Spell Points and Problem Spells

Blue · Jun 15, 2019

We playtested Spell Points at several different levels, and the problem spells were you high level or two.

Basically, casters would using their biggest spells all the time - most return for the action spent, nova to reduce the enemy actions (often by inflicting the dead condition) as quick as possible. This lead to short adventuring days. Or at least the casters pushing hard for them.

So I don't have specific lists of problem spells, but a more systemic issue. You may want to still limit the number of the highest two levels of spells the caster can use. Be it by a hard limit per day or per short rest, or maybe breaking up SP to be by short rest so they can't just dump everything into nova-ing.

Blue · Jun 15, 2019

Harzel said:
I have never understood this idea. With spell points, you have to keep track of one number; with spell slots you need to keep track of as many as levels of spells that you can cast. What am I missing?

(Sorry for taking this off-topic.)

With traditional casting you need to find the correct level and increment a count.

With SP you need to lookup a number (cost for that level spell) and then do subtraction.

Both cases a lookup, but subtraction is slightly more involved then putting a hash mark or checking a box.

*shrug* I'd put them close enough to the same myself.

Blue · Jun 15, 2019

MechaPilot said:
The only significant differences I've run into are that ... casters have greater flexibility of resources than they do with slots. However, neither of these differences approaches the level of a problem.

In general there's a vibe that casters are already more powerful than at-will characters. Do you find that this exasperates the issue? Either through direct observation or though player choosing more casters then they would in a normal party distribution?

DND_Reborn · Jun 15, 2019

Here's the system we use for spell points. It works well for us.

jgsugden · Jun 15, 2019

I don't favor spell points, but had a player that did, so we made a system that addressed a few concerns. To avoid repetition problems, every power/spell had a base cost, but the cost increased by 1 for every additional use of it beyond the first between long rests. Towards the end of that PC we discussed making it be by 1 for every use beyond the second use, but did not make the switch before that PC left the campaign. I think that would have been fine.

Bupp · Jun 15, 2019

I use spell points, but only for sorcerers, where I just add their sorcery points into their spell point pool.

I've always liked spell points, though it does increase the caster's ability to nova. Though this may be an issue, I feel it fits in with the sorcerer class. The wizard is more versatile, but the sorcerer has more raw power, and spell points help reflect this in game play.

MechaPilot · Jun 15, 2019

Blue said:
In general there's a vibe that casters are already more powerful than at-will characters. Do you find that this exasperates the issue? Either through direct observation or though player choosing more casters then they would in a normal party distribution?

I don't find it exasperating the issue. The additional resource flexibility tends to make casters feel more free to use spells they think are right for a given situation without worrying about "oh, man, but I have to burn one of my higher level slots to cast that because I've already used up all the slots for that level." It's been my experience that if you (the generic you) have a first level spell that seems right for a situation, but you're out of first level slots, you'll probably try to square-peg-round-hole a higher-level level spell for that situation because why not if you're already burning a higher level slot.

As far as more distribution of casters, no. My players tend to have two or three favorite classes that they stick to, unless they have a concept they want to try out with another class (or are inspired by a book or film to try a different character archetype). Right now, warlocks and monks are the most popular classes at my table (and warlocks at my table use slots because it's part of the general character of the class). It also helps that both of those classes are short-rest-refresh classes, so they refresh at the same rate and can keep up a decent pace in the adventuring day.

MechaPilot · Jun 15, 2019

Harzel said:
Ok, can you say anything about why you think that is a better approach? That alters the relative costs of different levels of spells, which, to me, seems like a more fundamental change than lowering the totals.

I don't know if I'd say it's a "better" approach, but it feels more intuitive to me to recalibrate the costs than the total.

I'd also add that changing the total wouldn't affect the issue that another poster mentioned in the lead-up to the response, which is the repeated casting of certain lower-level spells (like Shield) that the other deemed to be overly beneficial for their cost over multiple castings.

Harzel · Jun 16, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Counterspell and Dispel Magic: Casting either of these spells always requires a spellcasting check...

By "spellcasting check" do you mean an ability check using your spellcasting ability? I would assume so, but just wanted to clarify.

DND_Reborn · Jun 16, 2019

Harzel said:
By "spellcasting check" do you mean an ability check using your spellcasting ability? I would assume so, but just wanted to clarify.

Your spellcasting ability score modifier plus your proficiency bonus. Just as if you were making a spell attack roll.

We had two new people join our group yesterday, one playing a wizard and the other a bard/monk. So, we had to explain the system and everything to them and they caught on quickly. It works well as long as you don't mind the potential of several low level spells or a bit more higher level ones.

We had one overcasting, which was useful despite the spell point cost and psychic damage.