D&D 5E Spell Point Variant in Play

[Pvt. Winslow]

This seems like kind of a self-correcting problem.

Say player A blows through all of their spell points in battle #1. Then the next 3-5 battles all he can do it use his cantrips. He'll do very little damage and have no variety on his actions. That's not much fun for him, so the next day he tries to space out his point usage. That's what I'd do anyway.

I think your characters would quickly learn that blowing all of their points in one battle is kind of fun for that one encounter, but the rest of the day quickly becomes a drag.

Generally when someone references the 5 minute work day, it's assuming that the caster who exhausts all their resources early on is able to convince the rest of the party that they need to rest so he can recover. There's been a lot of arguments over the 5MWD in the past, some sides saying you would have to be the world's biggest idiot not to rest and let the Wizard recover because you are literally putting your life on the line, other sides saying that as adventurers you'll often have time constraints and people you need to save who won't survive if you just take a day off.

keterys is right though, in that spell points actually make it even easier to go nova (aka use all your most powerful spells in a really short period of time) and make a huge impact on your encounters in doing so. Still, I don't think spell points make the 5MWD all that much worse conceptually. People who would do it, will still do it, with or without spell points. Those who budget their spells will do so, with or without a different spellcasting system.

When it comes to spell points, I worry more about the impact of extra higher level slots than I do about casters going nova in a short period of time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Part of what controls for nova-ing and only using your highest-level slots is stuff like Concentration -- mechanics that encourage you to use a variety of different kinds of spells.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Part of what controls for nova-ing and only using your highest-level slots is stuff like Concentration -- mechanics that encourage you to use a variety of different kinds of spells.

Good point. Some of the better spells in the game are Concentration, which inherently limits you from nova-ing. That, coupled with only a single slot of 6th through 9th will probably end up making the spell point experience in 5E D&D play significantly different than it has in previous editions. I'm looking forward to seeing firsthand.

 

[keterys]

I don't have access to the DMG right now, so these #s are a little pulled out of nowhere, but for example let's say that normally my spell pyramid would look like 4 1st, 3 2nd, 2 3rd level spells. So I cast my 2 fireballs per day and then use a bunch of (very very very) subpar burning hands spells.

Under a spell point system, I'd instead just cast 5 fireballs per day. Happily. Way better.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't have access to the DMG right now, so these #s are a little pulled out of nowhere, but for example let's say that normally my spell pyramid would look like 4 1st, 3 2nd, 2 3rd level spells. So I cast my 2 fireballs per day and then use a bunch of (very very very) subpar burning hands spells.

Under a spell point system, I'd instead just cast 5 fireballs per day. Happily. Way better.

In the vacuum of theorycraft, that looks way better.

But that relies on 5 fireballs being actually useful. Which is a more nuanced situation.

Spell points probably do make nova-ing more attractive, but there's a lot of other bits and fobs that might work against that. IF you get a problem with novas after implement spell points, you might not want spell points, or you might consider other ways of controlling for that.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

I don't have access to the DMG right now, so these #s are a little pulled out of nowhere, but for example let's say that normally my spell pyramid would look like 4 1st, 3 2nd, 2 3rd level spells. So I cast my 2 fireballs per day and then use a bunch of (very very very) subpar burning hands spells.

Under a spell point system, I'd instead just cast 5 fireballs per day. Happily. Way better.

Well, let's plug some numbers in and see how it holds up.

A level 5 Wizard has the slots you list, 4 1st, 3 2nd, 2 3rd. With spell points, a 5th level Wizard has 27 spell points. A 1st level spell costs 2 points, a 2nd level spell costs 3 points, and a 3rd level spell costs 5 points.

This means at most, a level 5 Wizard could cast 5 3rd level spells, and have enough points left (2) for a 1st level spell. So it seems like you were pretty spot on with 5 fireballs. At minimum that's 5 rounds worth of spells, and that's assuming the Wizard never has to use an additional 1st or 2nd level spell. So, say, casting Mage Armor at the start of your day and a single casting of Shield to save the Wizard's life brings us to 23 points left, so 4 fireballs. However, as Kamikaze Midget mentioned, sometimes fireball isn't the most useful spell. Invisibility could be beneficial, and that's 3 points. Web might prove useful, and that's another 3 points (which if we're keeping count, is 17 points left, or 3 fireballs now).

So in grand scheme of things, on a day where all you're going to see is combat, and you're reasonably certain you won't need magical protections, yes, you can shoot 5 fireballs, which is 3 more than you normally could. I think these days are going to be sporadic, and also, that's kind of the appeal of Spell Points. If you've ever wished you could combine lower level slots to get just one more fireball when you really needed it, that's the itch spell points are meant to scratch.

Lastly, if you cast those burning hands in your 3 2nd level slots, that's 4d6 fire damage in a 15ft cone, roughly half the damage of a fireball. So really, two casts of those burning hands is nearly equivalent to another fireball anyway, in raw damage at least. It's just spread out over more rounds. If all you care about is doing the most damage for your buck (casting 5 fireballs), even without spell points you can just cast nothing but damage spells in higher slots to get nearly the same effect.

 

[keterys]

Wow, I was closer than I expected.

And yep, that's pretty much how the system works out. So you use your higher level much better spells whenever they are in fact much better, only downgrading when it's actually in your best interest. So you're more effective overall and can burn through spell slots more quickly. For good or ill.

Fwiw, I'd say 1 fireball is worth more at least 4 2nd level burning hands if you factor in area, ease of use, and action economy. Flipping it to Shatter makes it seem slightly better, though still pretty suboptimal (1/4 the area, 1/2 the damage, but at least it's ranged!) That's cause low level wizard attack spells kinda suck, and come into their own later on, and fireball is pretty solid. Those are fairly easy to compare (hence my use of them) whereas it's hard to compare more apples and oranges like Leomund's Tiny Hut against Spider Climb and Tasha's Hideous Laughter.

P.S. Every wizard should apparently play MoP to get a defense staff to solve their pesky mage armor and shield problems.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

When figuring raw damage, I was sort of using the DMG's idea that most AoE's spells factor about two targets are hit by them per use. Theoretically, fireball can hit a lot more targets than burning hands, but it also comes with the added downside of potential friendly fire (unless you're an evoker or Sorcerer with careful spell). Still, fireball is unarguably better than burning hands.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And yep, that's pretty much how the system works out. So you use your higher level much better spells whenever they are in fact much better, only downgrading when it's actually in your best interest. So you're more effective overall and can burn through spell slots more quickly. For good or ill.

Another, non-Fireball example: a paranoid 7th level wizard might have Dimension Door/Feather Fall in reserve at all times ("in case of emergency, teleport 500 feet straight up!"). Without spell points, that means he never gets to cast Polymorph at all, but with spell points, he just has to ensure that he never drops below 8 spell points.

Spell points are also great for necromancers because 6 zombies for 7 spell points (5th level slot) is more efficient than 2 zombies for 5 spell points (3rd level slot).

Yep, adding more options is definitely a boost to spellcasters--the only downside to spell points comes at 19th/20th level when you don't get your 6th and 7th level slots, but for the majority of play, spell points are a pure buff to spellcasters. Only use them if you're okay with that.

Personally I'm fine with it because I also allow feats (Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Mastery) and shenanigans like letting Shadow Monks do Shadow Jump while grappling someone (falling damage! and then the Shadow Monk lands on top of the grappled target for even more falling damage split evenly between monk and victim), or using Martial Arts and Extra Attacks while polymorphed into Giant Ape form. (Actually, the Giant Ape combo hasn't ever happened yet, but my player asked about it at the end of last session and I thought about it and said, "Sure, makes sense.") I also mostly ignore "balanced" encounters in favor of realism (with monster group sizes culled from the AD&D2 Monstrous Manual) which tends to result in encounters waaaaay above the Deadly threshold, so I don't have any concerns about PCs becoming "overpowered". They're exactly as powerful as they are, and that's all there is to it. Anyway, all of this adds up to me allowing spellpoints mostly because I find them more aesthetic and "realistic", but anyone with concerns about making wizards "overpowered" should think hard about the effects before choosing to allow this option.

P.S. Yes, I would use spell points for spellcasting monsters too. (So far it hasn't come up though, since the only spellcasting monsters have used spell-like abilities X/day instead of actual wizard/cleric ability.)

 

[keterys]

When figuring raw damage, I was sort of using the DMG's idea that most AoE's spells factor about two targets are hit by them per use. Theoretically, fireball can hit a lot more targets than burning hands, but it also comes with the added downside of potential friendly fire (unless you're an evoker or Sorcerer with careful spell). Still, fireball is unarguably better than burning hands.

The DMG actually has guidance for arbitrating number of enemies hit by AE, and it gives you ~2 for Burning Hands it's true (though note it puts you in melee range!), but it gives you 4 for fireball (radius / 5 = 4)