D&D 5E Spell Creation System

[Kinematics]

Bonus action at a static and low cost? Not balanced.

The cost to transform a regular spell into a bonus action needs be expressed as a fraction of the total cost.

In other words, the bonus action component needs cost more for a 5th level spell than a 1st level spell.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I've checked several other spells that take a bonus action to cast, and I'm not seeing any variance that can be attributed to the casting time. Plus, the Quickened Spell metamagic is a static cost, so I don't see why it would need to be a scaling cost when built into the spell itself.

Now, being able to reuse the spell as a bonus action needs a higher cost. Right now I have it as the cost of the original effect + 1. So if the spell did level 2 damage (4 points), then being able to repeat that as a bonus action would cost another 5 points of the spell's budget.


Further additions and fixes have been made to the document.

I think this assumes that WotC uses a "System" with defined costs and measurements like you have put up here. I find that notion...debatable at best. I have no doubt that WotC has a more or less loose set of guidelines, along with tradition, play testing, comparison to existing spells, and gut feel, that they use to refine their spell design. D&D spells have always had each spell be more or less a rules engine unto itself, albeit with shared elements that have become more common and standardized over time thus making it more difficult to come up with a universal formulae to generate new spells.

It does assume that, yes. Given that they haven't publicized a set of standard rules for spell creation, I was uncertain about this when I started, but the more I've worked on it, the more it holds together. Given the "clean room" rules break from 5E compared to earlier editions, I see no reason to think that they haven't come up with strict guidelines to help maintain both the simplicity and the balance of the system.

Part of why I was willing to assume there was a method to their madness was the previous work done to determine the 12-point race building system, where pretty much all races are built off of an apparent 12 point buy.

Of course Wizards of the Coast are free to adjust and tweak their rules as they go, and as they find errors or issues with their original system. This seems to have taken place with the sunlight sensitivity that dark elves got, but that had its cost changed for one of the later races. If they published a rule set, they'd be locked into using that. If they keep it private, then they have more freedom to fix stuff.

So the best approach for us as players is to reverse engineer their system if we want to expand on it, rather than go by gut feelings and loose design. But also don't be completely locked into a system, because even if we get it exactly right, further playtesting and evaluation may indicate that one cost or another needs to be changed.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've checked several other spells that take a bonus action to cast, and I'm not seeing any variance that can be attributed to the casting time. Plus, the Quickened Spell metamagic is a static cost, so I don't see why it would need to be a scaling cost when built into the spell itself.

I meant that if I were allowed to design spells using your system, I would much rather create a bonus action Hold Monster spell with ten points of paralyzation and two for bonus action, than the twelve point version you describe above.

In return for making the spell a measly 1/6th less powerful, I get to cast it without using up my action. That can't be right. Why would I ever create unaccelerated high-level spells?

In contrast, accelerating a 1st level spell doubles its cost or so. That sounds about right. I definitely see why I not all my 1st level spells can or should be accelerated.

Or perhaps I'm fundamentally misunderstanding you?

 

[CapnZapp]

I've checked several other spells that take a bonus action to cast, and I'm not seeing any variance that can be attributed to the casting time.

See, that's dangerous territory all by itself.

Just because the PHB designers didn't want or aimed for minmaxing, doesn't mean our players won't.

I would assume that the only bonus action spells that exist in the PHB are those for which it makes sense. That's a very weak defense against a driven player.

Plus, the Quickened Spell metamagic is a static cost, so I don't see why it would need to be a scaling cost when built into the spell itself.

Perhaps because
...you have only a static number of Sorcery Points?
...it could even be intentional that the Sorcerer class finds Quicken cheaper and cheaper as you rise in levels?

That is, at fifth level 2 SP out of five is a big deal. But at fifteenth level 2 SP out of fifteen is not a big deal. But just because it works for the Sorcerer class design does not automatically mean it works for our general design.

If only because a general low cost is a license to create a Wizard or Cleric with Quicken built-in. Not to mention a Sorcerer who no longer needs to spend Sorcery Points on Quicken. And in fact a Sorcerer who can bypass the general prohibition on using two metamagic effects on one and the same spell - you can't twin a quickened Hold Monster, but you could twin an accelerated custom Hold Monster.

I am not saying it absolutely must be broken - it just sure looks like it.

 

[Kinematics]

I meant that if I were allowed to design spells using your system, I would much rather create a bonus action Hold Monster spell with ten points of paralyzation and two for bonus action, than the twelve point version you describe above.

In return for making the spell a measly 1/6th less powerful, I get to cast it without using up my action. That can't be right. Why would I ever create unaccelerated high-level spells?

In contrast, accelerating a 1st level spell doubles its cost or so. That sounds about right. I definitely see why I not all my 1st level spells can or should be accelerated.

Or perhaps I'm fundamentally misunderstanding you?

Well, paralysis is a fixed cost effect, so you can't make a 10 point version. If I were to try to abuse things to get a bonus casting of it...

Casting time: Bonus action = +2
Paralysis = +12
Range: Touch = -2
Duration: 1 minute concentration = 0
Flaw: Can only target humanoids = -5

Cost: 7
Attainable: Level 2 VSM

So if you were in melee range already, you could cast this and get an immediate crit attack on your associated action phase. It still needs to be a level 2 spell, so no change there. And if sorcerer can cast it, then your paladin X/sorcerer 3 can cast it. Heck, a paladin/sorcerer can already do that, using Quicken Spell.

So yes, this would be kinda broken. The thing is, it's broken as a mere level 2 spell, but would be broken in exactly the same way using the level 5 Hold Monster. I'm not sure that I'd say that bonus action casting time should scale relative to the level, but it might scale relative to the effect.

At the very least, you need DM review for any spell that gets cast as a bonus action.


Aside: I have already been giving some thought to how AOE costs are determined for debuff spells. For damage spells, AOE vs single-target is already accounted for in the fact that the damage scales are different for the different types of spells, but there is no such difference for debuff effects. A single-target Blind and an at-level AOE Blind would both cost the same, as things currently stand, and that's clearly not appropriate.

So I was considering that the cost of the debuff would be boosted based on the AOE size. It's possible a similar approach might be used for casting as a bonus action. The stronger the effect, the higher the cost of casting as a bonus action. I'm just not sure yet how to determine what that cost might be.

 

[Gadget]

It does assume that, yes. Given that they haven't publicized a set of standard rules for spell creation, I was uncertain about this when I started, but the more I've worked on it, the more it holds together. Given the "clean room" rules break from 5E compared to earlier editions, I see no reason to think that they haven't come up with strict guidelines to help maintain both the simplicity and the balance of the system.

Whereas I see plenty of reason to think otherwise. Most, though certainly not all, of the new spells released post PHB, seem to have been designed with the overriding goal of not overshadowing PHB spells, unless the spell was designed as a 'fix' or to fill a certain gap. There are exceptions, or course, but one need only look at the interview they gave (I can't remember which designer) about designing the spell Create Homunculus to cast doubt on the whole theory. They flat out admit that it was late in play testing that they realized they had to bump up the spells level because 'they can magically convey what they see to their master'; never mind that the creature does not have the defenses or stealth to really serve as an effective scout/spy. There are plenty of stinkers even it the PHB: true strike, witch bolt (which the designers felt necessary to re-use the design for Enervation), Phantasmal Killer/Weird, Mordenkainen’s Sword, etc. all come to mind. If they are using a hard coded formulae, they probably need to toss it.

Of course Wizards of the Coast are free to adjust and tweak their rules as they go, and as they find errors or issues with their original system. This seems to have taken place with the sunlight sensitivity that dark elves got, but that had its cost changed for one of the later races. If they published a rule set, they'd be locked into using that. If they keep it private, then they have more freedom to fix stuff.

So the best approach for us as players is to reverse engineer their system if we want to expand on it, rather than go by gut feelings and loose design. But also don't be completely locked into a system, because even if we get it exactly right, further playtesting and evaluation may indicate that one cost or another needs to be changed.

I would say that judicious 'gut feelings and loose design', or solid design principles combined with good play testing, would get you much further. Trying to get an exactly right formulae is a mythical fountain of youth pursuit.

 

[CapnZapp]

I maintain that a spell creation system can be good since it allows balanced creation of lots of spells that would otherwise never see the light of day.

(Just assume everybody in the party plays a spellcaster, so we can skip the "what about the martials?" issue)

But please let go of the pipe dream that such a system can be integrated with the PHB spells. That's just never gonna happen. An ad-hoc spell list such as the PHB one will always feature spells you simply can never recreate using a balanced system.

Instead be happy you will be able to create multitudes of spells never seen in any PHB. Thunderball. Hold Elf. Lightningcage*. Summon Flumph.

*) Iggwilv actually made this spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

I maintain that a spell creation system can be good since it allows balanced creation of lots of spells that would otherwise never see the light of day.

(Just assume everybody in the party plays a spellcaster, so we can skip the "what about the martials?" issue)

But please let go of the pipe dream that such a system can be integrated with the PHB spells. That's just never gonna happen. An ad-hoc spell list such as the PHB one will always feature spells you simply can never recreate using a balanced system.

Instead be happy you will be able to create multitudes of spells never seen in any PHB. Thunderball. Hold Elf. Lightningcage*. Summon Flumph.

*) Iggwilv actually made this spell.

So suppose I'm a wizard. Suppose I create a Fireball spell that affects everything but non-monstrous races. I can make this spell a lot stronger as it has a flaw now. However, in practical play it's already going to be much better than fireball as it won't ever hit my allies (assuming they are non-monstrous races).

 

[CapnZapp]

So suppose I'm a wizard. Suppose I create a Fireball spell that affects everything but non-monstrous races. I can make this spell a lot stronger as it has a flaw now. However, in practical play it's already going to be much better than fireball as it won't ever hit my allies (assuming they are non-monstrous races).

You quoted me but I'm hoping you don't expect a reply from me

 

[Kinematics]

There are exceptions, or course, but one need only look at the interview they gave (I can't remember which designer) about designing the spell Create Homunculus to cast doubt on the whole theory.

Unfortunately, I have no idea where such interview may be, so I can't comment on this, or treat it as evidence.

However, if you say that they had to bump up the spell level in order to account for an extra feature of the spell, I can't see how that in any way argues against the idea that they have a rule set that defines how much can be put in a spell of a given level. It almost seems like you're arguing against your own point.

There are plenty of stinkers even it the PHB: true strike, witch bolt (which the designers felt necessary to re-use the design for Enervation), Phantasmal Killer/Weird, Mordenkainen’s Sword, etc. all come to mind. If they are using a hard coded formulae, they probably need to toss it.

I have never said that there are not 'bad' spells, and in fact, many tend to stand out pretty strongly when priced in my system (Witch Bolt at 1/6, Snilloc's Snowball Storm at 2.5/8, etc). But a point system in no way necessitates 'good design'. Look at the above discussion about Hold Person as a bonus action spell. Overpowered. Or consider a 24 hour version of Light, as a 1st level spell (but still a 20'/20' radius). No one would waste a spell slot on this when the cantrip is free.

Just because it can be done, doesn't make it a good or useful idea.

As for whether they've used such guidelines on all spells? I have no way to tell. Part of me wonders if some of the spells from their early design were rough and unbalanced, as they still needed to refine the rules. But then, if that were so, I would have also expected them to go back and review their previously created spells to see if they fit within the rule system before they actually published, and not doing so stands out as unlikely. And it certainly doesn't explain problematic newly-released spells.


But ultimately, I don't have to explain the bad spells in the official rules. I just need a system that can give a good measure of the power/usefulness of a spell, and determine what level spell it corresponds to. If I want to make a snowstorm, or a pool of quicksand, or an automatic unfolding set of stairs, or whatever else, I can do so, and say with reasonable confidence that such a spell fits within the power limits of a spell of level X.

And in fact, if I want to toss out the crap spells in the PHB, and replace them with versions that seems more appropriate to their given power levels, I can now do so with reasonable confidence. The players shouldn't have to deal with trap spell options (or trap feats, or other trap character design issues). But that's an entirely separate thing.

But please let go of the pipe dream that such a system can be integrated with the PHB spells. That's just never gonna happen. An ad-hoc spell list such as the PHB one will always feature spells you simply can never recreate using a balanced system.

I'm not really sure what your argument point here is. Nor do I understand what you're trying to imply by saying that it can't be integrated with PHB spells.

If you're saying that the PHB can have spell concepts that you can't figure out how to price, yes, that's true, which may make creating similar spells difficult. If you're saying that the PHB is not always balanced, that is also true, but in no way does that prevent such spells from being created.

A balanced system does not require that the results be balanced; it only informs you if the results are balanced, and you generally are encouraged to only create balanced spells. It provides you the knowledge necessary to make the choice in an informed manner.

So suppose I'm a wizard. Suppose I create a Fireball spell that affects everything but non-monstrous races. I can make this spell a lot stronger as it has a flaw now. However, in practical play it's already going to be much better than fireball as it won't ever hit my allies (assuming they are non-monstrous races).

Spell design should be what it can do, first, and how to use points to get there, second. Saying that Healing Word can't affect undead or constructs fits the point of the spell. Saying that Fireball (v2) can't affect humanoids does not. At the same time, there are options for selective targeting of a damage spell, such as Scorching Ray, or Destructive Wave, so it's not like it's entirely out of bounds. It's just usually easier to justify by specifying who you do hit, rather than who you don't.

Regardless, yes, you could make that spell. It should be easy to construct and price, but may not be so easy to get approved by your DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

Unfortunately, I have no idea where such interview may be, so I can't comment on this, or treat it as evidence.

However, if you say that they had to bump up the spell level in order to account for an extra feature of the spell, I can't see how that in any way argues against the idea that they have a rule set that defines how much can be put in a spell of a given level. It almost seems like you're arguing against your own point.


I have never said that there are not 'bad' spells, and in fact, many tend to stand out pretty strongly when priced in my system (Witch Bolt at 1/6, Snilloc's Snowball Storm at 2.5/8, etc). But a point system in no way necessitates 'good design'. Look at the above discussion about Hold Person as a bonus action spell. Overpowered. Or consider a 24 hour version of Light, as a 1st level spell (but still a 20'/20' radius). No one would waste a spell slot on this when the cantrip is free.

Just because it can be done, doesn't make it a good or useful idea.

As for whether they've used such guidelines on all spells? I have no way to tell. Part of me wonders if some of the spells from their early design were rough and unbalanced, as they still needed to refine the rules. But then, if that were so, I would have also expected them to go back and review their previously created spells to see if they fit within the rule system before they actually published, and not doing so stands out as unlikely. And it certainly doesn't explain problematic newly-released spells.


But ultimately, I don't have to explain the bad spells in the official rules. I just need a system that can give a good measure of the power/usefulness of a spell, and determine what level spell it corresponds to. If I want to make a snowstorm, or a pool of quicksand, or an automatic unfolding set of stairs, or whatever else, I can do so, and say with reasonable confidence that such a spell fits within the power limits of a spell of level X.

And in fact, if I want to toss out the crap spells in the PHB, and replace them with versions that seems more appropriate to their given power levels, I can now do so with reasonable confidence. The players shouldn't have to deal with trap spell options (or trap feats, or other trap character design issues). But that's an entirely separate thing.


I'm not really sure what your argument point here is. Nor do I understand what you're trying to imply by saying that it can't be integrated with PHB spells.

If you're saying that the PHB can have spell concepts that you can't figure out how to price, yes, that's true, which may make creating similar spells difficult. If you're saying that the PHB is not always balanced, that is also true, but in no way does that prevent such spells from being created.

A balanced system does not require that the results be balanced; it only informs you if the results are balanced, and you generally are encouraged to only create balanced spells. It provides you the knowledge necessary to make the choice in an informed manner.



Spell design should be what it can do, first, and how to use points to get there, second. Saying that Healing Word can't affect undead or constructs fits the point of the spell. Saying that Fireball (v2) can't affect humanoids does not. At the same time, there are options for selective targeting of a damage spell, such as Scorching Ray, or Destructive Wave, so it's not like it's entirely out of bounds. It's just usually easier to justify by specifying who you do hit, rather than who you don't.

Regardless, yes, you could make that spell. It should be easy to construct and price, but may not be so easy to get approved by your DM.

If the spell u create meets the points cost for balanced but still must pass dm approval what is the point if the system? Obviously it’s capable of calling unbalanced spells balanced