D&D 5E Spell slots or spell points? Which do you prefer and why?

[daddystabz]

Now that the DM guide is here for 5e and everyone has had an opportunity to peruse it which do you think you prefer between using the 5e default spell slots or the DM guide option of spell points and why?

 

[daddystabz]

Any comments?

 

[Cernor]

I think that in theory, Spell Points are preferable to slots because of the finer control you have over your casting. It also goes a long way towards making Wild Magic sorcerers competitive, since you can use all (or most) of your points towards first-level slots to maximize the number of surges you get in a given day. However, I haven't played with points so I can't say for sure whether or not it's better (more fun or balanced) than using spell slots.

 

[CapnZapp]

Points is considerably more powerful (or abusable, if you prefer).

I sincerely hope noone uses them without knowing this.

 

[fuindordm]

Slots, because I don't want wizards to spam their low-level spells all day long.

Points might have been OK if they were scaled differently so that a 1st level spell is still a significant fraction of the pool but they also allowed multiple 6th-9th level spells (at very high cost).

For example, I would consider a SP system where an 12th level wizard can cast 3 6th level spells in a day using all their points, or 15 1st level spells. I guess that pus the scale at 5-18 SP from 1st to 6th. Obviously a lot more thought would need to be put into it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Personally? I prefer spell points, always have, because discretized levels never made any sense to me. "Sorry guys, I've got one sixth level spell left and one first level, nothing in between" is weird to me.

Also magic has been nerfed enough already in 5E, might as well give something back in return.

5E spell slots go a long way towards satisfying the "spell slot" itch, since that's basically what they are, but I've rather have one pool than nine pools. DMG system at least cuts it down to five pools.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've never seen a mana/spell point system that wasn't broken, even compared to how broken casters tend to be in D&D.

5e has done away with so many of the limitations of traditional Vancian, though, that layering spell points on top of it all wouldn't be the same orders-of-magnitude-broken that it might have been in the past. Maybe just one order of magnitude more broken than it already is. :shrug:

Just a question of how weird you want your "weird wizard show" to be.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Definitely prefer slots. Less prone to abuse and far less complicated. Give me ease of play almost any time.

Plus, the current pseudo-Vancian system already includes a lot of the advantages spell points used to provide.

And they just "feel more D&D" to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I like both, and think each system works better for certain PCs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Definitely prefer slots. Less prone to abuse and far less complicated. Give me ease of play almost any time.

You know, the DMG identifies the downside of spell points as being "more complicated," and I wondered why because to me they seem clearly LESS complicated: you have one number to remember instead of four or five. Is it the difficulty of remembering how much each level costs?

If I'd been writing the DMG I would have said the downside was "giving spellcasters more options--so non-spellcasters may get bored unless they also have more options too. If you use spell points, consider allowing feats so that weapon-users get additional choices."