Which is better?

[diaglo]

neither.

the secret is slow cooking in a crockpot with a touch of tabasco.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I like points, great flexability but I like the use of slots for the 'ready to cast spells'. The wizard loads the slots and cast on the fly, sure he can cast spells he has points for but it takes longer and more points.

 

[Scratched_back]

I've read this whole thread top to bottom, and it's of massive interest to me. I recently started playing a campaign as an Elven Fighter/Mage, so it could be useful in that respect, I also just started running a game with a Mage in the party, and I know he'd be interested...

I gather that this points system, and another system that was mentioned, came straight outta the Unearthed Arcana? Well I'm the UK, and it's not available in the shops here until next week apparantly, can anyone hook me up with a link to get a quick look at the figures?

When I used to play 2nd ed. back in the day, our DM used spell POINTS as opposed to slots. I played one of the Mages in the partyy andit helped me greatly... not from a power perspective, but from a "Right lads, we all need spider climb to get over there, and again to get back, gimme, errr, three days." As opposed to one day with the points system, y'know?

Cheers all!

 

[Psion]

I'd play using a well constructed spell point system (heck, see my user ID).

I tried MANY spell point style systems in various homebrews, house rules, and other systems. In the final analysis, I came to the opinion spell slots are simple and elegant, more comfortable to balance and allow power at the same time, and minimizes the annoyance of accounting varying costs.

 

[diaglo]

"Right lads, we all need spider climb to get over there, and again to get back, gimme, errr, three days." As opposed to one day with the points system, y'know?

Psssttt. you could always do that with the spell slot system too. in your example just use higher lvl slots for lower lvl spells...ie instead of 3rd lvl fireball...take 1 first lvl spider climb when you are memorizing for the day.


what the spell point system uses is power. so trading in 3 first lvl spider climbs for 1 3rd lvl fireball...

 

[billd91]

I'd play using a well constructed spell slot system (heck, see my user ID).

I tried MANY spell point style systems in various homebrews, house rules, and other systems. In the final analysis, I came to the conclusion spell slots are simple and elegant, more comfortable to balance and allow power at the same time, and minimizes the annoyance of accounting varying costs.

I'd like to particularly underline this post. Spell slot systems are much easier from a design point of view than spell points. In a spell point system, you'd have to work in sliding point scales for some spells that get more powerful as the caster rises in level but are also available at lower levels such as magic missile. A 9th level wizard casting magic missile for the same points as a 1st level wizard wouldn't balance in a spell point system because the 9th level wizard is getting 5x the effect. You either have to increase the spell point cost to include some element of the caster level or limit the power of the spell to a fixed amount. Then you'd have to include a higher level version of the same spell costing more points than the original to get the same effect as the spell slot's current system. Take a look at the 3E psionics for an example of the latter sort of design.
I'm not saying that a good spell point system is impossible. It is, however, a bit harder without completely tossing out the spell system in play and going with something radically different. I'm thinking here of a system of generic attack spell, generic defense spell that add specific damage or bonuses based on the number of spell points spent (maybe some special effects increase the spell point cost based on frequency of defenses against that effect). And then wedging in the utility spells into some listing of relative utility and setting increasing costs to increasing effect.

 

[tecnowraith]

WOW! Almost dead even for both. Wished I was able to add a poll. I do not think I can with the new softawre now.

Spell Points is 8 votes, Spell Slots is 7 votes, and Monte Cook's is at 1 (go figure) .

If a moderator is reading this can you add a poll for me I forgot to or couldn't. Thanks

 

[Steverooo]

I'll say "both", just to skew the scale and be difficult!

Construct a system where casting a fifth level spell requires a 5th+ level "slot". Higher level slots can be used for lower level spells, but not vice versa. This solves the power creep.

Now, Sorcerers get their fewer spells, and cast at will. Mages can memorize a number of spells equal to their "slots" for each level... If a mage (Wizard, Bard) has four third-level spell slots, then they can memorize four different third level spells. If they have five 2nd-level slots, they can memorize five 2nd-level spells, and if nine 1rst-level slots, then nine 1rst-level spells.

Now for the different part... Sorcerers can only cast the spells they know, using a "spell point", which is a slot of a level greater than or equal to the level of the spell they want to cast... Very little change, here!

Mages, however, can learn as many spells as they can beg, borrow, steal, buy, or find scrolls for, but can only use the ones they have memorized for the day. Still no change there, but... When casting a spell, the Mage can cast any spell memorized by expending a "spell point" of a slot of greater or equal level...

Thus, Mages have some flexibility. They need not memorize Magic Missile twice, but if they have memorized nine different 1rst-level spells, they can cast nine Magic Missiles, or one of each, or three of one, two of another, and four of another. If they then need another one, they can cast a second level "spell point" for one, but cannot spend three 1rst-level spells for a Fireball, even if they have it memorized.

Hence, flexibility with no other increase in power.

The only real problem is that it makes the Sorcerer less unique and powerful, by comparison... Best to use the Wizard's spell progression for both, and also give the Sorcerer the five free Feats, as well, in order to fix that.

Does this make Fighters, etc., too weak in comparison? No more so than before, methinks, but it needs playtesting... If anyone decides to try it out, let me know how it works (or doesn't) for you!

 

[diaglo]

WOW! Almost dead even for both. Wished I was able to add a poll. I do not think I can with the new softawre now.

Spell Points is 8 votes, Spell Slots is 7 votes, and Monte Cook's is at 1 (go figure) .

If a moderator is reading this can you add a poll for me I forgot to or couldn't. Thanks

don't forget us neithers.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

You either have to increase the spell point cost to include some element of the caster level or limit the power of the spell to a fixed amount. Then you'd have to include a higher level version of the same spell costing more points than the original to get the same effect as the spell slot's current system. Take a look at the 3E psionics for an example of the latter sort of design.

See Unearthed Arcana for an example of the former sort of design. Damage spells, at any rate, cost extra points to cast them at anything above "base" caster level.

For example, a 10th level wizard casts fireball (costing 5 points). It deals 5d6 damage (as fireball is learned at 5th level, 1d6/level, blah blah). If the 10th level wizards wants to blast someone with a more powerful fireball, it costs +1 spell point per additional "level." Thus, a 7d6 fireball would cost 7 points (5 for fireball, +1 "caster levels" of damage) and a 10 point fireball would cost 10 points.

I have no proof, but a sneaking suspicion that that's how psionics are gonna work in the revised...sorry...expanded book.