Spell Points vs Spell Slots (D&D 5e)
Comparing the systems to find what works best for your table.
Over the last few months I’ve been DMing a D&D campaign using the core rules of 5e with a handful of notable exceptions agreed on in session 0. But one of my players, a wizard, asked if they could use Spell Points instead of Spell Slots.
The system
For those who don’t know, Spell Points are an alternative to Spell Slots that give a caster more flexibility when casting spells at the cost of being a slightly more complex system.
I’d not used them before, but the basic idea is that each spell level has a Spell Point cost. 1st level spells cost 2 points, 2nd level cost 3, 4rd level cost 5, and it goes on up to 9th level.
You are limited at higher levels to one casting of a spell at level 6, 7, 8, and 9 per long rest, but spells of 5th level and below you can cast as many times and in as many configurations as your points allow.
You get a number of Spell Points based on your caster level and these roughly equal the amount of spells you could cast at that level.
So at level 5 you have 27 spell points which is equal to 4 1st level spells (8 points), 3 2nd level spells (9 points), and 2 3rd level spells (10 points).
Sounds fair, right?
I’m not so sure it is.
The problem
Wizards, as standard. will use mage armor as soon as it is needed to get a base AC of 13. That’s one 1st level spell slot gone every day before you’ve done anything.
On top of this, the most useful survivability spell for a wizard is Shield, which allows them to up their AC by 5 as a reaction.
Neither of these spells have an upcasting benefit (where offensive spells like Chromatic Orb and healing spells like Cure Wounds do). This makes upcasting them a waste of a higher level spell slot.
Take that level 5 wizard from earlier. Four rounds into combat they’ve spent all their 1st level spell slots and a deadly strike comes from a Knight’s sword. The choice for this wizard is to burn one of their 2nd or 3rd level spell slots to dodge the hit or to take the hit and save the stronger spell to strike back harder.
But with Spell Points this isn’t a problem. So long as you have 2 Spell Points left, you can react with Shield and dodge the hit.
Let’s say in this same encounter the wizard has used Fireball twice, burned three Shield reactions and cast a cantrip and a second level spell on top of their use of mage armor, they still have 6 Spell Points left. That’s 3 more rounds of Shields.
My issue here isn’t with the use of Shield but that the economy of Spell Points can give an advantage to a wizard (especially a selfish one), allowing them to always keep some 1st level spell slots for Shield without having to worry about losing magic on an upcast.
The DM’s perspective
From the perspective of a DM, Spell Points are much harder to track. If the wizard has burned their two 3rd level spell slots on Fireball, spell slots allow you to quickly say “um, actually”; Spell Points requires you to track the spells, levels, and cost or to fully trust the player.
In the heat of combat, even the most well-intending players forget to cross off spell slots. Spell Points are a whole other thing. As a system it’s so open to abuse and requires more work from the DM to manage that, in my opinion, it’s not worth it.
The solution?
In my experience here, there isn’t one. At least, there isn’t one hat still uses Spell Points. I think the Spell Slots forcing players to make these kinds of choices makes it a lot more fun.
For some tables, especially combat heavy ones, I think this variant rule can work well, but for ones like ours that has 70/30 roleplay to combat balance, I think spell slots makes more sense.
In my opinion, anything that encourages character-based decision making is a rule worth keeping, and the limitations imposed by spell slots do just that.
Do what works for your table and have fun playing the game with friends!