So I've been DMing (mostly 4e though) for, like, almost 10 years. I started back with Essentials back in College and have recently begun a 5e campaign group. I've been working on a hoebrew campaign setting (not much homebrew mechanics tho, just story and background) and for the setting I have decided that spell casters use the spell point system.
In my setting casting spells is mentally taxing. I went through the concept of mana as a resource with my players who can cast spells and most seem to be fairly on board with all of it. What I omitted mechanically was the inherent need to transform spell points into spell slots (an extra step I didn't feel was exactly necessary). I felt it gave players way more flexibility in their ability to cast spells. I also removed the necessity for players to "prepare spells". All the players are fairy new to the system, myself included. Considering our only spell casters are a cleric, a ranger, and a paladin, I didn't feel there was too much need to obsess over whether or not a 3rd level player had any specific one of their spells "prepared". Instead if they had the components and the spell points they were fine.
However, the only dedicated spellcaster in the group, the cleric, is not happy with the system as it stands. Despite that they are the one who benefits the most from the new system they have made it aware they are not happy with it as it takes away from the tactical aspect of combat.
In counterpoint, my campaigns so far haven't been solely combat oriented, and in many cases a healthy degree of roleplaying and story telling is important to move the plot forward. I had not intended this group, which is mostly new players to the system, myself included, to be overly tactical, serious to a degree yes, but not so much that it ruins the point of story telling.
None of the other players take issue with the system at hand, and most are more than happy just to engage in the story telling more than the massacre of minor enemies. But the player has decided to leave the group as he feels this forces his class to play in way he doesn't agree with. Normally I'd be alright with his decision to go, but his wife is a member of the group as well. I do not want any additional drama or strain on anyone's life because of a tabletop game. Does anyone have any advice.
Perhaps my morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but I'm not sure why spell points "takes away from the tactical aspect of combat" - unless the Player means that they enjoy the challenge of having to be mindful of matching their prepared spells to what the Party thinks will happen that day, seeing how well they guessed, and taking satisfaction away from having chosen correctly.
That's something they could feel strongly about regardless of how combat focused your game is or not; it's something that could affect their Character's effectiveness, regardless of whether the encounters are combat, social, or investigative/explorative.
Ultimately, this comes down to a disconnect between the type of game you want to play and the type of game he wants to play. Clearly the implications of you wanting to adapt the Spell Points optional system were not fully understood by your Player - and perhaps yourself, if you missed that possible impact on the Player's experience ( that's not a personal criticism; we're all human; I wouldn't have thought of that either ). It doesn't matter the level of combat focus in your game, the benefits you see to the Spell Point system, or whether the other Players are fine with the mechanic changes - that Player isn't happy with the results. They're not wrong; you're not wrong. You just want different things out of play.
I think you really need to consider how important using the Spell Points variant is, to you. It's OK if it's super important to you, and it's OK if it's not important at all - you just need to be clear in your own mind how important it is for you.
Your options really boil down to a few:
Let the Player go. If they can find a group whose style they like better, and you can find a replacement Player who likes the mechanical variations you want to use, then you're both better off. Be clear that if he leaves, and his wife is a member of your group, that you'll likely lose her as well, eventually.
Retract the variation and go back to Spell Slots. OK, maybe it didn't work out. I don't think there's any "loss of face" for a GM to experiment with a mechanic, decide it doesn't have the results you were hoping for, and reset the mechanical variation. All your Players need to be totally on board with both the change & the retractions, you need to be super clear on the implications of either change, and you should allow the Players to make reasonable retroactive alterations to their Characters if the mechanical changes alter their abilities. Also, don't do this a lot. Players can't make meaningful Character design choices, or in-game choices, if you keep changing how the world works.
Create a new mechanic which restores what the Player has lost in their play experience: This is essentially rolling out mechanical changes for one Player. It involves talking to the Player, understanding clearly what it is that they think they've lost, and then finding in-world reasons why spellcasting might be slightly different for that Character. It doesn't have to be a full retraction either - so long as the changes recapture enough of what the Player is missing so that they are happy. For example, let's say that I guessed right above, and that the Player really liked having to make shrewd strategic guesses as to what magic they can use in the next day, especially when they guess right. You could institute mechanical changes, for their Character, to restore that. If they are OK with their Cleric being Polytheistic - worshipping and revering multiple Gods in your world - then you could institute a system of Prayers, where each God in your world has dominion over certain schools of Magic. The Character only has a set number of Prayers that they can invoke daily (perhaps each prayer is a 30 minute ritual, so there is a practical limit to the time they can spend praying - or make it a class-scaling hard mechanical limit), so they can only activate a set number of schools of magic per day. Spells from schools that they have not activated by dedicating a Prayer to a God which has dominion over it, would be greatly disadvantaged. They would still use spell points, and I'd still allow them to cast them outside of the schools they've activated through prayer that day, but I would make them make a Religion skill roll, with a DC scaling to the level of the spell - or have the spell fail. This would allow you to keep Spell Points as a mechanic, still gives your Player their guess/gamble/win reward that they value, and occasionally allows them to bend the rules and dramatically risk failure and win the day ( or at least fail in interesting ways ).
Now - #3 is fraught with peril. It may not work, because the Player really just wants to play RAW, and not add homebrew on top of optional system. It may be a slippery slope, if/when other Players start requesting custom mechanics to fine tune their experience (it's useful to note that the individualized mechanic idea above restricts the Character in a way that is personal and makes the gameplay more enjoyable for the Player, it doesn't grant a personal benefit to the Character; perhaps that's a good design principle to adhere to for personalized mechanics). It may seem like Player pandering, which you want to avoid.
I'm not sure it would work - but it's an option to try, and you probably don't have much to lose at this point.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I"m with @Vedexent on being somewhat confused by the problem, but for a different reason.
Are you preventing the Player from simply, "pre-spending" or "locking in" spells or spell points? Are you forcing them to use their entire list? Is there anything that is mechanically preventing them from having spells prepared, and they spend spell points instead of spell slots to cast them? Just because they CAN wing it on the fly does not mean they HAVE to do so. How does having them use spell slots break your game/system? If your spell points works the same way as sorcerer sorcery points, then the more restrictive spell slot system should have no ill effect on the world. Without seeing your spell point system, it is hard to truly judge it. There is one in the DMG pg 288, which is a direct conversion method which has very little variance between canon and the option.
4. Safe Compromise: Give the players a choice, spellcasting with your spell point system, or spellcasting per their class in the PHB.
BTW, it makes them strategically more flexible, not tactically.
This player feels that your houserule sets the game to “easy mode” for them and they resent it. Let the players choose which system they want for their own characters and move on. There is nothing to say that character A can use points and character B can’t use slots except you.
The spell point system is very important to me as @Vedexent said. I want spellcasting to feel more natural but also be more taxing mentally, the same way exercising or actually fighting would be physically taxing. I built my world around the idea of each spellcasting class communing in a different way to receive their mana/spell points every day. I never liked the standard Vancian system and never understood how it made much sense from a lore stand point. The removal of preparation and spell slots was to make spell casting easier to other players (we had a wizard early on) new to the system. It streamlined things.
All in all I had figured this would be only good news to the spellcasting players, granting them more flexibility as @Pedroig said.
I don't have an issue with him pre-preparing spells if he wants and I never said he couldn't, I just said that it's not inherently necessary.
Actually the standard Vacian system is the epitome of a mentally taxing system. The toll on mind of casting a spell is so much one is limited how many times it can be done. In older lore it was not just the mind, but the body which suffered. (Read The Dragonlance Chronicles for an example.)
Maybe clarify with him that he CAN pre-prep or lock himself into spell choices, whether you offer an advantage or not though is entirely up to you, the DM.
I hate the Vancian system too, but I hate it more when the DM sets it to “easy mode” on me. I especially hate it when they’re obvious about it. You said it yourself, you made some of these changes, at least in part, to make it easier for them. That’s what they resent. They resent you taking away part of their enjoyment of the struggle, and telling them that your taking that choice away. Some players are just like that. I have a resource that you might find useful.
I have indeed read Dragonlance (and have many of the books on my bookshelf) but I still must disagree. Both the spell point system (like a mana resource) and the vancian system can equally tax a persons mind or body (this is flavor not mechanics). The difference being that in the vancian system someone has arbitrarily decided how many of what level spell you can cast per day while also arbitrarily deciding how powerful each spell is by categorizing them into a slot system (in older systems the same spell might be in a different slot dependent on class).
Comparative Example: A 5th level wizard with access to the Fireball spell would only be able to cast THAT spell twice at maximum (spell slot recovery not-withstanding), but would still be able to cast other spells of differing spell levels.
A 5th level wizard using a spell point system has (if no other points have been expended) 27 spell points to spend, and then theoretically could cast Fireball up to five times, but the drain on their ability to cast magic as a whole would be significantly greater.
That is why I prefer the spell point system, the idea is that the power of a spell is defined more by the amount of resource a person has to put into casting it. Both systems tax their user, but a resource system makes more sense lore wise.
In a strictly Vancian system, it’s not arbitrary; that said, your game world operates on different rules, so there’s not much point to explaining it, haha.
At the end of the day, you’re using a homebrew system that makes the game impossible to enjoy for your player. Change the system or let the player go. To be clear, I don’t think there’s a wrong answer there. It’s totally reasonable if this is integral to your world and you don’t want to change it. But it is unreasonable to expect someone to play a game they don’t enjoy.
I hate the Vancian system too, but I hate it more when the DM sets it to “easy mode” on me. I especially hate it when they’re obvious about it. You said it yourself, you made some of these changes, at least in part, to make it easier for them. That’s what they resent. They resent you taking away part of their enjoyment of the struggle, and telling them that your taking that choice away. Some players are just like that. I have a resource that you might find useful.
Thank you for the advice and the video, I'll try to talk with my player, if they are willing to do so. Some of my long time players know generally how far I will go to make the game fun for everyone. There have only been a few I've had to ban and fewer still who left because they were unhappy with the game. I'd like to keep that number low, but I acknowledge that if it's not meant to be it's not meant to be.
I have indeed read Dragonlance (and have many of the books on my bookshelf) but I still must disagree. Both the spell point system (like a mana resource) and the vancian system can equally tax a persons mind or body (this is flavor not mechanics). The difference being that in the vancian system someone has arbitrarily decided how many of what level spell you can cast per day while also arbitrarily deciding how powerful each spell is by categorizing them into a slot system (in older systems the same spell might be in a different slot dependent on class).
Comparative Example: A 5th level wizard with access to the Fireball spell would only be able to cast THAT spell twice at maximum (spell slot recovery not-withstanding), but would still be able to cast other spells of differing spell levels.
A 5th level wizard using a spell point system has (if no other points have been expended) 27 spell points to spend, and then theoretically could cast Fireball up to five times, but the drain on their ability to cast magic as a whole would be significantly greater.
That is why I prefer the spell point system, the idea is that the power of a spell is defined more by the amount of resource a person has to put into casting it. Both systems tax their user, but a resource system makes more sense lore wise.
First, I want to be clear, I'm not in any way judging your system or trying to change your mind. I do however have a counterpoint to your example:
Vancian Magic implies that it is not just twice as difficult to case a 2nd level spell as a 1st level spell and a 3rd level spell is not three times as difficult to cast as a 1st level spell. (Which by the by you are implying, even if that is not your intent, on spell point system.) For a cleric for example, it takes less time to prepare a four 1st level spells, which takes less time than two 2nd level spells, which takes less time than one 3rd level spell. The "effort" needed to cast each progressively higher spell level is exponentially harder than the one before it, so a 2nd level spell is twice as hard as a 1st level, but a 3rd level is eight times harder than a 2nd level, and a 4th is eighty-one times harder than a 3rd level spell, and so on. Allowing a 20th level Wizard to cast NINE Wish spells in a day seems a tad, overpowered to the point of absurdity. (Actually it is eleven with arcane recovery) Just as the ability of a 5th level Wizard casting six fireballs seems absurd and makes lower spell levels pretty pointless/situational. To translate it a better way, the spell point system should be that ALL of the previous points combined would equate to one more casting of the highest level spells. (So a 3rd level Cleric could cast four 1st and two 2nd OR three 2nd, 5th level Cleric could cast four 1st and three 2nd and two 3rd, OR four 2nd and two 3rd, OR three 3rd level spells.)
Finally, remember the systems came about from game developers, there is an actual reason why they exist. "Balance" is a very minor reason, and even with the very strict vancian magic systems which existed before 3rd edition (One 1st level spell at first level for example), wizards in particular simply overshadowed ALL other classes once they busted into the teens. Even with having them require more xp to advance in level so other classes could "get ahead", it didn't matter...
No, no, I did not take it as judgement, but I also don't want to come off as being ill informed. I find the topic less than heated and more of a debate. I apologize if I seem otherwise.
I was simply using the wizard as an example, and I do understand the complexities of casting higher level spells through the vancian system. The system itself is originated by writer Jack Vance in his 1950's novel Dying Earth before the creation of D&D proper and is the basis for the system mechanics as a whole.
The point I was making is that system is unsustainable lore-wise. If a 3rd level spell like fireball is in effect 8 times harder to cast than a 2nd level spell, the effort of casting higher level spells in general would debilitate a caster ludicrously fast, making combat casting effectively impossible. Say (as discussed) a 3rd level spell is in effect 16 or so times more taxing to cast than a spell of 1st level. Then with a similar quantity of effort the value of those 16 first level spells should be equatable elsewhere, such as BY casting 16 1st level spells or any combination of the in between.
The vancian spell slot system sort of infers that the 16 times effort needed to cast a 3rd level spell in no way hinders the caster from casting additional spells before or after, which is in and of itself sort of confounding. Also with spell points a 20th level wizard gets 1 wish spell a day. The DMG is fairly specific on saying 6th level spells and above are incredibly hard to cast so you get 1 of each per day.
Spell points doesn't have to be "easy mode". Unbalanced by other rule changes, it definitely makes magic more powerful, and you need to compensate or accept that the game is going to be easier. You can design the difficulty of your encounters to account for the fact that magic is more flexible, or scale the conversion rate back ( award few points - less overall power, more flexible application of that power), or any other of a number of design changes you can make to keep the difficulty level.
BTW - a 20th level wizard cannot cast 11 wish spells in a day as the Spell Point variant is written. Spells of level 6+ can be cast, at most, once per long rest. That's a rule a lot of people seem to forget.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So this seems pretty weird to me. I can understand not liking some homebrew magic system, and thinking that the original is better. But it's surprising that that change would make them want to leave the group!
My guess is that he's not just reacting to the spell points rules, but from feel of the campaign. I think he feels that you have made the campaign too easy, or devalued combat and tactics to the point where it's no fun.
First, you said that
What I omitted mechanically was the inherent need to transform spell points into spell slots (an extra step I didn't feel was exactly necessary). I felt it gave players way more flexibility in their ability to cast spells. I also removed the necessity for players to "prepare spells".
Anything that increases player flexibility is of course going to increase player power - now the cleric can both heal, AND cast offensive spells, AND support spells, as needed. So you've powered up all the players, bu especially the prepared spellcasters. And in addition, powered them up by removing some of the decisions they have to make.
Next, you say
In counterpoint, my campaigns so far haven't been solely combat oriented, ... I had not intended this group, which is mostly new players to the system, myself included, to be overly tactical, serious to a degree yes, but not so much that it ruins the point of story telling.
So it sounds like you're devaluing combat - basically saying "don't worry about this combat stuff, don't you don't need to be too tactical, the important part is the noncombat things"
And later, you disparage combat even further:
most are more than happy just to engage in the story telling more than the massacre of minor enemies.
What about combat that isn't just the massacre of minor enemies? Combat that's a real challenge, requiring clever thinking and tactics, hopefully a bit of luck of the dice, possibly a fight that changes the players' plans if it doesn't go the way they want?
To me, it sounds like you've made a campaign where you think combat just isn't that important. You want a bit of it, but you don't want players worrying too much about tactics in combat, and you DEFINITELY don't want them to have combat get in the way of the stuff that actually matters (the RP, the story).
The player, on the other hand, feels put out by this. He would enjoy the tactical combat part of D&D, but your campaign really isn't about that, so he's frustrated. I suspect the houserule is the easy thing for him to identify and latch onto - it's an explicit place where you've said "don't worry about tactics (preparing the right spells), I don't want that to be important in this campaign".
So if he was looking for a heavier emphasis on the tactical combat part of D&D, that might be why he's planning to leave the group.
I don't think there's really anybody in the wrong here. He wants a more tactical combat D&D. You want a more freeform storytelling one. So you two probably won't enjoy playing together.
I'll try to clarify myself a bit better. I'm not trying to devalue combat, what I'm trying to do is make the earliest campaigns slightly easier and progressively uptick the difficulty. The group is entirely made up of people new to the 5e system and a few new to D&D in general. I started the players off with a campaign that pitted them against a handful of wasps per combat encounter. Enough to make the combat encounters feel hard in some cases. You can't play a game where no one knows the basics. This players former character learned in an unfortunate manner what bad decisions cost early on (but so did a few other players).
The level of difficulty was set to be slightly above average. Many of the issues in the first campaign were solved by a combination of combat and common sense, if your job is to exterminate wasps in an orchard that your client needs to make money, perhaps burning down said orchard isn't the best solution. Bad choices led to more than half the party dying by combat. I haven't made the game easy by the definition of easy and players are rewarded in a way by thinking before they act (i.e. don't use single target spells/attacks versus swarms, don't pull monsters that deal a lot of damage toward the healer, if you plan to go into a dark cave to fight a monster light a torch first or let the players with darkvision scout ahead, if you are sneaking into a hideout don't let the scouts wake everyone up, don't split the party, don't run away from combat to look for treasure by yourself, check treasure before you take it, disconnect heavy iron chains from the point where they connect to a mechanism rather than attempt to pull them free from 50 or so feet below said mechanism, if your not sure if the healer can keep up with the parties rate of damage buy potions). Many of the things above were considerably self explanatory or rather subliminally obvious (especially to my more experienced and long time players) and no single one of them should have led to the downfall of the players but rather should have been lessons to learn from.
The combat encounters are no less challenging then they would normally be for their level, I haven't disparaged combat. In fact it's the main route by which they accomplish their goals, at least it has been so far. However, I want to stress that there still hasn't been a need for advanced tactics, COMMON SENSE yes, but tactics no. A wasp doesn't have an advanced I.Q. it's going to attack whatever's nearest to it or whatever just hit it. A bandit is going to shoot if it can't get into melee range and it's going to duck for cover if it's getting shot. Combat thus far has been simple because the players are low level and new to the system or game, as they progress so too will the difficulty.
But simple combat doesn't mean easy combat. A druid will find that after a few usages of Thorn Whip have done little to a swarm of wasps that perhaps immolating the entire lot with Bonfire may be a better choice. Whether or not they realize this before they are unconscious is up to that player. Players as a whole quickly discover that in a stealth mission deciding not to be stealthy may not be in their best interests, especially when given the odds well ahead of schedule.
I'll admit, I'm likely not the best DM, especially because I'm only a bit more knowledgeable on the system than they are. But I'm usually a lenient one, I give players chances to fix their own mistakes or ask them before they do something if it's really what they want. Sometimes I will drop hints here and there (i.e. as you enter town you pass several buildings, a market stall, a local inn and tavern, a potions shop, a temple...) I made the decision to go to the spell point system and omit spell slots for a better game feel and more fluidity and flexibility. I didn't do it as a means of disparaging combat casting.
Any salesman good enough to pay their bills will tell you that reality isn’t reality, perception is reality. What you did, or how you intended it are irrelevant to the discussion at this point. All that matters to this situation is how your player perceives it.
And a bit of actual advice after reading more into your situation/explanation:
1. Being a good/bad DM is more or less predicated on two things, "Time in Grade" and "Learning from Mistakes". The only way to get "Time in Grade" is to keep at it, like most things in life, DMing is a skill, it can be learned, and it requires practice and use to improve. (of course, your "practice" is done in "real time") Learning from Mistakes is three-fold, first you have to make them, second you have to recognize them, and third you have to learn from them and change your application. In this specific example, "lore" can easily be changed. Could very well have different rules for different types of magic and still make sense "lore-wise".
2. Remember as a DM it is your world, but the player's story. Sometimes a good roflstomp is what the party needs/wants. Also remember, what works in video games, in general, does not translate well to tabletop, especially kill/find quests.
3. It really seems as if Cleric Player is having some other issue. At 1-4 there is very little difference between a spell point system and RAW. Especially considering most combats only last 3-5 rounds. In a running series of medium human bandit encounters, is being able to cast Hold Person once per encounter really that big of a deal? Don't forget the "bad guys" get the same benefits. (Which really they do under RAW as certain spells will have already been used, and the 3-5 round limit still applies) So there is most likely some underlying problem which the spell point system is simply the expressed catalyst. The biggest "potential" problem that I can see, is if one wants to use a character app, like here on DnD Beyond, they're having to have a print copy instead, and writing a whole bunch of "math" on it instead of tapping a finger on check box or even on paper making a tick mark on the sheet. So now a player is tracking health points, mana points, experience points, and treasure, sometimes that is a huge turnoff. Really just need to see what ALL the problems the player has and then see how many can be addressed. If they can't then it sounds like you lose two players instead of just one, which may or may not mean end of the campaign.
I didn't mean to be argumentative I simply wished to clarify that I wasn't devaluing the point of combat by making spellcasting easier. I feel that I've obviously made some of my own mistakes given the situation that are likely partially or wholly the cause of the players frustrations, and as previously stated I intend, if given the chance, to sit down and talk with the cleric player to find out what issues there are and what I can do to change or solve them.
Narcisisstic and self-serving as it may sound, I don't consider myself a "bad" DM per se, just one inexperience with this specific system, so I will make mistakes. I make a note after every game night to ask players what they thought and provide critical commentary (though I don't seem to receive much in the way of any).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I've been DMing (mostly 4e though) for, like, almost 10 years. I started back with Essentials back in College and have recently begun a 5e campaign group. I've been working on a hoebrew campaign setting (not much homebrew mechanics tho, just story and background) and for the setting I have decided that spell casters use the spell point system.
In my setting casting spells is mentally taxing. I went through the concept of mana as a resource with my players who can cast spells and most seem to be fairly on board with all of it. What I omitted mechanically was the inherent need to transform spell points into spell slots (an extra step I didn't feel was exactly necessary). I felt it gave players way more flexibility in their ability to cast spells. I also removed the necessity for players to "prepare spells". All the players are fairy new to the system, myself included. Considering our only spell casters are a cleric, a ranger, and a paladin, I didn't feel there was too much need to obsess over whether or not a 3rd level player had any specific one of their spells "prepared". Instead if they had the components and the spell points they were fine.
However, the only dedicated spellcaster in the group, the cleric, is not happy with the system as it stands. Despite that they are the one who benefits the most from the new system they have made it aware they are not happy with it as it takes away from the tactical aspect of combat.
In counterpoint, my campaigns so far haven't been solely combat oriented, and in many cases a healthy degree of roleplaying and story telling is important to move the plot forward. I had not intended this group, which is mostly new players to the system, myself included, to be overly tactical, serious to a degree yes, but not so much that it ruins the point of story telling.
None of the other players take issue with the system at hand, and most are more than happy just to engage in the story telling more than the massacre of minor enemies. But the player has decided to leave the group as he feels this forces his class to play in way he doesn't agree with. Normally I'd be alright with his decision to go, but his wife is a member of the group as well. I do not want any additional drama or strain on anyone's life because of a tabletop game. Does anyone have any advice.
Update: On page two
Perhaps my morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but I'm not sure why spell points "takes away from the tactical aspect of combat" - unless the Player means that they enjoy the challenge of having to be mindful of matching their prepared spells to what the Party thinks will happen that day, seeing how well they guessed, and taking satisfaction away from having chosen correctly.
That's something they could feel strongly about regardless of how combat focused your game is or not; it's something that could affect their Character's effectiveness, regardless of whether the encounters are combat, social, or investigative/explorative.
Ultimately, this comes down to a disconnect between the type of game you want to play and the type of game he wants to play. Clearly the implications of you wanting to adapt the Spell Points optional system were not fully understood by your Player - and perhaps yourself, if you missed that possible impact on the Player's experience ( that's not a personal criticism; we're all human; I wouldn't have thought of that either ). It doesn't matter the level of combat focus in your game, the benefits you see to the Spell Point system, or whether the other Players are fine with the mechanic changes - that Player isn't happy with the results. They're not wrong; you're not wrong. You just want different things out of play.
I think you really need to consider how important using the Spell Points variant is, to you. It's OK if it's super important to you, and it's OK if it's not important at all - you just need to be clear in your own mind how important it is for you.
Your options really boil down to a few:
Now - #3 is fraught with peril. It may not work, because the Player really just wants to play RAW, and not add homebrew on top of optional system. It may be a slippery slope, if/when other Players start requesting custom mechanics to fine tune their experience (it's useful to note that the individualized mechanic idea above restricts the Character in a way that is personal and makes the gameplay more enjoyable for the Player, it doesn't grant a personal benefit to the Character; perhaps that's a good design principle to adhere to for personalized mechanics). It may seem like Player pandering, which you want to avoid.
I'm not sure it would work - but it's an option to try, and you probably don't have much to lose at this point.
Hope it works out for your group. Best of luck.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I"m with @Vedexent on being somewhat confused by the problem, but for a different reason.
Are you preventing the Player from simply, "pre-spending" or "locking in" spells or spell points? Are you forcing them to use their entire list? Is there anything that is mechanically preventing them from having spells prepared, and they spend spell points instead of spell slots to cast them? Just because they CAN wing it on the fly does not mean they HAVE to do so. How does having them use spell slots break your game/system? If your spell points works the same way as sorcerer sorcery points, then the more restrictive spell slot system should have no ill effect on the world. Without seeing your spell point system, it is hard to truly judge it. There is one in the DMG pg 288, which is a direct conversion method which has very little variance between canon and the option.
4. Safe Compromise: Give the players a choice, spellcasting with your spell point system, or spellcasting per their class in the PHB.
BTW, it makes them strategically more flexible, not tactically.
This player feels that your houserule sets the game to “easy mode” for them and they resent it. Let the players choose which system they want for their own characters and move on. There is nothing to say that character A can use points and character B can’t use slots except you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The spell point system is very important to me as @Vedexent said. I want spellcasting to feel more natural but also be more taxing mentally, the same way exercising or actually fighting would be physically taxing. I built my world around the idea of each spellcasting class communing in a different way to receive their mana/spell points every day. I never liked the standard Vancian system and never understood how it made much sense from a lore stand point. The removal of preparation and spell slots was to make spell casting easier to other players (we had a wizard early on) new to the system. It streamlined things.
All in all I had figured this would be only good news to the spellcasting players, granting them more flexibility as @Pedroig said.
I don't have an issue with him pre-preparing spells if he wants and I never said he couldn't, I just said that it's not inherently necessary.
Actually the standard Vacian system is the epitome of a mentally taxing system. The toll on mind of casting a spell is so much one is limited how many times it can be done. In older lore it was not just the mind, but the body which suffered. (Read The Dragonlance Chronicles for an example.)
Maybe clarify with him that he CAN pre-prep or lock himself into spell choices, whether you offer an advantage or not though is entirely up to you, the DM.
I hate the Vancian system too, but I hate it more when the DM sets it to “easy mode” on me. I especially hate it when they’re obvious about it. You said it yourself, you made some of these changes, at least in part, to make it easier for them. That’s what they resent. They resent you taking away part of their enjoyment of the struggle, and telling them that your taking that choice away. Some players are just like that. I have a resource that you might find useful.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQsJSqn71Fw&list=PLlUk42GiU2guNzWBzxn7hs8MaV7ELLCP_&index=13&t=0s
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have indeed read Dragonlance (and have many of the books on my bookshelf) but I still must disagree. Both the spell point system (like a mana resource) and the vancian system can equally tax a persons mind or body (this is flavor not mechanics). The difference being that in the vancian system someone has arbitrarily decided how many of what level spell you can cast per day while also arbitrarily deciding how powerful each spell is by categorizing them into a slot system (in older systems the same spell might be in a different slot dependent on class).
Comparative Example: A 5th level wizard with access to the Fireball spell would only be able to cast THAT spell twice at maximum (spell slot recovery not-withstanding), but would still be able to cast other spells of differing spell levels.
A 5th level wizard using a spell point system has (if no other points have been expended) 27 spell points to spend, and then theoretically could cast Fireball up to five times, but the drain on their ability to cast magic as a whole would be significantly greater.
That is why I prefer the spell point system, the idea is that the power of a spell is defined more by the amount of resource a person has to put into casting it. Both systems tax their user, but a resource system makes more sense lore wise.
In a strictly Vancian system, it’s not arbitrary; that said, your game world operates on different rules, so there’s not much point to explaining it, haha.
At the end of the day, you’re using a homebrew system that makes the game impossible to enjoy for your player. Change the system or let the player go. To be clear, I don’t think there’s a wrong answer there. It’s totally reasonable if this is integral to your world and you don’t want to change it. But it is unreasonable to expect someone to play a game they don’t enjoy.
Thank you for the advice and the video, I'll try to talk with my player, if they are willing to do so. Some of my long time players know generally how far I will go to make the game fun for everyone. There have only been a few I've had to ban and fewer still who left because they were unhappy with the game. I'd like to keep that number low, but I acknowledge that if it's not meant to be it's not meant to be.
First, I want to be clear, I'm not in any way judging your system or trying to change your mind. I do however have a counterpoint to your example:
Vancian Magic implies that it is not just twice as difficult to case a 2nd level spell as a 1st level spell and a 3rd level spell is not three times as difficult to cast as a 1st level spell. (Which by the by you are implying, even if that is not your intent, on spell point system.) For a cleric for example, it takes less time to prepare a four 1st level spells, which takes less time than two 2nd level spells, which takes less time than one 3rd level spell. The "effort" needed to cast each progressively higher spell level is exponentially harder than the one before it, so a 2nd level spell is twice as hard as a 1st level, but a 3rd level is eight times harder than a 2nd level, and a 4th is eighty-one times harder than a 3rd level spell, and so on. Allowing a 20th level Wizard to cast NINE Wish spells in a day seems a tad, overpowered to the point of absurdity. (Actually it is eleven with arcane recovery) Just as the ability of a 5th level Wizard casting six fireballs seems absurd and makes lower spell levels pretty pointless/situational. To translate it a better way, the spell point system should be that ALL of the previous points combined would equate to one more casting of the highest level spells. (So a 3rd level Cleric could cast four 1st and two 2nd OR three 2nd, 5th level Cleric could cast four 1st and three 2nd and two 3rd, OR four 2nd and two 3rd, OR three 3rd level spells.)
Finally, remember the systems came about from game developers, there is an actual reason why they exist. "Balance" is a very minor reason, and even with the very strict vancian magic systems which existed before 3rd edition (One 1st level spell at first level for example), wizards in particular simply overshadowed ALL other classes once they busted into the teens. Even with having them require more xp to advance in level so other classes could "get ahead", it didn't matter...
Correction, Vancian Magic in D&D has nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with GG thought it was cool.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No, no, I did not take it as judgement, but I also don't want to come off as being ill informed. I find the topic less than heated and more of a debate. I apologize if I seem otherwise.
I was simply using the wizard as an example, and I do understand the complexities of casting higher level spells through the vancian system. The system itself is originated by writer Jack Vance in his 1950's novel Dying Earth before the creation of D&D proper and is the basis for the system mechanics as a whole.
The point I was making is that system is unsustainable lore-wise. If a 3rd level spell like fireball is in effect 8 times harder to cast than a 2nd level spell, the effort of casting higher level spells in general would debilitate a caster ludicrously fast, making combat casting effectively impossible. Say (as discussed) a 3rd level spell is in effect 16 or so times more taxing to cast than a spell of 1st level. Then with a similar quantity of effort the value of those 16 first level spells should be equatable elsewhere, such as BY casting 16 1st level spells or any combination of the in between.
The vancian spell slot system sort of infers that the 16 times effort needed to cast a 3rd level spell in no way hinders the caster from casting additional spells before or after, which is in and of itself sort of confounding. Also with spell points a 20th level wizard gets 1 wish spell a day. The DMG is fairly specific on saying 6th level spells and above are incredibly hard to cast so you get 1 of each per day.
Spell points doesn't have to be "easy mode". Unbalanced by other rule changes, it definitely makes magic more powerful, and you need to compensate or accept that the game is going to be easier. You can design the difficulty of your encounters to account for the fact that magic is more flexible, or scale the conversion rate back ( award few points - less overall power, more flexible application of that power), or any other of a number of design changes you can make to keep the difficulty level.
BTW - a 20th level wizard cannot cast 11 wish spells in a day as the Spell Point variant is written. Spells of level 6+ can be cast, at most, once per long rest. That's a rule a lot of people seem to forget.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So this seems pretty weird to me. I can understand not liking some homebrew magic system, and thinking that the original is better. But it's surprising that that change would make them want to leave the group!
My guess is that he's not just reacting to the spell points rules, but from feel of the campaign. I think he feels that you have made the campaign too easy, or devalued combat and tactics to the point where it's no fun.
First, you said that
Anything that increases player flexibility is of course going to increase player power - now the cleric can both heal, AND cast offensive spells, AND support spells, as needed. So you've powered up all the players, bu especially the prepared spellcasters. And in addition, powered them up by removing some of the decisions they have to make.
Next, you say
So it sounds like you're devaluing combat - basically saying "don't worry about this combat stuff, don't you don't need to be too tactical, the important part is the noncombat things"
And later, you disparage combat even further:
What about combat that isn't just the massacre of minor enemies? Combat that's a real challenge, requiring clever thinking and tactics, hopefully a bit of luck of the dice, possibly a fight that changes the players' plans if it doesn't go the way they want?
To me, it sounds like you've made a campaign where you think combat just isn't that important. You want a bit of it, but you don't want players worrying too much about tactics in combat, and you DEFINITELY don't want them to have combat get in the way of the stuff that actually matters (the RP, the story).
The player, on the other hand, feels put out by this. He would enjoy the tactical combat part of D&D, but your campaign really isn't about that, so he's frustrated. I suspect the houserule is the easy thing for him to identify and latch onto - it's an explicit place where you've said "don't worry about tactics (preparing the right spells), I don't want that to be important in this campaign".
So if he was looking for a heavier emphasis on the tactical combat part of D&D, that might be why he's planning to leave the group.
I don't think there's really anybody in the wrong here. He wants a more tactical combat D&D. You want a more freeform storytelling one. So you two probably won't enjoy playing together.
^^^This exactly^^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'll try to clarify myself a bit better. I'm not trying to devalue combat, what I'm trying to do is make the earliest campaigns slightly easier and progressively uptick the difficulty. The group is entirely made up of people new to the 5e system and a few new to D&D in general. I started the players off with a campaign that pitted them against a handful of wasps per combat encounter. Enough to make the combat encounters feel hard in some cases. You can't play a game where no one knows the basics. This players former character learned in an unfortunate manner what bad decisions cost early on (but so did a few other players).
The level of difficulty was set to be slightly above average. Many of the issues in the first campaign were solved by a combination of combat and common sense, if your job is to exterminate wasps in an orchard that your client needs to make money, perhaps burning down said orchard isn't the best solution. Bad choices led to more than half the party dying by combat. I haven't made the game easy by the definition of easy and players are rewarded in a way by thinking before they act (i.e. don't use single target spells/attacks versus swarms, don't pull monsters that deal a lot of damage toward the healer, if you plan to go into a dark cave to fight a monster light a torch first or let the players with darkvision scout ahead, if you are sneaking into a hideout don't let the scouts wake everyone up, don't split the party, don't run away from combat to look for treasure by yourself, check treasure before you take it, disconnect heavy iron chains from the point where they connect to a mechanism rather than attempt to pull them free from 50 or so feet below said mechanism, if your not sure if the healer can keep up with the parties rate of damage buy potions). Many of the things above were considerably self explanatory or rather subliminally obvious (especially to my more experienced and long time players) and no single one of them should have led to the downfall of the players but rather should have been lessons to learn from.
The combat encounters are no less challenging then they would normally be for their level, I haven't disparaged combat. In fact it's the main route by which they accomplish their goals, at least it has been so far. However, I want to stress that there still hasn't been a need for advanced tactics, COMMON SENSE yes, but tactics no. A wasp doesn't have an advanced I.Q. it's going to attack whatever's nearest to it or whatever just hit it. A bandit is going to shoot if it can't get into melee range and it's going to duck for cover if it's getting shot. Combat thus far has been simple because the players are low level and new to the system or game, as they progress so too will the difficulty.
But simple combat doesn't mean easy combat. A druid will find that after a few usages of Thorn Whip have done little to a swarm of wasps that perhaps immolating the entire lot with Bonfire may be a better choice. Whether or not they realize this before they are unconscious is up to that player. Players as a whole quickly discover that in a stealth mission deciding not to be stealthy may not be in their best interests, especially when given the odds well ahead of schedule.
I'll admit, I'm likely not the best DM, especially because I'm only a bit more knowledgeable on the system than they are. But I'm usually a lenient one, I give players chances to fix their own mistakes or ask them before they do something if it's really what they want. Sometimes I will drop hints here and there (i.e. as you enter town you pass several buildings, a market stall, a local inn and tavern, a potions shop, a temple...) I made the decision to go to the spell point system and omit spell slots for a better game feel and more fluidity and flexibility. I didn't do it as a means of disparaging combat casting.
Any salesman good enough to pay their bills will tell you that reality isn’t reality, perception is reality. What you did, or how you intended it are irrelevant to the discussion at this point. All that matters to this situation is how your player perceives it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And a bit of actual advice after reading more into your situation/explanation:
1. Being a good/bad DM is more or less predicated on two things, "Time in Grade" and "Learning from Mistakes". The only way to get "Time in Grade" is to keep at it, like most things in life, DMing is a skill, it can be learned, and it requires practice and use to improve. (of course, your "practice" is done in "real time") Learning from Mistakes is three-fold, first you have to make them, second you have to recognize them, and third you have to learn from them and change your application. In this specific example, "lore" can easily be changed. Could very well have different rules for different types of magic and still make sense "lore-wise".
2. Remember as a DM it is your world, but the player's story. Sometimes a good roflstomp is what the party needs/wants. Also remember, what works in video games, in general, does not translate well to tabletop, especially kill/find quests.
3. It really seems as if Cleric Player is having some other issue. At 1-4 there is very little difference between a spell point system and RAW. Especially considering most combats only last 3-5 rounds. In a running series of medium human bandit encounters, is being able to cast Hold Person once per encounter really that big of a deal? Don't forget the "bad guys" get the same benefits. (Which really they do under RAW as certain spells will have already been used, and the 3-5 round limit still applies) So there is most likely some underlying problem which the spell point system is simply the expressed catalyst. The biggest "potential" problem that I can see, is if one wants to use a character app, like here on DnD Beyond, they're having to have a print copy instead, and writing a whole bunch of "math" on it instead of tapping a finger on check box or even on paper making a tick mark on the sheet. So now a player is tracking health points, mana points, experience points, and treasure, sometimes that is a huge turnoff. Really just need to see what ALL the problems the player has and then see how many can be addressed. If they can't then it sounds like you lose two players instead of just one, which may or may not mean end of the campaign.
I didn't mean to be argumentative I simply wished to clarify that I wasn't devaluing the point of combat by making spellcasting easier. I feel that I've obviously made some of my own mistakes given the situation that are likely partially or wholly the cause of the players frustrations, and as previously stated I intend, if given the chance, to sit down and talk with the cleric player to find out what issues there are and what I can do to change or solve them.
Narcisisstic and self-serving as it may sound, I don't consider myself a "bad" DM per se, just one inexperience with this specific system, so I will make mistakes. I make a note after every game night to ask players what they thought and provide critical commentary (though I don't seem to receive much in the way of any).