Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[pming]

Hiya!

Using a spell slot for damage should generally always be better than the available at will option. That isn't really the case with cantrips and level 1 and level 2 spells. I find that to be a design flaw in 5e. I don't know how to fix it but I think cantrips should never outpace even a level 1 spell IMO.

Thoughts?

*shrug* No skin off my teeth either way. What I see cantrips as being is, effectively, "magic user weapons"...like the equivalent of daggers, bows, throwing axes, etc. If I was going to mess with them, I might instead require that every Cantrip that a cast knows be tied to a specific item they have, and tie their use into the same 'subset rule system' that governs weapon use (e.g., they can be broken, taken away, lost, etc). I'd also allow them to be re-acquired in much the same manner as a weapon, armor or any other 'mundane item' is; go to a merchant, spend 5gp to 25gp (normal equipment prices, basically; probably take some number finagling on the DM's part to get a nice list of typical prices for these things).

Things immediately coming to mind are things like Wands, Rods, Rings, Amulets, Headbands, Bracers, Gloves, Cloaks, etc. So if a Wizard has Fire Bolt, maybe he has it in the form of a gaudy ring. At the "1d10" damage value, I'd go with 25gp. If that wizard gets high enough level, he has to improve it or invest in a newer, better "Tiger Ring of Hellfire" (or whatever he calls it) to get the 2d10 version (call it, 100gpv. Again, at the next damage rank of 3d10, same thing; perhaps we are looking at 500gpv. Finally for the "Ultimate Ring of Hells-Breath", 4d10, I'd go with 2,000gpv. Why the increase in cost? Level balance, really. It gives a wizard something to spend his coin on...and a wizard doesn't have to worry about replacing armor like others might. That could add up to quite a bit (well, unless the DM doesn't go in for that sort of "believability" in his game and just likes to run more simplistic 'kick in the door' or 'heroic story' type campaigns...that's cool too). That same Wizard would also have "Quill of Long Whispers" for using his Message cantrip; maybe he has to hold it to his lips when he whispers, or maybe he has to write on something with it. As it doesn't really have an 'upgrades' as the caster levels, a flat cost of, oh, call it 5gp (the quill would incorporate the copper wire material component, obviously). Low cost, but a quill is easily misplaced or destroyed.

Anyway, my point is that cantrips are really powerful/useful because a caster can be buck naked in the desert and still be able to do stuff as well as he would any other day....the same PC of a non-casting class in the same situation is often screwed (well, minus the monk I guess ). By adding in a specific item with a cost to it (just like a weapon, armor, equipment, etc), it means that buck naked wizard in the desert is just as screwed as the fighter standing next to her.

PS: I just noticed I used "gp" and "gpv". I've been using these two terms for as long as I can remember gaming (so, almost 4 decades). I came up with this because...oh...hold: "gp" = "Gold Piece", as normal ; "gpv" = "Gold Piece Value"...ahem...to continue... I distinguish this so that items that are not 'normally available' (gems, jewels, jewelry, works of art, etc) have a value regardless of how much someone pays for it. So someone buying a 100gpv Pearl can use it to power a spell requiring a 100gp value pearl...but that same person buying a 50gpv pearl, but paying 100gp for it, can NOT use it for such a spell as the pearls 'intrinsic value' isn't what he paid for it. Figured I'd toss that in just in case anyone was confused by the "v" there.

PPS: One, perhaps easier, method would be to simply start using and enforcing the Material Component aspect of spells and don't let the cop-out rule (yeah, I said it, sue me!) of "Wizards Focus or Component Pouch" be used. My game has these cop-out rules, yes, but I also have rules that distinctly encourage a caster to actually find the "proper" Material Components (basically the caster gets a bonus on his spell...increased range, minimum damage amount, etc).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Spells that don't deal damage, like Grease, scale automatically with the enemy that you're fighting. If you're level 1, casting Grease in a first level slot will cause a goblin to fall prone. If you're level 10, casting Grease in a first level slot will cause a frost giant to fall prone. (Grease is actually more effective in the latter case, because frost giants have worse Dexterity saves than goblins do, and your save DC will have increased by then.) Likewise, when you're level 1, casting Shield in a first level slot might prevent 10 damage; while at level 10, casting Shield in a first level slot might prevent 40 damage.

But is still only proportional. Sure, shield might protect you from 40 points of damage at 10th level and only 10 points at 1st level, but you have 10 TIMES (roughly) the Hit Points at level 10 as you did at level 1. So, it is protecting you exactly the same in effect. No scaled up benefit. And it won't matter if you cast shield as using a Level One slot or a Level Nine slot.

Now, if you made Shield grant a bonus of something based on slot level or even proficiency bonus maybe. Then, either as a higher level slot or as the character levels, so does the spell. Grease could affect a larger area, etc. Lots of ways to scale other spells if that is what a DM wants.

Damage spells are the only spells that don't scale automatically with your level. Being prone, or having +5 AC, are conditions which transcend level. If you want to stop them from auto-scaling, you would have to include level caps in what they could effect, and then allow up-ranking in order to break the level cap.

Such conditions are always nice, but also very subjective in benefit. That Grease on a Goblin at level 1 is hopefully as useful then as it will be later on when the Frost Giant attacks you at level 10. If the +5 AC bonus saves your butt, does it matter if it was at Level 1 or Level 10? No. But, as I said, many spells don't scale up and have options for being more powerful if cast using a higher level slot.

So, those non-damage dealing spells don't, in fact, scale automatically. They are just as useful as they always were and always will be. It depends entirely on the situation. Sure, some spells do scale, like Charm Person, so you can affect more targets using a higher level slot, but there are a lot that don't.

As someone else already argued, there is no reason necessarily why every spell needs to scale, but since the scaling of cantrips was part of the OP, I noticed that many spells don't scale in any way. Personally, I might not allow any spell scaling in any way in the future. We'll see...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But is still only proportional. Sure, shield might protect you from 40 points of damage at 10th level and only 10 points at 1st level, but you have 10 TIMES (roughly) the Hit Points at level 10 as you did at level 1. So, it is protecting you exactly the same in effect. No scaled up benefit.

Right, you get the same benefit from casting Shield (in a first level slot), whether you are level 1 or level 10. That means a first level slot has the same value to a level 1 character as it does to a level 10 character, because it gives you the same benefit as long as you use that slot to cast Shield (or Grease, whatever). So what's the justification for retaining a constant degree of benefit for certain spells, but giving a vastly reduced benefit when casting another category of spells? The design is inconsistent.

So, those non-damage dealing spells don't, in fact, scale automatically. They are just as useful as they always were and always will be.

For non-damage spells, the benefit scales to whatever challenge you're facing, even though the numbers involved don't change at all. If you go from tripping a goblin, to tripping a giant, that is a case of the spell scaling automatically. It's still contributing an equal amount to your success, regardless of what you're facing.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Right, you get the same benefit from casting Shield (in a first level slot), whether you are level 1 or level 10. That means a first level slot has the same value to a level 1 character as it does to a level 10 character, because it gives you the same benefit as long as you use that slot to cast Shield (or Grease, whatever). So what's the justification for retaining a constant degree of benefit for certain spells, but giving a vastly reduced benefit when casting another category of spells? The design is inconsistent.

I am not sure I am following your point here. Are you agreeing with me or arguing against my statement?

For non-damage spells, the benefit scales to whatever challenge you're facing, even though the numbers involved don't change at all. If you go from tripping a goblin, to tripping a giant, that is a case of the spell scaling automatically. It's still contributing an equal amount to your success, regardless of what you're facing.

But that isn't a case of the spell scaling. If you trip a goblin or a giant with Grease, you are still only affecting one target. You aren't scaling the number of target's, you aren't making it hard for them to make the Dex save, you aren't increasing the area the spell affect or increasing it's range. Since Grease is a 10-foot square normally, scaling it would be making it an additional 10-foot square area per spell level above 1st for the slot.

Besides, this example of Grease against a goblin or a giant is really not valid. A 1st level Wizard casting Grease has the same chance of having the giant fall as the 10th level Wizard. How is that scaling???

Now, if Grease only affected Medium-size creatures or smaller, and using a higher level slot allowed it to affect Large creatures, then Huge, etc., that would be another example of scaling (although not automatic).

 

[TallIan]

I’m not following your logic here. Even if first level spells do more damage they are still useful. They are a resource free option. And as you mentioned they help Casters feel more magical at lower levels.

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.

 

[Hussar]

I agree. But i’m not saying a cantrip is worse than a level 1 spell cast from any spell slot. I am saying 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. I’m really not sure why I need to keep repeating this.

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

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.

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.

You need to prove the following:

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

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That looks to be the case. I did a check on sage advice and I think I've found the tweet that [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] was thinking of, or at least the tweet that clarifies that it is only a single +1d8 not +2d8 that Jeremy had originally stated.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/880852301140811777

Removing the sentence should remove that ambiguity.

With all of the errata we've had, part of me wonders if I should just rebuy the core books, or at least the PHB. I think I have the 1st or 2nd printing so now, they are quite out of date. They're still useable but I can see there being possible issues when people have different printings.

I hear the new special editions are really nice.

I avoid the issue by using DnDBeyond, but if not for that, I’d probably pick them up.

Anyway, yeah I figure JC explained what the rules text said, and then noted that it didn’t seem to say what they meant it to, this the errata. Which is fine with me. Paladins are still rad as hell.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But that isn't a case of the spell scaling. If you trip a goblin or a giant with Grease, you are still only affecting one target. You aren't scaling the number of target's, you aren't making it hard for them to make the Dex save, you aren't increasing the area the spell affect or increasing it's range.

Ah, I think I see where we're talking past each other!

When you talk of scaling, you're talking about the magnitude of the effect increasing over time (as compared to the magnitude staying constant). To you, auto-scaling means that Grease would affect more targets, or Shield would prevent a larger percentage of incoming damage.

When I talk of scaling, I'm talking about the magnitude of the effect staying the same over time (as compared to the magnitude naturally diminishing over time). To me, auto-scaling means that the effect scales to the target, so it's always equally relevant.

As it currently stands, Grease auto-scales to whatever you're fighting, which is contrasted with Burning Hands getting (relatively) weaker as you get stronger and your enemies get more powerful. Burning Hands is then contrasted with Fire Bolt, which does automatically scale up to stay relevant at higher levels.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

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.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Ah, I think I see where we're talking past each other!

Yes, I agree that was the issue, difference of definition in interpretation.

When you talk of scaling, you're talking about the magnitude of the effect increasing over time (as compared to the magnitude staying constant). To you, auto-scaling means that Grease would affect more targets, or Shield would prevent a larger percentage of incoming damage.

When I talk of scaling, I'm talking about the magnitude of the effect staying the same over time (as compared to the magnitude naturally diminishing over time). To me, auto-scaling means that the effect scales to the target, so it's always equally relevant.

As it currently stands, Grease auto-scales to whatever you're fighting, which is contrasted with Burning Hands getting (relatively) weaker as you get stronger and your enemies get more powerful. Burning Hands is then contrasted with Fire Bolt, which does automatically scale up to stay relevant at higher levels.

Gotcha. Your statement about Burning Hands clarifies it nicely. Since opponents at higher levels have more hit points, Burning Hands is not as effective an option as it was at earlier levels.

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. So, it is not just scaling because character level increases (e.g. cantrips), but also higher level slots (e.g. Burning Hands), that I am talking about.

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?