D&D 5E Spell slots or spell points? Which do you prefer and why?

[Queer Venger]

Spell slots, one of the best things Wizards has delivered for D&D!!

 

[GX.Sigma]

Deep down, I prefer spell points. Even though spell slots certainly "feel more D&D," the downside to me is that they are terribly specific about how magic works. Sure, that's how magic works in the world of Greyhawk, but maybe that's not how I want magic to work in my world. (Ditto for several of the classes--Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Druid; even Cleric carries a lot of assumptions about the world in which the game takes place.) Spell points turn magic into a more abstract resource, similar to HP.

While I certainly wouldn't argue for spell points to be the default, I don't see why I would use the slots system unless I'm running FR or Greyhawk.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Spell points for me. I like my games to reflect fantasy literature, and spell points fit a lot better with the rationale for magic's limitations in most books, the two most common being that casting requires effort and you can get too tired to cast, and that you have a limited amount of magic stored up. The only time I saw a slotlike system in a book that I liked was Zelazny's second Amber series, and I would guess that that was based on D&D to start with.

There are definitely weaknesses to spell point systems as opposed to slot systems, and the usefulness of a spellpoint system depends a great deal on how well it overcomes these weaknesses. One issue I don't think I've seen mentioned here is the nova problem.

For me the big advantage is spell slots is that it feels like D&D.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Spell points make more sense to me, but I've never seen them done in a well balanced way.

 

[TerraDave]

Honestly, I like the enforced variety of slots.

5E is not quite as enforced as before--which is OK, I guess--but there is still less scope for spamming, and that big impact-full spell remains relatively rare and cool.

 

[SilentBoba]

If you could unlearn 30+ years of D&D, I think you could readily digest spell points and mana if you were a reader of fantasy or a gamer who has played any game of resource management. I think spell slots would come across as bizarre and non-intuitive in comparison.

However, add all that tradition and sacred cow-edness and it's difficult for people to envision a Vance-free D&D. Slots are a pretty good compromise between Vance and Points. Far better than old school Vance or even the wackiness of 4e's daily/encounter/at-will approach. But points are just more intuitive and translatable to most fantasy settings.

I think the fact that low level spells now need to be cast as higher level to produce more/better effects actually supports a point system much better than in the old days when spending 1 point on a Magic Missile spell at 9th level meant you could do 5d4+5 damage unerringly (assuming the stripped-down, basic 1 point per spell level approach that was always as easy as it was imbalanced).

I'm eager to use points once I can actually get my campaign rolling.

 

[Gadget]

If you could unlearn 30+ years of D&D, I think you could readily digest spell points and mana if you were a reader of fantasy or a gamer who has played any game of resource management. I think spell slots would come across as bizarre and non-intuitive in comparison.

However, add all that tradition and sacred cow-edness and it's difficult for people to envision a Vance-free D&D. Slots are a pretty good compromise between Vance and Points. Far better than old school Vance or even the wackiness of 4e's daily/encounter/at-will approach. But points are just more intuitive and translatable to most fantasy settings.

I think the fact that low level spells now need to be cast as higher level to produce more/better effects actually supports a point system much better than in the old days when spending 1 point on a Magic Missile spell at 9th level meant you could do 5d4+5 damage unerringly (assuming the stripped-down, basic 1 point per spell level approach that was always as easy as it was imbalanced).

I'm eager to use points once I can actually get my campaign rolling.

Perhaps, but with those more flexible and easier-to-apply-across-a-wider-subsection-of-fantasy-magic-traditions spell points comes, I think, a greater level of analysis paralysis in attempts to maximize one's spell power for points. Do you blow all your points on higher level effects or span lower level pew, pew, pews? I can already see the spreadsheet macros now. If you thought the power attack bonus tinkering was bad in 3E, you ain't seen nothing yet. While situations and individual campaigns vary, it would put a much tighter restriction on spell design as even a slight difference in power or utility is magnified in the spell point paradigm. It leads toward the game being mathematically 'solved': there would be some master spreadsheet macro developed to give one the optimum amount of spell points to put into each spell/encounter given an opponent type, etc. Now this may be a fascinating and fun sub-game for some to play, I suspect it would lead to many becoming dissatisfied with the system in the end.

Or, I could be wrong. I have not used the current rendition of spell points, so I would be eager to hear the results of others who have tried.

 

[Lanefan]

Having played in games for 30 years (and DMed them for over 20) that used spell points, for my current campaign I went back to slots.

Why?

Because in the intervening time I'd been introduced to the 3e Sorcerer, which uses slots but doesn't have to otherwise pre-memorize spells (pre-mem. being something I've always detested); and I thought the mechanics were brilliant. So, in my game now all casters work like Sorcerers - if you have the spell in your book (or your deity grants it) and you've got a slot available of that level, you can cast it.

So far, so good; though were I to start over I'd cut back slightly on the number of slots casters can amass at higher levels.

Lan-"while I'm really pleased that 5e included spell poitns as an option, I think there should be a random element much like hit points"-efan

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Perhaps, but with those more flexible and easier-to-apply-across-a-wider-subsection-of-fantasy-magic-traditions spell points comes, I think, a greater level of analysis paralysis in attempts to maximize one's spell power for points. Do you blow all your points on higher level effects or span lower level pew, pew, pews? I can already see the spreadsheet macros now. If you thought the power attack bonus tinkering was bad in 3E, you ain't seen nothing yet. While situations and individual campaigns vary, it would put a much tighter restriction on spell design as even a slight difference in power or utility is magnified in the spell point paradigm. It leads toward the game being mathematically 'solved': there would be some master spreadsheet macro developed to give one the optimum amount of spell points to put into each spell/encounter given an opponent type, etc. Now this may be a fascinating and fun sub-game for some to play, I suspect it would lead to many becoming dissatisfied with the system in the end.

Or, I could be wrong. I have not used the current rendition of spell points, so I would be eager to hear the results of others who have tried.

You're right, except that it doesn't take a spreadsheet. The optimization is trivially done in your head on a spell-by-spell basis. Animate Dead should be cast at 5th level to be ideal; Bestow Curse should be either 3rd level (if you want to spend concentration) or 5th level (to keep your Concentration free); Fireball is most efficient at 3rd level but most effective at 5th level; etc. All of your 6th+ spell slots should be saved for actual spells, not for bumping up your low-level spells.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You're right, except that it doesn't take a spreadsheet. The optimization is trivially done in your head on a spell-by-spell basis.

For people who are good with math and/or that sort of mechanical thinking, sure, it's trivial. For casual players, or for people's whose brains aren't wired that way--i.e. a lot of us--it requires a lot more active bookkeeping and a lot more mental energy that, frankly, it's not really worth.