Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[TallIan]

I totally agree. I don't think this is a good solution.

Its a good mechanical solution. I think a solution that is more focused on fluff would be more complex.

That's a good analysis of the current state of the game. What does that have to do with whether there should be spells that are worse than cantrips ?

That the scaling of spellcasters vs martial is more complex than just how much damage gets thrown out. Low level slots scale well by becoming more available for other things than damage. Low level damage spells need to be available for low level characters to be (or at least feel) useful. If all a mage had was shield and detect magic at level 1, their most powerful ability would not contribute much to the outcome of encounters. Having spells like burning hands and magic missile allow the caster to do some heavy hitting at low levels, allowing those spells to become obsolete (or at least requiring an bigger investment from up casting) keeps the spell casters in check. If every single spell you sling is doing character level appropriate damage, spell casters would be much more powerful.

Again totally true, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic. Stating how things currently are again and again doesn't answer whether it would be better if things were different.

This was meant as an example of my point.

Valid point but has no bearing on the topic.

I think this was a half formed point that I should have deleted.

 

[FrogReaver]

Its a good mechanical solution. I think a solution that is more focused on fluff would be more complex.


That the scaling of spellcasters vs martial is more complex than just how much damage gets thrown out. Low level slots scale well by becoming more available for other things than damage. Low level damage spells need to be available for low level characters to be (or at least feel) useful. If all a mage had was shield and detect magic at level 1, their most powerful ability would not contribute much to the outcome of encounters. Having spells like burning hands and magic missile allow the caster to do some heavy hitting at low levels, allowing those spells to become obsolete (or at least requiring an bigger investment from up casting) keeps the spell casters in check. If every single spell you sling is doing character level appropriate damage, spell casters would be much more powerful.


This was meant as an example of my point.


I think this was a half formed point that I should have deleted.

I never asked for level appropriate damage. Stop misconstruing my words. I asked for more damage than a cantrip.

 

[Dausuul]

But that's really not the question I'm asking. I don't care how to best make use of low level spell slots as a high level wizard. I already know how to do that. But the question more is, "wouldn't the edition have been better if low level damage spells still were meaningful options at higher levels?"

It would be more elegant and aesthetically pleasing. Whether it would be better would depend on how it was implemented. And there's the rub: How would you implement this, without messing up the balance of casters and martials? You can't power-up 1st-level damage spells without making low-level casters OP. And if you have the 1st-level spells scale by caster level, then you risk creating the same problem when a 1st-level spell outperforms its 2nd-level equivalent. If you have all spells scale by caster level, then you're back into "quadratic wizard" territory. And if you look at the other side of the problem and simply get rid of cantrip scaling, you cripple mid-level casters; folks in the 5-10 range, who don't have enough spell slots to cast leveled spells all day, and need better baseline damage than a single crossbow attack.

It might be possible to devise a complex formula that would address all of these issues. But at that point, is it elegant or aesthetically pleasing any more?

This is why you're getting mostly defenses of the status quo: You haven't proposed a viable alternative. And nobody else seems to have one, either, including the people who designed the game (I'd be surprised if they never noticed the issue). Come up with something and put it on the table, and we can debate it. As it is, though, most of us prefer to accept slight inelegance in exchange for a system that works.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why is everyone making points to me about things I am not saying?

Since this is so difficult Let’s start here, should a level 1 spell be better than a cantrip? I think he natural answer is yes. One takes a resource one doesn’t.

I think resource using abilities should be more than useless and low level damage spells eventually become useless. Compare that with utility spells or status effect spells and they are all useful in the early levels and later levels.

So how much would low level spells damage need to scale to accomplish this. Level 3 and up spells I think are fine. Level 1 and 2 spells need somewhere between 1 and 3 damage dice (or # of attacks for multi attacking spells) in order to remain an option later.

 

[FrogReaver]

It would be more elegant and aesthetically pleasing. Whether it would be better would depend on how it was implemented. And there's the rub: How would you implement this, without messing up the balance of casters and martials? You can't power-up 1st-level damage spells without making low-level casters OP. And if you have the 1st-level spells scale by caster level, then you risk creating the same problem when a 1st-level spell outperforms its 2nd-level equivalent. If you have all spells scale by caster level, then you're back into "quadratic wizard" territory. And if you look at the other side of the problem and simply get rid of cantrip scaling, you cripple mid-level casters; folks in the 5-10 range, who don't have enough spell slots to cast leveled spells all day, and need better baseline damage than a single crossbow attack.

It might be possible to devise a complex formula that would address all of these issues. But at that point, is it elegant or aesthetically pleasing any more?

This is why you're getting mostly defenses of the status quo: You haven't proposed a viable alternative. And nobody else seems to have one, either, including the people who designed the game (I'd be surprised if they never noticed the issue). Come up with something and put it on the table, and we can debate it. As it is, though, most of us prefer to accept slight inelegance in exchange for a system that works.

Something like at level 11 level 1 and 2 spells get an extra dice of damage. Maybe they do so again at level 17. Multi attacking spells like scorching ray get an extra attack instead of an extra damage dice. The damage of ongoing effects is not increased.

 

[TallIan]

I never asked for level appropriate damage. Stop misconstruing my words. I asked for more damage than a cantrip.

No you asked for me thoughts on your critique of cantrip damage scaling vs level 1 and 2 spell damage scaling. Those are my thoughts. Fluff wise, its a bit off. Mechanics wise its very good, because spells are about more than damage. Fixing the fluff would require a huge change on the game mechanics.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Using a spell slot for damage should generally always be better than the available at will option. That isn't really the case with cantrips and level 1 and level 2 spells. I find that to be a design flaw in 5e. I don't know how to fix it but I think cantrips should never outpace even a level 1 spell IMO.

Thoughts?

Since I had some time this morning, I did a quick review of the cantrips and spells most likely in question. I can see your point and agree for the most part. One change (for me anyway) in going from 1E/2E to 5E, is the idea of spells increased damage coming from being cast using higher level slots instead of naturally scaling with the character level (as the cantrips still do).

But I will play the devil's advocate and argue against your point:

While 1st and 2nd level spells have static damage (unless using the higher slots), they often deal comparable damage to the cantrips from 11th and higher levels, but many times to multiple targets instead of only one, as most cantrips do. At the highest tier, a cantrip will average about 18 points of damage (some more, some less) to a single target, always requiring either an attack roll or failed save or the target suffers no damage at all.

While nearly all 1st level spells will do less than 18 damage, their power comes from the fact that many still do half damage at a minimum, affect multiple targets, have additional effects, deal damage automatically (no attack roll or save allowed), and so on. So, while the 3d6 damage from Burning Hands, for instance, is less than a potentially 4d10 Firebolt, the Burning Hands could hit 3 or more targets, and deals half damage even if they make their save. Oddly enough, 2nd levels spells do even less damage overall than 1st. But, again, the extras of the spells can make up for it. 2nd level also has very nice utility spells which are often more interesting. Finally, even at the third and fourth tiers of play, there are several higher level damage causing spells that will usurp cantrips in power, number of targets, etc. (but that was not your original point, so I digress...).

If the intense damage of cantrips at 17th bothers you, my suggestion is removing that tier's damage boost and offer something else instead (or just remove it and don't worry about it. ) One idea I was playing with at the highest levels of play, is removing the damage boost but allowing casters at that point to employ cantrips as a bonus action.

Either way, I will miss my 15th-level Magic-User casting a swarm of eight Magic Missiles for only one 1st level spell. *sigh* Now, I would have to expend a 6th level slot for the same thing... Um, I don't think I'll do that..

 

[TallIan]

Something like at level 11 level 1 and 2 spells get an extra dice of damage. Maybe they do so again at level 17. Multi attacking spells like scorching ray get an extra attack instead of an extra damage dice. The damage of ongoing effects is not increased.

Actually, thinking about it. Something like this is (or could be) just as elegant as cantrip scaling is now. The trouble is you could then reverse the question and say, "why don't cantrips scale to stay relevant through the game." Low level slots get to be used for other things at higher character levels, whereas cantrips are forever.

Damage cantrips allow a caster to feel more magical - especially at low levels. There is little mechanical difference between a heavy crossbow and a firebolt (other that DEX to hit vs INT), but narrating a wizard flinging firebolts is more fun than narrating a wizard loosing xbow bolt (unless you are aiming for Merlin Tell). So in that regard - despite my earlier posts regarding apprentices - having cantrips in the game is a good thing. Then is just boils down to what do you want to leave behind as you level. The low level damage spells or the cantrips?

 

[CapnZapp]

Since this is so difficult Let’s start here, should a level 1 spell be better than a cantrip? I think he natural answer is yes. One takes a resource one doesn’t.

That's actually not the whole truth.

Not since you are talking about slots, rather than spells. A level 1 spell slot is much more versatile and flexible than a "cantrip slot", at least for the main casters we're talking about (read "wizard and cleric").

Long story short - you're focusing too much on raw damage IMO. I'd accept the fact that there comes a time when level 1 slots aren't useful to deliver damage. In fact, as many posters have pointed out, this might actually be a valuable property of this edition.

Once you factor more than hp loss into value, however, your "natural answer" becomes way more complex than you're letting on. And it might just be that the simplest solution is to do nothing at all: just don't use low-level slots for damage-dealing and you're fine.

 

[FrogReaver]

Actually, thinking about it. Something like this is (or could be) just as elegant as cantrip scaling is now. The trouble is you could then reverse the question and say, "why don't cantrips scale to stay relevant through the game." Low level slots get to be used for other things at higher character levels, whereas cantrips are forever.

Damage cantrips allow a caster to feel more magical - especially at low levels. There is little mechanical difference between a heavy crossbow and a firebolt (other that DEX to hit vs INT), but narrating a wizard flinging firebolts is more fun than narrating a wizard loosing xbow bolt (unless you are aiming for Merlin Tell). So in that regard - despite my earlier posts regarding apprentices - having cantrips in the game is a good thing. Then is just boils down to what do you want to leave behind as you level. The low level damage spells or the cantrips?

I’m not following your logic here. Even if first level spells do more damage they are still useful. They are a resource free option. And as you mentioned they help Casters feel more magical at lower levels.