D&D 5E Damage Spell Scaling

[Arnwolf666]

For my house-ruled edition, I gave wizards an adapted form of the cleric's divine strike. They don't have cantrips, but they can make an arcane-empowered strike with any weapon they're proficient in (staff, dagger, club, or sling), with a damage bonus equivalent to +1d6 per maximum spell level.

nice

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I wasn't a fan of 4e, one of the things I liked about it (and I think there were positive influences on the game that reached into 5e) was that there was a clear intent on what type of role a class might have in the party (without forcing the need for a specific class).

5e seems to have picked up more on that last parenthetical. There's not /too/ clear an intent on most classes, and you can wiggle away from it pretty easily (possibly without really trying), often with little more than spell choices.

the intent in 5e is still leaning in to the controller concept. That means AoE's and status effects and not heavy damage.

Ah, I see what you're getting at.
I can't really agree, IMHO, the controller concept was just a way of keeping the wizard somewhat recognizeable, it wasn't really that focused or coherent compared to the other three formal roles. It could've as honestly been called the Grandfather Role, because it was grandfathering in the Wizard.

In 5e, some casters, like the Warlock, can grind DPR with the best of 'em, and it's certainly possible to do a lot of damage with a caster, but it's not necessarily the /best thing to do with all those slots/. Especially the lower level ones.
So, yeah, either way, I agree that moar damage from lower level slots to keep them notionally superior to cantrips - when low level slots are already much more versatile than cantrips, anyway - not really called for.

 

[Ashrym]

Ah, I see what you're getting at.
I can't really agree, IMHO, the controller concept was just a way of keeping the wizard somewhat recognizeable, it wasn't really that focused or coherent compared to the other three formal roles. It could've as honestly been called the Grandfather Role, because it was grandfathering in the Wizard.

In 5e, some casters, like the Warlock, can grind DPR with the best of 'em, and it's certainly possible to do a lot of damage with a caster, but it's not necessarily the /best thing to do with all those slots/. Especially the lower level ones.

A warlock is neither a cleric or bard nor a wizard or druid. They are meant to do damage and there are specific tool directed at that damage. 5e offers room to lean in other directions, for sure. Even the wizard already has evoker for a more damage oriented option.

"Controller" was a bit nebulous when the idea came out and it probably was just something to give for wizards originally, but I bought into the status effects / battlefield control aspects. That's what I see for the majority of the wizard's combat effectiveness now. 5e clearly didn't do a direct translation but the effectiveness of the class is higher following it.

 

[delph]

TLDR: I think casters can dominate the battlefield with nondamage spells much better than with damaging. It's fine for me that optimized fighters deal bigger damage than caster (to single target - absolutely fine) What can do simple spells like hold person/beast/monster, slow, hypnotic pattern, ...

 

[Zardnaar]

I would've loved to see a spell point system, it's so much better.

The problem with nostalgia ( back to my previous post), you usually remember the things you love, but forget the things you hate.

True but playing 2E or B/X again is interesting.

Mechanics kinda suck but conceptually there's some good stuff in there.

Even something as simple as ye old d6 to find secret doors results in more people trying to find them.

 

[Arnwolf666]

TLDR: I think casters can dominate the battlefield with nondamage spells much better than with damaging. It's fine for me that optimized fighters deal bigger damage than caster (to single target - absolutely fine) What can do simple spells like hold person/beast/monster, slow, hypnotic pattern, ...

I could learn to care less about damage if they created more useful nondamaging spells. One I want is a low level misty steps that affects others. Or if they would have made shield or absorb elements reactions that could have been placed on others.
U see an axe swing towards the head of your ally. You use your reaction and cast a shield spell on him. Same thing with absorb elements spell. More utility spells at low level and I would probaly care less about damage.

 

[Arnwolf666]

And to be honest hypnotic pattern is a very useful damage spell. Probaly best if it just affected one person at its current level. I just get tired of spamming it all the time.

 

[delph]

I could learn to care less about damage if they created more useful nondamaging spells. One I want is a low level misty steps that affects others. Or if they would have made shield or absorb elements reactions that could have been placed on others.
U see an axe swing towards the head of your ally. You use your reaction and cast a shield spell on him. Same thing with absorb elements spell. More utility spells at low level and I would probaly care less about damage.

as Abjuration wizard you have little of this chance to do it. Not prevent damage, but lessen done damage. Not so good, but still useful.
But yes, I'll welcome something like "shield/absorb element from 2nd slot can be used for covering target other than you (no distant more than ?? feet)"

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I would actually like to see wizards be able to fight with staves again. But that is not practical in this system. Although it was with becmi and grand master rules that ant class could take.

Aren't wizards proficient in quarterstaves? Sounds plenty practical and a wizard who didn't skimp on Strength would be outdamaging cantrips. If they picked up one of the weapon cantrips like Green Flame Blade, they'd stay ahead.

For my house-ruled edition, I gave wizards an adapted form of the cleric's divine strike. They don't have cantrips, but they can make an arcane-empowered strike with any weapon they're proficient in (staff, dagger, club, or sling), with a damage bonus equivalent to +1d6 per maximum spell level.

How does this compare to the main combat progression of the Rogue?
Does the wizard have to burn a spell slot or similar to do so?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How does this compare to the main combat progression of the Rogue?
Does the wizard have to burn a spell slot or similar to do so?

Rogues advance in damage at the same rate as fighters, adding the equivalent of ~3d6 at each tier. Wizards are roughly 2-3 dice below that, but they also have worse weapons and defenses, which can make it harder for them to attack effectively. (A pure rogue has twice as many HP as a wizard.)

There's no resource expenditure required. This is their at-will attack, which is supposed to replace cantrips.