Damage Spell Scaling

And this is why I feel you should be playing another class like a warlock. You're dismissing the majority of the strengths of a wizard and complaining it's too weak.
How about responding to my direct response to you that actually proves you wrong? But you won't do that cause it undermines your whole position!
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
I'm dismissing the multitarget argument because the game simply doesn't value multi target damage significantly more than single target damage - else you'd actually have a major reason to cast things other than fireball for single target damage...

I'm also ignoring your recurring damage citations as they aren't really what I've had in mind this whole thread. If I need to restrict my initial criteria more then that's fine.

I'm ignoring paladin smites because it was never my intention to buff those.

I think the only spell that's left out of your list is magic missile and attack actions obviously do more than it in a level 1 slot starting in tier 2 and more than it in a level 2 slot in tier 3. That's with chance to hit factored in.

So ummm, want to try again?
Nope, don't need to try again.

First, thank you for admitting there are a bunch of spells of that level you didn't intend to buff. Anything with recurring damage, smites, etc.

Second, it's fairly disingenuous to bring Burning Hands, which as a AoE spell does less than single target spells, and then move the goalposts that you aren't considering multi target damage from area of effects.

Third, you haven't addressed Hex and Hunter's Mark.

Fourth, you didn't address any of the points at the end. I'll break them out again:

4a. Spells doing half damage on successful save meaning that they do a lot more than an attack of equal dice that does nothing on a miss.

4b. Picking a spell to go against a poor save is easy with a large list of valid damage spells, and a poor save will fail more often than an attack misses, so spells again do more damage than an attack of equal dice.

So I don't need to try again, a good chunk of my points are still unaddressed.

Actually, every one of my points is either (a) unaddressed, (b) you agreed you shouldn't boost them, or (c) you've moved the goalposts by not including area of effect even though you were suggesting an area of effect spell.
 
Last edited:
@neogod22

Let's start with a hypothetical - suppose I wanted to increase the damage of level 1 and level 2 spells by 1 after level 5.

Would you still be complaining that I'm wanting to make the most overpowered build possible? Or would you recognize that the single damage on those few spells isn't going to significantly power up the caster at all?
 

neogod22

Explorer
Well until you actually engage with them nothing. When you going to engage with them?
So you admit you hadn't proved anything. Also you're being deceitful by taking AOE spells and saying "you gotta admit the damage bonus to a single target doesn't change much," except these are AOE spells, and you're effectively trying to double the damage on them.
 
So you admit you hadn't proved anything. Also you're being deceitful by taking AOE spells and saying "you gotta admit the damage bonus to a single target doesn't change much," except these are AOE spells, and you're effectively trying to double the damage on them.
Evading only solidifies the fact that all your points have been duds. Engage with the post! Or you scared?
 

neogod22

Explorer
Okay, I've given the mods long enough to take care of the problem. No one can be as dumb as you. The only possibility is your trolling.
You say you have proof then admitted thst you cant prove anything. You say I'm evading your question, but you can't even tell me what I'm evading. I aswered your questions. If you can't understand my answer, that's your failing not mine. Now you're going to report me because I don't agree with you and think you're trying to mislead people into exploiting a system that's not broken?
 
I'm dismissing the multitarget argument because the game simply doesn't value multi target damage significantly more than single target damage - else you'd actually have a major reason to cast things other than fireball for single target damage...
Well, we did hear Mearls admit that the way they balanced spells was via a damage guideline, and it didn't take optimal uses into account...
...OTOH, he's also on record that Fireball was intentionally OP, so that may have something to do with it, too.

That said, catching two or more targets in an AE, save 1/2, seems like a valid reason to go damaging low-level spell over cantrip - especially if you're erasing some low level annoyances, and don't want to waste time.
 

Helldritch

Explorer
We did try your approach a few years ago. We reverted immediately to the standard way to play non buffed 1st and second level spells when the group reached high level. Two spell casters (a wizard and a sorcerer) were using base (6d4+6) magic missiles as a damage buff dealers. Magic missile is an almost unavoidable direct damage dealer. First and second level spell slots were almost exclusively used as magic missile slots. Against single high AC targets they were outshining the fighter and even the paladin in raw damage. We are not even talking about the "twining" of magic missiles by the damn sorcerer...

With your approach, the threat of a high AC target becomes almost irrelevant if that target isn't also a high damage dealer and does not have access to the shield spell. Burning hand spell became almost as good (if not outright better in some cases) than fire ball.

I do understand your intention of making the wizards, well the arcane classes a wee bit better but making the wizard (and the sorcerer as buffing one you buff the other) that strong in damage dealing is not the solution. We are well past the time of the 1st edition where the archmage was the supreme character in power. They are at right power level that they need to be right now.
 
We did try your approach a few years ago. We reverted immediately to the standard way to play non buffed 1st and second level spells when the group reached high level. Two spell casters (a wizard and a sorcerer) were using base (6d4+6) magic missiles as a damage buff dealers. Magic missile is an almost unavoidable direct damage dealer. First and second level spell slots were almost exclusively used as magic missile slots. Against single high AC targets they were outshining the fighter and even the paladin in raw damage. We are not even talking about the "twining" of magic missiles by the damn sorcerer...

With your approach, the threat of a high AC target becomes almost irrelevant if that target isn't also a high damage dealer and does not have access to the shield spell. Burning hand spell became almost as good (if not outright better in some cases) than fire ball.

I do understand your intention of making the wizards, well the arcane classes a wee bit better but making the wizard (and the sorcerer as buffing one you buff the other) that strong in damage dealing is not the solution. We are well past the time of the 1st edition where the archmage was the supreme character in power. They are at right power level that they need to be right now.
I guess my first question is - what level were you and how much optimization was put into the fighter?
 
We did try your approach a few years ago. We reverted immediately to the standard way to play non buffed 1st and second level spells when the group reached high level. Two spell casters (a wizard and a sorcerer) were using base (6d4+6) magic missiles as a damage buff dealers. Magic missile is an almost unavoidable direct damage dealer. First and second level spell slots were almost exclusively used as magic missile slots. Against single high AC targets they were outshining the fighter and even the paladin in raw damage. We are not even talking about the "twining" of magic missiles by the damn sorcerer...

With your approach, the threat of a high AC target becomes almost irrelevant if that target isn't also a high damage dealer and does not have access to the shield spell. Burning hand spell became almost as good (if not outright better in some cases) than fire ball.

I do understand your intention of making the wizards, well the arcane classes a wee bit better but making the wizard (and the sorcerer as buffing one you buff the other) that strong in damage dealing is not the solution. We are well past the time of the 1st edition where the archmage was the supreme character in power. They are at right power level that they need to be right now.
2nd observation is that it's good to know that first and second level spells were actually used for damage is promising. So at least my suggestion had the intended result - the spells were boosted enough to make that a worthwhile choice.

3rd observation is that magic missile cannot be twinned and mentioning it as a possibility does make me a little more skeptical about your post
 
You say you have proof then admitted thst you cant prove anything. You say I'm evading your question, but you can't even tell me what I'm evading. I aswered your questions. If you can't understand my answer, that's your failing not mine. Now you're going to report me because I don't agree with you and think you're trying to mislead people into exploiting a system that's not broken?
Stop calling others dumb
and stop trolling
and stop accusing them of being misleading
and stop lying about answering questions that you don't
and stop accusing others of not understanding you
and stop telling me I have failings
and stop accusing others of reporting you because they don't agree with you.
 
Last edited:

Saelorn

Adventurer
I disagree with that premise. A houserule in general should change as few things as possible to reach the desired effect in an acceptable way.
Will your house rule reach the desired effect, though? Will anyone actually use low-level slots in order to cast damage spells, as long as it technically deals more damage than a cantrip? Or will they still reserve their low-level spell slots for utility effects, since those transcend HP inflation?
 
Will your house rule reach the desired effect, though? Will anyone actually use low-level slots in order to cast damage spells, as long as it technically deals more damage than a cantrip? Or will they still reserve their low-level spell slots for utility effects, since those transcend HP inflation?
I think they will and to further back that up one poster already said they did something similar and magic missile spam occurred with nearly all low level slots.

I guess the bigger concern would be in a player having a willingness to do 6d6 damage with something like burning hands in a 1st level slot or 6d4+6 with magic missile instead of fireball doing 8d6 in a third level slot and saving the 3rd level slot for utility in exchange for doing a little less damage with the first level slot. That may be the more important criticism.
 

Helldritch

Explorer
To answer you questions:
1 The fighter and paladins were GWM and very much optimised. The party was having a cleric and a bard in addition to the other four (yep a party of 6 player characters. Just like I am having at the moment with two different groups).

2) The normal magic missile can't be twined. But we had a version that could only target one target at the advantage of a higher range and the ability to target objects. I should've mentioned that. Spell research was and is still a thing in my games. Any single target spell can be twined so... The problem stays in its entirety. Some campaign lasts 40 years (of in game time, not IRL obviously) so the players have the rooms to create new magic. Sometimes a spell does a good job and is kept from one campaign to the other. At other time, a spell is completely dropped off because of unforseen side effects. (Such as the magic lance, the modified magic missile).

3) I apply monster variety in almost every encounter. Some monsters use the bloc a corridor and dodge tactic while their allies blasts the players in the back row all the while concentrating on haste so that the front brute can use their additional action to dodge. My games can be brutal with effectiveness and I do not hesitate to TPK. The enhanced spell damage was so good that we were only seeing the enhanced spells being cast and even at high level. Especially if the enemies' AC were high. When a tactic is so good that no other possibility is considered whatever the circumstances, you know something is wrong.

4) The campaign ended at level 19th but we ended boosting spell modification at around level 18 where the last power boost to cantrip occured. (I know it's 17th but we gave it a go for a full level to check if we were not mistaken). The modified magic missile spell was dropped down from all campaigns after that one as the twining of MM was deemed a bit too efficient in the hands of a sorcerer(ess).

As I see it, the damage bracket in which arcane spell casters are at the moment is the best that they had in decades. Against numerous opponents, they shine with mass effects like fireballs, meteor swarms and the like. Or they control the battle with spells like walls, clouds or whatever comes to mind. At the same time, against single targets they are left a wee bit wanting. Which is quite canonical in litterature where the "evil" wizard blasts the hero who shrugs the damage (with luck or skill) and goes to kill the mage in hand to hand combat (or a well placed arrow). The days of 1st edition are long gone. The philosophy behind classes is one of balance or at least attempted balance over discrepancy in power at all levels.

I hope I have answer your questions.
 
Last edited:

Helldritch

Explorer
I think they will and to further back that up one poster already said they did something similar and magic missile spam occurred with nearly all low level slots.

I guess the bigger concern would be in a player having a willingness to do 6d6 damage with something like burning hands in a 1st level slot or 6d4+6 with magic missile instead of fireball doing 8d6 in a third level slot and saving the 3rd level slot for utility in exchange for doing a little less damage with the first level slot. That may be the more important criticism.
That is exactly what happened with magic missile. I bet that if Ice Knife would've existed at the time it would have been abused just as much. The willingness to abuse upgraded magic missile will be there rest assured. A sorcerer will abuse the Ice Knife as much as you can imagine. 4d6 aoe at 17th level might not be much but the spell does target only one target and can be twined. So we look at 8d6 or a mini fireball. How would you increment it? 4d10 to the initial target and 4d6 to the surrounding enemies or 1d10 and then 4d6 (my personal choice) or let the player decide where to apply is bonus damage (like 2d10 and 3d6 or any combination)? The spell brings two different types of damage (singular damage and AOE damage).

I have toyed with your idea at the start of 5ed (it's hard not to resist to boost wizards as they had been the power house of many editions) and we reverted relatively fast to the normal play style. And with all the new spells out there in the additional books boosting spells would always be on a case by case basis.

In addition, this solution puts the mage into quite a trap, at high level, the low level slots are there to protect himself from enemies entering melee range (or to avoid being shot by arrows). With the added damage, the temptation to use 1st and 2nd level spells becomes almost impossible to resist, leading the wizard in risking loosing high level slots to protect himself where a low level one would have done the job. This has the potential to remove a much needed high level spell slot for a future combat.

On the surface, it is a good idea. The more you dig it in, the more the flaws will show. All I can say is: "Try it and tell us if what happened in my campaign happened in yours too."
 

Advertisement

Top