D&D 5E Damage Spell Scaling

[Zardnaar]

Not a fan of direct damage 5E spells.

Damage dealing spells weren't broken in 3?5 and 5E critters tend to have more up than 3E.

To many damage dealing spells feel anemic except with vulnerabilities.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Balance isn’t just numbers.

The wizard has damage scaling in cantrips, and in higher spells and slots. To make their low level slots also deal competitive high level damage would mean that they are always doing big flashy magic, which negates a big part of what balances them with half casters and non casters.

It absolutely will increase the caster/mundane divide.

If you’re cool with that as long as the damage math works out...go for it?

 

[Arnwolf666]

I don’t even thing the wizard was over powered in pathfinder or 2E. I guess if u r balancing it as fighter versus wizard than yes. But not when versus the monsters. But I’m not playing a game to fight other players. I’m playing it to defeat the monsters or encounters. And generally the fighter was better at that than any other class.

 

[neogod22]

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.

The wizard isn't broken.

 

[cbwjm]

My suggestion would be to upgrade spell slots themselves. Level 11, all 1st level spell slots are now 2nd level spell slots. Level 17 (or whenever cantrips gain their final level up) all 2nd level spell slots are 3rd level spell slots.

 

[Lucas Yew]

The 3rd Edition variants' free damage scaling for each spell slot was quite a big insult for the poor martials, especially since their own damage scaling was hampered by the not so realistic multi attack penalty and sticky 5 feet syndrome... (one bigger insult I remember is that thrice cursed Bladed Dash spell from PF1)

At least in 1st edition, when all spells had unlimited scaling from bottom up, Gygax admitted by in-game text that Wizards do get to rule over all at high levels.

 

[dave2008]

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.

 

[Krachek]

I was thinking of that while walking.
Nobody would propose to double the dice obtained when a paladin smite using a spell slot of level 2 or higher.
Why do we feel it is ok for a spell and not for a smite?
Smite is efficient. You spend smite as needed when you hit and more often when you critically hit.

So why don’t add the same feature to spell attack?

Smite spell.
When you hit with a spell attack you can spend a spell slot of level 5 or lower to add extra damage to your spell. The damage is 2d8 + 1d8 per level over 1. As with smite ability.

The question can we smite with cantrip? Why not!
Propose this feature as a feat or through a magic item.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

My suggestion would be to upgrade spell slots themselves. Level 11, all 1st level spell slots are now 2nd level spell slots. Level 17 (or whenever cantrips gain their final level up) all 2nd level spell slots are 3rd level spell slots.

Spells like invisibility and hold person really don't need buffed though. The only saving grace to this proposed change is that a lot of level 1 and 2 spells don't get any benefits for casting them at higher levels.

Overall I find the change to be worse than my proposal as it targets spells that don't really need anything more to still be competitive choices.