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

[DreamChaser]

I think that when approaching SP, one of the core issues is that if you approach it as just a revamp of the spell slot system, you've gained essentially nothing. Right now a 10th level wizard (Arcane Recovery aside) can cast 15 first level spells per day and most of those would be a level bump for the spell (more effect on many)

A straight across conversion gives SP casters many more 1st levels but no level bump.

My view is that SP must be a paradigm shift in order to really justify the change.

What wizards had fewer SP and higher SP costs for spells but a lower "inflation" rate for level bumps.

Something like 4 SP at 1st plus 2 per level. (22 at 10th, 36 at 17 when 9th level spells appear)

Spells cost as follows:

1 - 2
2 - 4
3 - 6
4 - 8
5 - 10
6 - 15
7 - 20
8 - 25
9 - 30
* - each +1 level for a base spell costs only 1 additional SP. So a 1st level wizard could cast magic missile at 3rd level for their 4 SP but then they'd be down to just cantrips from then on out.

The caster can "recover" their points in some way. Perhaps spending a minute syphoning power. (Specifics would need work). This could be modeled on the Healing Surge concept from 4e or more of a X times per day regain 50% of your maximum SP.

The pros:
greater early flexibility and the improved scaling
access to high level spells restricted similarly to slot system. in any given encounter, a SP caster will only be able to get off 1 maybe two of their 6-9 spells.

The cons:
The SP recovery system adds another layer of complexity
Long encounters at high level can cripple the SP caster more than the slot caster.

 

[Joe Liker]

I feel like the 5e system, as it is, contains such elegant interactions, checks and balances, it would be folly to try to convert it to a point system.

It makes sense to me that higher level spells cannot be spammed. It makes sense to me that you can supercharge lower level ones at the cost of potential castings of higher level spells. It makes sense to me that rituals exist outside this framework -- which I grant would not change in a spell point system, but that's just further proof that the current system is already fine.

Spell point systems were created because people found Vancian too inflexible. The new system feels very flexible, without sacrificing the necessary limitations imposed by the spell-slot framework.

 

[Boarstorm]

Spell point systems were created because people found Vancian too inflexible.

I would argue that they were created because people want to replicate the types of magic found in novels that are limited by the (mystical) endurance of the caster and not his or her ability to memorize.

 

[fanboy2000]

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.

Well, as someone else posted, they're going to be spamming cantrips. When you only get 2 or 3 first level spells, you'll like burn through them really quickly. And arcane recovery is only giving you 1 of those slots back. Also, I think the cure to spamming is to give Wizards reasons to use their utility spells. At least, those that aren't rituals.

 

[Joe Liker]

I would argue that they were created because people want to replicate the types of magic found in novels that are limited by the (mystical) endurance of the caster and not his or her ability to memorize.

It can be both!

 

[Joe Liker]

Well, as someone else posted, they're going to be spamming cantrips. When you only get 2 or 3 first level spells, you'll like burn through them really quickly. And arcane recovery is only giving you 1 of those slots back. Also, I think the cure to spamming is to give Wizards reasons to use their utility spells. At least, those that aren't rituals.

I wouldn't call it "spamming" cantrips. Cantrips are meant to be their default attack, and there are several different effects available, so the strategic wizard might not always use the same cantrip.

You wouldn't say a fighter "spams" the Attack action. You'd just say he attacks every round, as expected.

 

[evilbob]

One subtle thing to keep in mind is that currently we don't know how long fights last, typically, in 5.0, but it's almost certainly going to be fewer rounds on average than 4.0. Probably closer to the 3.5 model. So "spamming" low-level spells isn't too horribly big of a concern, because if you blow your ~6 actions in a combat casting first level slotted spells, you probably didn't make much of an impact (on average). In other words: lots of low-level casting at high levels isn't really that big of a deal.

In fact, given that cantrips scale with level and spells cast using first level slots do not, a high-level cantrip will likely be a better round-by-round choice (on average) than a first-level spell cast with a first level slot. (11th level Fire Bolt will do +6 average damage than a 1st-slot Magic Missle, for example.)

Casting more current-max-level spells is a more tricky problem, although it does cut both ways. If you allow spell points in nearly any fashion, it's almost certainly going to be easier for a caster to "nova" - i.e. blow a huge number of resources in a very short period of time. Casting ~6 fifth spell-slot leveled spells during a single combat at level 10 is going to have a much bigger impact that being limited to only 2. (Cone of Cold is 8d8, save for half, for example.) However, it's going to absolutely burn your resources. Using the "basic" chart I made earlier, that leaves you with the ability to cast 2 more fifth spell-slot leveled spells, one first level spell slotted spell, and nothing else for the rest of your time between long rests. That's quite a chunk gone. However, then it comes down to how generous your GM makes the ability rest an option, and we're back to the 3.5 problem of a 5 minute workday.

It's tricky, but there's probably a few good ideas out there not yet explored. Making spells cost more than their level is something I've toyed with a lot, but I can't find a simple solution that really impacts anything (other than just reducing total number of spells). For example, you could just say that each spell costs 1+level to cast, but use the same "basic" chart for points. That cuts down the number of spells overall you can cast by quite a bit, but it helps keeps the most powerful spells very resource-expensive. Unfortunately it doesn't do much to stop novas, as you could still cast 6 fifth level spell slotted spells in one battle using my earlier example.

There could instead be a more direct oversight required; for example you could say that casters can only cast X number of their most powerful spells per encounter, or maybe they can't spend more than X number of points overall in an encounter. Certainly something like "you can't spend more than half your maximum MP in a given encounter" is a simple and straightforward rule to remember. It's a lot more bookkeeping, but it does limit that caster in my earlier example to 4 fifth level spells and nothing else in one battle. (Unfortunately that doesn't seem very balanced for levels 1 and 2.)


Off topic: whether or not one thinks an MP system is necessary isn't really relevant to creating one.

 

[evilbob]

Actually, limiting most powerful spells might not be a bad way to go; it's almost a hybrid of the two systems. For example, you could say: you can only cast a maximum of two spells at the highest spell level available to you until you take a short rest. With the exception of level 2, this still always gives the caster as much or more flexibility, but it helps to calm the novas down a bit. It's not much more bookkeeping required, and it's easy enough to understand. It also reigns in abuse of 9th level spells permanently. (If you're worried about being able to spam out-of-combat spells, you could also change it to "every 10 minutes." That's nearly the same, but more generous and easier to see it applies mainly to encounters.)

If you really wanted to keep the power levels in check, you could make it graduated. So starting out: no restriction. Then at 5th level, you can only cast 2 spells at your max spell level / short rest. Then at 11th level, you can only cast 1 spell at your max spell level / short rest. That's closer to the basic spell-slotted caster.

Of course, at level 10 you could still spam 13 fireball spells. So it's not a perfect solution. But at least you can't spam 8 Cone of Colds?

 

[Tony Vargas]

the real question is does this make the wizard/caster/whatever overpowered in 5th edition.

Yes, being able to cast your top-level spell 8 times instead of 1 is overpowered. No question. In 5e, being able to spam your lowest levels spells isn't as broken as it was in 3e (or heaven forbid, 1e), because spells now scale with slot level. All that means is that you're not going to see a lot of 1-MP spells cast, at all.

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.

I'd argue the opposite: casters will blow through their MPs casting the highest level 'slots' (whether high level, or boosted low-level) in record time, then demand a rest.

 

[Evenglare]

I disagree, have you ever played a video game? Do you use curaga whenever you need to heal 10 mp? Do you blow fire 4 whenever you battle 3 goblins? I think instead of being forced to use X number of each level of spell you could space yourself out a bit more depending on what you are battling... unless you tend to be like black mage and use your hadoken which of course siphons off a little bit of love from the universe, then you'd need to use that as much as possible, I agree.