D&D 5E Damage Spell Scaling

[Krachek]

Another feat or magic item feature can be

Improve devastation
When you cast an area spell or a damage spell that require a save, you can spend a spell slot of level 5 or lower to add extra dice to the initial damage.
You add 2 dice plus 1 die per level above 1.

For example a fireball improve with the spent of a level 5 slot will deal 14d6.
8d6 for initial fireball + 6d6 for the level 5 slot.

For lasting spell like flaming sphere it need to be test.
Maybe allow only half the dice.

 

[Blue]

This stance amazes me. Truly.

The change I'm proposing would add a total of maybe 3d8 damage to at most 6 spells at max level. 18d8 damage isn't going to change anything in terms of balance for a level 20 wizard. This change is about as power neutral as you can get.

Even at level 5 - you at most get maybe 6d8 more damage (save for half) - assuming all your level 1 and 2 spells were used on damage. It's just not enough to change anything balance in any meaningful way.

But it is enough to make every slotted spell stay better than a cantrip - which is something that is important to me.

***Keep in mind those damage numbers are assuming all level 1 and 2 slots go to damage now - which they won't and so the actual impact of the change will be less than what I've estimated above.

If that stance amazes you, it's because you don't understand it. Let me try again. I'm going to say the same thing I did above, the part you didn't reply to.

The number of effective spell slots (your highest few levels) stays fairly static once you are past tier 1. Using an action to cast these gives a result greater than a weapon wielder.

The rest of the time, cantrips are your best damaging option, which are less than a weapon wielder. (Ignoring Warlock, who is balanced differently).

Sometimes doing more and sometimes doing less balance out.

Making low level spells do more than cantrips means you end up with more actions per day give results greater than a weapon wielder, and a corresponding decrease in actions less than a weapon wielder. Increasing the top and reducing the bottom will increase the average damage quite a bit - making them much more effective than weapon wielders.

TL;DR: Every action replacing a balancing < weapon damage with a > weapon damage while keeping high level spells doing a lot more than weapon wielders throws of the balance of the classes.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with @dave2008 . We reduced cantrips as well to encourage use of more higher-level spells. By the time cantrips start to scale (at 5th), casters have enough slots to cast a spell (non-cantrip) most rounds in a typical day of combat IMO (at least at our table, not by DMG-standards).

Another option to go with non-scaling cantrips, was to give casters more spell slots to encourage non-cantrip casting.

My complaint is that level 1 and level 2 damage spells in level 1 and level 2 spell slots are broken BECAUSE cantrips scale. I don't see how giving more spell slots fixes that problem.

On removing cantrip scaling - I don't think cantrips are too strong - instead I think level 1 and level 2 damage spells are too weak later. So while this option would make them strictly better than cantrips - it's not fully fixed my problem as the problem is partially that the low level damage spells are flat out too weak later.

 

[FrogReaver]

Another feat or magic item feature can be

Improve devastation
When you cast an area spell or a damage spell that require a save, you can spend a spell slot of level 5 or lower to add extra dice to the initial damage.
You add 2 dice plus 1 die per level above 1.

For example a fireball improve with the spent of a level 5 slot will deal 14d6.
8d6 for initial fireball + 6d6 for the level 5 slot.

For lasting spell like flaming sphere it need to be test.
Maybe allow only half the dice.

I hate proposed fixes that rely on magic items.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't have any really issue with your suggestion; however, my preference is to nerf cantrips. In our game cantrips do not scale.

That, to me, solves the problem.

I can understand nerfing cantrips but I don't think it's the best solution to my problem. Can I ask what you were trying to fix when you implemented that change? I'm betting it was a different issue than the one I'm stating.

 

[FrogReaver]

If that stance amazes you, it's because you don't understand it. Let me try again. I'm going to say the same thing I did above, the part you didn't reply to.

The number of effective spell slots (your highest few levels) stays fairly static once you are past tier 1. Using an action to cast these gives a result greater than a weapon wielder.

The rest of the time, cantrips are your best damaging option, which are less than a weapon wielder. (Ignoring Warlock, who is balanced differently).

Sometimes doing more and sometimes doing less balance out.

Making low level spells do more than cantrips means you end up with more actions per day give results greater than a weapon wielder, and a corresponding decrease in actions less than a weapon wielder. Increasing the top and reducing the bottom will increase the average damage quite a bit - making them much more effective than weapon wielders.

TL;DR: Every action replacing a balancing < weapon damage with a > weapon damage while keeping high level spells doing a lot more than weapon wielders throws of the balance of the classes.

Is there any level that casting burning hands in a level 1 or 2 slot actually becomes better than an attack action with my proposal?

 

[dave2008]

I can understand nerfing cantrips but I don't think it's the best solution to my problem. Can I ask what you were trying to fix when you implemented that change? I'm betting it was a different issue than the one I'm stating.

We didn't think free magic should be more powerful than magic with a cost/resource drain.

 

[neogod22]

My complaint is that level 1 and level 2 damage spells in level 1 and level 2 spell slots are broken BECAUSE cantrips scale. I don't see how giving more spell slots fixes that problem.

On removing cantrip scaling - I don't think cantrips are too strong - instead I think level 1 and level 2 damage spells are too weak later. So while this option would make them strictly better than cantrips - it's not fully fixed my problem as the problem is partially that the low level damage spells are flat out too weak later.

Why is this still going? Most spells at levels 1 and 2 will do more when you cast at a higher spell slot. They don't need to get strong because YOU GET HIGHER LEVEL SPELLS. At higher levels, you don't even need to use cantrips, becsuse you have so many slots. Boohoo that your weakest spell slots do the least amount of damage. You are a walking arsenal. Your argument amounts to "I feel my character has a weakness so I want emotional support to help me break it so I can feel more powerful." D&D is not a PVP game. Wizards have the ability to bend reality and completely change the battlefield at higher levels, and you're complaining about level 1 and 2 spell slots.

 

[FrogReaver]

We didn't think free magic should be more powerful than magic with a cost/resource drain.

That's basically my problem (well half of it). Any reasoning for why you chose the solution to nerf the free magic instead of buffing the few resource draining spells.

The other half of my problem is that non-damage level 1 and 2 spells are much more powerful than damage dealing level 1 and 2 spells. Buffing the damage of level 1 and 2 spells helps with both of those issues.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why is this still going? Most spells at levels 1 and 2 will do more when you cast at a higher spell slot. They don't need to get strong because YOU GET HIGHER LEVEL SPELLS. At higher levels, you don't even need to use cantrips, becsuse you have so many slots. Boohoo that your weakest spell slots do the least amount of damage. You are a walking arsenal. Your argument amounts to "I feel my character has a weakness so I want emotional support to help me break it so I can feel more powerful." D&D is not a PVP game. Wizards have the ability to bend reality and completely change the battlefield at higher levels, and you're complaining about level 1 and 2 spell slots.

A problem with design yes - a weakness no. I honestly want the most power neutral option I can find to fix the problem. So far my proposal is the most power neutral. Do you have any solutions or just ad hominin accusations?