Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[FrogReaver]

I’m sorry, but I can’t parse your second paragraph. Can you restate what you’re saying more clearly?

I still don’t know what your reason for stating the above actually is. You just...state it.

You seem to be saying that because “level 1 spells should do more than cantrips”, “level 1 spells being able to be upcast isn’t relevant”?

Which is false, but at least sensible if that is what you’re saying.

I think you are getting the gist of it.

Being upcast is part of what level 1 spells can do. Therefor, the fact they can be upcast is relevant.

Well, you almost had the gist of it. lol.

Obviously level 1 spells cast with level 5 spell slots do more damage than cantrips. So maybe I should restate/explain it this way. A level 1 spell is actually an ability that gives you multiple abilities.

A level 1 spell grants the following abilities:
1. gives you the ability to spend a level 1 spell slot resource to do x1.
2. gives you the ability to spend a level 2 spell slot resource to do x2.
3. gives you the ability to spend a level 3 spell slot resource to do x3.
etc.

So please understand that when you talk about the ability of a level 1 spell to be upcast you are actually talking about an additional 8 distinct abilities. If I'm talking about a single specific 1 of the 9 abilities provided by a level 1 spell then bringing up the fact that it has other abilities and that none of those other abilities suffer from the problem I keep referencing doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist for the 1 ability I keep referencing. So if you mentioning those other abilities isn't proof/evidence that the ability I'm referring to doesn't have a problem then what relevance is brining those other abilities into this discussion?

But also, what is your reasoning for the assertion that any resource should always be better than any atwill ability? Again, it isn’t self-evident. Why is “situationally more beneficial” not acceptable?

Always isn't there to convey they idea of an ability that is better than another in all situations. Always was placed there in reference to your upcasting comment. Using the terminology I developed above, it's to convey the idea that no matter which ability provided by the level 1 spell, that every one of those abilities should be better than the at will cantrip.

Basically there are a lot of ways I would be fine calling an ability better that don't involve it being better in every possible situation. AOE size and shape, range, auto hit capability, save for half etc are all valid considerations that could be used in an attempt to show that level 1 spells are not actually worse than cantrips. I've already mentioned earlier that I would have been open to that discussion in the thread. No one took me up on that offer.

Then there are the other points I made that you’ve ignored.

What points? I've addressed everything I thought was important. If you think something important is unaddressed then mention it again and elaborate a little on why you think it's important. I'll try to answer.

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] said:

1) “My reason was that a level 1 spell slot is a resource...”
—-this is undeniable;
2) “...anything which requires a resource should be better than something that does not.”
—-on its own, most people, myself included, would agree with this design philosophy.

At least we are getting somewhere. Though judging by this thread I'm not so sure you are right about #2...

The problem is that your position has nothing to do with 1st level spell slots: it’s about 1st level spells, which are not the same thing, and are not included in either of the statements quoted above.

Except a first level spell is literally 9 distinct abilities:
1. the ability to spend a 1st level spell slot to do x1.
2. the ability to spend a 2nd level spell slot to do x2.
3. the ability to spend a 3rd level spell slot to do x3.
etc.

A reference to the spell is a reference to all the above abilities. A reference to the level of spell slot resource being used let's everyone know exactly which of these abilities is being referred to. So if you want to get technical my position would be about the spell and the spell slot. I think most people here were smart enough to get that.

Counter-arguments have included
A) Cantrips have slots, too - that is a resource, too. See point #2, above

I'm not following cantrips have slots too. The closest thing to that I recall was, cantrips require an action. Is that what you meant?

B) 1st level spell slots are versatile, and can be used to cast a greater array of spells as needed. Cantrip slots cannot be changed. Versatility is better than unchangeable.

Yep, I remember that one quite well. I'm still amazed they were getting the resource confused with the ability that allows the use of the resource.

C) The value of a 1st level spell slot decreases at a greater rate than the value of the cantrip slot. A Wizard will gain 2 cantrips over their entire career, but 20 additional spell slots.

I'm still not sure what this "cantrip slot" you speak of is.

Take any spell caster that has exhausted their spell slots for the day, and ask them if they would like a single, 1st level spell slot: every single one of them will say “yes.” If as you argue, cantrips are better, then those casters should all say “I’ve got my cantrips, I’m good.” The fact that they won’t proves that those slots have value

While true, my argument was never cantrips are better than all spells that can be cast with a 1st level spell slot. The problem was that cantrips are better than 1st level damage spells cast with a first level slot. In fact it's fantastic that 5e has a number of 1st level spells that are better than cantrips when cast in 1st level slots. But that fact doesn't have any relevance on whether any given 1st level spell cast in a 1st level slot should be better than a cantrip.

But, again, your position is actually: (paraphrasing) “1st lvl spells which do damage, when cast with 1st lvl spell slots, should always do at least as much damage as a cantrip because it requires a 1st level spell slot resource.”

Yep that's my position.

So we add another,
D) 1st lvl spells can be cast using higher lvl slots (more versatile); and can, at 5th lvl (using a 3rd lvl spell slot), do damage comparable to a cantrip cast by a 20th lvl caster.

1st level spells cast in first level slots cannot be cast using higher level slots.

You dismiss other resource costs as irrelevant,

What other resource cost? Action economy? If it's not that then your going to have to explain better.

and you refuse to assign any value to versatility.

No I don't. Versatility is great. It's just not relevant to my position.

Cantrips are inflexible and limited, and do no damage if they miss or are resisted; spell slots are flexible and, at later levels, plentiful;

All true. All not relevant.

1st lvl spells are more reliable and more flexible - they can be changed or even up-cast to greater effect.

But that's supposing that I'm saying 1st level spells used with 1st level spell slots in general are worse than cantrips. I've not said that and never would. It's like a bunch of strawmen keep getting created just to be beat down.

 

[FrogReaver]

The paladin union will ask to have the same benefit on smite.
Smiting with a first level slot at level 13 should do more than 2d8!

Divine Smite already does that. At 11th level you get improved divine smite which lets your divine smites do an extra 1d8 so that 1st level slot now does 3d8 instead of 2d8.

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course I've supported it. My reason was that a level 1 spell slot is a resource and anything that requires a resource should be better than something that doesn't. You may disagree and think that's incorrect.

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.

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.

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.

For damage? Perhaps. But overall? Nope.

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.

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

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.

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!

 

[Krachek]

But we know union executive.
If you give something the some classes, all others will ask for a benefit too!

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem is that your position has nothing to do with 1st level spell slots: it’s about 1st level spells, which are not the same thing, and are not included in either of the statements quoted above.

...

But, again, your position is actually: (paraphrasing) “1st lvl spells which do damage, when cast with 1st lvl spell slots, should always do at least as much damage as a cantrip because it requires a 1st level spell slot resource.”

Lol. I am well and thoroughly ninajed

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is a reason 5e doesn't refer to cantrips as "level 0 spells". It's because they are not. They are intended to be equivalent to a fighter's basic weapon attack. A fighter basic attack (and unlimited resource) will outstrip 1st level damage spells even faster than cantrips will, so if you nerf cantrips you would need to nerf fighters as well.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

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.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

A fighter basic attack (and unlimited resource) will outstrip 1st level damage spells even faster than cantrips will, so if you nerf cantrips you would need to nerf fighters as well.

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.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

The typical meaning behind fighter attacks "scaling" is referring to the gaining of an extra attack at 5th, 11th etc - same tier time cantrips gain extra dice.

Since the fighter attacks include the ability score (also tends to tise) as freebie, its value improves by more hits and more dmg while cantrips typically only scale by raw dice - few exceptions exist of course.