D&D 5E Help: Getting rid of spell slots

[FormerlyHemlock]

I made reference to the system in the DMG and the couple issues I have with it. Any thought on the 6th level and above spells being limited to 1 per day for each slot when you would normally get 2,2,1,1?

I have been using the DMG spell point system since the DMG first came out. I understand your issues with not liking tables, and frankly I don't see a big reason why you couldn't just interpolate a simple formula and use that instead. It's already a fairly linear progression. One formula that comes fairly close is: spell points = 4 * LEVEL ^ (1 + LEVEL/100), rounded to the nearest integer. At level 1 this gives you 4 spell points; at level 5 you have 22 spell points; at level 11 you have 57 spell points; and by level 20 you have 146. Those numbers are all reasonably close to the DMG numbers (4, 27, 73, 133) although somewhat underpowered at low levels--they don't quite catch up to the DMG numbers until level 16, except for an anomaly at level 2 and a smaller anomaly at level 4. But they do remain within 2 levels of DMG numbers at all times.

Spell points by level:
Level 1 (DMG) 4 (formula) 4
Level 2 (DMG) 6 (formula) 8
Level 3 (DMG) 14 (formula) 12
Level 4 (DMG) 17 (formula) 17
Level 5 (DMG) 27 (formula) 22
Level 6 (DMG) 32 (formula) 27
Level 7 (DMG) 38 (formula) 32
Level 8 (DMG) 44 (formula) 38
Level 9 (DMG) 57 (formula) 44
Level 10 (DMG) 64 (formula) 50
Level 11 (DMG) 73 (formula) 58
Level 12 (DMG) 73 (formula) 65
Level 13 (DMG) 83 (formula) 73
Level 14 (DMG) 83 (formula) 81
Level 15 (DMG) 94 (formula) 91
Level 16 (DMG) 94 (formula) 100
Level 17 (DMG) 107 (formula) 110
Level 18 (DMG) 114 (formula) 121
Level 19 (DMG) 123 (formula) 133
Level 20 (DMG) 133 (formula) 146

Furthermore, I doubt the missing spell points would be all that sorely missed, since spell points systems give greater flexibility and there is less pressure to conserve some of every type of slot. A regular PHB 9th level wizard with only a 3rd level slot and two 1st level slot remaining would be quite nervous; but a spell point wizard with 9 spell points left is likely is be relatively cool and collected because he can still utilize any of his memorized spells and still have power a 1st level spell like Shield or Expeditious Retreat for emergencies. If you gave me a choice between running a spell point wizard under this formula or a PHB spell slot wizard, I'd take spell points every time.

My opinions on the 6th+ level slot issue are mostly theorycraft, because I've only played characters at those level in one-shots. IMO the biggest impact of that rule is that it makes multiclassing more attractive; since you can't get multiple 6th+ slots per day anyway, and you already have plenty of spell points, you might as well consider investing two levels in Rogue or Fighter or Warlock or something somewhere along the line instead of sticking with pure spellcaster classes.

Aesthetically I don't like the 6th+ limitation because it prevents it from being a real spell point system; it's actually a hybrid spell slot/spell point system because you still have to keep track of slots 6, 7, 8, and 9. But I don't have an elegant solution either, because 5E does clearly intend to keep a lid on level 6+ spells in a way that it doesn't for spell levels 1-5. (E.g. Arcane Recovery doesn't work with them, Sorcerers can't create them from sorcery points, etc.) If you held a knife to my throat and made me come up with a solution now I would simply increase the cost exponentially after level 5 and drop the 1/day restriction: spells over level 7 cost (14 * 1.4^(LEVEL - 5)) spell points, rounded to the nearest number.

Level 6: 20 spell points
Level 7: 27 spell points
Level 8: 38 spell points
Level 9: 54 spell points

Only the mightiest wizards could ever dream of casting multiple high-level spells in a day, and doing so would drain them utterly. That seems like it would maintain the flavor of 6th+ level spells in 5E: they're rare and significant.

Now you have all the goodness of spell points without the bookkeeping.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There are lots and lots of systems that are classless and don't use spell slots. Why not use one of them?

The structure in D&D is attractive and is one of the reasons to play a D&D-derived system. The structure of the magic system is especially attractive.

However, the magic system's attractiveness mostly has to do with its categorization schemes (level, school, spellcaster)--the actual mechanics of discretized spells per level have been turning off players since the first day a player asked a DM, "Why can't my cleric memorize one more 1st level Cure Light Wounds instead of a 2nd level Spiritual Hammer?" Spell point systems have a long, long history in D&D. E.g. I first read (a version of) this document (Net Wizard's Handbook) circa 1991 and it has about a dozen alternate magic systems in it including at least three spell point systems plus a "Dynamic Memorization" variant which is almost identical to 5E's default "spell slot" system.

Some things are baked pretty solidly into 5E. Spell slots aren't one of them. (If they were, the DMG wouldn't encourage you to experiment with jettisoning them.)

 

[Bupp]

I do like your "cast against a DC" system. Seems streamlined and straight-forward. It's a system worth considering. I would be worried about the system getting abused, though. Maybe some sort of penalty if you were to fail. Reminds me of the system in DCC, though it's been awhile since I've looked at that.

I use spell points in my 5e game for sorcerers. I've talked about it here.

But I'll copy and paste my post below:

Spell points and sorcery points get combined into one pool, since they do transfer at a 1:1 ratio. I call the entire pool sorcery points, and they can be used to cast spells, on metamagic and to power bloodline abilities.

Spells of 6th level and higher are particularly taxing to cast, and can only cast one of each level per long rest. This keeps it in line with the spell slots, and only really affects 19th and 20th level sorcerers.

The other thing I added was the ability to Overchannel. Overchannel allows you to power spells up beyond what you normally could. Spells with a "At Higher Level" can be cast at any level, even if it's not a spell level you could normally cast. The 6th level and above rule still applies. This truly lets a sorcerer "go nova".

Example: A 5th level sorcerer has 32 total sorcery points. If he wanted to "go nova" with fireballs, he could cast a 9th level fireball, an 8th level fireball, and a 5th level fireball. That would leave just 1 sorcery point to power metamagic or power bloodline abilities.

I made these changes mainly because I wanted to sorcerers to "feel different" than wizards. Only sorcerers get spell points in my game. Spell points gives them some added flexibility with casting a limited number of spells. Overchannel gives them some of that X-Men feel that someone mentioned above.

In playtesting it has worked well. The player has been extremely frugal with his spell points overall. He tends towards a lot of cantrips and lower level spells early, hoping to save up for a "boss fight", where he'll Overchannel. I've built encounters with this in mind, so overchanneling is rarely a "I win" button, but lets him feel like a hero after letting other players shine earlier while he holds back.

He tends to run out of resources at the same rate as other players.

Shameless Plug
I've detailed these changes in a product I have on the DMs Guild. It's pay what you want. Fair warning, it's one of my earliest pieces, and my first dealing with class options. Some of it could definitely use a rewrite, but I stand by the spell points and overchannel. It's held up to lots of playtesting at low to mid levels, and works well.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

We used mana points back in 1e because Vancian was so limiting. You got x many mana points based on level and prime requisite and chose prep'd spells based on your allowed spell slots per level. Juiced up casters big time, which was fine because we were young and were playing killer dungeons anyway. I like the current spell slot method because it's more flexible than 1e but still have soft spot for spell points.

 

[Cyrinishad]

I've run games using Spell Points instead of the standard casting in D&D, because I like the flexibility for casters in theory. (And I voted for the Spell Points option in the Poll). However, my practical experience is that the players never took advantage of the flexibility... Things just ended up working out the same as the standard casting for the players, except with more book-keeping to track their Spell Points. On the other hand, the NPCs & Monsters definitely took advantage of using Spell Points instead of the standard casting.

 

[Jester David]

Goals
System should use a formula and not based off reference charts.

Should be able to use system with others using standard spell system without having a drastic advantage or disadvantage.

The two goals may be mutually exclusive or incompatible.


The existing spell system is based around reference charts, because there is no firm pattern. Not all spell levels are equal and not all levels are equal. There is a greater increase in power from 2nd to 3rd level than from 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th. And the jump in power from 4th to 5th is also steep.


Any formula would be super complex, and a chart would be easier. Especially one you only need to reference when you level. At worst you need to print out a ¼ page cheat sheet.

Mana System
The spell point from the DMG is almost acceptable although it violates the first goal. I might use mana pool of ability modifier times your caster level would better fit what I am looking for. Spell cost would be 2x spell level.

I believe 3e has spell points cost 2x level - 1. Which is a little more than the points recommended in the DMG.


Figuring this out without defaulting to a chart is tricky. People gain spell points in surges and at an irregular pace. Making a simple formula is opting for simplicity over balance. It's going to make certain classes more or less powerful at certain levels.
Approach with caution.

The DMG points out an issue with higher level spells in a point system. The DMG limits 6th level and above spells to once per long rest but level 20 casters usually get 2-6th, 2-7th, 1-8th, & 1-9th. I picture higher level things as those could be world changing.
Would only limiting 8th & 9th to once a day be enough?

I'd keep the 6th level slot limit and then grant super high level characters the ability to recharge a 6th or 7th level slot after a short rest.
Keep the base rule as simple as possible, and include the variation in classes.

Should it be okay for a caster to blow all their magical power in 5 spells and not limit it to anything but your amount of mana?

That is the perpetual problem with spellpoint systems.

After you cast a 8th or 9th level spell should you be able to cast another but gain a level of fatigue?

The problem with that is two 9th level spells is a huge bump to power. Fatigue and gaining a few levels of exhaustion doesn't matter when it's the final encounter of the day.

With the higher spell cost and lower mana I would allow casters to use hit dice to regain mana after a short rest.

That would be a cool option,

Spell casting DC system
The thought is magic is something that you can always tap into but sometimes you don't get it just right.

Spell casting dc be 10 + spell level. Roll d20 + ability modifier to cast the spell. Need to prevent having to roll dice three times to cast an attack spell. Roll to hit spells could require you to meet the spell cast DC and to hit in the same roll. For example, you roll 16 which meets the DC to cast a level 3 spell but the target had 18 AC. You succeed in casting the spell but miss or it bounces off the target.

The catch I can see with this is, if you need to hit with the roll anyway, why not just spam your most damaging spell? It makes every spell a cantrip, potentially with better odds of hitting.


Okay, let's look at the math of this system. Assuming a starting casting stat of level 16, you have a +3 bonus and a DC 11 to cast your spell. That's requires a roll of 8, so you have a 65% of casting your spells.
At 5th level, you might have an 18, and can cast 3rd level spells. So you have a 70% chance of casting a 1st level, 65% of a 2nd level, and a 60% chance of a 3rd.
At 8th level the character can hit cap with a 20 in their spellcasting stat. They have their maximum 75% chance of casting a 1st level spell or a 60% with a 4th level spell. They're odds now never change. Casting a 5th level slot is 55%, a 7th is 45%, and a 9th is a 35% chance.


It could actually work in play rather well at higher levels, since the caster will have a high chance of flubbing their higher level slots. It would encourage casters to focus on lots of lower level spells. And high level magic would be more of a gamble.
It would be interesting for a low magic game, since even at high levels, powerful magic would be unreliable.
I'm not sure it would be fun though. Nothing like really, really needing that high level spell and having it go "poof". A lot of potential to waste your turn.

Or instead spell DC could increase by 5 to hit a hostile target or decrease by 5 for a friendly target

The catch I see with that is healing magic. If you have unlimited casting, healing magic becomes broken. Doubly so when you have a 25% increase in your chances of casting.

but this makes the target AC meaningless when it comes to roll to hit spells which I am not totally against.


Something is needed to prevent spam casting spells out of combat like teleport. Perhaps if you fail the DC to cast a spell by 5,10, or some number you lose the use of that spell till after a short rest.

The thing about such a radical change to systems it it tends to snowball in design. It leads to what I call "asterix design" where you're constantly adding small little patches and fixes to the base rule to accommodate new elements. You're adding lots of asterixis to the rule to explain the myriad exceptions.


What about spells with multiple attacks, like scorching ray?
What about the difference between low AC/high hp and high AC/low hp monsters?
Do monsters still need to roll saving throws to avoid things like fireball? If yes that adds two points of failure to those spells (the player's and the monster's) making direct target spells much more efficient.
If the chance to cast spells is static, you have just as good a chance of hitting a kobold as the tarrasque

 

[guachi]

You don't like classes (you're using a classless system) and you don't like spell slots.

Why bother playing D&D at that point? Pick a system that inherently suits your needs.

It's like saying I want a ham & cheese sandwich but I don't want ham. I'd rather have bacon. And I don't want cheese; I'd rather have lettuce and tomato. I might as well have just ordered a BLT in the first place.

 

[wmcook]

You don't like classes (you're using a classless system) and you don't like spell slots.

Why bother playing D&D at that point? Pick a system that inherently suits your needs.

It's like saying I want a ham & cheese sandwich but I don't want ham. I'd rather have bacon. And I don't want cheese; I'd rather have lettuce and tomato. I might as well have just ordered a BLT in the first place.

I guess there always has to be a few.

 

[Celebrim]

If you really want to get rid of spell slots, your best bet is going with a spell point system.

Cap the maximum points that can be spent at a time.
Set a table for point cost by spell level.
Set a table for points acquired by caster level.

For added complexity, you can have trees of spells learned and mastered with casters picking a new spell on the tree at each level, where having 'mastered' a spell gives you a small refund on points spent (you get some back, after paying the cost). This helps address efficiency issues that tend to have spell point systems forcing the player toward, "I only cast high level spells".

You'll need to reconstruct all the spell casting classes to use the new rules.

 

[wmcook]

The catch I can see with this is, if you need to hit with the roll anyway, why not just spam your most damaging spell? It makes every spell a cantrip, potentially with better odds of hitting.

Your higher level spell could possibly have a higher casting dc than the a.c. of the enemy. I see how your situation plays out though if that isn't the case.it would also have a higher chance of failing. Putting the together is just to prevent rolling 3 times for 1 spell. It also mates it so you do not auto hit strong enemies with lower level spells.

I do plan on having some sort of penalty if you fail the dc by x amount to counter spell spamming but that was mostly for our of combat situations.