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

[Barolo]

That was part of the intent, although I've never subscribed to the view that cantrips actually make even 1st level spells pointless. Yes, at level 11, your firebolt will deal more damage than burning hands - if you're using burning hands against a single target.

They don't become pointless. But definitely the level 1 spells being used by low and high level casters are different. Some spells remain as relevant in low levels as in high, while some others suffer. Chromatic orb, for instance, is out-damaged or at least tied by most of the damaging cantrips after level 11.

 

[Eubani]

I find as characters level up low level slots are more for defence and utility rather than attack.

 

[Gadget]

I think you are talking about the desirability of producing a high alpha. I agree that a high alpha is optimal in cases where total HP of targets including healing < damage output of available Fireball casts. (But not if it is sufficiently less that Burning Hands would do.) When the total HP of those targets is greater (again including healing), then a pure alpha approach hits a snag. Efficiency is the output divided by the input. Given the output of damage divided by the input of spell slot levels, Burning Hands is more efficient.

Maybe. This sounds awfully theoretical though. I would also like to point out that cantrips do not have a slot level cost (though they do have an action economy cost). How efficient does that make them? Spells that don't do damage actually get more efficient in the same slot due to rising DC outpacing Saves for many opponents (damage spells that have a save benefit as well, but since the main effect is damage, the lack of scaling is more telling). This is why I find such arguments about some purely mathematical efficiency dubious at best.

Free auto-scaling was degenerate in 3.5. Casters came to overshadow other characters. So from experience we have some good reasons for caution.

No one was asking for 'free' auto-scaling, as spending a higher level slot is not 'free'. I was merely pointing out that it is still semi-present through the spell save DC rising with caster level. And Amen to 3.x edition casters, though I would point out that AD&D casters got 'free' auto scaling without the same level of issues.

I'm generally arguing to take into account a broader view of balance: across classes and across encounters. The casters with narrow spell selections generally get to trade in lower spells for higher, suggesting a design intent that they should do that. If nevertheless it is important to a player that they can continue to use a spell like Burning Hands instead of their Eldritch Blast or a Fireball, then so far there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to change spell damage scaling for every class! Consider first options like fixing the class you find too narrow.

This may be so. Perhaps an example would be helpful. I'm not arguing that up scaling damage spells should make them exactly the same damage as 'native' spells. I just point out the current limitations with it and why I find arguments about the 'efficiency' of the current system to be very lacking.

 

[clearstream]

Maybe. This sounds awfully theoretical though. I would also like to point out that cantrips do not have a slot level cost (though they do have an action economy cost). How efficient does that make them? Spells that don't do damage actually get more efficient in the same slot due to rising DC outpacing Saves for many opponents (damage spells that have a save benefit as well, but since the main effect is damage, the lack of scaling is more telling). This is why I find such arguments about some purely mathematical efficiency dubious at best.

Do you take saving throw scaling into account in your argument about DC scaling? Does your group run with several encounters between long rests?

This may be so. Perhaps an example would be helpful. I'm not arguing that up scaling damage spells should make them exactly the same damage as 'native' spells. I just point out the current limitations with it and why I find arguments about the 'efficiency' of the current system to be very lacking.

Do you mean an example of "...fixing the class you find too narrow"? Did you see my "Elemental Bargain" proposal? I'm not saying that it is correct as drafted, but rather that a narrow fix may be better than a broad one. Warlocks cast all their spells at the same level and suffer diversity issues. Wizards don't. Evocation Wizards gain relevant bonuses. A fix that is right for Warlocks may be wrong for Evocation Wizards.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

So I looked over the guidelines for spell creation in the DMG (I hadn't even realized that chart was there previously) and it got me thinking if there might be a way to reverse engineer spells of a given level based on a number of criteria and assigning each value. I'm still looking to figure out if I might be on to something, but here are the criteria I've begun considering that might be able to be weighted towards some kind of point value per spell level.

Range: Self, Short Range (30ft or less), Mid Range (30ft - 100ft), Long Range (100ft+)
Target: Self, Single Target, Multiple Targets, All Creatures within an Area, All Enemies within an Area
Type of Effect: Hit or Miss, Save of Half, Auto Hit
Comparison to Average Damage Chart in DMG: Lower, Equal, Higher
Type of Action Required: Action, Bonus Action, Reaction, Ritual
Is there a rider?: Yes only on hit, Yes even on miss, or No
Duration: Instant, 1 Min, 10 Min, 1 Hour, 8 Hours, 24 Hours
Requires Concentration?: Yes or No
Additional Action Commitment During Duration: No Additional Action, Partial on Condition Fulfillment (as with Hex), Bonus Action, Action
Expensive Component: No, Yes as Focus, Yes as Consumed
Miscellaneous

 

[clearstream]

So I looked over the guidelines for spell creation in the DMG (I hadn't even realized that chart was there previously) and it got me thinking if there might be a way to reverse engineer spells of a given level based on a number of criteria and assigning each value. I'm still looking to figure out if I might be on to something, but here are the criteria I've begun considering that might be able to be weighted towards some kind of point value per spell level.

Range: Self, Short Range (30ft or less), Mid Range (30ft - 100ft), Long Range (100ft+)
Target: Single Target, Multiple Targets, All Creatures within an Area, All Enemies within an Area
Type of Effect: Hit or Miss, Save of Half, Auto Hit
Comparison to Average Damage Chart in DMG: Lower, Equal, Higher
Type of Action Required: Action or Bonus Action
Is there a rider?: Yes only on hit, Yes even on miss, or No
Duration: Instant, 1 Min, 1 Hour, 8 Hours, 24 Hours
Requires Concentration?: Yes or No
Additional Action Commitment During Duration: No Additional Action, Partial on Condition Fulfillment (as with Hex), Bonus Action, Action
Expensive Component: No, Yes as Focus, Yes as Consumed
Miscellaneous

I'm not sure if it works or not but for the sake of argument

Minimum slot level must be taken into account (even if otherwise deriving the slot level from the point value)
Type of Action can include Reaction and Ritual
Target should include Self?

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Minimum slot level must be taken into account (even if otherwise deriving the slot level from the point value)

My thought was that each spell level would have a point range or sweet spot based on the listed factors. I suppose a minimum slot level can be worked in. It would make sense for certain kinds of spells (like Hold Person or Greater Invisibility). But I kind of like the idea that if you can break a higher level spell into its component pieces, you could scale it back for a lower level version. That way, since it seems to be the most prevalent example, you can have Lesser Fireball, Fireball, Greater Fireball, and Delayed Fireball. This is especially interesting to me if you are planning to build a character that wishes to roleplay using signature spells.

Type of Action can include Reaction and Ritual

Great point! I forgot about those!

Target should include Self?

Yea, I suppose it could. Makes sense.

 

[clearstream]

My thought was that each spell level would have a point range or sweet spot based on the listed factors. I suppose a minimum slot level can be worked in. It would make sense for certain kinds of spells (like Hold Person or Greater Invisibility). But I kind of like the idea that if you can break a higher level spell into its component pieces, you could scale it back for a lower level version. That way, since it seems to be the most prevalent example, you can have Lesser Fireball, Fireball, Greater Fireball, and Delayed Fireball. This is especially interesting to me if you are planning to build a character that wishes to roleplay using signature spells.

Having a minimum level feels to be like a bit of disadvantage: worth a 1/2 point to power per level or something like that. Consider -

Little Foom!
1st level
1 target
2d10 fire damage + 1d10 fire damage for each higher level spell slot (3d10 for 2nd, 4d10 for 3rd etc)

Big Foom!
4th level
1 target
5d10 fire damage + 1d10 fire damage for each higher level spell slot.

Little Foom! as written is always better than Big Foom! because it can be cast using all spell slots from level one upwards.

To compensate, Big Foom! needs something else. Quantified in hypothetical points it could be that Big Foom! needs 1.5 points of other stuff.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Little Foom! as written is always better than Big Foom! because it can be cast using all spell slots from level one upwards.

To compensate, Big Foom! needs something else. Quantified in hypothetical points it could be that Big Foom! needs 1.5 points of other stuff.

It's really a theoretical bonus, though; in practice, cantrips would obsolete its use in low-level spell slots by the time high-level spell slots would become available. Which is to say, Big Foom! should have some other stuff going for it, to make up for the fact that it can't be cast in low-level slots, but that extra stuff shouldn't be damage; it should be minor, circumstantial stuff, to balance against the minor circumstances where Little Foom! would actually benefit from being cast in a low-level slot by a high-level caster.

It's also worth remembering that, while this point metric can be convenient to compare existing spells, it shouldn't be used as a basis for creating new spells. Otherwise, the best damage spell would be the most-boring one with the simplest parameters, which doesn't "waste" any points on providing anything aside from pure damage.

 

[clearstream]

It's really a theoretical bonus, though; in practice, cantrips would obsolete its use in low-level spell slots by the time high-level spell slots would become available. Which is to say, Big Foom! should have some other stuff going for it, to make up for the fact that it can't be cast in low-level slots, but that extra stuff shouldn't be damage; it should be minor, circumstantial stuff, to balance against the minor circumstances where Little Foom! would actually benefit from being cast in a low-level slot by a high-level caster.

I think we both agree that Little Foom! is better than Big Foom! We may disagree about how to size that advantage, but if we're working in points then I think we must also agree that some point value captures it. You probably have something different in mind when you think of "1 point" than I do. Again, I believe we could agree that a point needs to be equal to the least advantage (i.e. the smallest increment). Thus I suspect my 1.5 points is a lot closer to your concept of a point's worth of stuff than you might at first glance have thought it.

It's also worth remembering that, while this point metric can be convenient to compare existing spells, it shouldn't be used as a basis for creating new spells. Otherwise, the best damage spell would be the most-boring one with the simplest parameters, which doesn't "waste" any points on providing anything aside from pure damage.

I would call a system in which points can be "wasted", one in which the value of a point has been assigned incorrectly. Spending 1 point on something should be well worth 1 point

Agreed however that it will be unsuitable for creating new spells. It's unlikely without a tremendous amount of data and work that a consistent scale can be developed. That said, using "$" as shorthand for "spell buying point", I'm tempted to suggest that $1 = 1/2 point of average damage. So let's say we have a d10 that can be saved against for half, and the assertion that we can add 25% damage if we change it to saved for none. I think that statement amounts to saying that saving for half takes a quarter off the damage (50% chance to save * 50% of the damage). Thus we begin with the idea that 1d10 saved for half is worth $8.5. Perhaps making the smallest quantum = 0.5?