Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[FrogReaver]

No, we're not disagreeing "it shouldn't be better".

We're disagreeing with your basic premise, that you imply here. But let's take it step by step.

- a level 1 spell slot is a resource: Agreed.
- anything that requires a resource should be better than something that doesn't: I personally agree.

That’s quite a bit more helpful. Thank you.

What you don't say, but obviously assert anyway, is:
- a level 1 spell slot (limited resource) is not better than a cantrip (unlimited resource): I disagree.

And so far I haven't seen you actually face up to this.

Maybe because that isn’t actually what I’m saying. I’m not claiming a level 1 spell slot is worse than a cantrip. In fact there’s many spells a level 1 slot could be used on that I would consider to be much better than a cantrip. I’ve admitted this many times in the thread.

A level 1 spell slot can be used for much more than damage. This makes it very wobbly to claim cantrips are better than L1 slots.

I agree. It’s a good thing that isn’t my claim.

For damage? Perhaps. But overall? Nope.

Agreed.

Are cantrips better than individual level 1 spells, then? Well, if you cast them in L1 slots, then again - maybe, if we only look at damage (which we shouldn't). But again, L1 spells can be cast in L2 (or L9) slots, so even that narrow case is again... wobbly.

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.

Ergo: no change is needed, even before we consider the fallout of making a change.

Or you could provide a response to what I’m actually saying instead of arguing against things I’m not saying. And even worse, making points I actually agree with as if I don’t.

All that's left of your sweeping argumentation is: level 1 spells that only do damage and cannot be upcast. Here I am willing to give you the point: yes they are worse than cantrips, and yes they are resource-constrained while cantrips are not.

There you go again, ignoring my actual claim in favor of attacking claims that I am not making. They have a rather offensive word for that... I’m going to avoid using it in hopes of civil discourse.

My main rebuttal here, though, is simply: *shrug*

I don't recommend changing spells in general just to fix this tiny issue, especially since its self-correcting in actual play: players simply never use L1 slots to cast spells that deal less damage than their cantrips!

The actual issue I raise isn’t self correcting in actual play. That said, I’ve agreed for some time that there isn’t an easy enough way to make 5e do what I desire without having too many other consequences that I don’t desire.

That still doesn’t change that almost every post here is talking past me and not actually responding to the point I am making.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think, really, a better question, is why allow spells to scale up at all? Many spells scale up when using higher level slots, but a lot don't and offer no additional effect. What if I cast Grease using a 9th level slot? Personally, I have no idea WHY someone would do it, but the point is you could and currently get no benefit from it.

What if spells, including cantrips, never scaled? Would it be the end of the world as we know it?

Finally, I haven't been current on the entire thread, but another suggestion is only scale cantrips as a bonus action. It is still an unlimited resource from turn to turn, but at least that way there is a potentially significant associated cost for it.

Most non damage spells do scale whether you realize it or not. Scaling doesn’t have to be explicit to exist. It can also be implicit.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

LOL how will this happen? So far unless a fighter employs some other ability, their damage never scales up. My players and I have found this to be a weakness and are trying to find a houserule for it. So, if there is something I am missing from this point, PLEASE let me know! It is certainly possible, since we are just starting out in 5E.

You might want to look at the "Extra Attack" ability in the PHB...

Lets do some comparisons, shall we:-

Chromatic Orb, level 1 slot: 13.5 hp per round, doesn't scale.

Fire Bolt: level 1: 5.5 hp, level 5: 11 hp, level 11: 16.5 hp, level 17: 22 hp.

Fighter*: level 1 7.5 hp, level 5: 19 hp, level 11: 28.5 hp, level 20: 38 hp.


* for comparison I'm assuming a longbow, without special abilities or bonus actions. Power gamers can do much better. It is assumed that wizard and fighter are point buy and max out prime stat, so "To hit" chance is the same.

The 1st level spell is better until level 5, when the fighter takes over. The cantrip becomes better than the 1st level spell at level 11, but is always behind the fighter.

For comparison:

Rogue sneak attack with shortbow: Level 1: 10 hp, level 5: 18 hp, level 11: 28.5 hp, level 17: 40 hp

Warlock Eldritch Blast: Level 1: 5.5 hp, level 5: 19 hp, level 11: 31.5 hp, level 17: 44 hp

 

[Quartz]

That does show how the high level fighter gets the short end of the stick.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Most non damage spells do scale whether you realize it or not. Scaling doesn’t have to be explicit to exist. It can also be implicit.

As I wrote in my post, "many spells scale up", "a lot don't". It currently is implicit. My point is if you don't like it, don't allow it. Scaling for spells is hardly essential to enjoyment of the game. If you want a more powerful spell, cast a different spell.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let's look at two examples: firebolt vs magic missile and shocking grasp vs burning hands. These examples were chosen because they represent similar use cases -- the first is the target at longish range, the second is for use at melee range.

Case 1 - firebolt vs magic missle
Assumptions -- Intelligence starts at +3 and is prioritized for ASI. No feats. No class features that improve cantrips or 1st level spells. Looking at levels 1, 5,11, and 17. Average damage used. No resistances to damage apply. No advantage or disadvantage applies.

Method: For this comparison, I averaged FB damage at each breakpoint as 5.5, 11, 16.5, and 22 respectively, and Magic Missile damage as 10.5. I then composed to hit bonuses for firebolt at each level as +5, +7, +9, and +11. I compared these to hits against a variety of ACs to find breakpoints for the always hit damage of 10.5 from MM to the percent effective damage of Firebolt.

I found that magic missile outperforms firebolt at all ACs for level 1, for all ACs above 7 for level 5, for all ACs above 16 for level 11, and for all ACs above 21 for level 17+

Results: magic missile remains competitive with firebolt for higher ACs, but for lower ACs firebolt does exceed magic missile. At AC 15 at levle 20, firebolt improves upon magic missile damage by 7.6 points, on average.

Case 2 -- shocking grasp vs burning hands
Assumtions -- Intelligence starts at +3 and is prioritized for ASI. No feats. No class features that improve cantrips or 1st level spells. Looking at levels 1, 5,11, and 17. Average damage used. No resistances to damage apply. No advantage or disadvantage applies. Burning hands will capture 2 enemies in it's AOE (standard AOE assumption).

Method: For this comparison, I treated shocking grasp as I did firebolt above, but damages are 4.5, 9, 13.5, and 18, respective of level breaks. I used AC breakpoints of 10, 15, and 20 for comparisons. For burning hands, I computed the DC of the saving throw and compared it across a range of DEX save modifiers of +3, +6, and +12. I then computed the chance that each target failed the save, that each made the save, and that only 1 of the targets made the save and averaged damage using those chances.

Results: AC10 vs DEX save +3 and burning hands wins every time. AC10 vs DEX save +6 (a strange occurrence) and burning hands wins every time. AC 10 vs DEX +12 does have shocking grasp winning at 17th level by 3 points, though. This is the only breakpoint shocking grasp wins, though - in all other cases burning hands wins.

________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion: 1st level spells in 1st level slots are still competitive against even 17th level cantrips if their situational utility is considered.

 

[Stalker0]

Maybe because that isn’t actually what I’m saying. I’m not claiming a level 1 spell slot is worse than a cantrip. In fact there’s many spells a level 1 slot could be used on that I would consider to be much better than a cantrip. I’ve admitted this many times in the thread.

...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 feel these statements are contradictory.

To me, I think the argument comes down to "is it ok for certain spells to be useful at some character levels, and to not be useful at other character levels?"

I feel this is the case for several spells, and I think its completely ok. Afterall, all of the spellcasting classes have ways to swap out old spells (or in the wizard case just keep getting new ones). So the fact that 1st level slots are no longer used for damaging spells at a certain point is not a bug. Those slots still provide good utility, while higher slots still provide that big boom damage that my spellcaster wants to use. At no point is a caster forced to keep using a spell, due to the class features that allow for spell swapping.

So....why is that a bad thing?

 

[FrogReaver]

I feel these statements are contradictory.

To me, I think the argument comes down to "is it ok for certain spells to be useful at some character levels, and to not be useful at other character levels?"

I feel this is the case for several spells, and I think its completely ok. Afterall, all of the spellcasting classes have ways to swap out old spells (or in the wizard case just keep getting new ones). So the fact that 1st level slots are no longer used for damaging spells at a certain point is not a bug. Those slots still provide good utility, while higher slots still provide that big boom damage that my spellcaster wants to use. At no point is a caster forced to keep using a spell, due to the class features that allow for spell swapping.

So....why is that a bad thing?

Because an ability that costs a resource should do more than an ability that doesn’t cost a resource.

 

[Azzy]

I think this all breaks down Frogreaver has an aesthetic issue with cantrip damage vis-a-vis 1st-level spells in 1st-level slot damage at higgh levels, and almost everyone else not sharing this issue. I think that the only constructive thing left to do is that Frogreaver should make whatever changes to his game that he/she deems necessary and be done with it. Nobody's mind is going to change on the issue (or nonissue for almost everyone else).

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this all breaks down Frogreaver has an aesthetic issue with cantrip damage vis-a-vis 1st-level spells in 1st-level slot damage at higgh levels, and almost everyone else not sharing this issue. I think that the only constructive thing left to do is that Frogreaver should make whatever changes to his game that he/she deems necessary and be done with it. Nobody's mind is going to change on the issue (or nonissue for almost everyone else).

I provided a reason for my thoughts. So far my actual reason hasn’t been spoken of much. Instead a bunch of points unrelated to my reason have been offered as reasons I am wrong.