Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 7747597" data-attributes="member: 58172">If using spell points results in spamming a particular spell to a degree that is disruptive to the game, then it usually means the spell was undervalued and needs to cost more points. Oppositely, if a spell rarely finds use, then its cost is probably too expensive. For certain spells, the spell might do better with a redesign.Using spell points − especially during the design process − improves quality control.You mention a ‘hybrid system’. In the context of 5e, the designers decided to treat spell levels 1 to 5 separately from spell levels 6 to 9. So in this context, there can be one spell point pool for the lower tier spells, and a separate spell point pool for the upper tier spells.Spell points can work well in the 3e system, as the psion class demonstrates.There is an even simpler way to handle spells. Instead of having lots of points/slots that refresh per long rest, it is possible to have fewer points/slots that refresh per short rest.For example, a wizard only has upto four slots. Only one of these slots can cast the highest spell level available, the remaining three can only cast the next highest spell level. The slots automatically heighten lower spell levels if possible. These slots refresh per short rest.Calibrating around short rests helps fighters and wizards keep better pace with each other in terms of expending resources during the day.Even if going for the simpler per-15-minute-rest slots, it still helps to think in terms of spell points when designing spells, to more accurately evaluate the worth of a spell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 7747597, member: 58172"] If using spell points results in spamming a particular spell to a degree that is disruptive to the game, then it usually means the spell was undervalued and needs to cost more points. Oppositely, if a spell rarely finds use, then its cost is probably too expensive. For certain spells, the spell might do better with a redesign. Using spell points − especially during the design process − improves quality control. You mention a ‘hybrid system’. In the context of 5e, the designers decided to treat spell levels 1 to 5 separately from spell levels 6 to 9. So in this context, there can be one spell point pool for the lower tier spells, and a separate spell point pool for the upper tier spells. Spell points can work well in the 3e system, as the psion class demonstrates. There is an even simpler way to handle spells. Instead of having lots of points/slots that refresh per long rest, it is possible to have fewer points/slots that refresh per short rest. For example, a wizard only has upto four slots. Only one of these slots can cast the highest spell level available, the remaining three can only cast the next highest spell level. The slots automatically heighten lower spell levels if possible. These slots refresh per short rest. Calibrating around short rests helps fighters and wizards keep better pace with each other in terms of expending resources during the day. Even if going for the simpler per-15-minute-rest slots, it still helps to think in terms of spell points when designing spells, to more accurately evaluate the worth of a spell. [/QUOTE]

Verification