D&D 5E What's Your Spell Slot Sweet Spot?

[MoonSong]

I've had a very similar idea, and I think it makes a lot of sense. I particularly like the idea in combination with scalable spells, which scale depending on the slot you use to cast them.

Actually that seems to be a widespread idea over all. "Wandering slots" are part of my own houseruled 3.5: A wizard gains one spell slot every level until he has two of each level up to fifth level, where he maxes out at ten slots per day. Then as he gains access to more and more spell levels, the lower level slots migrate to the higher spell levels. And the spells variable effects and DC's are entirely reliant on the level of the slot, meaning that a fireball preppared on a third level slot has the same difficulty to be saved against and will deal the same damage regardless of the caster's INT and level. As a side effect a metamagicked fireball will always be weaker than a non-metamagicked one, but this is more of a feature than a bug.

But I must say I'm impressed WotC used the sam number of slots per level as I. (However I did choose two per level for entirely unrelated reasons, the most important, more than ten individual spells get unwieldy for my players)

 

[steeldragons]

(However I did choose two per level for entirely unrelated reasons, the most important, more than ten individual spells get unwieldy for my players)

[emphasis applied by me]

Are your players 7 years old?

Because somehow throughout the 80's and early 90's, anyone I played with from ages 10 and up (granted mostly teenage and up) were capable of handling more than 10 spells at a time.

AND if you are playing with players younger than D&D's stated ages...first, bravo...and second, that is not a reason the rest of the community needs to play with 2 slots per level.

 

[MoonSong]

[emphasis applied by me]

Are your players 7 years old?

Because somehow throughout the 80's and early 90's, anyone I played with from ages 10 and up (granted mostly teenage and up) were capable of handling more than 10 spells at a time.

AND if you are playing with players younger than D&D's stated ages...first, bravo...and second, that is not a reason the rest of the community needs to play with 2 slots per level.

No need to get dismisive. No, my players aren't 7 year olds (and even if they were, there is no reason to look at 7 year olds with contempt). They all are very smart and bright, and majoring on engeenering, one of them is even a genius.

The reason for the low amount of slots is that we play fast and rough, with minimal bookeeping and next to no prep time. What little bookeping we do is made on our minds and scratch paper. A full combat round takes less than a minute. More than ten spells get in the way.

 

[steeldragons]

No need to get dismisive. No, my players aren't 7 year olds (and even if they were, there is no reason to look at 7 year olds with contempt). They all are very smart and bright, and majoring on engeenering, one of them is even a genius.

The reason for the low amount of slots is that we play fast and rough, with minimal bookeeping and next to no prep time. What little bookeping we do is made on our minds and scratch paper. A full combat round takes less than a minute. More than ten spells get in the way.

Apologies. I wasn't meaning to be dismissive...but the morning after, it does read as a bit Snidely Whiplash, doesn't it? So, sorry about that.

The core, point, however, still stands. Because you group plays that way, can't be bothered to keep character sheets or write down their spells, at least on scratch paper for reference, that is not a reason to impose such a limited (however enjoyable for you and your players) way of playing on the system (and thus the rest of us) as a whole.

10 slots is 7th level...from my preferred edition(s)...if I want to play over 7th level, and pretty much every group I was ever in did want to get up there, then I'll stick to 20 slots (around 10th level) and any levels over that need 30+ slots, please and thank you.

But, again, sorry for sounding dismissive.
--SD

 

[Ferghis]

The vancian system rarely shines as a game mechanic. The rare instance in which it does is this: I know a specific situation that requires a specific spell (or group of spells) is coming up AND I have am able to memorize those spells. I may have run into this situation once or twice in 25 years of gaming. The remaining times I just pick combat and healing spells that I know are necessary, and pick randomly among what might be useful, completely ignoring some spells that are rarely useful. Many times I wished I'd picked a spell I didn't memorize because I didn't guess or randomly select it. I've never understood what part of this is fun.

I'd much rather have a system that has spells start out as dailies, and gradually move to encounters (and even at-wills) as the caster gains levels. That way, if a situation arises in which that random weird spell would be useful, you can still use it. Spells that you KNOW you use frequently move from dailies (when they become first available for casting) to encounters (when you have been casting them for a few levels and select them for this kind of "promotion") to at-wills (when you've been casting them for quite a few levels and select them again for this kind of "promotion"). All spells a caster learns remain available to the caster at all times, but the more useful ones are available more often. This perfectly simulates the availability of spells under the Vancian system (wherein some spells would be memorized multiple times and others very rarely), but removes the bad-design part of it (where some spells are not available at all, despite being useful in a rare instance and "learned" by the caster).

I know Vancian casting is traditional D&D, and therefore will be part of the core system. But I can't say I see any other reason for it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I know Vancian casting is traditional D&D, and therefore will be part of the core system. But I can't say I see any other reason for it.

The only other reason I can think of is that it is relatively "simple". Otherwise, I agree.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Voted for 10 here, though that's the upper limit to me. Something between 7-9 Vancian spells would be a decent number to manage, supplemented by a couple of re-useable spells (at-wills/encounters/recharging) and rituals for variety.

Anything beyond that feels like it waters down magic. Magic should be big, rare, but powerful effects. Having a plethora of spell slots just makes it feel too much like a convenience - but with a lower number of spell slot, every spell is special and having a high impact.

Especially with wandering spell slots, that sounds like a very decent solution and something that can balance options (via rituals) and avoiding spell spam.

EDIT: I also wouldn't mind going semi-Vancian, similar to the 3.5E sorcerer, i.e. having a restricted amount of spell slots, but more possible options per slot. This could also be partially emulated (while keeping the Vancian mechanic intact) by having spells with different casting options - something I', in general a big fan of.