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

[Lanefan]

Very simply, you can use a Cooldown system.

It's an hour per spell level between castings.

Thus you can cast a 1st level spell once an hour. A second level spell once every two hours. Etc.

For someone looking for a gritty low-magic campaign this might be a *very* interesting idea. Even with a full tank a caster would only be good for one spell per level; and then either need to rest or rely on devices/melee for quite a while. End result: either a much slower-paced campaign where the party stops after each encounter so the casters can recover their spells, or a much grittier martial-focused campaign with very limited magic.

I do think, though, that if I adopted anything like this I'd beef up the casters' melee abilities a bit to compensate for their having fewer spells.

Lan-"a side effect here: enemy casters become more of a threat as they'd have nothing to lose by going nova on the party, while the party casters would have to take a longer-term view"-efan

 

[Bawylie]

For someone looking for a gritty low-magic campaign this might be a *very* interesting idea. Even with a full tank a caster would only be good for one spell per level; and then either need to rest or rely on devices/melee for quite a while. End result: either a much slower-paced campaign where the party stops after each encounter so the casters can recover their spells, or a much grittier martial-focused campaign with very limited magic.

I do think, though, that if I adopted anything like this I'd beef up the casters' melee abilities a bit to compensate for their having fewer spells.

Lan-"a side effect here: enemy casters become more of a threat as they'd have nothing to lose by going nova on the party, while the party casters would have to take a longer-term view"-efan

I think you wouldn't want to beef up their melee abilities. Presumably in such a scenario, the caster knows their limitations and therefore decides to beef up on their own (feats, ability improvements, careful spell selection) or ends up forming very strong symbiosis with the front-liners.


-Brad

 

[wmcook]

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.


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.

There some stuff for me to look at in there. I think I would want to limit the overchannel ability.

I think I am going to stick to a mana system but I did some tinkering with the spell cast DC. This takes proficiency bonus into account. Min roll shows what you would have to roll to cast that level of spell with the shown mod + prof bonus total. The target roll might move up or down a point or two depending on stats and magical gear. Roll @ 20 shows what you would need to roll to cast each spell level based on the total modifier of 12. Spell cast DC is 10 + 2x spell level. 1 is always a crit fail if a penalty system is in place.

level - Spell level - Modifier + Proficiency - Cast DC - Min. Roll - Crit fail - roll @ 20 - Fail @ 20
1 -------- 1 ---------------- 4 ------------------ 12 ------- 8 ---------- 3 --------- 2 ---------- 1
3 -------- 2 ---------------- 4 ------------ 14 ------ 10 ------- 5 ------ 2 ------- 1
5 -------- 3 ---------------- 6 ---------- 16 ------ 10 ------ 5 ------ 4 ------- 1
7 -------- 4 ---------------- 6 ---------- 18 ------ 12 ------ 7 ------ 6 ------- 1
9 -------- 5 ---------------- 8 ---------- 20 ------ 12 ------ 7 ------ 8 ------- 3
11 -------- 6 ---------------- 8 ---------- 22 ------ 14 ------ 9 ------ 10 ------- 5
13 -------- 7 ---------------- 10 ---------- 24 ------ 14 ------ 9 ------ 12 ------- 7
15 -------- 8 ---------------- 10 ---------- 26 ------ 16 ------ 11 ------ 14 ------- 9
17 -------- 9 ---------------- 12 ---------- 28 ------ 16 ------ 11 ------ 16 ------- 11

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

I've always wondered why the DMG says that the downside of spell points is "more complexity" instead of "less complexity but more power". At my table, a player casts a level 3 spell and I just say, "deduct five spell points," and when they rest and use Arcane Recovery I just say "You regain [Level] spell points." There's none of this 4/3/3/2/1 slot stuff, so bookkeeping goes down by a factor of about five.

So it seems like you may be the guy to ask: what extra bookkeeping are you (and the DMG) referring to?

 

[Horwath]

I really like the idea of mana points and it would be more logical to have that instead of spell slots.

But there are two problems:

1. placing relative power value on spell levels in respect to one another.

Do we use the sorcery point cost value from sorcerer class?, do we use MP cost equal to minimum level? 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17? or just cost as spell level; 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9? or go wit double the cost of increment each next level spell; 1,2,4,7,11,16,22,29,37?

2. Nova problem and 5mwd. With this solution all casters are "warlock style" and can unload all spell power at highest level and left dry for the rest of the day.

 

[Cyrinishad]

I've always wondered why the DMG says that the downside of spell points is "more complexity" instead of "less complexity but more power". At my table, a player casts a level 3 spell and I just say, "deduct five spell points," and when they rest and use Arcane Recovery I just say "You regain [Level] spell points." There's none of this 4/3/3/2/1 slot stuff, so bookkeeping goes down by a factor of about five.

So it seems like you may be the guy to ask: what extra bookkeeping are you (and the DMG) referring to?

It doesn't seem like extra book-keeping to me, but it just seemed like extra book-keeping to the players (even though it isn't any more complicated than tracking HP, and they do that just fine without complaint). I would say that it was primarily a false perception by the players, simply because it was something different than what they were accustomed to doing previously... My personal perception is just as you say "less complexity but more power".

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

2. Nova problem and 5mwd. With this solution all casters are "warlock style" and can unload all spell power at highest level and left dry for the rest of the day.

The opposite can be just as powerful: being able to cast tons and tons of first-level spells per day is actually pretty good in 5E. Hex, Shield of Faith, Shield, Sanctuary, Wrathful Smite, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Command, etc.

This is one reason Warlock 2 dips work so well for Paladins and Sorcerers: aside from the Eldritch Blast invocations, you also get more Shield spells and Wrathful Smites on a short rest basis, so you're not really losing out on much if any spellcaster power. The same is true for a spell point system. In a hypothetical system which made high-level spells super expensive and low-level spells really cheap, you might see Shield spam more often than you see Cone of Cold or Confusion spam.

 

[pdzoch]

First, I think the spell slot system is fine. I tend equate the spell slots to mana (or mana chunks) that explain the spell casting in a way that seems rational to me. That said, I do like the idea of a simpler formula system that does not require looking at charts and tables. Being an old grognard, I love charts and tables, but I do make mistakes and have often discovered after the adventure that a player was a spell slot short or a spell slot excess. All things considered, those minor errors did not break the game or affect anyone's enjoyment of the game.

I took the question as a challenge to my thinking and crafted my stab at the simplest spell formula I could manage. It is probably broke, but it was a worthwhile exercise.

Spell cost is Spell Level == Spell Point. So, 1st Level spell cost 1 spell point. Cantrips are free. Domain and specialization schools are half cost, rounded down. So a third level necromancy spell for a necromancer is cost one spell point.

Spell Points per level is Class Level *4. So At first level, a wizard has 4 spell points. At 20th level, the wizard has 80 spell points. This formula does create a stronger spell pool for young wizards and slightly weaker wizards are higher level. 2nd Level wizard is the largest difference resulting is almost three times the spell casting power in comparison to current RAW spell slots.

One additional rule to prevent overspending of spell points (a limiting factor). Any spell cast costing 1/2 class level or more will result in one level of exhaustion. So the additional spell power at lower level is mitigated by exhaustion effects. It also imposes limiting affects for new spell level until the character levels sufficiently to master the spell level. So a 18th level and lower wizard will suffer exhaustion every time she casts a 9th level spell. How much exhaustion is she willing to endure? How many spell points is she willing to spend? By the time she reaches 19th and 20th level, she has a mastery of the spell level and can cast as many as she has spell points for. Likewise, a 4th level wizard (with 16 points) can cast 16 1st level spells without effort. BUT, casting a 2nd level spell will apply exhaustion, though he has enough points/mana to cast 8 2nd level spells. Most wizards will assume risk an accept a level or two of exhaustion, but will probably not overdo it until they have mastered those spell levels.

Chart below shows equivalence of my point system formula compared to the points.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 800, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]Spell Slot by Spell Level PHB
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Spell Points Converted [/TD]
[TD]Spell Points[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Class Level/Spell Level[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]by PHB Spell Slot
[/TD]
[TD]by Formula[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]28[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]36[/TD]
[TD]36[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]41[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]47[/TD]
[TD]44[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]47[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[TD]56[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]62[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]62[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]71[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]76[/TD]
[TD]72[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]82[/TD]
[TD]76[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]89[/TD]
[TD]80[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


For your consideration. I think the simplicity meets the OP request (only one formula to know so no charts to reference), and the exhaustion rule addresses the limitation issue question from the OP.

 

[Ahrimon]

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?

Sorry, that's what I get for posting just before going to bed.

 

[cooperjer]

It's been awhile since I've looked at or played Mage: The Ascension, but it may be an idea to consider. The characters have a number of d10s available for them to roll. At game start this was between two and three. Near the end of the story of the character it might have 7 or 10, depending on the character build and bonuses. The characters also had levels in "schools" of magic that gave an indication of their capability. To use their magic to do one of the things described by the magic school the player would roll the d10s. A d10 was considered a success if it rolled a 7 or more. In order to achieve success with the magic a player would need to roll at least one success. In some cases more than one success was needed for particularly complex spells the involved a longer duration, more creatures, more area, etc. In cases when a success was not met, the GM may come up with something as a drawback to the character, depending on the circumstances of the magic.

How can this be brought into D&D? The "schools" are already defined or not needed. The players would need a pool of d10s (or a die number you prefer). You set the DC at 7 for the d10 roll. The DM decides on how many successes are needed to cast the magic.

If it's a ranged spell attack then possibly only one success is needed. If the target is particularly hard to hit (high AC) then maybe two successes are needed. if the ranged ray is going to hit several creatures, then more successes are needed. Maybe something like 2^(n - 1) creatures can be hit where n is the number of success needed. If the spell is an area of effect spell then only one success is needed to cast it. If the caster wants the AOE to be more powerful, larger, sculpted, sustained, etc. then increase the required number of successes.

Eliminate saves and eliminate the roll to hit. The player rolls the number of successes and the damage. The DM identifies the number of successes needed to cast the magic as described by the player.

What prevents high level spells (7, 8, 9) from being cast at higher level? Set the number of successes needed to be higher, or set the DC on the d10 roll to be higher, or both. Also, after casting a spell of that level, remove a d10 from the characters pool to use. They can recover that after a long rest.

The above is just a concept and what I recall from the time when Mage came out. Feel free to use and adjust what you see as appropriate.