D&D 5E Casting a spell in a lower-level slot?

[Tony Vargas]

Would you allow casting a spell in a lower-level slot with reduced power?

Probably not. Higher level spells tend to have basic effects in excess of lower level ones. Spell level acting as a sort of gating effect. But, I suppose, if it's a known or prepared spell, that gate has been opened...

How would you manage it?

Probably the simplest would be to base the effect on the most similar low-level spell I could find, and, since clearly should be sub-optimal, probably a level /back/ from the slot actually used. So casting a fireball in a second-level slot gives you a feeble fireball that flutters to the ground in front of you and sets fire to an area, and with a damage potential, comparable to burning hands - casting it in a first level slot gets you an effect comparable to a fire bolt. That'd probably keep it at the level of a desperation move, though I'd still worry it makes the decision to skip prepping certain lower-level spells too easy.

What I wouldn't do is just reverse the up-level procedure. For instance, a 2nd level fireball just doing a die less would be too much for a 2nd level slot.

Brainstorming other possibilities:

• If the spell is offensive, it gives a save, whether it normally does or not, with advantage. If any target succeeds on the save, the spell fails completely.
• The caster must spend more than 1 lower-level slot to the tune of slots totaling the level of the spell being cast, plus the difference between the highest level slot expended and the spell being cast. So if casting a fireball with 1st level slots (two lower than the fireball), it'd be 3 slots for the fireball, +2 to 'pay off' the level gap for a total of 5 first level slot, but if you use 2nd-level slots it'd only require 2 (3 + a 1-level difference). But at least you'd get a full-fledged fireball.
• The caster loses one HD (or takes one rolled HD of damage if he's out of HD) per spell level the slot is below the spell being cast. That'd be on top of a reduced effect, because that's really a very light price to pay for casting another high-level spell.
• The caster must save vs the spell he's casting, with disadvantage, if he fails, the spell fails, if both dice results would be failures, the spell backfires, harming him.
• The caster gains a level of exhaustion per level the spell is above the slot used.
• The caster has one less slot of the level of the spell cast (or the nearest level, if he's run himself out of such slots entirely) after he takes a long rest, this loss lasts until he gains levels equal to the difference between the slot used and the spell cast. So, if you're 9th level and cast a 5th level spell with a 1st level slot, you have one less 5th level slot than normal, every day, until you reach 13th level. Cast Meteor Swarm with a 1st level slot and your 9th level slot is just gone - do it again and your 8th level slot is just gone.

Ultimately, I don't think it's a great idea. Instead, if there's a high-level spell that you've prepared, and you anticipate needing a similar, lower-level function, pick a much lower level spell with a similar function and cast it up-level, if needed. Don't down-step-meteor-swarm some orcs, fireball them or up-level Sleep them. For that matter, prep fireball, not meteor swarm and up-level it if you really need to blow something up. There's lotsa other 9th level spells that do more unique things than blow stuff up.

 

[Arial Black]

According to the 5E rules, no you may not.

If I were going to make a houserule I would bear in mind that even when previous editions allowed it, the minimum level of the spell was the minimum level required to cast the spell in the first place.

For example, in 3E fireball was a 3rd level spell which did 1d6 fire damage per caster level, up to a maximum of 10d6 at 10th level. If you were a 10th level caster, you could choose to cast it as if you were a lower level caster, but the minimum caster level is 5th (the minimum needed to cast a 3rd level spell), so the least you could roll would be 5d6.

The trouble for such a houserule is that 5E simply doesn't use 'caster level' as part of the rules for casting spells! The closest they get is 'character level' for cantrips, but spells of level 1 or higher do not use a 'caster level' mechanic, 5E having replaced that for a 'spell slot' mechanic for determining these things. So the equivalent houserule would be the minimum slot level anyway.

I recently came across this problem playing my warlock in SKT; she found a Ring of Spell Storing. Being a 5th level warlock at the time, her spells used 3rd level slots even if they are 1st or 2nd level spells. Even though the ring can hold 5 slots-worth of spells, any spell she cast into it uses a 3rd level slot whether she likes it or not (I checked!), and as she got 4th and 5th level slots it didn't have room for her mates to put low level spells in there.

Best leave well enough alone.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I dont think I would. For one thing, it reduces the limitations imposed by restricting casters to "spells prepared" and "spells known". Also, there already is an AE fire spell for 1st level - burning hands. From an in-world perspective, if a wizard could have figured out the simplest way to lob a ball of fire that explodes in a big radius, fireball would be a 1st level spell that scales up to 9th, not a 3rd level spell that scales up to 9th. I also don't feel like negotiating with a player/ruling on the fly for a 1st level blur, rope trick or some other utility/defensive spell.

 

[Sage Genesis]

It's not entirely unprecedented. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved used this as a cornerstone for its spellcasting system. 13th Age also allows a very freeform "ritual" system where you use up a spell for a different but related effect. In my experience, this kind of flexibility can enhance the enjoyment of the game (and what higher priority is there than that?).

A couple of things though.

First, keep in mind the potential for abuse, malign and accidental. Exercise caution and if something seems too difficult to balance on the fly then just err on the side of lower power or just disallow this particular effect.

Second, make sure this doesn't overshadow the non-casters. Spellcasters already have some advantages over non-casters in 5e, so giving them more tools at their disposal is risky. This really depends on the players and their characters per individual game.

Third, I would mostly allow this in cases of "filling in the blanks". There were vermin-warding spells in previous editions, for example, but none in 5e as far as I'm able to tell. So if a caster wants to spend a first level slot on a "Bug Bomb" version of Cloudkill, that is fine. If the player just wants to have Cloudkills that are exactly strong enough to kill whatever he happens to face at the moment, thereby saving up higher level slots, I would be less inclined to grant it.

 

[Mistwell]

It would be easier to just let your wizard find a scroll of magic missile to scribe into their spellbook than to allow them to game the spell slot/spell memorization system by downgrading higher level spells. Effectively all you're really doing is just letting them memorize more spells than they'd normally be allowed to memorize, and also avoid having to find/pay for spells to scribe into lower level spells.

 

[Charles Rampant]

My primary wuestion about houserules is:

What problem are you solving, and how does your proposed solution go about resolving that problem?

Here, I'm really not sure what the problem is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nope. Allowing higher-leveled spells to use lower-level slots just means the wizard no longer needs to prepare lower-leveled spells. He can prepare nothing but his highest level spells, which is not how the game was built to be used.

If a wizard wants to use his 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level slots... he needs to prepare at least one spell that can use them.

And besides which... I'd also question the DM that is throwing a pile of 1 HP vermin at a party, as opposed to using the Swarm statblocks that were made for just such a purpose (and thus a regular Fireball is wanted and needed, rather than trying to downgrade it to a lower slot.)

 

[MechaPilot]

Would you allow casting a spell in a lower-level slot with reduced power? How would you manage it?

Yes and no.

I would allow casting a spell in a lower level slot, but there would have to be something sacrificed to make it work. For example, a special and rare component; and by rare I mean something that is generally not an item of treasure the way money or gems are, but rather a special component that I choose to include separate from normal treasure so that the privilege of using a lower level slot to cast the spell cannot be abused.

 

[Jester David]

If the character had fireball prepared and wanted to start a fire or burn down a door, I'd probably allow it.
For combat use, likely not.

 

[Quartz]

Lots of good arguments why it's generally a bad idea. Thanks everyone.