Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[doctorbadwolf]

Just curious. Why not a single word in all this about the MOST IMPORTANT PART.... you know, the part where I agreed with one of your points?

Didn’t seem to be the most important part, to me.

But fair enough, yes, we agree on those points.

I will say, though, that situational strength is versatility. Also, still nothing on the versatility of specific spells, like the fact that Magic Missile is better than Firebolt because the damage is comparable and Firebolt has only 1 use case, while MM has several.

But sure, if you’re willing to acknowledge that I, and others, have made good points in those regards, I should be willing to note that acknowledgement.

It is is very aggravating, though, that you single out one thing in a post that apperently annoys you or whatever, and completely ignore everything else. If you’re gonna call me out for ignoring one thing, maybe don’t dial that same behavior up to 11.

 

[FrogReaver]

Didn’t seem to be the most important part, to me.

But fair enough, yes, we agree on those points.

That's because I think you are mostly interested in what I've coined as the "versatility" reason.

I will say, though, that situational strength is versatility. Also, still nothing on the versatility of specific spells, like the fact that Magic Missile is better than Firebolt because the damage is comparable and Firebolt has only 1 use case, while MM has several.

I think you may be fixating more on a word or phrase than the concept I'm using such to represent. I use words and phrases as a shorthand to reference a particular concept. You seem to be trying to "prove me wrong" by using that word or phrase in a different way than I was. But the thing is, I'm not particularly concerned with what word or phrase gets used to reference the concept I'm talking about. I'm more concerned when someone starts trying to disprove me by making points about the word or phrase I'm using for shorthand instead of the meaning I'm imparting to that word or phrase.

So ultimately my answer here is what difference does it make one way or the other. None.

But sure, if you’re willing to acknowledge that I, and others, have made good points in those regards, I should be willing to note that acknowledgement.

Good. You should also be willing to acknowledge that it totally disproves any notion that I'm trolling or just ignoring or not listening to others points. I have listened to all points and gave the reason I dismissed any of the ones I've dismissed.

You disagree with my reasons to dismiss those. But instead of giving reasons regarding your stance, instead you and others go on to the next point and then get mad when I dismiss that one for the same reason. In the future instead of getting mad and accusing me for trolling or whatever else, how about you address my reasons for dismissing a point.

Remember my reason was always: "I'm saying X, you are making a point about Y. Therefore your point about Y while true isn't relevant because I was talking about X". Just coming back and stating Y is relevant isn't going to cut it in that situation. You need to offer some reasoning for how those 2 things relate. No one has done that. If they would have that would have I would have listened. I'd still be happy to hear that reasoning now, but I don't expect I will.

It is is very aggravating, though, that you single out one thing in a post that apperently annoys you or whatever, and completely ignore everything else. If you’re gonna call me out for ignoring one thing, maybe don’t dial that same behavior up to 11.

In case you didn't realize I did that on that one single post (that I believe was a post by a different poster than you) because of all the frustration I've had in having to state my same position over and over. Why did I do that? To frustrate the poster by ignoring what he said as I feel the things I've said this whole thread are being ignored.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's because I think you are mostly interested in what I've coined as the "versatility" reason.

not so much. Lvl 1 spells outperform cantrips even without the versatility argument.

I think you may be fixating more on a word or phrase than the concept I'm using such to represent. I use words and phrases as a shorthand to reference a particular concept. You seem to be trying to "prove me wrong" by using that word or phrase in a different way than I was. But the thing is, I'm not particularly concerned with what word or phrase gets used to reference the concept I'm talking about. I'm more concerned when someone starts trying to disprove me by making points about the word or phrase I'm using for shorthand instead of the meaning I'm imparting to that word or phrase.

everyone uses words and phrases as shorthand. That’s their purpose. If you aren’t explaining your shorthand, after the first time there is any apperent misunderstanding, continued misunderstanding is something you gotta fix. Versatility is a simple word, that refers normally to having a broad scope of usage, in some context. Like a spell with which you can choose to hit one or several creatures, or a spell that lets you choose your damage type, or a feature that lets you choose from several specific abilities when using the limited resource granted by the feature.

Good. You should also be willing to acknowledge that it totally disproves any notion that I'm trolling or just ignoring or not listening to others points. I have listened to all points and gave the reason I dismissed any of the ones I've dismissed.

Not really. It shows that you’re willing to stop ignoring people’s points once it’s been pointed out that you’re doing it, but it’s help if you’d admit to doing it in the first place.

You disagree with my reasons to dismiss those. But instead of giving reasons regarding your stance, instead you and others go on to the next point and then get mad when I dismiss that one for the same reason. In the future instead of getting mad and accusing me for trolling or whatever else, how about you address my reasons for dismissing a point.

Remember my reason was always: "I'm saying X, you are making a point about Y. Therefore your point about Y while true isn't relevant because I was talking about X". Just coming back and stating Y is relevant isn't going to cut it in that situation. You need to offer some reasoning for how those 2 things relate. No one has done that. If they would have that would have I would have listened. I'd still be happy to hear that reasoning now, but I don't expect I will.

People don’t have to reply within arbitrary boundaries invented by you as you respond to them. After about the second page, no one has been putting forth anything that actually misses the point, but you still dismissed them if they aren’t exactly what you want. The X and Y, here, aren’t unrelated. The versatility of the spellcasting feature is directly relevant to any discussion of how powerful spells are.

In case you didn't realize I did that on that one single post (that I believe was a post by a different poster than you) because of all the frustration I've had in having to state my same position over and over. Why did I do that? To frustrate the poster by ignoring what he said as I feel the things I've said this whole thread are being ignored.

Which was petty, and unreasonable, IMO. Also, you did it multiple times, that was simply the most egregious and explicit.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Guiding bolts not even that good and its a daily. Blow a daily resource on greatsword level damage and the advantage is conditional on the spell connecting.

Hell the Mastermind Rogue gets that built in. At will. Only time we tend to use Guiding Bolt is on undead vulnerable to radiant damage.
My love letter D&D I am tweaking I will be using scaling direct damage at ye olde rates but 5E scaling for other spells (ie cast in a higher slot).

Also prevents massive damage spikes at level 5 and 6 where you can pick up a 8d6 fireball or lignting bolt (or same spell on a CR 2 or 3 NPC). A d6 Fireball/LB scaling up to 10d6 has not been broken for years (it was good in 2E). Hell scaling FB/LB might be less broken than the current version of the spells.

I am also interested in scaling spells as was the case in 1E. I personally do not like the idea of using a higher level spell slots to up-power spells instead of increasing with caster level. Personally, in my old games players LOVED dropping 20d6 fireballs and lightning bolts! Then again... who wouldn't?

 

[cbwjm]

Those 20d6 fireballs are probably needed even more now than back in the day with all the hit point inflation of monsters.

 

[FrogReaver]

not so much. Lvl 1 spells outperform cantrips even without the versatility argument.

If that wording came from me you can bank it is shorthand for level 1 spells cast from level 1 slots. I'm not so sure that's what you mean by it because you and others often bring 1st level spells being able to be cast from higher slots into the discussion. Because of that it would be helpful if you were more explicit.

everyone uses words and phrases as shorthand. That’s their purpose. If you aren’t explaining your shorthand, after the first time there is any apperent misunderstanding, continued misunderstanding is something you gotta fix. Versatility is a simple word, that refers normally to having a broad scope of usage, in some context. Like a spell with which you can choose to hit one or several creatures, or a spell that lets you choose your damage type, or a feature that lets you choose from several specific abilities when using the limited resource granted by the feature.

If you really hadn't understood my shorthand before then consider the post you just quoted as my explanation of it.

Not really. It shows that you’re willing to stop ignoring people’s points once it’s been pointed out that you’re doing it, but it’s help if you’d admit to doing it in the first place.

If only you will stop ignoring my points (see below for a great example of you doing that)...

People don’t have to reply within arbitrary boundaries invented by you as you respond to them. After about the second page, no one has been putting forth anything that actually misses the point, but you still dismissed them if they aren’t exactly what you want. The X and Y, here, aren’t unrelated. The versatility of the spellcasting feature is directly relevant to any discussion of how powerful spells are.

It's weird that I ask for a reason for how the versatility of the spellcasting feature that allows a level 1 spell to be cast in different slots and different spells to be cast from the same slot is relevant to a discussion about 1st level spells being cast from 1st level slots and you just repeat your claim that it's relevant.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If that wording came from me you can bank it is shorthand for level 1 spells cast from level 1 slots. I'm not so sure that's what you mean by it because you and others often bring 1st level spells being able to be cast from higher slots into the discussion. Because of that it would be helpful if you were more explicit.

Seriously? I’m clearly not saying anything about upcasting in the text you quoted.

If you really hadn't understood my shorthand before then consider the post you just quoted as my explanation of it.

you’re aggressively missing the point, which is that it’s on you to communicate clearly.

It's weird that I ask for a reason for how the versatility of the spellcasting feature that allows a level 1 spell to be cast in different slots and different spells to be cast from the same slot is relevant to a discussion about 1st level spells being cast from 1st level slots and you just repeat your claim that it's relevant.

<head desk>

I have done previously. I will do so once more, but the next time you expect me to repeat myself I will simply tell you no, and move on.

Firstly, I wasn’t talking about upcasting in that post, nor have I made that part of my arguments in this thread. Feel free to ask others for that explanation, though I do agree with them.

That out of the way, the reason that the ability to cast any level 1 spell you know/have prepared in a level 1 slot is simple. As I said before, the spell isn’t a class feature. It’s a thing you can do with the class feature. The spell slot is a class feature. With it, you can cast any of several spells. A level 1 spell slot, therefor, is what must be compared to a cantrip.

The comparison is using a cantrip (an at will ability), or spending a level 1 spell slot (limited ability). The level 1 slot is strictly superior, for several reasons. I think you’ve come around to agreeing that most (possibly all) level 1 damage spells are stronger than cantrips, or at least acknowledge the sense of the arguments. So then, we are left with the versatility. Ie, the slot vs your list of cantrips.

Cantrips have, at most, 4 options. Most characters will have at least one utility cantrip, so let’s say 2-3 options for damage. 1st and 2nd level spells can easily have twice that, that do things no cantrip can do.
Even if damage were numerically identical, being able to do the right damage, with more options for how you do it (cone, AoE, no-roll), means that the level 1 slot, counting only damage dealing spells as options for that slot, is more powerful than the cantrip.

Again, this is about part of your premise being wrong. That is, the premise that the specific unique spell is the feature that is in competition with your damage cantrips.

 

[Hussar]

It's been a long thread but I don't recall any point being made to be wizard specific. I could easily be wrong on that though.

Toll the Dead > Guiding Bolt for a level 17 cleric. Toll the Dead does more damage. Advantage on the next single attack against a target isn't very good later either because most attacks scale through multiple attacks instead of more and more damage on a single attack. The advantage is also only provided on the next attack against the target so you can't even guarantee it help something like the party rogue.

Yes, but, you have to add in the damage of that next attack to the damage of the guiding bolt. Unless the next attack is a guaranteed hit, Advantage is going to help. Plus the doubled chances for a critical. So, really, a guilding bolt isn't 3d8 damage, it's 3d8 + whatever that next attack deals. So, no, Guiding Bolt is almost always going to out damage a Toll the Dead, even if it's just a regular attack.

 

[S'mon]

I would prefer it if most cantrips didn't scale. I'll make an exception for Eldritch Blast. I'm not keen on Clerics & Druids as pew-pew casters; I'd rather they were using weapons for their routine attacks.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, but, you have to add in the damage of that next attack to the damage of the guiding bolt. Unless the next attack is a guaranteed hit, Advantage is going to help. Plus the doubled chances for a critical. So, really, a guilding bolt isn't 3d8 damage, it's 3d8 + whatever that next attack deals. So, no, Guiding Bolt is almost always going to out damage a Toll the Dead, even if it's just a regular attack.

The only time advantage matters with guiding bolt is when you hit, the original dice would have missed but the advantage dice hits. You are going to net maybe a 15% chance of that event occurring in the best case. So far I can't think of any case where this is legitimately going to amount to anything more than another d8 damage.