D&D 5E Damage Spell Scaling

[FrogReaver]

One thing I dislike about 5e is that damage spells don't scale at all. Cantrip scaling exacerbates this problem for me. It means that pretty quickly there's nearly no reason to ever cast a low level damage spell.

So I propose a solution that I don't think will have a large amount of impact on the game. (There's probably a more elegant way to type out the proposal but here it is):

Level 1 and 2 spells that deal damage obtain an extra damage die at 5th, 11th, 17th levels.

That allows pretty much every damage spell to stay better at damage than a cantrip. (level 3+ spells already stay better than cantrips).

Any objections?

 

[Arnwolf666]

One thing I dislike about 5e is that damage spells don't scale at all. Cantrip scaling exacerbates this problem for me. It means that pretty quickly there's nearly no reason to ever cast a low level damage spell.

So I propose a solution that I don't think will have a large amount of impact on the game. (There's probably a more elegant way to type out the proposal but here it is):

Level 1 and 2 spells that deal damage obtain an extra damage die at 5th, 11th, 17th levels.

That allows pretty much every damage spell to stay better at damage than a cantrip. (level 3+ spells already stay better than cantrips).

Any objections?

I think many spells like fireball should gain 2d6 damage per additional spells. In a 9th level slot it would do 20d6. And that is not over the top at that level.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think many spells like fireball should gain 2d6 damage per additional spells. In a 9th level slot it would do 20d6. And that is not over the top at that level.

I'm personally not opposed, but I also don't feel like fireball and other 3rd+ level damage spells have any real issues and I prefer to keep the houserules as simple as possible. It's really the 1st and 2nd level spells that bother me. I want them doing more than a cantrip even in their lowest level slot.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think your rule doesn't go far enough. If you're going so far as to add a house rule, then it should be impactful enough to be worth remembering.

That is to say, do you really think that a level 15 wizard is going to cast a level 1 damaging spell in a level 1 spell slot, even after implementing your change?

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing I dislike about 5e is that damage spells don't scale at all.

Sure they do: with slot level.

One of the things that bothers me is that save DC /don't/ also scale only with slot level, like they did in 3.5 - it's a serious power-up to have save DCs scale with character level even on cantrips and low-level spells.

Cantrip scaling exacerbates this problem for me. It means that pretty quickly there's nearly no reason to ever cast a low level damage spell.

Sure there is: low level targets who are very unlikely to make the save. (Remember, thanks to BA, even low level rubes are a 'threat' worthy of a casual off-handed cast.)

So I propose a solution that I don't think will have a large amount of impact on the game. (There's probably a more elegant way to type out the proposal but here it is):
Level 1 and 2 spells that deal damage obtain an extra damage die at 5th, 11th, 17th levels.
That allows pretty much every damage spell to stay better at damage than a cantrip. (level 3+ spells already stay better than cantrips).
Any objections?

You're increasing a factor in the LFQW equation, and there's plenty of other things to use low-level spell slots for besides damage, anyway?

Alternate solution: have spells/day 'walk' across the experience chart instead of pyramid. That is, after a while, you tart 'losing' low-level spells as fast you gain high level ones, so your total spells/day don't increase, just the levels of the slots. That'd have the slide benefit of reducing one of the factors in the LFQW equation. It could kick in after 10 spells (enough to cast a spell every encounter with a couple left over - /very/ generous), at 7th, when you get your first 4th level spell, you also lose a 1st level spell. Repeat until you're out of 1st level spells, then lose 2nd, etc... for fun, roll up that last 4th level spell, to a 5th so you have 4/2/2/1/1 at 20th. Obviously you can still cast lower-level spells, you're just obliged to up-cast 'em.
But, as desired, your lowest-level spells stay /much/ more powerful than cantrips.

 

[Blue]

This was one of the intentional changes from earlier editions with the whole quadradic wizard / linear fighter issue. Casters got higher level slots AND their lower level slots got more powerful.

Unless you have the feel that caster classes are all weaker than the other classes, I wouldn't do it. (And if you do, I'd have other worries that I'd address after backing away slowly.)

But more seriously, you have a bunch of your high level spells that, after the first few levels, stays fairly static. thos are for your damaging and best spells. Then you have lower level slots good for utility and such that you don't fel like you are "wasting your combat potential" using them in other pillars of play. Plus things liek shield, absorb elements, etc.

Cantrips are a special deal. From a balance perspective, pre-cantrips casters had to throw darts or fire a light crossbow when they weren't using a slot. It really encouraged casters to push for short adventuring days because frankly those were not great. Cantrips was a way that casters could "stay magical" but still contribute. But at-wills from the other classes end up increasing, so if they didn't want casters to end up with the 5 minute work day again they needed to make them feel like they are still contributing. So cantrips scale. They still do less than weapons, but enough that the cantrip caster feels like they are helping.

 

[FrogReaver]

Unless you have the feel that caster classes are all weaker than the other classes, I wouldn't do it. (And if you do, I'd have other worries that I'd address after backing away slowly.)

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think your rule doesn't go far enough. If you're going so far as to add a house rule, then it should be impactful enough to be worth remembering.

That is to say, do you really think that a level 15 wizard is going to cast a level 1 damaging spell in a level 1 spell slot, even after implementing your change?

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.

 

[neogod22]

One thing I dislike about 5e is that damage spells don't scale at all. Cantrip scaling exacerbates this problem for me. It means that pretty quickly there's nearly no reason to ever cast a low level damage spell.

So I propose a solution that I don't think will have a large amount of impact on the game. (There's probably a more elegant way to type out the proposal but here it is):

Level 1 and 2 spells that deal damage obtain an extra damage die at 5th, 11th, 17th levels.

That allows pretty much every damage spell to stay better at damage than a cantrip. (level 3+ spells already stay better than cantrips).

Any objections?

Yes I object. The reason is, for the most part, non-magic users don't really have a way to increase their damage at all except more attacks. Most spells do scale of you cast them at a higher spell slot. Also, if you feel that there isn't a reason to cast low level spells for damage, don't. This is why a lot of utility spells are low level.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes I object. The reason is, for the most part, non-magic users don't really have a way to increase their damage at all except more attacks. Most spells do scale of you cast them at a higher spell slot. Also, if you feel that there isn't a reason to cast low level spells for damage, don't. This is why a lot of utility spells are low level.

In case you missed the memo - I'm not happy with not being able to cast low level spells for damage - or let me rephrase that before someone pedantically attacks it - I'm not happy that low level spell slots are effectively worthless for damage spells as you level.

My proposed change fixes that problem without really impacting the martial / caster divide.

That fighters are worse than casters is not an excuse to avoid fixing things about the wizard.