D&D 5E Spells cast at higher level spell slots. Worth it?

[cbwjm]

You could probably double the scalability of all damage spells, across the board, without breaking the game. If burning hands got +2d6 per level, and Disintegrate got +6d6 per level, then somebody, somewhere, might actually bother to cast Disintegrate IX (22d6+40) (117, Dex save for no damage), and even Chromatic Orb IX would be somewhat respectable.

Under the rules as written, it's painful to watch a teammate blow a 9th level spell slot on Chromatic Orb, over and over again, while playing an Int 20 wizard/cleric, no less. It's like watching someone invest thousands of dollars in upgrading their Blackberry.

Disintegrate is a save? That spell seems like a ranged spell attack would be more appropriate. Maybe I will alter it in my games.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't see how "penalizing" upleveled damage spells is relevant to this issue one way or another. Whether they're penalized or not, you still have to uplevel in order to get more damage. If you think this is a problem, then the only solution is a return to the 1E-3E automatic spell scaling system. Tinkering with how upleveling works isn't going to affect it.

Why would I ever cast Burning Hands III if I can get more damage, in a better area of effect, that's easier to aim, by using Fireball III instead? At best, it would be extremely situational, where you would want to avoid collateral damage, but it was still dangerous enough to warrant spending a high-level spell slot - maybe in a hostage situation?

You don't need auto-scaling spells like in 3E, since 5E auto-scales the save DC instead. If Burning Hands (in a level 1 slot) did as much damage as Fireball (in a level 3 slot), with the same save DC, then that would be a dramatic force-multiplier for spellcasters; and we don't need that. But a Wizard only has so many high-level spell slots in the day, and asking them to choose between Burning Hands for 5d6 or Fireball for 8d6 is not an interesting choice. Letting them manually scale up their damage, so that the spells deal equal damage in one of those high-level slots (while Fireball remains superior in every other way) is somewhat closer to an interesting choice.

Spell preparation is a minor limitation, compared to spell slot available which is a major limitation. The flexibility of using your low-level spell slots to deal fire damage is worth something, sure; it might be worth spending the extra preparation to have that available, or it might be worth sacrificing that flexibility to prepare a different spell. The added flexibility of being able to do less damage, by casting in a low-level slot, doesn't come close to justifying the loss in actual efficacy when casting in a high-level slot.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Disintegrate is a save? That spell seems like a ranged spell attack would be more appropriate. Maybe I will alter it in my games.

That seems like a reasonable alteration. Would make Wild Sorcerers and Lucky wizards happy, too, as well as keeping it useful against creatures with Legendary saves.

BTW I miscalculated. With doubled scalability, Disintegrate IX would be 28d6+40 (138, save for none), which compares favorably in a narrow sort of way with Meteor Swarm (140, save for half, huge AoE). Under RAW it would be 19d6+40 (106.5, save for half).

 

[Caliban]

Disintegrate is a save? That spell seems like a ranged spell attack would be more appropriate. Maybe I will alter it in my games.

It used to be ranged touch followed by a Fort save in 3rd edition - basically you had to just resist the damage to your body. Now there seems to be no resisting the damage, just avoiding it - all or nothing.

Having it be a Dex save is the 5e equivalent of a touch attack - your armor doesn't matter, just your ability to avoid the beam.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Disintegrate is a save? That spell seems like a ranged spell attack would be more appropriate. Maybe I will alter it in my games.

It's because there's no touch AC in 5E. Disintegrate turns you to a fine powder whether you're wearing armor or not. Hence, Dex save.

I've reversed this logic with some homebrewed effects. I've got shrapnel grenades, for instance, that are pretty basic AoE effects except they make an attack roll against everything in the area instead of forcing saving throws, because being in full plate is good defense against shrapnel.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Why would I ever cast Burning Hands III if I can get more damage, in a better area of effect, that's easier to aim, by using Fireball III instead? At best, it would be extremely situational, where you would want to avoid collateral damage, but it was still dangerous enough to warrant spending a high-level spell slot - maybe in a hostage situation?

I wouldn't describe wanting to avoid collateral damage as "extremely situational", personally, but that's just a nitpick. Even if there were literally no reason whatsoever to cast burning hands at 3rd level when you've prepared fireball, that wouldn't be a problem. It would mean you've prepped/learned both spells and made a conscious decision to go all-in on optimizing damage at every spell slot. Prepping just burning hands would mean you're willing to sacrifice some high-end damage but are planning on possibly doing something else with that 3rd-level spell slot. Prepping just fireball would mean you want the high-end damage and are planning on possibly doing something else with your 1st- and 2nd-level slots. All of these are interesting choices.

Spell preparation is a minor limitation, compared to spell slot available which is a major limitation.

You keep saying this, and I'm going to keep denying it. You generally have about as many prep slots as you do spell slots. And a prep which can be used in more of those spell slots intrinsically multiplies its value compared to a prep which can only be used in fewer.

The flexibility of using your low-level spell slots to deal fire damage is worth something, sure; it might be worth spending the extra preparation to have that available, or it might be worth sacrificing that flexibility to prepare a different spell. The added flexibility of being able to do less damage, by casting in a low-level slot, doesn't come close to justifying the loss in actual efficacy when casting in a high-level slot.

If you want the full efficacy, prep the higher-level spell. If you want to fly, prep fly; don't expect jump to uplevel to fly while still being effective at 1st- and 2nd- level as well.

 

[cbwjm]

Does anyone else think it would be more interesting to have variable bonuses on level up? For instance, casting a fireball might have these options:

For each spell slot level higher than 3rd you can choose one of the following: increase damage by +1d6, increase the radius by 5 feet, or increase the range by 30 feet.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If the giant hits you for one meeeelion points of damage and you have no 1st level slots, a 3rd level slot casting of shield is definitely worth it.

If the evil mage keeps counterspelling your spell, casting it with a 5th level slot might be worth it, even if the spell itself gets no benefit from higher levels.

Casting hold monster with a 7th level slot will (maybe) get the rakshasa, since it is immune to magic of level 6 or lower.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

If the giant hits you for one meeeelion points of damage and you have no 1st level slots, a 3rd level slot casting of shield is definitely worth it.

If the evil mage keeps counterspelling your spell, casting it with a 5th level slot might be worth it, even if the spell itself gets no benefit from higher levels.

Casting hold monster with a 7th level slot will (maybe) get the rakshasa, since it is immune to magic of level 6 or lower.

I really appreciate your examples and it demonstrates that there is value for upscaling. I think the difference I see is that while utility and non-damage dealing spells (ie status effect spells) have use with upscaling, the consistency between damage inflicting spells is nil as it kinda goes all over the place, and this doesn't even take into account damaging spells with riders and secondary effects.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Disintegrate is a save? That spell seems like a ranged spell attack would be more appropriate. Maybe I will alter it in my games.

Some reasons it is a save rather than an attack roll were already mentioned, but there is one other to consider: it's designed such so that it doesn't score critical hits.

So make sure before altering it that you want the results that you are getting (plate mail protecting against it better than leather rather than both being irrelevant, and a 5% chance of 20d6 +40 damage for a 6th level spell slot), rather than the one you thought of (ray = spell attack).