't help or hinder.

If you want to try a totally different system that is (theoretically, though there are some issues where they tried, I think, to push their balance preferences in without recognizing that the rest of the system is not balanced to their taste and thus it's a bit off-kilter) going to involve tracking only one resource and will do so relatively simply, you might try 5e Spheres of Power (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/spheres-of-power). Your casters build their own magical repertoire as a series of talents that give them basic "sphere" abilities and then expand on them, and spend spell points only when using things that augment their powers beyond what the system considers a baseline they can do all day long. I do not recommend using most of the 5e classes with the conversion to spherecasting; they're not well-considered (though the sorcerer seems to work pretty well). It has its own base classes that I recommend using instead. Use Incanter intead of Spherecaster Wizard, in particular, if you use spherecasting. Wizard is very much designed for 5e's spellcasting system.

In theory, you can have spherecasting and regular casting in the same game. In practice, they even balance...reasonably well. Though you'll find some cases where using spherecasting for a build will make you wish you'd just used regular rules, those are relatively rare and mostly show up if you wanted to play an evoker.

For you, I think the draw of having spell points be spent usually in 1s or 2s, with the occasional 3 or 4 cost, will be fairly attractive. It's based on the effect you're using rather than any particular spell level.

[Eric Diaz]

One short rest variation I thought of for spell slots is you get 1 spell slot for spell level 1 through 5 (you get the slot itself when you gain access to the spell level so class/character levels 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9). Those slots re-charge on a short rest. The only other change you need to make is abilities like the Wizard Arcane recovery is a free action and only works on your highest short rest slot (or a variation I think is more balance the highest spell level you can cast - 1, minimum 1).

If you convert the spells to points and you compare with the Warlock and it's slots converted to point you discover the numbers are pretty close.

I personally like this for building caster NPCs because it keeps them from being able to dump a full load of spell slots against a group that ideally should only be using a portion of their power.

Whether this counts as simple I don't know though.



I have always thought Sorcerers should use a spell point system. What you're describing can be done pretty easily, just use the spell point system and add the Sorcerer's level to the amount of points they get and state they can use those points for spells and metamagic, and remove "Sorcery Points" or just call the spell points "Sorcery Points" (this is probably a very common homebrew for Sorcerers). You can take or leave the once per day restrictions on casting 6+ level spells with points depending on preference.

I like this! Thank you!


What method do you use to track spell slots right now?

Each PC noted down their own stuff... but we would play a couple of weeks later and we were unsure if there had been a rest after that, etc. HP felt easier: either everybody had full HP or not.

Probably could be a smaller issue if we were playing more frequently ... or if we were younger :D .



And yeah, if the core issue is that you just dislike them, aesthetically, simplicity of tracking won't help or hinder.

If you want to try a totally different system that is (theoretically, though there are some issues where they tried, I think, to push their balance preferences in without recognizing that the rest of the system is not balanced to their taste and thus it's a bit off-kilter) going to involve tracking only one resource and will do so relatively simply, you might try 5e Spheres of Power (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/spheres-of-power). Your casters build their own magical repertoire as a series of talents that give them basic "sphere" abilities and then expand on them, and spend spell points only when using things that augment their powers beyond what the system considers a baseline they can do all day long. I do not recommend using most of the 5e classes with the conversion to spherecasting; they're not well-considered (though the sorcerer seems to work pretty well). It has its own base classes that I recommend using instead. Use Incanter intead of Spherecaster Wizard, in particular, if you use spherecasting. Wizard is very much designed for 5e's spellcasting system.

In theory, you can have spherecasting and regular casting in the same game. In practice, they even balance...reasonably well. Though you'll find some cases where using spherecasting for a build will make you wish you'd just used regular rules, those are relatively rare and mostly show up if you wanted to play an evoker.

For you, I think the draw of having spell points be spent usually in 1s or 2s, with the occasional 3 or 4 cost, will be fairly attractive. It's based on the effect you're using rather than any particular spell level.



Spheres of Power sounds really interesting... will check! Thanks!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I cannot bring myself to manage all the spell slots, so I want to try the spell point variant.

However, the alternative rules for spell points in the DMG are barely an improvement over spell slots. It gives spellcasters more flexibility with no cost, so makes them even more powerful, a boost they do not need IMO.

I wanted something simpler (for example, 3 spell points to cast a 3rd level spell etc.) and make the number a lot smaller, but I couldn't make this work. This would be ideal - my players have a hard time with spellcasters.

Then I though of keeping the spell point cost and just reducing the numbers at higher levels but I think it would be completely arbitrary - it there a particular level in which spellcasters are too powerful or too weak?

Anyway, have you seem any homebrew versions of spell points that do this differently? Maybe the work is already done and I haven't found it.

Have all casters work off the Warlock casting system. Since they don't have evocations, you could say that wizards and clerics have 1 or 2 more spells slots per short rest. They could also get spell levels faster.

Sorcerer who exchange a slot for SP must track that SP seperately and they go away when the slots gets refreshed. This might already be a rule but I haven't touched on it in a long while.

Paladins and Rangers would get the same number slots as Warlocks.

I mean, Warlocks are basically spell point casters but they only ever get 2 spell points and a cap of level 5 spells (another feature goes beyond level 5 spells).

Simplest way to do all this I feel.

[DwarfFighter]

I cannot bring myself to manage all the spell slots, so I want to try the spell point variant.


Are you talking about changing the spell slot mechanic for your NPCs? You can totally do that. Spell points for NPC spell casters offers the benefit of being a single-dimension metric, regardless of how you cost your spells.

The next may be unsolicited advice, but here goes, sorry: As the GM you don't actually have to track spell slots or spell points. NPCs don't have to follow the rules of PC classes.

Follow-up to that advice: Don't go overboard. If the players feel they are up against over-powered enemies, a lot of the fun goes away. When the fun goes away, the players go away.

-DF

[Kane0]

I’ve got a spell point sorc, might be what you’re looking for. To keep the number of SP relatively low I used a warlock-esque slot method for higher level spells 6th+

[Eric Diaz]

Are you talking about changing the spell slot mechanic for your NPCs? You can totally do that. Spell points for NPC spell casters offers the benefit of being a single-dimension metric, regardless of how you cost your spells.

The next may be unsolicited advice, but here goes, sorry: As the GM you don't actually have to track spell slots or spell points. NPCs don't have to follow the rules of PC classes.

Follow-up to that advice: Don't go overboard. If the players feel they are up against over-powered enemies, a lot of the fun goes away. When the fun goes away, the players go away.

-DF

Yes! Especially for NPCs, but I'd like to offer that (maybe as an option) for PCs too. I think they'd have an easier time.


Have all casters work off the Warlock casting system. Since they don't have evocations, you could say that wizards and clerics have 1 or 2 more spells slots per short rest. They could also get spell levels faster.

Sorcerer who exchange a slot for SP must track that SP seperately and they go away when the slots gets refreshed. This might already be a rule but I haven't touched on it in a long while.

Paladins and Rangers would get the same number slots as Warlocks.

I mean, Warlocks are basically spell point casters but they only ever get 2 spell points and a cap of level 5 spells (another feature goes beyond level 5 spells).

Simplest way to do all this I feel.

This sounds good, thanks!


I’ve got a spell point sorc, might be what you’re looking for. To keep the number of SP relatively low I used a warlock-esque slot method for higher level spells 6th+

Yes, I'd love to see it!

[Eric Diaz]

Okay, here is something I could try:

Start with the sorcerer.

She gets 6 SP per day to start with, and then gets 4 SP per level.

In addition to that, she gets to cast a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th spell ONCE PER DAY in the appropriate levels (11, 13, 15, and 17) without spending spell points, plus another 6th level spell on 19th and another 7th level spell on 20.

In addition, some short rest recovery on levels 3, 5, 7, and 11... maybe.

It's FAR from perfect... but does it seem like the right ballpark?

[GeneralVryth]

Here are the amount of spell points you would have (going by the system in the DMG) if you were to remove the costs of the level 6+ spells you get:

Level 1 to 5:
4
6
14
17
27

Level 6 to 10:
32
38
44
57
64

Level 11 to 16:
64
64
64
64
64
64

Level 17+
71
71
71
71

Then you could add Sorc level to that. It will be more balanced than your suggestion, which will be a little strong in the first couple levels and then on average much weaker until it catches up around level 16 again.

[Eric Diaz]

Here are the amount of spell points you would have (going by the system in the DMG) if you were to remove the costs of the level 6+ spells you get:

Level 1 to 5:
4
6
14
17
27

Level 6 to 10:
32
38
44
57
64

Level 11 to 16:
64
64
64
64
64
64

Level 17+
71
71
71
71

Then you could add Sorc level to that. It will be more balanced than your suggestion, which will be a little strong in the first couple levels and then on average much weaker until it catches up around level 16 again.

I really like this! Thank you!

EDIT: FWIW... I really like the idea of having a "aesthetically satisfying" progression, so I came up with a simple formula based on what you've said.

So, instead of slots, we get sorcery points. We could just add the spell point totals to the existing sorcery points, but I'd prefer a more "esthetically satisfying" table. Here is my suggestion: start with 5 spell points, add 5 per even level, and 10 per odd level, until level 10.

Starting on level 11, you get a single spell point per level. In addition to that, you get to cast a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th spell ONCE PER DAY in the appropriate levels (11, 13, 15, and 17) without spending spell points (plus an extra 6th level spell on 19th and 7th level on 20th).

It's not perfect, but now I'm pretty sure we are in the right ballpark fro most of the time! It is a small nerf in the high levels but a fair cost for the flexibility, IMO.

It still needs some fine tuning (and some way of dealing with "loose" spell points).

I am aware that this "aesthetically satisfying" thing is very subjective and not everyone will like but, here it goes to whoever it might concern:

https://i.ibb.co/MDh4nNk/Screenshot-1.png

[GeneralVryth]

It should be obvious, but that is a decent sized Sorcerer buff (just having Sorcerers use spell points + sorcery points combined is a solid buff). It should be fine, but when combined with the newer Sorcerer sub-classes it could end up being strong compared to other full casters. Just something to keep in mind.

[Kane0]

Yes, I'd love to see it!

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?555697-Houserules-and-homebrew

Second post, sorcerer has its own spoiler. Should work with published subclasses but you may want to adjust free spells granted from the Tasha’s ones.

[Eric Diaz]

It should be obvious, but that is a decent sized Sorcerer buff (just having Sorcerers use spell points + sorcery points combined is a solid buff). It should be fine, but when combined with the newer Sorcerer sub-classes it could end up being strong compared to other full casters. Just something to keep in mind.

Yes, I certainly agree!


https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?555697-Houserules-and-homebrew

Second post, sorcerer has its own spoiler. Should work with published subclasses but you may want to adjust free spells granted from the Tasha’s ones.

I like it! The "high arcana" part is exactly what I was thinking. Thank you! One question: it seems you use spell points as written in the DMG, instead of adding the sorcery points that sorcerer would get IN ADDITION to slots (one per level). Any specific reason for that, ot is it just a way of balacing things?

[Kane0]

One question: it seems you use spell points as written in the DMG, instead of adding the sorcery points that sorcerer would get IN ADDITION to slots (one per level). Any specific reason for that, ot is it just a way of balacing things?

Because I saw no point in having two separate point-based, long-rest resources both used for spellcasting, I merged them. I didn't add them together because I wanted to introduce some incentive to short-rest for the sorcerer, so the short-rest recovery does that while also cutting down on the ability to spam from a higher total spell pool. Two stones one bird.

[Eric Diaz]

Because I saw no point in having two separate point-based, long-rest resources both used for spellcasting, I merged them. I didn't add them together because I wanted to introduce some incentive to short-rest for the sorcerer, so the short-rest recovery does that while also cutting down on the ability to spam from a higher total spell pool. Two stones one bird.

Ah, yes, makes sense! thank you!

[Kane0]

If you do end up using it I always appreciate feedback, i've playtested but more is better.

[Vegan Squirrel]

Another alternative to consider is using physical tokens of some sort to represent spell slots (like different colored poker chips). Then the players don't have to track what they've used, just check if they have any left of the right level. Personally, I prefer check boxes on a character sheet so you can just check a box off each time you cast. Check boxes on a separate index card that stays in front of you is also an option.

If you start introducing 2 spells per day for higher level spells at certain levels, then to my eyes, you have all the hassles of tracking spell slots combined with all the hassles of tracking spell points. That's fine if you're looking for the fine control that spell points offer (which seems to be the main reason people prefer spell points), but if your goal is to reduce bookkeeping, I'd think hard before introducing that. YMMV, of course; everyone's brain works differently.

[Contrast]

Given that a lot of people have already given some suggestions on how to tweak, I will point out the other option.

How spellcasting works is baked pretty hard into a lot of the PC and NPC stuff so reworking it in a major way is going to require quite a bit of tweaking and potential playtesting to get the balance right.

It might be worth spending at least some of that time reading around and seeing if another system provides you with the experience you're looking for out of the box. I've never played it personally but I've heard a number of people who like 5E also talk enthusiactically about 13th Age for example.

[quindraco]

Given that a lot of people have already given some suggestions on how to tweak, I will point out the other option.

How spellcasting works is baked pretty hard into a lot of the PC and NPC stuff so reworking it in a major way is going to require quite a bit of tweaking and potential playtesting to get the balance right.

It might be worth spending at least some of that time reading around and seeing if another system provides you with the experience you're looking for out of the box. I've never played it personally but I've heard a number of people who like 5E also talk enthusiactically about 13th Age for example.

Never heard of 13th age, just took a quick glance. The idea of a spell slot only being expended based on how the hit or save roll goes is intriguing - 5E has spells with no rolling at all, of course, but I love the idea of bridging the gap between a cantrip and a level 1 attack spell by having the attack spell only consume a slot on a miss. Seems particularly appropriate for Paladins and Rangers.

[Eric Diaz]

13A is a great system, and I've adapted a few rules from 13A to 5e (two-weapon fighting, for example). However, it has its own set of issues.

FWIW, I did an extensive comparison here:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/01/fifth-edition-d-versus-13th-age-good.html