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

[SilentBoba]

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.

Mouseferatu: I want to make sure I understand correctly that you don't have the mental energy to do simple math, but you have the mental energy to play a caster.

To Lanefan: I like the "everybody uses open slots" idea, but are you giving the sorcerer anything to offset the fact that now the other more structured caster classes just gained the sorcerer's best perk? Personally, in such a system, I'd collapse sorcerer and wizard into the same class as the casters who draw from within, and warlocks as the casters that draw from an external power. I don't see much point playing a sorcerer over a wizard if both have open slots.

 

[77IM]

The way spells are organized and prepared in 5e, I prefer slots. It's easier to just put tally marks on a spell level than to have another giant pool of points to add up, and since you can use a higher-level slot on a lower-level spell, you're not losing that much flexibility, either.

 

[Bupp]

I agree with Lanefan. I always hated memorization. All spellcasters can spontaneously cast in my game.

I haven't had a sorcerer yet. I'd probably up the metamagic abilities for them and make that their schtick.

 

[Eric V]

I'm trying to convert Al-Qadim to 5e, while keeping as many of the 5e classes as possible. I'll be having 5e Sorcerers use the spell point system; it further differentiates them from wizards, and is in keeping with the expanded flexibility that sorcerers are supposed to have.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Prior to 5E, I'd always preferred spell points for the flexibility. But, the way 5E's spells are written, I don't find any need for spell slots to be the main way to handle things. I like 5E's default spellcasting system just fine, as is.

 

[Lanefan]

To Lanefan: I like the "everybody uses open slots" idea, but are you giving the sorcerer anything to offset the fact that now the other more structured caster classes just gained the sorcerer's best perk?

I've never had a separate Sorcerer class in my game, thus removing that concern. Nor Warlock, for that matter.

Lan-"there's Wizards and their subclasses, who use arcane magic; and Clerics, who use divine"-efan

 

[Mouseferatu]

Mouseferatu: I want to make sure I understand correctly that you don't have the mental energy to do simple math, but you have the mental energy to play a caster.

I don't want to add additional math, simple or otherwise. I don't care for fiddly decision overload--like the questions others have raised, like "Do I want to blow all the points on fewer, higher level spells, or more lower level ones?"

I'm not mathematically inclined. I'd have to pause, however briefly, to do the spell point math. And I've seen players go into decision-lock when it's just a matter of picking which spell slot to use.

Can I do it? Sure. But I don't enjoy it and it slows things down, for me and many of the people I play with. I'd rather devote the brainpower to questions like "Which spell?" rather than to mechanical issues like "How best to divvy up the points?"

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer spell slots, for their simplicity but also for a more "mystery feel" since they perhaps less logical than spell points, and this makes them more magic and less "science".

But I admit that probably the main reason is simply affection. For me vancian magic has always been a defining feature of D&D, and while 5e doesn't have truly vancian magic, at least it's mostly there. The day that D&D will have only spell points would probably be the day when it will be just another RPG system for me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't want to add additional math, simple or otherwise. I don't care for fiddly decision overload--like the questions others have raised, like "Do I want to blow all the points on fewer, higher level spells, or more lower level ones?"

I'm not mathematically inclined. I'd have to pause, however briefly, to do the spell point math. And I've seen players go into decision-lock when it's just a matter of picking which spell slot to use.

Can I do it? Sure. But I don't enjoy it and it slows things down, for me and many of the people I play with. I'd rather devote the brainpower to questions like "Which spell?" rather than to mechanical issues like "How best to divvy up the points?"

YMMV, but to the mathematically-inclined, picking which slot to use is actually harder, because you've got five pools of limited resources to manage instead of one. It's still not hard, but it is slightly more complex. It doesn't surprise me that you've seen people lock up on spell slot selection when they can't even handle spell points.

The way it works for me: player says "I cast Bestow Curse," and I say, "That will be five spell points please." Simple.

 

[Celebrim]

Spell point systems invariably fail to capture the feel of most literary magic. Ironically, most spell point systems originate as attempts to capture more literary magic since the magic of most literature seems more freefom than slot based systems.

The catch of course is that in actual play, spell point systems don't actually play like that. Instead, a spell point system encourages the player to invest heavily in a single uber skill and to go nova and expend all their spell points in a blast of irresistible power. And this is on top of the problem that all point buy systems have, in that it's almost impossible to accurate price flexible abilities resulting in points of over and under-costing that lead to completely unpredictable tiering and general balance or more often lack their of.

Spell points probably work ok as long as the cost per usage is well capped and the concept of the caster is very narrow - "I make fire" or something like that.