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

[TheCosmicKid]

It certainly seems like the most consistent explanation. Higher-level spells require higher-level spell slots because they require more power, and the capacity of a spellcaster to channel enough power all at once is limited by the experience of the individual, as is their total capacity for magical energy.

If that was how the game world actually worked, then I would expect to see the game rules as they are in the book, because those rules actually do reflect that reality fairly well... aside from the scaling issue which is currently under contention.

Nah. The big difference is that spell slots are discrete, not liquid. A 9th-level slot can't be used as nine 1st-level slots, but 9,000 magi-joules of energy could presumably be used as nine parcels of 1,000. This is much better modeled by spell points. And since spell points no more complex than spell slots (less, if anything), and they actually exist in the game as a proposed variant rule, I get the distinct impression that we are not supposed to read the slot system to be modeling magic as a form of liquid energy and mages as living batteries. Energy as a concept is something easy and familiar to us. Magic is stranger than that.

Fire isn't a physical thing in real life; it's a process which matter can undergo, in certain conditions. Given that free-floating fire is an entirely magical concept, there's no way to say how it should work, or how far it should spray.

You just invoked real-life physics to argue that "confining a finite amount of energy into a smaller area should make it more intense". Does the thermal energy created by burning hands act according to physics, or not? Pick a lane.

This is a somewhat more-convincing argument, although it assumes a lot about the setting, that there are powerful experimental-arcanists who conduct magical research on how to get the most performance out of their spells.

Not really. Efficiency tradeoffs occur naturally everywhere.

It also goes back to the underlying intent of the rules, though. Given that the designers could say that magic works however they want it to, then why would they decide to penalize multi-class spellcasters by making their high-level spell slots so weak? It really seems like a trap, that they would tell you that a split-level wizard/cleric has full spell slots, and that you can up-rank your low-level spells to use those slots, but then design the scaling rules so that you're strictly worse in terms of what you can do with those spells.

Um... yeah. That's the point. Wizard/cleric is weaker in pure power than either pure wizard or pure cleric, and has been in every edition of the game where multiclassing has been a thing. That's the tradeoff for doubling your magical versatility. It makes multiclassing a significant decision, rather than the obviously optimal choice. Why on earth would the designers not do it this way?

And of course, the fact that the bard gets all of those spell slots and access to higher level spells, while poaching the best spells from every other class and only requiring one high ability score, really goes to show the vast disparity in power level between characters that are conceptually similar. This edition was supposed to be a step back from requiring such system mastery!

A bard learning two unchangeable spells through Magical Secrets is a far, far cry from a wizard/cleric being able to learn all wizard spells, automatically having access to all cleric spells, and being able to prepare them on two independent lists. Yes, bards are good. Huzzah, finally, an edition where they're not the butt of jokes! No, bards do not hold a candle to the flexibility of wizard/clerics. They're doing their own thing.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

[MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] While the designers may have had something specific in mind for the game as they envision it, and I can't argue that they don't have some kind of expertise in the game design thing (ie they get paid for it and I don't), their approach, at least as spells go, does not mesh with mine. For example, as you are correct in terms of casting potential, I place different value on casting strategy versus damage. For me, the fact that Fireball can hit a lot more enemies from a much farther distance more than makes up for the power difference. That's the reason that Fireball is a 3rd level spell, not the amount of damage it does. Enemies you can hit with Burning Hands are right in your face and can very easily hit you back. Burning Hands is a sawed-off shotgun, while Fireball is Rocket Propelled Grenade. Each is deadly, but the situations in which you are going to use them are very different.

As to what you mention with Tempo, I'm a little confused. My argument is not that Burning Hands cast at a 1st level spell slot should deal as much damage as a Fireball cast using a 3rd level spell slot. In that situation, Burning Hands absolutely should deal much less damage. But if you are casting Burning Hands using a 3rd level spell slot, you are already sacrificing the huge damage potential that a long range, wide affecting fireball can do. Why nerf it further with also making it do less damage?

As for #4, I disagree. I don't see higher level spells being less flexible, unless by flexible you mean you couldn't nerf a higher level spell to deal less damage/have less effect to be able to use a lower level spell slot. For me, as an example I used previously, $5 is $5, whether its quarters, singles, a fiver, or whatever. Just because a $5 bill has less flexibility to be used in coin machines, shouldn't mean it has its value reduced in some way.

But I probably MOST disagree with #5. Players should dictate what they get excited about. If they are more excited about casting their own personal signature spells (ie Burning Hands, Scorching Ray, whatevs) as higher level spell slots, why should we punish them because of it?

As for #6, I've already mentioned that Fireball and other higher level spells differentiate themselves in other ways. Area of effect, number of targets, ability to repeat damage across multiple rounds... that is plenty of variety without impacting damage. For me, damage should scale directly so that all spells of a given level have relatively equal damage. A 9th level Meteor Swarm should be equal to 9th level Fireball should be equal to 9th level Burning Hands. The difference is that Meteor Swarm covers an insane amount of area, Fireball a bit less, and Burning Hands is right in front of you.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Um... yeah. That's the point. Wizard/cleric is weaker in pure power than either pure wizard or pure cleric, and has been in every edition of the game where multiclassing has been a thing. That's the tradeoff for doubling your magical versatility. It makes multiclassing a significant decision, rather than the obviously optimal choice. Why on earth would the designers not do it this way?

Higher-level spells are valuable in other ways, besides just numbers. A level-three Fireball spells would still be way more useful than a level-three Burning Hands spell, even if they did the same damage; a large area-of-effect is a useful parameter which is limited to high-level spell slots.

Why should the multi-class character be penalized exponentially, just for wanting a little versatility? Why do they need to deal less damage per target and affect fewer targets? If high-level spells are better than low-level spells, without regard to numbers, then having low-level wizard spells and high-level wizard spells should already be better than having low-level wizard spells and low-level cleric spells.

What the rules are saying, when they build in this sort of obvious disparity, is that multi-classing is a novice mistake for players who don't know any better, and if they were more experienced then they should be playing the character as a bard or something. It's exactly the kind of design mindset which I thought they'd left behind with the past two editions, and which still infects Pathfinder, but I guess I was wrong on that point.

 

[Gadget]

I remain unconvinced that spell damage scaling does not need to be adjusted. The comparisons to 3.x are unjustified as that edition (and previous editions iirc) got scaling for free, without having to spend a higher level slot. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 3.x allowed one to prepare a lower level spell in a higher level slot, it was just inefficient to do so and was rarely used.

Another point is that many of the non-damage spells or utility spells scale much better by adding additional targets or effects. Some even get a certain amount of free scaling (i.e. your save difficulty for spells such as Hold Person goes up as you level, thereby making these spells more effective in the same slot). Taken in this light, damage scaling does seem to be very sub-optimal. Yes, some spells that have additional utility might be worth it (Magic Missile: auto hit & more targets, Thunderwave pushes targets away, the Bard doesn't have many damaging spells), but that does not seem to justify poor scaling.

The 'flexibility' of being able to use a lower level slot for a spell is undercut by cantrip scaling. In the rare case in which the caster would be tempted to use a low level damaging spell to fry a mook and such, a cantrip will probably suffice (or at least be in the same ball park). Sure, the low level spell may have slightly better damage or better area (ahhh! get these spiders off me! Thunderwave).

I'm not sure I'd want exact parity in damage though. To take the common example: I would be happy if Burning Hands cast in a 3rd level slot did 7d6 damage rather than 8d6. It would still make it useful without being on par with Fireball (despite having a smaller area and range). And I'm not sure I'd want it to do 40d6 damage in a 9th level slot. I think the further you up cast, the more 'loss' you would take. If Burning Hands did +2d6 per spell level, that would be fine. That's 7d6 at third level and 19d6 at ninth level. The further from the 'original' level you get, the less efficient you are. Honestly, I'm not sure who would want to use Burning Hands in a ninth level slot anyway.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The comparisons to 3.x are unjustified as that edition (and previous editions iirc) got scaling for free, without having to spend a higher level slot. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 3.x allowed one to prepare a lower level spell in a higher level slot, it was just inefficient to do so and was rarely used.

The thing that most people forget about 3.x spell scaling is that your save DC didn't automatically scale with your level. A fifth-level spellcaster could cast Burning Hands for 5d4 or Fireball for 5d6, but Fireball would also have +2 to the save DC since the original spell level factors into that formula. If you were fighting high-level enemies that had a reasonable chance of making their save against your highest-level spells, then a lower-level spell would have an even greater chance of being resisted.

That's why it doesn't bother me that damage doesn't scale automatically in 5E, because even though you still deal low-level damage in a low-level spell slot, they at least give you your full save DC for those spells. (In 3.x, casting a spell in a higher-level slot would let you benefit from having the increased save DC for that spell, but only if you had the Heighten metamagic ability, which would require you to prepare it in that slot at the beginning of the day or spend a full-round action to cast it as a spontaneous caster.)

 

[clearstream]

As to what you mention with Tempo

Tempo is action efficiency over time. If I will usually get 7 actions per fight, then casts 8-15 of Burning Hands aren't much help. Until I get into a second fight, of course.

My argument is not that Burning Hands cast at a 1st level spell slot should deal as much damage as a Fireball cast using a 3rd level spell slot. In that situation, Burning Hands absolutely should deal much less damage. But if you are casting Burning Hands using a 3rd level spell slot, you are already sacrificing the huge damage potential that a long range, wide affecting fireball can do. Why nerf it further with also making it do less damage?

I guess you've noticed that taking Burning Hands and Fireball optimises the total damage potential, right? You get to use all your slots efficiently. I feel like a possible difference in our evaluations is that I don't think of this in terms of a dichotomy. Taking both yields 98d6 of damage potential +75 with EE + 15d6 more with AR (taking all Burning Hands). That is significantly better than either alone. In trade, you give up two of your 15 or fewer spells in mind (i.e. at Level 10) instead of one.

But I probably MOST disagree with #5. Players should dictate what they get excited about. If they are more excited about casting their own personal signature spells (ie Burning Hands, Scorching Ray, whatevs) as higher level spell slots, why should we punish them because of it?

I agree that players get to say what excites them. Speaking as a game designer, my role is to try and understand what that is. More damage does that for a decent number of people.

As for #6, I've already mentioned that Fireball and other higher level spells differentiate themselves in other ways. Area of effect, number of targets, ability to repeat damage across multiple rounds... that is plenty of variety without impacting damage. For me, damage should scale directly so that all spells of a given level have relatively equal damage. A 9th level Meteor Swarm should be equal to 9th level Fireball should be equal to 9th level Burning Hands. The difference is that Meteor Swarm covers an insane amount of area, Fireball a bit less, and Burning Hands is right in front of you.

You see that I am arguing that balancing spells by looking at one cast in isolation isn't formally correct: its not a dichotomy, and players get to make more than one cast. They can cast one Meteor Swarm between rests, or two between long rests. For me it is very hard to ignore that intrinsic balancing. Arcane Recovery at that sort of level (i.e. 20th) can recover 30d6 worth of Burning Hands, or 20d6 worth of Meteor Swarm + 3d6 of Burning Hands. With EE, the former will do +50 damage while the latter will do +10. The more I dig into this, the neater a piece of design work I think it is.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

[MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] I definitely appreciate your feedback and I think it does give me something to consider. Of course my perspective is based in my particular context and the experience I have in running/playing the game. It may be that I am looking at this in a kind of dichotomy, or that my view point is a bit narrow and does not take some things into account. And I will genuinely attempt to reflect on this, as I greatly pride myself on mastery of mechanics as it makes me better able to create my own homebrew material in a way that is balanced and considerate of the source system.

But from my experience, while spell casters have numerous spell slots they can utilize, style of our play has demonstrated that spellcasters will generally only need to cast a few times before a long rest, and will tend to use their highest level spell slots first. The groups I've been a part of don't typically do dungeon crawl or iron man style combats (it happens but it's the exception rather than the rule). Therefore, it usually does mean that the caster still has plenty of spell slots left at all times, and makes those lower level spell slots much less valuable. When players in my games (or I myself) realize that there is greater strategic value in upcasting a burning hands (or perhaps more thematic or has more roleplaying value) it is a very hard choice to make knowing that the player is expending a high level spell slot but feeling like it is not as effective.

I myself am currently playing a warlock, and I am ALWAYS looking to use some of my lower level spells, but the fact they are all raised to 5th level slots makes me actually less likely to use them because there is such a high discrepancy in power, even when automatically heightened. As a result, I find myself casting the same spells over and over (Hex, Fireball, the occasional Darkness), and find they are less fun. I don't like to do this, and even when ACTIVELY looking for opportunities to switch things up, the limited spell slots and lack of equal footing between these spells just hampers my attempts at creative strategy with spellcasting.

I hope this helps understand the context that I'm working from.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is an interesting discussion.

One thing we might be having trouble with in this discussion though is the fact that a lot of this is in isolation, and focused on a series of three iconic spells whose damage may not be balanced right.

Also, I think some class's spells scale much better than others. Take clerics for example:

Guiding Bolt is 4d6 and advantage on next hit at 1st level (average 14?) with +1d6 per level and a long range
Inflict Wounds is a melee 3d10 (average 15?) with +1d10 per level

I think those both scale rather well, but, there are a few limits to that assertion.

1) They are single target spells instead of AOE
2) They deal instant damage instead of damage over time

So, most clerics aren't going to want to use them if they can instead pull off Spirit Guardians or Spiritual Weapon for long term damage against multiple targets. But, they also don't get almost any other single target spells.

However compare the 8d10 (average 40?) of Inflict wounds at 6th to the 14d6 of Harm (Average 49) and they are pretty dang close in just pure damage numbers. Harm has range and the potential for lowering max hp, but that's why it is a big name spell.


So, in addition to just the spells, should we also look at the potential list (after all, Druid gets burning hands but does not get fireball) and consider how the spells fit into the larger context as well?

It looks like a lot of work.

Quick anecdote, I played a storm sorcerer for a while, and it took me until 11th level to give up on Chromatic orb. I loved the spell, but by that point I could no longer deny that it wasn't worth the spell slot to cast under normal circumstances (kept it for multi-type damage in case I ever needed it but I didn't). However, even at much higher levels Call Lightning and Lightning Bolt never felt like they weren't worth it, even as we got to 15th level.

I wonder if certain spells at 1st and 2nd level are meant to have a relatively harsh drop in power. There is a massive spike when characters reach 5th level, which is when PCs gain access to 3rd level spells. I wonder if the intent is that 1st spells are useful when you get them, but you are supposed to abandon them quickly and find your standard spells at 5th. Barring of course the utility spells that never go out of style.


Also, for Warlocks. Armor of Agathys is relatively weak at 1st or 2nd, but upping the temp hp and therefore the damage it deals to 10 per level might become really powerful, as you could deal multiple instances of 50 damage at 9th level for casting a single spell. And Hunger of Hadar is brutal, being an AOE that sticks around on the field while dealing massive damage. It sucks to feel like you are wasting an slot by upcasting a spell, but I think (for me at least) that is more because you have so few slots rather than the bang, because Warlocks work closer to how you guys say 3.X worked. Your level determines the strength of your various spells instead of the slot level you cast it at, there was just no way to do that in 5e that was more elegant than auto-leveling the slots you get.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

[MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] I love some of the observations you made. I think the easiest example that comes to mind is Burning Hands vs Fireball, but this conversation is fairly Wizard centric. This scaling damage debate does not include context of the various class spell lists, but perhaps more importantly does not take into account the Warlock spellcasting system (that automatically raises the spell slot) and Sorcerers (who know very few spells and likely would want their early level spell choices to be relevant later on in the game).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is an interesting discussion.

One thing we might be having trouble with in this discussion though is the fact that a lot of this is in isolation, and focused on a series of three iconic spells whose damage may not be balanced right.

I wonder if certain spells at 1st and 2nd level are meant to have a relatively harsh drop in power. There is a massive spike when characters reach 5th level, which is when PCs gain access to 3rd level spells. I wonder if the intent is that 1st spells are useful when you get them, but you are supposed to abandon them quickly and find your standard spells at 5th. Barring of course the utility spells that never go out of style.

As mentioned previously, the two iconic 3rd level wizard damage spells were intentionally given higher damage for their level. Thus you're correct in that they aren't balanced if you're trying to decide on scaling on a per-level basis.
i.e. its not that 1st level damage spell scaling is bad, its that you're trying to compare it to a spell that is known to be overscaled.

There is a 'spike' in capability at 5th level of all classes: the martial classes gain their extra attacks, and the caster classes gain their 3rd level spells, many of which are iconic and powerful.

Also, for Warlocks. Armor of Agathys is relatively weak at 1st or 2nd, but upping the temp hp and therefore the damage it deals to 10 per level might become really powerful, as you could deal multiple instances of 50 damage at 9th level for casting a single spell. And Hunger of Hadar is brutal, being an AOE that sticks around on the field while dealing massive damage. It sucks to feel like you are wasting an slot by upcasting a spell, but I think (for me at least) that is more because you have so few slots rather than the bang, because Warlocks work closer to how you guys say 3.X worked. Your level determines the strength of your various spells instead of the slot level you cast it at, there was just no way to do that in 5e that was more elegant than auto-leveling the slots you get.

Armour of Agathys scales very well, since not only does the damage increase, the Temp HP increases. Thus the protective capability scales, and the damage potential scales twice, with both damage per hit and number of hits that return damage improving.