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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Spell point systems invariably fail to capture the feel of most literary magic. Ironically, most spell point systems originate as attempts to capture more literary magic since the magic of most literature seems more freefom than slot based systems.

The catch of course is that in actual play, spell point systems don't actually play like that. Instead, a spell point system encourages the player to invest heavily in a single uber skill and to go nova and expend all their spell points in a blast of irresistible power. And this is on top of the problem that all point buy systems have, in that it's almost impossible to accurate price flexible abilities resulting in points of over and under-costing that lead to completely unpredictable tiering and general balance or more often lack their of.

Spell points probably work ok as long as the cost per usage is well capped and the concept of the caster is very narrow - "I make fire" or something like that.

Those are good observations. Have some XP. However, I haven't seen any such Nova behavior in my game. The wizard does tend to lean on Vampiric Touch a lot, but he doesn't overcast it, just casts it at regular level, and it's hardly a Nova spell anyway. He also uses the Chill Touch cantrip frequently, and sometimes Fire Shield. In fact, the only time I've ever seen Spell Points used for a "nova" in my 5E game is when the 8th level wizard was gearing up to take on a fortress ruled by a Death Slaad, solo, in order to get his gear back. He went ahead and raised 20 skeletons + zombies. Without spell slots it would have taken him a couple of days to do that; with spell points he was able to do it in one day by casting Animate Dead IV.

May be relevant: the player in question isn't all that strong on 5E rules or math. It didn't even occur to him to overcast Animate Dead until I pointed it out to him as a more efficient option, which I wouldn't usually do but for some reason did this time. The fact that he, in spite of his weakness at mental math, has no trouble with spell points in general is one of the reasons I don't buy the "complexity" argument. Spell points in no way obligate you to use to spreadsheets to cast spells...

 

[SirAntoine]

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."

They help teach strategy, and the spells' use. If you really have mastered the game, you can make use of spell points as less complicated, but looking at the options when just starting out it really would be more complicated. The execution of spell points can be more complicated than what I envision, but I think this may be what the designers mean. I also suspect this is actually why Mr. Gygax may have started with spell slots, and why they held such appeal. Codifying magic spells was a new invention, and spell slots walk you through all the concepts of what you can do. This system also stays with you for years, as your characters advance in level and learn new spells and possible strategies. Spell points, in the absence of all this, would leave you comparatively unaware of what you could do.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

They help teach strategy, and the spells' use. If you really have mastered the game, you can make use of spell points as less complicated, but looking at the options when just starting out it really would be more complicated. The execution of spell points can be more complicated than what I envision, but I think this may be what the designers mean. I also suspect this is actually why Mr. Gygax may have started with spell slots, and why they held such appeal. Codifying magic spells was a new invention, and spell slots walk you through all the concepts of what you can do. This system also stays with you for years, as your characters advance in level and learn new spells and possible strategies. Spell points, in the absence of all this, would leave you comparatively unaware of what you could do.

How sure are you of that? Spell levels still exist even with the DMG spell point system; they affect which spells you can memorize and how much they cost. How does giving discrete resource pools for each spell level teach you more about what the spells can do?

My experience with my own players is that spell points aren't harder for the new players to grasp than spell slots would be. "You're 4th level, so you have 17 spell points." "Invisibility is 2nd level, so it costs 3 spell points." SP are similar to HP, so there's no extra learning curve there. I suspect it's conceptually easier than "you have 2 spell slots that can only be spent on 2nd level spells and 1st level spells cast as 2nd level spells, and then 4 more for only 1st level spells. But both of those must be used for spells prepared, of which you can have only 7 of any level. No, casting a spell doesn't make you forget it; it's still prepared, it just costs a slot."

But I have no way to test that suspicion, it just seems that way to me.

 

[SirAntoine]

How sure are you of that? Spell levels still exist even with the DMG spell point system; they affect which spells you can memorize and how much they cost. How does giving discrete resource pools for each spell level teach you more about what the spells can do?

My experience with my own players is that spell points aren't harder for the new players to grasp than spell slots would be. "You're 4th level, so you have 17 spell points." "Invisibility is 2nd level, so it costs 3 spell points." SP are similar to HP, so there's no extra learning curve there. I suspect it's conceptually easier than "you have 2 spell slots that can only be spent on 2nd level spells and 1st level spells cast as 2nd level spells, and then 4 more for only 1st level spells. But both of those must be used for spells prepared, of which you can have only 7 of any level. No, casting a spell doesn't make you forget it; it's still prepared, it just costs a slot."

But I have no way to test that suspicion, it just seems that way to me.

I guess you're right, but I think someone would learn more easily if they had to make the most of a smaller number of spells.

 

[Mercule]

Sliding scale. I think I like the 5E mode better than either end of the scale.

I hate pure slot casters and refused to play casters in 1E/2E until the Options books came out. My transmuter (don't think it was a true specialist, but it might as well have been) that used the fatigue system was a riot. Fatigue easily kept me balanced to one or two good tricks per scene, but I could actually do something without being psychic. Not sure that'd work for an evoker-type, though.

I also enjoyed the 3E sorcerer and psion, though the psion felt "off" in ways I can no longer recall.

Other games have limited casters with skill rolls, sanity checks, fatigue, paradox, etc. Most of the time, those systems work well for what the game is trying to flavor. Most of the time, I prefer those means of balance, but I'm not sure they'd work in D&D without a lot of rebalancing in other parts of the system. Which gets me back to think 5E has the best version, so far.

 

[Gadget]

How sure are you of that? Spell levels still exist even with the DMG spell point system; they affect which spells you can memorize and how much they cost. How does giving discrete resource pools for each spell level teach you more about what the spells can do?

My experience with my own players is that spell points aren't harder for the new players to grasp than spell slots would be. "You're 4th level, so you have 17 spell points." "Invisibility is 2nd level, so it costs 3 spell points." SP are similar to HP, so there's no extra learning curve there. I suspect it's conceptually easier than "you have 2 spell slots that can only be spent on 2nd level spells and 1st level spells cast as 2nd level spells, and then 4 more for only 1st level spells. But both of those must be used for spells prepared, of which you can have only 7 of any level. No, casting a spell doesn't make you forget it; it's still prepared, it just costs a slot."

But I have no way to test that suspicion, it just seems that way to me.

That's just it. All of your spells are competing for just one resource. It is inherently more complex to consider all different combinations and permutations of ways to spend your spell points among your spell selection. Hit Points work because it is a rather simple metric; I have this much gas left in the tank. We don't usually spend Hit Points for abilities, we just want to avoid losing them. Spell points are more analogous to spending my allowance as a kid. There is a lot of things that I can spend my money on, if I buy that candy bar now, I may not have enough for that more expensive toy I have my eye on.

The slot method breaks up the resources a bit: only second level spells are competing for your second level spell slots, only first level spells are competing for your spell slots, etc. Yes, you can cast some of your spells in a higher level slot for greater effect, and that does complicate the issue a bit, but it still allows you to ration out your spells a little more. Using all my 2nd level slots does not hinder my ability to use 5th level spells at all, whereas with spell points there may be some situations that blowing all your points on the highest level spells can really plow through an encounter, but leave me hurting for the rest of the adventure; or the reverse could be true: by spending a few points on lower level spells here, I'm just short of that extra higher level spell that could have saved the day there. In short, spell slots help protect me from myself by giving me smaller, more measured allotments of spell power from my magic pez dispenser

 

[Minigiant]

In my setting the fey races and those who learned magic from the fey use slots.
Humans mostly use points since the human archmages of old discovered how to "break slots down to points" by studying sorcerers.

Elves deem points too impulsive and foolish as it can lead to novaing.
Dwarvem brains are too rigid to even use points unless they are sorcerers.

 

[aramis erak]

I've used both in older editions, and spell points work just fine, but the slots (remembering that higher level slots can cast lower level spells) is plenty fine. The increased flexibility of points, however, enhances the linear-fighter/quadratic-wizard issue in AD&D.

In BXCMI, it's not nearly as bad, but that's because fighters are less linear than in AD&D.

For non-D&D fantasy gaming, I prefer spell points or other limitations.

 

[evilbob]

Points. I'll never go back.

To be fair, if you were able to browse my post history from years ago you'd see I've been trying to make spell points work forever. They didn't work in 3.5 because spells went up in power too quickly. But 5.0 does it right, and points work very well.

They're only more complex if you've already figured out how slots work. Slots aren't intuitive whatsoever, but points are - so I'd be interested in hearing how anyone who isn't used to slots did with it. I'd suspect they'd be fine.

It's funny that people think level 1 spells getting abused is the worst thing about them. No one is going to cast level 1 spells in combat all day long. And people worry that you'd nova and then hope to rest. But generally I don't see that, either. When you know all your points power all your spells, you tend to play more conservatively, because you don't know how much you'll REALLY need later. With slots, you know that you have a certain power level available all the time; with points you know you could overextend easily. I think it all works out.

It definitely allows for more powerful spells to go more often, and that's fine with me, because it makes magic just that much more interesting. It's also INCREDIBLY more freeing to not be tied to slots.

Anyway I'm obviously biased but points all the way for me.

 

[SilentBoba]

evilbob--

agreed completely. Casting low level spells all day long in previous editions was the bane of a point system because the effective power of the spell was not tied to points, but rather to caster level. A 9th level wizard slinging Magic Missile was paying minimum points for a 5d4+5 spell that couldn't miss. Those missiles would cost the equivalent of a 5th level slot now, and there are way better options available unless MM was the only way to even hit the target. Heck, cantrips are better at higher levels.

The optional system already caps the maximum castings of the highest level spells anyway, so that addresses using the entire pool to chain a number of huge nukes (like Meteor Swarm or the like). They seem like reasonable limits to impose on a point system.