Sorcery/Spell Points

[RSP]

So I’ve been playing a Sorc with the variant SP casting option. Whereas it’s not bad and generally allows for similar casting throughout the day (we have long work days, so nova isn’t a thing).

However, it strikes me as odd how they decided the value of spell levels. For instance, I never would have said the difference between a 3rd and a 5th was a first level spell. That just seems off.

Particularly, it seems to put greater value on upcasting: using a 4th level slot on an upcast Fireball seems more than spending 6 points rather than 5: getting the extra damage did for the cost of half a 1st level spell seems more worth it.

Obviously, the greater those distances between levels, the more lower level spells you get from a higher one, which may have been the designer’s thinking.

Just curious what others thoughts/experiences are with this.

[gloryblaze]

The formula is pretty simple: a spell's cost in SP is equal to its spell level + the tier of play you unlock that spell level in. (As in, Tier 1 = levels 1-4, Tier 2 = levels 5-10, etc). So a level 1 spell costs 2 SP (spell level 1 + tier 1 = 2), level 2 costs 3 (spell level 2 + tier 1 = 3), level 3 costs 5 (spell level 3 + tier 2 = 5), and so on.

Now, as for why they chose that formula, it's harder to say. It does emphasize that the spell levels immediately following tier breakpoints matter more than others (like 3rd level spells being a much bigger upgrade over 2nd than 2nd over 1st; same with 6th over 5th being bigger than 5th over 4th).

[RSP]

The formula is pretty simple: a spell's cost in SP is equal to its spell level + the tier of play you unlock that spell level in. (As in, Tier 1 = levels 1-4, Tier 2 = levels 5-10, etc). So a level 1 spell costs 2 SP (spell level 1 + tier 1 = 2), level 2 costs 3 (spell level 2 + tier 1 = 3), level 3 costs 5 (spell level 3 + tier 2 = 5), and so on.

Now, as for why they chose that formula, it's harder to say. It does emphasize that the spell levels immediately following tier breakpoints matter more than others (like 3rd level spells being a much bigger upgrade over 2nd than 2nd over 1st; same with 6th over 5th being bigger than 5th over 4th).

I get the pattern: I’m more wondering if people think it’s appropriate value.

I’m on the fence on this, so wanted to see what others’ thoughts were.

It’s not the worst progression: I think a 3rd level slot being worth as much as a 1st and 2nd, seems right in terms of value.

However, that relative value doesn’t hold as you progress. A 4th level slot is only half a first more powerful than a 3rd.

So the gap in power between a 2nd level spell and a 3rd level spell is the same power gap as a 3rd and a 5th. That seems off, and at least at this moment, seems to undersell the power of a 5th level slot.

Are 4th level spells just that unimpressive that they’re essentially a .5 level jump in power rather than a whole level (which would come at 5th level?).

Again, just curious as to other’s thoughts.

[JLandan]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but in my experience, you get more damage dice per spell point with first level spells. There is a huge jump in damage dice at third level. So while a first level spell upcast as a sixth level can generate about 7 dice, a third would generate about 11 dice, which is about the same as a sixth level cast at sixth level.

This kind of system (spell points) works better in a 3e environment where DCs increase with spell level as well as damage. 5e DCs progress much slower.

All-in-all, I think spell points work fine, so long as you remember that you can't use more SP on a single spell than your level. For whatever reason, some players have trouble grasping this and try to go nova with all their spell points.

And you're right that after third, the number of damage dice plateaus around 8.

[RSP]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but in my experience, you get more damage dice per spell point with first level spells. There is a huge jump in damage dice at third level. So while a first level spell upcast as a sixth level can generate about 7 dice, a third would generate about 11 dice, which is about the same as a sixth level cast at sixth level.

This kind of system (spell points) works better in a 3e environment where DCs increase with spell level as well as damage. 5e DCs progress much slower.

All-in-all, I think spell points work fine, so long as you remember that you can't use more SP on a single spell than your level. For whatever reason, some players have trouble grasping this and try to go nova with all their spell points.

And you're right that after third, the number of damage dice plateaus around 8.

The question is just what do people who have played with spell points think of the option rules in terms of value.

I haven’t looked at it in terms of damage dice per level but that’s an interesting way to approach it. However, I don’t think damage is always the best barometer of spell effectiveness. Wall of Force is generally seen as one of the better spell, yet doesn’t involve damage dice, for instance.

But with damage (assuming instant AoE so we remain consistent) we have (per a quick look):

1st Burning Hands 3d6 (10.5) 5.25 per SP
2nd Shatter 3d8 (13.5) 4.5 per SP
3rd Fireball 8d6 (~28) 5.6 per SP
4th Fireball 9d6 (~31.5) 5.25 per SP
5th destructive wave/fireball 10d6 (~35) 5 per SP

So, what, about 5ish damage per SP? Peaks at 3rd and is lowest at 2nd?

Did I miss a spell?

An interesting way to look at it, but again, I don’t think damage is the best spell effect.

[JLandan]

There are variations for every level, for example Guiding bolt does 4d6 at 1st level and has a side feature (+1d6 per level of upcast).
Non damage effects can be judged but cannot be measured. That's why I looked at damage dice, because that can be codified.

Notice how 1st level is higher than 2nd. But you are totally correct about 3rd level peak and gradual drop off later.

Unless you need to do the damage THIS turn, which you very well may, you might be better off spell-point-wise with more lower level casts than a single bug one.

I wrote a 3.5 setting using all psionics, no magic. The power point system is the same as spell points. Recently, I converted it to 5e, using the spell point system in the DMG, but with all new classes and races. It actually works quite well. I rewrote some of the powers so that there were power point boosts for flat fees, rather than just higher casting level. For example, including more targets, farther range, longer duration, not just more damage. Thinking back now, it was a s**t ton of work.

[GeneralVryth]

The question is just what do people who have played with spell points think of the option rules in terms of value.

I haven’t looked at it in terms of damage dice per level but that’s an interesting way to approach it. However, I don’t think damage is always the best barometer of spell effectiveness. Wall of Force is generally seen as one of the better spell, yet doesn’t involve damage dice, for instance.

But with damage (assuming instant AoE so we remain consistent) we have (per a quick look):

1st Burning Hands 3d6 (10.5) 5.25 per SP
2nd Shatter 3d8 (13.5) 4.5 per SP
3rd Fireball 8d6 (~28) 5.6 per SP
4th Fireball 9d6 (~31.5) 5.25 per SP
5th destructive wave/fireball 10d6 (~35) 5 per SP

So, what, about 5ish damage per SP? Peaks at 3rd and is lowest at 2nd?

Did I miss a spell?

An interesting way to look at it, but again, I don’t think damage is the best spell effect.

Unfortunately damage (and healing) is the easiest way to compare spell levels/points because the value of damage/healing spells scale directly with spell level, while buffs/debuffs/control spells scale with the power of the character or monster they affect.

I also think a 3rd level spell being worth a 1st plus a 2nd while a 4th level spell is worth a 2nd plus a 2nd feels right. 4th level spells tend not to be directly better than 3rd level options, and instead usually provide some new ability or utility (think Fly versus Dimension Door). As a general rule spells within a tier (1st and 2nd - 3rd, 4th, and 5t - 6th, 7th, and 8th - 9th) tend to be closer to each other in power than spells of a different tier. Which the system does a decent job of illustrating with the cost = level + tier formula.

[RSP]

I also think a 3rd level spell being worth a 1st plus a 2nd while a 4th level spell is worth a 2nd plus a 2nd feels right. 4th level spells tend not to be directly better than 3rd level options, and instead usually provide some new ability or utility (think Fly versus Dimension Door). As a general rule spells within a tier (1st and 2nd - 3rd, 4th, and 5t - 6th, 7th, and 8th - 9th) tend to be closer to each other in power than spells of a different tier. Which the system does a decent job of illustrating with the cost = level + tier formula.

Interesting note on the tiers and power level. Thank you.

Interestingly, with SPs, I’ve felt it was off only spending 1 SP to increase a spell level from 3rd to 4th, however the damage math says you’re paying a 20% increase in SPs, for only a 12.5% increase in damage.