Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Yeah. If a level 20 wizard only has 18 spell points per day and an 8th level spell uses up half, that's waaaaay too limiting in my opinion. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what he is saying, though.
Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines
Bacon Bits
Hero
Not who you asked, but I'll say that my experience matches yours.
The first problem with spell points is that spell levels aren't linear, but spell point costs almost always are. Really, you want 1st-level spells to cost ~3, 2nd-level spells to cost ~5, and 3rd-level spells to cost ~12. But 4th level spells aren't really that much better than 3rd level spells. 4th level spells really are just another set of 3rd level spells for the most part. As you progress on, the spells are increasingly explicitly designed to be limited by how many you can ever cast in a day. And then you get to 6th level spells and they're supposed to be really potent as the original highest spell level... but they aren't? 5th and 6th level spells feel markedly better than 3rd and 4th level spells, but they're basically equal to each other. Then you get to 7th-level and higher and the list is just almost entirely crazy stuff. Sure, some of it is just modified fireballs, but the good stuff that really draws people in really should be magic items or quest rewards or unique rituals.
Really, I think to make spell points work you need to throw out spell level entirely. Each spell should have it's own costs, maybe even with it's own means to limit recasts. At that point, you should probably throw out the whole magic system entirely and bring in something completely different. Maybe something skill-based, or dice-pool based.
clearstream
(He, Him)
What I'm proposing is that if rules really are guidelines, then they cannot be replaced by other rules.
Suppose that as a player I am following rule A. We have a house rule that allows me to change rule A to rule B. Very well, but now I am following rule B.
In order for rules to be guidelines in the most interesting and meaningful sense (from my perspective, and quite possibly not interesting to others!), guidelines should be something other than rules. Upthread I suggested that the thread's intent seemed mostly about attitudes toward rules. I think folk are using guidelines to identify one such attitude, but so far what that seems to have come down to are norms about which rules are followed, not anything about how those rules are followed.
@Thomas Shey similarly I see the question of who gets to decide which rules are followed as also failing to make good on the thread title. The question of which rules are in play is separate from the question of what it means to say that a rule is a guideline.
Last edited:
Thomas Shey
Legend
I don't think you can disconnect it as long as you accept that rules are not, in 100% of all cases, set in stone forever and ever. If they're guidelines for only the GM, then in practice they aren't even that; they're just suggestions. If they're guidelines for the group (i.e. they're only changed collectively) there is much more inertia involved in not following them, and thus they actually mean something beyond "I decided I'd stick with it this time). Similarly, if the GM and only the GM is allowed to change rules at his judgment, they're only rules for the players.
Thomas Shey
Legend
That's really the issue, isn't it? That the D&D spell system is not coherent. Spell levelling is largely arbitrary, and even within a level there's winners and losers. As such any attempt to make the whole process look less, well, odd trips over the fact there will be unintended consequences.
I'll tell you the truth; if D&D hadn't been the first fantasy game out the gate, and you wrote it up now, people would look at the magic system and conclude the designers were incompetent.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
To some extent that depends on which class of caster you're looking at. Ideally, the same mechanic applies to all caster classes (I don't count Bards as casters).
For spell costs I always used a j-curving or fibonacci-like sequence where 1st cost 1, 2nd cost 2, 3rd cost 3, 4th cost 5, 5th cost 8, and so forth.
It always works fine for the highest-level spells you can cast, but by 10th character level when you've got maybe 30 or 40 spell points it means you can pretty much spam magic missile or cure light wounds all day.
That's mostly why I went back to slots, was to limit recasts. In that much, doing so has worked out quite well.
I'd rather not go to each spell having its own casting cost - bad enough they each have different casting times and other requirements.
The problem with making low level spells cheaper than high level spells in a spell point system quickly becomes that few low level spells make much of an impact at higher levels, especially in 5e, which wants you to use higher level slots to keep low level spells even remotely relevant in many cases.
And let's be honest, not all spells are created equally to begin with; there's always going to be some that should cost more/less than some arbitrary amount of points anyways.
I get the feeling that spell points creates as many problems as it solves. I'd rather dispense with spell slots as a daily resource and put spells on a cooldown based on their power level.
And let's be honest, not all spells are created equally to begin with; there's always going to be some that should cost more/less than some arbitrary amount of points anyways.
I get the feeling that spell points creates as many problems as it solves. I'd rather dispense with spell slots as a daily resource and put spells on a cooldown based on their power level.
I think it needs to be said "what is a rule".
See, most people when they talk about a "rule" are talking about something like "Firefinger does 1d4 fire damage".
But not random text like "when gaining a level a player can choose a new spell from the arcane list ". That many players "interpret" as the player can pick ANY spell they want. A lot of DMs would see that as a guideline, not a rule.
Though this also opens the can of worms that EVERY word in the books is a FIRM RULE.
clearstream
(He, Him)
For human interpreted/implemented TTRPGs, they're normative. Followed in view of the play thus constituted. When folk speak of rules as laws versus guidelines, they're simply commenting on and making choices about their normative authority.
The trickier question is the relationship between rules and meaning. I'm interested in applying the same questions to that. Is there any difference to meaning, between rules as laws and rules as guidelines?
The first is constitutive and instances a game parameter. The second is phrased as regulatory but is probably constitutive: the ambiguity producing divergent interpretations. (Reading "can" as "must" helps see this.)
So far as I can make out, every rule that is not ambiguous is a firm rule just so long as we put it in force for ourselves. What hasn't been discussed is the possibility that guidelines are rules with no definite meaning, or not-rules. What has been discussed is that guidelines are rules with lessened authority.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
"Every word in the books is a firm rule" should be the default, really; and the books need to be clearer somehow in defining what is intended to be a hard rule (e.g. Firefinger damage) or a guideline. (EDIT to add: Thus, when I say rules-as-guidelines I mean more that rules are malleable and kitbashable into being other rules, not that rules are wishy-washy and unclear.)
As written, I too would interpret that spell-choosing piece to mean the player gets unfettered choice. To be a guideline it would have to be expanded to read something like "When gaining a level the caster gains a new spell*. This spell can be assigned by the DM, chosen by the player, rolled at random, or selected by whatever other means you find appropriate."
Here, the gaining of a new spell is a hard rule; the suggested assignment methods are guidelines.
* - should be an added clause "of the highest level that character can cast" or something similar; but it's not in the original example so I left it off here.
