Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[FrogReaver]

Magic missle, a spell that dies damage at range, is fundamentally different from another spell, firebolt, that does damage at range, for unstated reasons.

What?

Isn't it obvious he was referring to it's auto hit nature.

 

[FrogReaver]

If it doesn't affect things, why do you care at all? Serious question, as this really seems like quibbling over not very much at all because it offends some aesthetic design preference you have.

Because I think it's bad game design.

EDIT: Also because I think there needs to at least be a reason to use a low level damage spell in a low level slot over a cantrip.

 

[Hussar]

Because I think it's bad game design.

EDIT: Also because I think there needs to at least be a reason to use a low level damage spell in a low level slot over a cantrip.

Well, again, isn't that because every low level damage spell in a low level slot, outside of a couple of corner cases, deals more damage than a cantrip?

And, well, if you're not interested in upping the damage on low level slots (since you don't want to increase the damage that casters are doing), then doesn't that mean that we should be lowering the damage of cantrips instead?

And, lastly, as mentioned before, a 17th level caster has 19 spell slots, minimum. How long are you expecting a full adventuring day to last? Before we can move forward here, we need to establish some baselines. I suggested a 20 round adventuring day. That's 4-6 encounters, by and large. Seems about right, particularly at the very high levels. So, I'm kind of confused why you think that cantrips are being used regularly at very high levels. Why would they? They deal less damage, are less effective and less versatile than even 1st level spells and the caster, by this point, has so many slots that 1st and 2nd level spells are effectively unlimited.

Never minding that by this level, the caster is walking around with more than a few magic items that allow further spells to be cast - staves, wands, whatever. Which, again, is always going to be better than a cantrip. If I've got a wand of fireballs, why am I bothering with a cantrip? I can drop six fireballs a day without worry. What would be the point of dropping a fire bolt?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, again, isn't that because every low level damage spell in a low level slot, outside of a couple of corner cases, deals more damage than a cantrip?

Maybe, I'll post some numbers on that in a bit.

And, well, if you're not interested in upping the damage on low level slots (since you don't want to increase the damage that casters are doing), then doesn't that mean that we should be lowering the damage of cantrips instead?

I'm open to any option that would allow 1st level slots to do more than cantrips. That could be scaling cantrips back, That could be increasing low level spell damages. That could be a combination. Heck it could even be allowing a cantrip to be cast as a bonus action with a level 1 spell that causes damage that is cast from a level 1 slot. There's numerous ways to achieve what I asked for. Preferably there's a way without to many detrimental side effects. But I've not found that solution yet.

And, lastly, as mentioned before, a 17th level caster has 19 spell slots, minimum. How long are you expecting a full adventuring day to last? Before we can move forward here, we need to establish some baselines. I suggested a 20 round adventuring day. That's 4-6 encounters, by and large. Seems about right, particularly at the very high levels. So, I'm kind of confused why you think that cantrips are being used regularly at very high levels. Why would they? They deal less damage, are less effective and less versatile than even 1st level spells and the caster, by this point, has so many slots that 1st and 2nd level spells are effectively unlimited.

20 rounds is reasonable. I usually go with 24 but I'm not that picky.

Someone else crunched the numbers and I don't think I need to repeat their work. They found you would likely be using cantrips a significant number of rounds. Between out of combat spells, reaction and bonus action spells, they are going to go faster than assuming all 19 as standard action spells only being used in combat.

Never minding that by this level, the caster is walking around with more than a few magic items that allow further spells to be cast - staves, wands, whatever. Which, again, is always going to be better than a cantrip. If I've got a wand of fireballs, why am I bothering with a cantrip? I can drop six fireballs a day without worry. What would be the point of dropping a fire bolt?

I don't typicaly factor magic items into my whiteroom as 5e is set up such that there are no real guarantees about what you might get.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Isn't it obvious he was referring to it's auto hit nature.

No, because it's not a big difference at all. A firebolt from a 17th level caster against a zombie is about as auto hit as a magic missile. And, the point is that the 1st level spell has something to lend it something extra over the cantrip -- in this case, it's situationally better at level 17+ against high (AC18+) AC enemies (and all around better before that).

Magic missile also does 3d4+3 verses a d10 per tier, so there's that balancing factor as well. At 17+ it's 3d4+3 and autohit versus 4d10 and +11 to hit. If you're complaining that the autohit makes it a bad comparison and we should therefore ignore that the 10.5 average damage spell still outperforms in a common level 17+ situation (high AC enemies) the 22 average damage cantrip, I don't think you can been shown anything against your premise.

This also ignores that fire is the most common resistance/immunity while force is the least common (or is it psychic?). That's another contrasting point. Or, what happens when you have disadvantage! Of course, advantage swings it the other way, so...

 

[FrogReaver]

I just thought of a better way to explain why versatility is a non-factor for me in this discussion.

Step 1: Pick a level 1 damage spell
Step 2: Is picked damage spell better than a cantrip when cast at level 1. (Assume this is true for arguments sake)
Conclusion: It's better to use the cantrip than the first level spell in most circumstances

Talking about versatility supposes I'm talking about the ability to cast a first level spell in general. In reality my whole argument is based on what happens after already choosing a specific spell to cast. Since its supposed I've already chosen what spell to cast then any point about versatility would assume I could change that choice, but I can't because I'm already past the step where the spell I'm casting was chosen.

Hopefully that helps.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because I think it's bad game design.

EDIT: Also because I think there needs to at least be a reason to use a low level damage spell in a low level slot over a cantrip.

Okay, I don't. Here's why: because 1st level slots are still useful, and there's still some cases where casting a 1st level damage spell is the better option. 1st level spells aren't meant to be pivotal late game. That was a design choice, clear from the lack of by level scaling from earlier editions. The design at work here is apparent, clean, and effective. Damage becomes something you just do, while utility becomes the focus of low level spell slots. I'm really not super interested in a slightly better at high level than before 1st level spell because I'm already not considering them as my primary damage vectors in combat. I'm casting 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells to do amazing magic damage stuff. 1st level is for situational and niche effects, like charm, or last ditch defense, or grease. That's a solid design, well executed, and fits with the general design of 5e. You can not like it, but what you've said you'd like to see isn't really any different that what's going on now. And, frankly, it's mired in old sensibilities of how spells and spell levels should work and a concept of magic-slinger that's a tad quadratic.

You do you, man, but you might consider backing off the aggression for your minor pet peeve. Maybe. Unlikely, though. As I said, you do you.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, because it's not a big difference at all. A firebolt from a 17th level caster against a zombie is about as auto hit as a magic missile. And, the point is that the 1st level spell has something to lend it something extra over the cantrip -- in this case, it's situationally better at level 17+ against high (AC18+) AC enemies (and all around better before that).

Magic missile also does 3d4+3 verses a d10 per tier, so there's that balancing factor as well. At 17+ it's 3d4+3 and autohit versus 4d10 and +11 to hit. If you're complaining that the autohit makes it a bad comparison and we should therefore ignore that the 10.5 average damage spell still outperforms in a common level 17+ situation (high AC enemies) the 22 average damage cantrip, I don't think you can been shown anything against your premise.

This also ignores that fire is the most common resistance/immunity while force is the least common (or is it psychic?). That's another contrasting point. Or, what happens when you have disadvantage! Of course, advantage swings it the other way, so...

Oh please you know the zombie example for a level 17 caster was as silly as everyone else knows it was.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh please you know the zombie example for a level 17 caster was as silly as everyone else knows it was.

Way to miss the point, there.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, I don't. Here's why: because 1st level slots are still useful, and there's still some cases where casting a 1st level damage spell is the better option.

I agree, but a 1st level spell being rarely situationally better than a cantrip doesn't make the spell better than the cantrip. It would need to be the other way around. A cantrip should rarely situationally be better than a 1st level spell.

1st level spells aren't meant to be pivotal late game.

Agreed, I never claimed they were. Nor do I expect any system that makes the change I propose to suddenly make 1st level spells and slots be pivotal for a high level caster

That was a design choice, clear from the lack of by level scaling from earlier editions. The design at work here is apparent, clean, and effective. Damage becomes something you just do, while utility becomes the focus of low level spell slots.

Utility can still be the focus of low level slots while still having them do more damage than cantrips. These are not mutually exclusive things.

I'm really not super interested in a slightly better at high level than before 1st level spell because I'm already not considering them as my primary damage vectors in combat.

I agree, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be better than cantrips.

I'm casting 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells to do amazing magic damage stuff. 1st level is for situational and niche effects, like charm, or last ditch defense, or grease. That's a solid design, well executed, and fits with the general design of 5e. You can not like it, but what you've said you'd like to see isn't really any different that what's going on now.

Well that I tend to agree with in total. No exceptions. Slightly raising 1st level spell damage to be above cantrip damage isn't going to affect what high level casters typically do with their low level slots. They may occasionly choose to use a level 1 or 2 slot for damage though. Whereas with cantrips being better than damage spells they will never make that choice.

And, frankly, it's mired in old sensibilities of how spells and spell levels should work and a concept of magic-slinger that's a tad quadratic.

But it's not quadratic if held to level 1 and 2 spells. In fact, I hate most everything about 3.5e. So it's really amazing to me that you are accusing me of all people to have old sensibilities.