D&D 5E MP system, easier than ever, this time around.... i think.

[Evenglare]

So they did say that a MP variant to use instead of spells per day. Of course in 3e almost every MP system completely failed for one reason or another. Anyway it seem to me that a MP system this time around almost writes itself. Since 5e's magic system doesn't actually use spell slots in the traditional sense, it feels like you have a list of spells and can essentially use a slot to cast the spell. Breaking it down, it seems like it's actually already is an MP system. Basically you have MP for every spell level (your slots) and you just spend whatever slot to cast a spell of that particular level. It seems only logical to have a complete MP system simply multiply your # of slots you have by the level of the slot, and simply add it all up. So a spell of any particular level costs that amount of MP to cast. Now I understand this gives the caster much much more freedom, but it's not anywhere near the magnitude using my proposed system on 3.x would be. The really big reason that this works is that 5e's vancian's prepared spells are completely divorced from slots per day. Let's take a look at a couple of examples.

You have a level 10 wizard, we are going to compare 3.xe and 5e.

----------3.x----------
# of prepared spells at level 10 (not including cantrips): 26 spells total, but varying in level.
Amount of MP pool: 71 MP.
A large reason this is overpowered is because you assume that you don't need to prepare any spell twice, you simply have it prepared and then you spend mana and use it. This is how 5e works, but seeing as this isn't intentional with 3.x we get crazy overpowered magic.

----------5e----------
# of spells prepared (cantrips are irrelevant): 15
Amount of MP pool: 41
This is LEAGUES below 3.x, and so it's much better at limitations. But that's not the only thing that's a factor, the thing is 5e is set up for the fact that your prepared spells can be cast at higher levels. So if you picked all of your spells that can be boosted, you could theoretically have all level 5 spells.

Now the interesting part is how many times can you cast your highest level spells per day given that a spell of a particular level costs that much MP to cast. So for both editions, the highest level spell wizards get at level 10 is 5th level spells. So in regards to 3.x, you could fire off about 14 level 5 spells per day (amount of MP divided by cost of the spell so 71/5). So lets take a look at 5e wizard, if he were to cast ONLY 5th level spells during the day he could cast a maximum of 8. That's almost HALF of 3.x's spell allotment. So that's only for the max level spells, it gets even more insane if you take a look at lower level spells. A 3.x caster could cast 35! level 2 spells, while the 5e wizard can only cast 20.

Now, comparing editions is one thing, but the real question is does this make the wizard/caster/whatever overpowered in 5th edition. That remains to be seen. While some could argue that it does, I think I would argue that this MP system actually gets rid of the fabled 5 minute workday since the party wouldn't need to rest after you blew your highest spells. This leaves the wizard more room to be prepared for whatever might come your way. What do you think?

 

[Yora]

So you are saying the same spellpoint system become viable in 5th edition because spellcasters get fewer spells per day to begin with?

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's not why spell points don't work well. Spell points don't work because they are an invitation to spam.

 

[Boarstorm]

That's not why spell points don't work well. Spell points don't work because they are an invitation to spam.

Why is that a bad thing? I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I'm curious as to your reasoning there.

 

[Evenglare]

So you are saying the same spellpoint system become viable in 5th edition because spellcasters get fewer spells per day to begin with?

That is one aspect of it, the other is concentration mechanic also reels in massive spell buffing. I'm not saying it's completely balanced, but it sure is a hell of a lot more than any 3e spell point mechanic was. As for the "spamming" of spells, you can still do that with the regular system as is now that prepared spells aren't used up when you cast them. Spam for a high level spells, or spam the same spell at lower level, the spell point system at least gives you control instead of arbitrarily allowing a certain number of a certain level spell. If you want blow 5 high level spells instead of 10 of the same spell at lower level why shouldn't you be able to? It's basically how psionic system usually work (more or less). The point is that it's certainly much more reasonable with these rules than most any other rules I have seen so far.

 

[evilbob]

I agree that a magic point system should be a lot easier. Finally divorcing slots from prepared spells is the key; at this point, the only remaining question is: how much is each spell level worth?

Another major benefit is that the upper level spells in 5.0 are nowhere near the game-breaking power of 3.5. I mean, 9th level spells are still 9th level spells, but things in the 5th-7th level are still within the realm of reason. This means power per spell level isn't "more than exponential" quite as badly (which ultimately contributes to the spamming problem).

However, I'd still say it's not linear. I don't think a level 1 spell is worth 1 point and a level 2 is worth 2. But it's closer than 3.5, that's for sure.

Finally, not being able to increase your total spells via ANY means other than class level is another major boon to making this scalable. Once you start factoring in all the +Int bonuses from 3.5, that would also break things.

I'm pretty sure any exercise in creating a spell point system before November will likely be a bit redundant, since I really believe there will be an optional point system in the DMG. But we can always try and see how close we get.

Edit: Another biggie is the complete release of cantrips from this system. I mean, it's not like you can't cast Ray of Frost all day long regardless of spell points, so that's thankfully no longer a concern.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why is that a bad thing? I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I'm curious as to your reasoning there.

First it's a power boost in the same way the wizard writing all the utility spells on scrolls is. Flexibility is power. Second because spam is generally boring - and annoying of things not intended to be spammed.

 

[evilbob]

I guess the classic issue in MP systems is: whatever point value you assign to the levels, you're either going to make spamming high-level spells worse, or low-level spells. For example, again using a 10th level wizard:

Assigning straight-up 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5=5, you get the 41 points mentioned above. In this case, someone could choose to cast their 5th level spells 8 times, or their 1st level spells 41 times. Not too good.

However, if we move to a more exponential scale, some things get better but others are worse. For example, if 1=2, 2=3, 3=5, 4=9, 5=15, that gives you 89 points. The good side is that you can only cast your 5th level spells 5 times - but now you can cast your 1st level spells 44 times. The more distance you put between the spell costs, the fewer high-level spells you can spam, but the MORE low-level spells you can spam.

You can also try removing total spell points to make it work out. So, again using the same setup with 1=1, 2=2, etc., but this time subtracting 1 from every single spell slot value on the chart, you get a much more manageable 25 points. That means you can only cast your max level spells 5 times, and your first level spells 25 times. But you have 5 fewer total spells you can cast at the "normal" level, compared to the current Basic wizard. Is that a reasonable trade for the flexibility? Hard to say. Also, this system doesn't really work at levels 1, 2, or any of the levels where you get only 1 spell slot.

In the end, the most likely outcome is that you are going to end up with a custom chart that doesn't actually resemble the current Basic wizard chart, but it's more customized based on what is reasonable at each level. And since you've started redesigning it at the core level, you no longer have a simple translation you can use, and it all becomes a matter of subjective balancing again. And it starts early: even at level 3, I wouldn't give 8 points. Something more like 7 feels better. And you'd have to make that call at every level.

So maybe in the end the whole thing isn't really that much easier?

 

[evilbob]

Hmm, I think I see more groundwork potentially for an MP system working in the chart now that I look at it more. I see that at level 12, 14, and 16, you get NO new spell slots. Additionally, the only times you get additional spell slots that aren't max level are levels 3, 9, 18, 19, and 20, and each of those levels only grants you 1 extra (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th, respectively). That's a MUCH tighter system.

Ok, so here's my guess at what the spell point system will be. Basically, this takes the normal chart and uses the very minor "rule" that you only add points for the highest level spell slots you receive. For example: at level 3 you get 4 more points instead of 5. It's not too much different but it does sacrifice a few points here and there. I was just sort of winging it at level 19 and 20, but at that high of a level there's less concern.

if 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5=5, etc.

1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 7
4 - 9
5 - 15
6 - 18
7 - 22
8 - 26
9 - 31
10 - 36
11 - 42
12 - 42
13 - 49
14 - 49
15 - 57
16 - 57
17 - 66
18 - 66
19 - 70
20 - 75

Another thing to figure out is how much you should get from resting ("arcane recovery"). Technically it should be a total number of points equal to 1/2 your wizard level rounded down (minimum 1). I guess you could add the caveat "and never more than 6" to best respect the "not higher than 6th level." That's slightly more restrictive but again probably worth the flexibility. Or you could just ignore it.

 

[evilbob]

Also, here's the chart as translated directly from the Basic wizard chart (again 1=1, 2=2, etc.):

1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 8
4 - 10
5 - 16
6 - 19
7 - 23
8 - 27
9 - 36
10 - 41
11 - 47
12 - 47
13 - 54
14 - 54
15 - 62
16 - 62
17 - 71
18 - 76
19 - 82
20 - 89

Honestly, this doesn't seem different enough to justify the slightly more complex system I have above. On further thought, I bet this is just how they do it, and arcane recovery is just 1/2 your wizard level in points.