Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

James Grover said:

Part of my point, however, is that spells like Grease and Shield gain no benefit from using a higher level slot, as where many spells do. If spells are more powerful using higher level slots, all spells should be written as such IMO.

Click to expand...

I think that any spell cast from a level 9 spell slot should be as powerful as a level 9 spell. Burning Hands should hit as hard as Meteor Swarm, as long as you're putting the same amount of energy into it. The thing is, it's hard to interpret what that means, for something like Grease or Shield.

Making the entire world into difficult terrain, and knocking everyone in the world prone, is not on par with Prismatic Wall or Shapechange. There's no way to make Grease worth a high-level spell slot. I've seen games that try to make that sort of thing work, and if you try to fit every effect into nine degrees of power, it inevitably ends with multiple spell levels where a spell is not worth casting.

If damage-dealing spells scaled automatically with level, then one major benefit would be removing the language of up-casting from the game, so we wouldn't even worry about the disparity.

James Grover said:

I guess in that since, it makes me wonder more about the cantrips. Having cantrips scale up with level keeps them relevant, which was the intent, while lower spells (potentially) decrease in effectiveness at higher levels unless you use a more powerful resources (higher level slot) to keep them relevant. Given the number of spell slots available at higher levels, spells used in an encounter, number of encounters between rests, and the increased value/power of higher level spells and possessing wands, staves, etc., it seems casters should not have to use cantrips often. If that is the cast, why scale them with level?

Click to expand...

That's a good point, really. As high-level casters gain more and more spell slots, they should be able to afford spending a lower-level slot when they need to attack. But they don't want to spend a level 1 spell slot on Magic Missile, because they know the spell slot is much more valuable for Shield, so they would end up firing their crossbow and complaining about it.

Given that a level 1 spell slot is still useful at high levels, I don't know how many spell slots a wizard would need, before they felt comfortable using one for Magic Missile. It would have to be enough that they would never worry about running out, but at that point, they're nigh-invincible from casting Shield every round. Cantrips thus serve the purpose of giving wizards a spell that they aren't afraid of using, while maintaining the spell slot economy as regards to Shield. By auto-scaling cantrip damage, it makes wizards feel like they're still contributing (in a way that wasn't true with Pathfinder cantrips), so they feel less inclined to go all-out with their spell slots and force a five-minute workday.

Paul Farquhar said:

Just to be pedantic, but you are not comparing like with like. The Firebolt Cantrip is comparable to Chromatic Orb - Single target, ranged, requires a hit roll - not Burning hands. Firebolt is in most respects superior to Chromatic Orb from level 11 upwards (and a fighter with a bow and arrow is superior from level 5 upwards). Burning Hands is most comparable to Thunderclap or Sword Burst. Whilst they have different AoEs, all three spells could conceivably be expected to hit three targets (and all three require the caster to be much closer to the hostiles than is sensible). Thunderclap and Sword Burst do 4d6, 12d6 to the hypothetical three targets, at level 17, making them demonstrably better than Burning Hands from level 17 upwards.

Not that I have a problem with that, wizards really shouldn't be attacking with 1st level damage spells at level 17, but I felt it necessary to point out that you where in error.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Since Chromatic Orb allows you to bypass damage reduction, or damage immunity, then it is often better. You can Fire Bolt something that is immune to fire damage all day long and it doesn't deal any damage. Chromatic Orb, if it hits, will always deal damage, presuming the target is not immune to everything. And, additionally, it allows you to target weaknesses as well, potentially gaining double damage.

A better direct comparison to firebolt is Magic Missile. And, a few pages back, someone already did the math and Magic Missile always comes out ahead.

-----

And, yes, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], I realize warlocks are a different animal, but, nothing we've discussed would actually apply to warlocks since they aren't casting 1st level slots at the point where cantrips are out damaging 1st level slots. And, additionally, since warlocks gain so few actual spells/day, their cantrips are required to do far more heavy lifting than they are for other casters.

IOW, your eldritch blast out damaging first level spells is the game working as intended for Warlocks.

Hussar said:

I disagree. Since Chromatic Orb allows you to bypass damage reduction, or damage immunity, then it is often better. You can Fire Bolt something that is immune to fire damage all day long and it doesn't deal any damage. Chromatic Orb, if it hits, will always deal damage, presuming the target is not immune to everything. And, additionally, it allows you to target weaknesses as well, potentially gaining double damage.

A better direct comparison to firebolt is Magic Missile. And, a few pages back, someone already did the math and Magic Missile always comes out ahead.

Click to expand...

It sounds good on paper, but it's very much an edge case. Chromatic Orb can't do the really useful damage types (Radiant, Psychic, Force), and you can always have a different cantrip for a different element. Firebolt has a longer range, I would rate that about as good as the pick an element feature.

Magic Missile isn't a better comparison, because it is functionally very different to any cantrip. It's like trying to compare Find Familiar with Druidcraft - the comparison is meaningless because they do different things. It's a (much) better spell than Chromatic Orb, but as a point of comparison it's meaningless.

Paul Farquhar said:

It sounds good on paper, but it's very much an edge case. Chromatic Orb can't do the really useful damage types (Radiant, Psychic, Force), and you can always have a different cantrip for a different element. Firebolt has a longer range, I would rate that about as good as the pick an element feature.

Magic Missile isn't a better comparison, because it is functionally very different to any cantrip. It's like trying to compare Find Familiar with Druidcraft - the comparison is meaningless because they do different things. It's a (much) better spell than Chromatic Orb, but as a point of comparison it's meaningless.

Click to expand...

Magic missle, a spell that dies damage at range, is fundamentally different from another spell, firebolt, that does damage at range, for unstated reasons.

What?

Paul Farquhar said:

Just to be pedantic, but you are not comparing like with like. The Firebolt Cantrip is comparable to Chromatic Orb - Single target, ranged, requires a hit roll - not Burning hands. Firebolt is in most respects superior to Chromatic Orb from level 11 upwards (and a fighter with a bow and arrow is superior from level 5 upwards). Burning Hands is most comparable to Thunderclap or Sword Burst. Whilst they have different AoEs, all three spells could conceivably be expected to hit three targets (and all three require the caster to be much closer to the hostiles than is sensible). Thunderclap and Sword Burst do 4d6, 12d6 to the hypothetical three targets, at level 17, making them demonstrably better than Burning Hands from level 17 upwards.

Not that I have a problem with that, wizards really shouldn't be attacking with 1st level damage spells at level 17, but I felt it necessary to point out that you where in error.

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention burning hands vs thunderclap. I did that one too, and I varied the save bonus AND the number of targets. Turns out, number of targets doesn't matter at all -- the ratios at the level breakpoints don't change with number of targets. So, I did save bonuses of +0, +3, +6, and +9. Burning hands is the better of the two for all levels except 17, but then only if the save bonus is less than +6.

At +6 and at level 17, burning hands has exactly the same expected damage as thunderclap for the same number of targets. Exactly. It was weird, I reran the numbers. I rebuilt the page. Same results. For a saving throw bonus over +6, Burning hands is better always, for less than +6, thunderclap is better at level 17. How much better, you ask? Glad you did. 1 point of damage per target better at +3, and 3 points of damage per target better at +0.

So, no, turns out that even thunderclap, a ridiculously overpowered cantrip (due to number of targets) is only slightly better against trash mobs at level 17. Also, it's really loud.

TallIan said:

I had (foolishly) made the assumption that you wanted to keep the game balance as is, so an increase in level 1 spell power would come from a decrease in cantrip power.

From reading your other posts it seems that you are not so concerned with this.

Click to expand...

I find it very strange you would say that about me. I definitely care about balance. However, I don't think allowing the wizard to do maybe 2d6 more damage per 1st and 2nd level spell at level 17 is really going to affect the overall game balance one way or the other. Your talking about a total of around 20d6 or less per day and that's only really going to matter after you have used numerous objectively better higher level encountering changing spells. That said, if cantrips diminished a bit because of something like this that would be acceptable as well.

FrogReaver said:

I find it very strange you would say that about me. I definitely care about balance. However, I don't think allowing the wizard to do maybe 2d6 more damage per 1st and 2nd level spell at level 17 is really going to affect the overall game balance one way or the other. Your talking about a total of around 20d6 or less per day and that's only really going to matter after you have used numerous objectively better higher level encountering changing spells. That said, if cantrips diminished a bit because of something like this that would be acceptable as well.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't affect things, why do you care at all? Serious question, as this really seems like quibbling over not very much at all because it offends some aesthetic design preference you have.

Paul Farquhar said:

It sounds good on paper, but it's very much an edge case. Chromatic Orb can't do the really useful damage types (Radiant, Psychic, Force), and you can always have a different cantrip for a different element. Firebolt has a longer range, I would rate that about as good as the pick an element feature.

Magic Missile isn't a better comparison, because it is functionally very different to any cantrip. It's like trying to compare Find Familiar with Druidcraft - the comparison is meaningless because they do different things. It's a (much) better spell than Chromatic Orb, but as a point of comparison it's meaningless.

Click to expand...

No, you can't always have a different cantrip for a different element as you can't switch cantrips. Sure, you could have chosen two ranged damage dealing cantrips - say, fire bolt and ray of frost. But, that comes at a cost as well. One of your very small suite of cantrips is now very often not used because, unless you happen to be fighting something resistant to fire, you're always using Fire Bolt because Fire Bolt deals better damage and reducing something's speed by 10 feet for a round often isn't all that useful.

With one first level spell, I can ALWAYS choose different energy types. Outside of something that is immune/resistant to all energy types, it's unlikely that I won't be dealing full damage every time I cast it. With that added bonus that anything that has weakness to a particular damage type is always an option.

So, we have a spell that, at most levels, deals as good if not better damage than a comparable cantrip, with considerable added versatility. Again, not seeing the problem.
[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] - despite repeated examples being shown, you still have not demonstrated that cantrips are better at dealing damage than even 1st level damage dealing spells, never minding second level ones. Thus, it's pretty clear that game balance is not your concern here.

Please, please, demonstrate why you think that cantrips outstrip direct damage 1st and 2nd levels spells and please walk me through how you came to that conclusion because EVERY SINGLE example that's been brought up has shown that cantrips, outside of very corner cases, NEVER out damage 1st and 2nd level spells.

Hussar said:

You need to keep repeating this because it's not actually been proven. Actually, I take that back. It has been pretty clearly disproven.

Click to expand...

Actually I need to keep repeating it because people keep misstating my position and then making points that have to do with the misstated position instead of my actual position.

A 1st level direct damage spell will almost always out damage any cantrip, regardless of the caster's level. The best you can hope for, the absolute best, is 4d10 with a cantrip. They don't ever get any better than that. Numerous 1st level spells, cast as a 1st level slot, will outdamage this. Burning hands is 3d6/target. Three targets will result in a 1st level burning hands, cast at 1st level, dealing 9d6 damage. That clearly out damages any cantrip.

Click to expand...

Thank you for making a relevant point to my claim. Why is it relevant when other points are not? Because if true it means the problem I perceive isn't actually real. So thank you again. By the way, I've made clear over this thread that I'm happy to have this discussion about whether 1st level spells are actually better than cantrips and the reason why is because it's relevant.

And, again, we're talking a 17th level caster to deal this kind of damage. By this point, a 17th level caster has NINETEEN spell slots per day. A good adventuring day is what, 20 rounds long? At this point, a wizard doesn't need to use cantrips. A sorcerer is even further ahead with arcane recovery. Extra 8 levels of slots/day? Yeah, I'm never running out of slots by that point.

Click to expand...

I disagree there. Even high level wizards often need to use cantrips. (Assuming a standard adventuring day). We can discuss why but I think another poster already beat me to that analysis.

You need to prove the following:

1. That at some point, cantrips deal more damage than 1st level spells.

Click to expand...

I started the thread thinking that would be undisputed. Since you are disputing it now then I totally agree. That's something that needs addressed. I can't believe it's taken over 100 posts on this thread to get to the point where someone really wanted to bring that point up into the discussion.

2. That this damage disparity is great enough to warrant changes.

I mean, good grief, if the sorcerer or wizard in your group isn't either the top or number two damage dealer in your party, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with the players. There's just no way that a non-caster is even coming close to the total damage that a high level caster is pumping out. Fireball is routinely doing 70-100 points of damage per casting (imagine 4-6 targets). And the wiz/sorc can do that at LEAST 3/day by 17th level. The non-casters aren't even in the same league by that time.

Click to expand...

While that would be an interesting discussion (BTW, I happen to disagree with your assertion), it's not actually relevant to my claims on this thread. My claims simply don't depend on the wizard doing more or less damage than the fighter.

Look, tell you what. Track the actual damage and actual spells cast in your next two or three sessions. Don't go by your gut, because your gut is often wrong. Actually write down who deals what for a couple of sessions. The notion that the casters need to deal even more damage is not something I think is very needed in the game.

Click to expand...

The notion isn't that casters need to do more damage. This is another great example where someone is constructing an argument I'm not making in order to easily knock it down. In fact, I'm actually on your side on this one. Full caster's don't need to deal even more damage than they already do. Though I think my reasons for that statement are different than yours.

CapnZapp said:

Honestly, I think you are needlessly gaming the argument if you argue I am avoiding to state your argument.

But nevermind:

I strongly disagree "a level 1 spell cast from a level 1 spell slot is not better than a cantrip if you are at least a certain character level" for the reasons that you prefer to skip when trying to make this an issue of being misunderstood.

Click to expand...

It's unclear to me, are you suggesting that every level 1 spell cast in a level 1 slot is better than a cantrip used by a max level character?

If you don't mean every 1st level spell used in a first level slot is better than a cantrip then I actually agree with that.

A level 1 spell cast in a level 1 slot can very well be better, or at least different and therefore incomparable, than a cantrip, even if cast by a level 20 caster.

Click to expand...

That is why I don't agree with your basic premise - that this ought to be an open and shut case. No it is not, because the case is more complex than you're letting on.

Click to expand...

It's unclear to me, are you saying that every 1st level spell cast in a first level slot can very well be better or at least different and therefore incomparable to a cantrip even when cast by a level 20 caster?

If that's not what you intend to be saying then I likely agree with what you are intending to say.

Then you claim the issue "isn't self correcting in actual play". I can't speak for your players of course, but I can say that in general I find the issue eminently self-correctable. Just don't cast the spells in the slots that make you dissatisfied compared to your cantrips - use the spells and the slots differently!

Click to expand...

1. No one in my games use low level damage spells in low level slots when they are high level.
2. That players avoid using low level damage spells in low level slots is not a correction of the issue that I keep talking about. In fact it's logically impossible for that to be a solution of the issue I keep talking about. That's because, If 1st level spells should do more damage in low level slots than a cantrip THEN simply not using those spells doesn't change whether they should do more damage in low level slots than a cantrip.

Now, whatever you do, please do not claim I am not responding to the point you are making.

Click to expand...

I can't yet, I need more information to make that determination.