D&D 5E Spell Creation System

[Kinematics]

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

If you can crash your car into a restaurant, or drive off a cliff, what's the point of vehicle safety and design standards, or taking a driving test? Why bother with road signs and speed limits if people can still drive recklessly?

Your point makes no sense.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you can crash your car into a restaurant, or drive off a cliff, what's the point of vehicle safety and design standards, or taking a driving test? Why bother with road signs and speed limits if people can still drive recklessly?

Your point makes no sense.

As you said, with or without your system it's ultimately the DM who decides if a created spell gets approved. In other words it's ultimately the DM's call to say any created spell is balanced or imbalanced. If the DM is the ultimate decider on whether something is balanced or not then what is your spell creation system actually doing or telling us? What purpose is it serving?

 

[cbwjm]

As you said, with or without your system it's ultimately the DM who decides if a created spell gets approved. In other words it's ultimately the DM's call to say any created spell is balanced or imbalanced. If the DM is the ultimate decider on whether something is balanced or not then what is your spell creation system actually doing or telling us? What purpose is it serving?

Something I like about this is that it can serve as a tool for both player and DM to judge the general power of a spell. It may not be perfect but it can provide a good baseline before adding a spell into the game and then allow playtesting to iron out any bugs. It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough to act as a guide.

 

[FrogReaver]

Something I like about this is that it can serve as a tool for both player and DM to judge the general power of a spell. It may not be perfect but it can provide a good baseline before adding a spell into the game and then allow playtesting to iron out any bugs. It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough to act as a guide.

I can see that. It's just I can't help but worry about the flaw system. Perhaps some more robust rules around adding flaws to spells and what isn't and is an acceptable flaw would make the system even better?

 

[cbwjm]

I can see that. It's just I can't help but worry about the flaw system. Perhaps some more robust rules around adding flaws to spells and what isn't and is an acceptable flaw would make the system even better?

Flaws can often be problematic, I think, since if you have a very specific campaign setting, or even a specific type of target, you can add so many flaws to a spell to make it cheaper and therefore lower the level. You could create a more robust version of magic missile and have it only target humanoids which allows an increase of damage or range (I haven't tried to create it using this spell creation system, just using that as an example for a creation system that allows layering on of flaws)

ACKs has a fairly decent system although looking at it, it doesn't really seem to have much in the way of flaws, just the base effect and then the various parameters of the spell like range, damage, duration, etc.

 

[Kinematics]

If the concern is actually flaw points, then let's look at that.


Highest flaw limits:

Cannot target humanoids: -5

Seen on spells like Hold Person or Charm Person. Note: The flaw has to be an actual restriction on the spell. Only being able to target humanoids is a restriction. Only being able to target non-humanoids is not, given the humanoid-centric nature of society). Restrictions designed to gain the benefits of other powers (eg: Careful Spell metamagic) are not actually flaws.


Dispersed by a moderate wind: -4

Being dispellable by a common environmental condition is a large flaw. Requiring something more significant and rare, like a fire or a strong wind (likely only available via magic, except under rare conditions) are lesser flaws (-2 for fire, -1 for a strong wind).


In general, flaws are rare.

Maximum number of flaws in a spell: 3 (Charm Person). A couple others have 2. Most have 0 or 1.

Most flaws involve alternate ways to dispel or end the effect (winds, fire, being harmed, being shaken awake, wearing armor, recasting the spell, etc). In fact, there are only a couple of very specific flaws that are not covered in that scope.


Note: Negative numbers are not themselves flaws. Spell Range can be rebaselined for all spells such that it doesn't use negative numbers; it wouldn't change anything. Targeting selection shouldn't be a flaw, either; you can choose a creature type, or any creature, or objects, or creatures+objects, etc. Since all spells must have a target of some type, it's reasonable to consider this its own property, effectively just like Range. Same for casting time.

If targeting is not in itself a flaw, then Charm Person also only has 2 flaws, the same as the general maximum. As such, we can consider 2 flaws as the maximum allowed.

Hmm... I don't see a single spell with an area that has the area size more than one level below the spell level (so -1). So probably limit it to that.



So, extra rules:

1) Some properties are allowed to have negative numbers. These are not flaws, as they are properties that all spells have. They merely have adjustments on where to start counting, and reasonable defaults that count for 0.

2) A spell with an area of effect cannot have an area size more than one level below the spell level. (Max credit of -1.)

3) A spell cannot have a damage value higher than its spell level.

Caveat: Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Meteor Storm violate that rule, but they're not my problem.

4) Creature-targeting exclusions should rarely be applied. Rely on resistances and immunities first before considering a targeting exclusion.

5) A spell cannot have more than two flaws.

6) Be cautious of flaws for anything other than dispelling the spell effect.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I'll chime in with the camp of "If it's not internally consistent and can't create all of the spells in the PHB while maintaining balance, then there's no point to this".

I admire the desires of those who want to fiddle with bits, but if an experienced and fair DM can simply look at a spell description given him or her by a player and allow it or not.. that's preferable to creating a system that doesn't achieve balance or simulation of the existing spells well.

Good luck
KB

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the OP is not trying to make a full fledged spell creation system but instead a set of guidelines for spell creation to be used by players that when used will usually meet DM approval but maybe not always.

If that was his goal then he's spot on. It's also a good tool for an inexperienced DM that wants to allow spell creation in his game but would have no clue what's balanced or where to begin.

It doesn't do much for the experienced DM other than giving players guidance about things they may typically allow.

 

[Charles Krause]

Is this system still being developed?

I think this would dovetail very nicely with the Spell Points variant in the DMG ( with tweaks ).

Under such a combination, Spellcasters wouldn't have spell slots, or level limits anymore, just a maximum number of Spell Points they can expend per spell, and have the spell point cost tied to the number of design points the spell requires. ( e.g. 1st level casters simply can't learn spells with more than 5 points of design under this system, such a spell would cost 5 spell points to cast, and would have 10 spell points to expend ). Yes - I know this doesn't match up with the costs and available spell points in the DMG - Spell Points would need to be recalculated ( not hard, they're calculated off of spell slots and spell costs in the original system creation ).

That would make some of the under-powered PHB spells make more sense. Why would you cast something as ludicrously under-powered as Sniloc's Snowball Swarm? Because it uses 1/2 the number of Spell Points as something designed closer to the caster's limits.

I'm also wondering what are the hidden problems with the idea of making all effects have a point buy? Instead of starting with the idea that you're going to build a 5th level spell, so you can have up to 30' radius effect, have a 30' radius have a certain point cost, and have the final total point cost of the spell determine the level?

I think I'm in the camp of I'd rather have a consistent, flexible, albeit not horribly overpowered spell construction system, than be able to recreate the PHB spells precisely, and re-classify the PHB spells according to the build system - assuming that I could get Player buy-in.

Just some thoughts and questions.

 

[Krachek]

My way.
First
Describe the spell using narrative way, without using any gameplay terms.
It should be clear, simple and make sense in theater of mind.
Find a meaningful name for the spell.

Second
Evaluate the tier of play that fit with the previous step.

Third
Find some spells of near level that share one or more aspects of your spell.

Fourth
Now you can write down you spell gameplay description.
Playtest and readjust.