A Better Spell Damage Guide

[Yunru]

Let's be upfront with it: The DMG spell damage per level guide sucks.
So I made a new one. One that allows a magical blaster to be on par with four attacks with a greatsword. I was going to say Fighter, but I ignored all other features from the Fighter other than ASI and Extra Attack, so...

It also actually makes for high end damage spells that... don't suck.
Cantrips are unchanged.
I also converted it to damage rather than dice, because why work with dice and then have percentage modifiers?

[sblock="Original, based against a 6-attack fighter"]

Spell Level	Single Target Damage	Multi Target/Auto Damage
1st	16.5	10.5
2nd	27.5	17.5
3rd	38.5	24.5
4th	49.5	31.5
5th	60.5	38.5
6th	93.5	59.1
7th	143	91
8th	220	140
9th	335.5	213.5

You might also notice that a lot of the better damaging spells out there already fall neatly into this table (Magic Missile, Fireball, Meteor Warm, etc.)[/sblock]

[sblock="Revised for vanilla"]

Spell Level	Single Target Damage	Multi Target/Auto Damage
1st	16.5	10.5
2nd	27.5	17.5
3rd	38.5	24.5
4th	49.5	31.5
5th	60.5	38.5
6th	71.5	45.5
7th	82.5	52.5
8th	93.5	59.5
9th	104.5	66.5

Note that this table results in balanced spells, but is also horribly below the likes of Meteor Swarm and other 6th level+ damage spells.
[/sblock]

 

[Blue]

I have not done the math, this is more top of my head wondering about the numbers than saying they are wrong. Please take the below lightly. more me musing then saying there is a problem.

1. The high level spell damages look very high. I would think that part of it is not just resource expenditure, but also action economy. Such that a single action shouldn't be that much of an impact even with a 1/day resource used up.

2. Higher level spells often also have larger areas of effect. Is that considered?

3. Spells are done at range. Wouldn't 4x Heavy Crossbow be more appropriate. (Crossbow vs. Longbow because the loading property is a bit like the bonus action spell = only cantrips for action.

4. Something that would improve the chart above and beyond the source would be a multiplier based on factors. Like 100% for a spell attack, 80% against a good save, 65% against a bad save, etc. (And you could address my point #3 with 90% if ranged, but swapping to a ranged base and then doing 115% if touch might be better so the more common delivery method doesn't require an extra calculation.)

 

[Yunru]

I have not done the math, this is more top of my head wondering about the numbers than saying they are wrong. Please take the below lightly. more me musing then saying there is a problem.

1. The high level spell damages look very high. I would think that part of it is not just resource expenditure, but also action economy. Such that a single action shouldn't be that much of an impact even with a 1/day resource used up.

2. Higher level spells often also have larger areas of effect. Is that considered?

3. Spells are done at range. Wouldn't 4x Heavy Crossbow be more appropriate. (Crossbow vs. Longbow because the loading property is a bit like the bonus action spell = only cantrips for action.

4. Something that would improve the chart above and beyond the source would be a multiplier based on factors. Like 100% for a spell attack, 80% against a good save, 65% against a bad save, etc. (And you could address my point #3 with 90% if ranged, but swapping to a ranged base and then doing 115% if touch might be better so the more common delivery method doesn't require an extra calculation.)

In order, for 1 a large amount of damage can mean a lot of waste damage. For 2 I haven't really considered anything other than the average damage the table's are based off of. I did try doing a more standardised system, but it was an unholy, incomplete beast so I old yeller'd it and decided to eyeball things. 3 relates somewhat to 2, where I decided that range should be a damage-decreasing factor. Either that or increase weapon damage. I seemed to have somewhat addressed 4 in the above, not much more to add.

 

[Dausuul]

I have rarely seen significant waste damage from a spell. Casters fit the spell to the target. You don't cast disintegrate at a mook.

Just adding up the single-target damage for all spell slots plus cantrips, this table has a caster dealing more damage over a 35-round adventuring day (7 encounters at 5 rounds each) than a fighter with a greatsword and Great Weapon Fighting. And single-target damage is the fighter's specialty. Casters should not be competing with fighters in that area.

However, the multi-target damage column looks about right to me.

 

[Yunru]

I have rarely seen significant waste damage from a spell. Casters fit the spell to the target. You don't cast disintegrate at a mook.

Just adding up the single-target damage for all spell slots plus cantrips, this table has a caster dealing more damage over a 35-round adventuring day (7 encounters at 5 rounds each) than a fighter with a greatsword and Great Weapon Fighting. And single-target damage is the fighter's specialty. Casters should not be competing with fighters in that area.

However, the multi-target damage column looks about right to me.

The standard assumption is roughly 6 encounters per day at an average of 3 rounds per encounter.

If you adventures are different, feel free to adjust the numbers to compensate.

 

[CapnZapp]

One that allows a magical blaster to be on par with four attacks with a greatsword.

Why would anyone choose to be a fighter in this scenario...?

 

[Dausuul]

The standard assumption is roughly 6 encounters per day at an average of 3 rounds per encounter.

If you adventures are different, feel free to adjust the numbers to compensate.

Your assumptions just make the problem worse. Now, instead of slightly outperforming the fighter, the caster is outperforming the fighter by more than 50%.

 

[Yunru]

Why would anyone choose to be a fighter in this scenario...?

Because they still deal more damage? And with less overkill to boot.

Your assumptions just make the problem worse. Now, instead of slightly outperforming the fighter, the caster is outperforming the fighter by more than 50%.

Not at all actually, the sum total of the eighteen highest slots doesn't outperform 4 greatsword attacks until around level 19.


And both of those are before considering features like fighting style, magic items, and action surge.

Edit: Something appears to have gone wrong with my maths when I recreated it, standby.

Edit 2: Aha! I was comparing it to my fighter, which gets double weapon damage at level 11 (instead of a third attack), and action surge 1/round at level 17. That's enough to twist the numbers slightly enough at low levels, and majorly at high levels.

 

[Dausuul]

At level 17, which is the first level the fighter has four greatsword attacks:

Level 2: 27.5 x3 = 82.5
Level 3: 38.5 x3 = 115.5
Level 4: 49.5 x3 = 148.5
Level 5: 60.5 x2 = 121
Level 6: 93.5 x1 = 93.5
Level 7: 143 x1 = 143
Level 8: 220 x1 = 220
Level 9: 335.5 x1 = 335.5

That's 15 spell slots. The remaining three will be used to cast fire bolt since that offers better damage than a 1st-level slot:

Fire bolt: 22 x3 = 66

Total: 1325.5

Greatsword: 13.333 average damage, x4 = 53.333 per round, x18 rounds = 960

So, my mistake, only 38% more, not 50%. The point stands, however.

 

[Yunru]

Yeah, see above, I was comparing it to the equivalent of 6 attacks per round come level 17 and didn't notice.

Eurgh this'd be so much easier if my maths skills hadn't atrophied to the point where I can't chart daily damage onto an exponential curve.

EDIT: Okay, for those of you playing with Vanilla Fighters, the new chart is simple: Each level increases the damage by 2 dice rather than 1. This doesn't neatly fit existing spells though, so beware.