D&D 5E Spell Creation System

[Kinematics]

In a previous thread, I've been recording my thoughts on attempts to balance spell creation. Well, I've accumulated enough that I now have a "system". The question is, how good is it?

I've written up the details of my conclusions in a Word doc (though it doesn't include all the spreadsheet work I used to reach those conclusions). The first half of it is the system, and the last half of it is using the system to examine existing spells, and a page of a few homebrewed spells created using the system limits.

The system is limited in the types of spells it can evaluate, so there's plenty I'm not even attempting. It mostly focuses on damage and debuffs, but even then is a bit rough around the edges.

So I'd like to ask anyone interested to check it out, and let me know what seems to work and what doesn't. Is it a good set of evaluation rules? Can I expect created spells to be balanced? Is it useful for analyzing existing spells that need fixing?


One of the big problems in 5E is that there are a number of spells that completely outclass their competitors (Fireball being the classic example), making it an exercise in frustration to build a character around a theme (eg: ice spells, pestilence, etc) when it feels like the spells don't even perform on par with your current level, much less the overtuned region of Fireball and the like. Would you be happy swapping out your 'ideal' spells for alternatives if they were readjusted in this system? Or does it look like the spells would become overpowered?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

One of the big problems in 5E is that there are a number of spells that completely outclass their competitors (Fireball being the classic example), making it an exercise in frustration to build a character around a theme (eg: ice spells, pestilence, etc) when it feels like the spells don't even perform on par with your current level, much less the overtuned region of Fireball and the like. Would you be happy swapping out your 'ideal' spells for alternatives if they were readjusted in this system? Or does it look like the spells would become overpowered?

If you're designing a spell creation system, you should disregard spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt. The designers have stated that these were made more powerful for their level than they should be due to their iconic status.

So stick with the general example of spells, and the DMG guidelines. If you're worried that your new spells don't compete with Fireball, remove the PHB Fireball et al from your game and recreate it using your/the DMG's system.

 

[FrogReaver]

In a previous thread, I've been recording my thoughts on attempts to balance spell creation. Well, I've accumulated enough that I now have a "system". The question is, how good is it?

I've written up the details of my conclusions in a Word doc (though it doesn't include all the spreadsheet work I used to reach those conclusions). The first half of it is the system, and the last half of it is using the system to examine existing spells, and a page of a few homebrewed spells created using the system limits.

The system is limited in the types of spells it can evaluate, so there's plenty I'm not even attempting. It mostly focuses on damage and debuffs, but even then is a bit rough around the edges.

So I'd like to ask anyone interested to check it out, and let me know what seems to work and what doesn't. Is it a good set of evaluation rules? Can I expect created spells to be balanced? Is it useful for analyzing existing spells that need fixing?


One of the big problems in 5E is that there are a number of spells that completely outclass their competitors (Fireball being the classic example), making it an exercise in frustration to build a character around a theme (eg: ice spells, pestilence, etc) when it feels like the spells don't even perform on par with your current level, much less the overtuned region of Fireball and the like. Would you be happy swapping out your 'ideal' spells for alternatives if they were readjusted in this system? Or does it look like the spells would become overpowered?

You may get slightly better feedback if you at least attempt to explain or summarize a little about your system etc in the thread as opposed to directing us somewhere else for all that info

 

[Nevvur]

Would you be happy swapping out your 'ideal' spells for alternatives if they were readjusted in this system? Or does it look like the spells would become overpowered?

As a player, sure, I would use something like this if it helped me shore up a character concept. As a DM, I'm extremely averse to giving spellcasters more goodies when I already regard them as being generally better than non-spellcasters. It won't really break the game, I just don't want to rub the thief's nose in the dirt.

 

[Sunseeker]

If you're designing a spell creation system, you should disregard spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt. The designers have stated that these were made more powerful for their level than they should be due to their iconic status.

Seriously? Just... *headdesk*.

Never gonna get that evergreen edition with design decisions like that. Yeesh.

 

[Kinematics]

If you're designing a spell creation system, you should disregard spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt. The designers have stated that these were made more powerful for their level than they should be due to their iconic status.

So stick with the general example of spells, and the DMG guidelines. If you're worried that your new spells don't compete with Fireball, remove the PHB Fireball et al from your game and recreate it using your/the DMG's system.

I need to include spells like those so I can see where things get overpowered. The system needs to help indicate that. Fireball is known to be overpowered, so my system should show that it crosses the line. If it doesn't, then something's wrong.

I'm not worried that spells don't compete with Fireball. I'm worried that spells aren't level-appropriate, period. What combination of damage, area, duration, and other effects starts pushing the spell too far?

The DMG guidelines are ridiculously insufficient. They only give target values for damage numbers (and even then, it could be done better), and give you no clue on how to balance other aspects of spells. The general spell list is used to test the validity of my system.

As a player, sure, I would use something like this if it helped me shore up a character concept. As a DM, I'm extremely averse to giving spellcasters more goodies when I already regard them as being generally better than non-spellcasters. It won't really break the game, I just don't want to rub the thief's nose in the dirt.

I want something to help shore up character concepts, without giving away too many overpowered goodies. The goal is to be able to draw a line in the sand and say, "No more than this." At the same time, the spellcaster shouldn't be overtly gimped, nor forced to select the 'iconic' spells just to remain relevant.

You may get slightly better feedback if you at least attempt to explain or summarize a little about your system etc in the thread as opposed to directing us somewhere else for all that info

Alright, executive summary version.

Get the number of points available to a spell. This is 1 + 2*Spell Level, and +1 point per spell component (VSM). Points are spent on various benefits, or increased by taking flaws. Do not go over the point limit.

Costs:

• Range: No effect on cost that I can determine. Select something appropriate.
• Area: A 5' radius sphere at level 1 (and cantrips), +5' per level up to level 6 (30'), +10' per level up to 9 (60'). Use this to determine comparable ground areas, or total volume for some spell types. If the area/volume of a spell is appropriate to its level, it costs 0 points. For every level higher, add 1 point, and for every level lower, subtract 1 point. (Document has much more detailed chart.)
• If a spell has a duration, add 1 point for every tier: 1 round, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours. If a spell takes concentration to maintain, subtract 2 points.
• The target average damage for a single-target spell is 5 for cantrips, and +8 per level thereafter (except level 9, which gets +14). Area effect spells have a target average damage value that is 2/3 the single target value. Look up a table of dice values (chart in the document) to figure out what combination of dice approximate your target damage value (or work backwards to figure out what level a given amount of dice represent). Damage costs 2 times the damage level (eg: a spell doing level 3 damage would cost +6 points). Cantrip damage level costs 1 point.
• Add other bonuses and flaws. Trivial stuff costs 0.5 points. Typical minor benefits cost 1 or 2 points. Significant effects may cost more.

What I usually see is that non-damaging spells use right up to the point limit. Damaging spells are usually in the upper range of the available points, but usually won't reach the point limit unless they add some bonus effects.[1] Many notably underpowered spells use less than half the point limit. The only spell I've measured so far that went over the point limit was Fireball. Fireball and Lightning Bolt are also the only spells I've examined that do damage higher than their spell level.

[1] Instantaneous and 1 minute concentration spells will cost 0 points. Area effect appropriate to its level costs 0 points. Damage appropriate to its level costs 2*Level points. That leaves the spell with 1+(VSM) points for extra effects that many pure damage spells don't use, but could, if they were so inclined. Or they may increase the duration (more likely for high-level spells) or area (more likely with low-level spells).

 

[Nevvur]

@Kinematics Versatility is the overpowered goodie, and that's baked into your entire system.

edit: I can't really say whether it's overpowered, to be honest. But even if it's just a bit more power, I'd like to see non-magic users get something nice before magic users even get a scrap

 

[Kinematics]

@Kinematics Versatility is the overpowered goodie, and that's baked into your entire system.

edit: I can't really say whether it's overpowered, to be honest. But even if it's just a bit more power, I'd like to see non-magic users get something nice before magic users even get a scrap

Um, I'm not sure why you consider it baked into "my" system when all I'm doing so far is putting point costs to effects that are already in the official game. Maybe some examples would help?

Fog Cloud: Level 1, VS. 1+2+2 = 5 points to spend.
Range: 120’
Area: 20’ sphere = Level 4 area. +3 points (oversized for a level 1 spell)
Duration: 1 hour, concentration. +4-2 = +2 points
Bonus: Heavily obscures area. +2 points
Flaw: Dispersed by moderate wind. -2 points
Total Cost: 5/5 points

Charm Person: Level 1, VS. 1+2+2 = 5 points to spend.
Range: 30'
Duration: 1 hour. +4 points
Bonus: Wis save or charmed. +1 point.
Total cost: 5/5 points

Fireball: Level 3, VSM. 1+6+3 = 10 points to spend.
Range: 150'
Area: 20' sphere = Level 4. +1 point
Damage: 8d6 = Level 5. +10 points
Bonus: Sets objects on fire. +0.5 points
Total cost: 11.5/10 points (over limit; both damage and area are above level 3 defaults)

Snilloc's Snowball Swarm: Level 2, VSM. 1+4+3 = 8 points to spend.
Range: 90'
Area: 5' radius = Level 1. -1 point
Damage: 3d6 = 10.5 pts = Level 1. +2 points
Total cost: 1/8 points (both damage and area are at the level of level 1 spells)

Shatter: Level 2, VSM. 1+4+3 = 8 points to spend.
Range: 60'
Area: 10' radius = Level 2. 0 points
Damage: 3d8 = 13.5 pts = Level 2. +4 points
Bonus: Inorganics have disadvantage on save. +1 point
Bonus: Damages objects. +1 point
Total cost: 6/8 points.


So Fog Cloud and Charm Person use their point limits, Fireball goes over its point limit, and Snilloc's Snowball Swarm is a joke (if it were a level 1 spell, or even cantrip, for snowball fights, it would be fine). Shatter is a pretty bog-standard damage spell with a couple small bonuses for flavor, and is the type of thing that should be aimed for most of the time.

Versatility is pretty much fundamental to magic, so saying that's the overpowered part of the system pretty much condemns magic as a whole. I'm not sure where you can go after that, though, and it doesn't really help evaluate this system.

 

[Kinematics]

OK, I've gone back and done some tweaking and reviewing.

On spell areas: I've recalculated the thresholds for area size converted to map unit areas based on a slightly more conservative measure. I redid manual counts of everything, both for requiring all map squares to have an outer corner inside the circle, and to have more than half of the map square inside the circle. The latter is what I ended up using, slightly rounding off for simplicity when I put it in the level table.

On spell ranges: I did another regression on my analyzed spells in order to get a feel for how much room was left to improve the spell, given the other spell properties. I found that I actually can fit in a proper scaling cost for range.

Range cost now uses 30' as a baseline. At 30', there's no cost. Range of Self also has 0 cost, since those spells tend to work differently. Aside from that:

5'/Touch — -2 points (enemy can immediately hit you; you have to be in range of potential risks when targeting an ally)
15' — -1 point (can reach and hit you this round, even in difficult terrain)
30' — 0 points (can reach and hit you this round)
60' — +1 points (can reach you this round, hit you next round)
90' — +1.5 points (can reach and hit you next round)
120' — +2 points (takes two rounds to reach you)
150' — +2.5 points (can reach and hit you two rounds from now)
300' — +3 points (hella gone)

This brings most spells very close to their available spending points. Since range was the last major factor that wasn't accounted for, this feels like a mostly complete system, now — aside from the costs of the special effects, which are very difficult to judge.

The Word document has been updated with the new stuff.


Points available to a spell are 2*Level + 1 + VSM (1 point each)

A baseline AOE spell, with level-appropriate area (or single target) and damage, and 120' range, would cost:

0 (AOE) + 2*Dmg + 2 (range)

That would leave 2 points to spend for extra features for a full VSM spell. Many damage spells include some minor rider, which would come from those leftover points.


Overpowered Fireball spends 14 points on a 10 point budget. It would actually fit 10 points exactly if it used level 3 damage instead of level 5 damage.

 

[CapnZapp]

Without delving into your details, I've been around long enough to conclude any free-form spell design system will fall into one out of two categories:
A) the unbalanced one. The PHB spells can be faithfully reproduced, but the system is wide open to powergaming and abuse.
B) the restrained one. Costs are so heavy you really can't abuse the system. However, the iconic PHB spells are way out of reach.

In other words, any balanced open system will be able to create scores of mediocre spells, just like most PHB spells.

If you wish your system to be able to reproduce the PHB spells that players actually use, expect ALL created spells to be borderline broken or worse.

In conclusion, decades of gaming and homebrewing D&D have taught me that the idea of open-ended spell design simply does not work, since you must choose balanced or interesting, not both.

Instead, have your player describe her new spell in broad strokes, and then design the final spell yourself, by hand as the DM.

If the player does not feel the result is good enough, she can always repeat the process, tweaking her input into your design slightly.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app