D&D 5E Damage Spell Scaling

[Ashrym]

Personally, I'm okay with spells losing their practical effectiveness over time. The 1st level damage spells tend to have advantages over cantrips regardless of damage and the cantrips don't catch up in damage until 11th or 17th level, at which point other spells are giving those opportunities to shine.

If the opinion is that cantrips shouldn't do competitive or greater damage than low level spells slots the solution would be to lower or drop the damage scaling. This has zero effect at low levels where cantrips are more prominent and cantrips matter less later because of the spell slots available. I would watch warlocks and they might be a special case in how cantrips are handled.

Removing cantrip scaling completely doesn't impact low level play and prevents the cantrips from exceeding low level spell damage. Restricting cantrip scaling to 2 dice at 5th level matches up with the typical extra attack feature and also doesn't exceed low level spell damage. Restricting cantrip damage to 2 dice at 11th level does the same thing but slows down the damage progression. Those solutions would resolve the issue where cantrips out damage low level spell slots.

Adding damage scaling to low level spells increases the damage significantly in what's been proposed. I'm thinking a 5th level wizard doesn't need the increase to cantrips and potential increase to 7 out of his 9 spell slots plus whatever he recovers after a short rest. This increase will also interact with things like metamagic, domains, and subclass features. An 18th level wizard suddenly has a much stronger at-will option for damage because of spell mastery, for example. That's a rather large boost in damage on a class that, while versatile, doesn't do strong consistent damage.

I like the lack of spell auto-scaling and if it were me I would either restrict the cantrips to 2 dice, or 1 die, or simply remove the damage cantrips completely and move eldritch blast over to become a class ability.

The damage for the spells does scale, just more subtly and with less impact. The saving throw / hit roll mechanic automatically increasing cause this for scaling in a different way than 1e (for example). A 13 DC burning hands at 1st level is going to average less damage than a 19 DC burning hands at 17th level.

I would still use burning hands at 17th level over a higher level slot or a cantrip depending on the situation. The AoE effect is still there for number of targets over a cantrip and it still leaves me my higher level slots. It's just a lot more situational as the levels increase.

On a final note, damage spells aren't that great to begin with. Monster hit points go up fast with CR and slots can go rather quickly digging into that. I'm good with that drawback. Cantrip damage is the 5e solution for spell casters to not blow through spells trying to maintain continuous damage. I would rather take that cantrip damage away than give more potency in direct damage with those spell slots.

 

[GlassJaw]

I haven't read through the entire thread but I see the issue. Overall, I really like cantrips (and their auto-scaling) as well as casting spells at a higher level.

However, as you gain higher-level spells and spell slots, those lower level, scalable spells now have to compete. And in the case of damaging spells, many of them don't scale very efficiently when compared against a higher-level spell.

(Side note: It's interesting that there aren't many high-level, single-target damage spells, which almost requires you to scale a lower-level spell for that effect.)

One idea that I've been working is a mechanic that auto-scales lower-level spells based on your highest-level spell slot. For example:

"When you cast a spell X levels lower than your highest known spell level, the spell automatically scales as if you cast it using a spell slot of one level higher (up to your highest-level slot)." (X = 2, 3?)

Wording is a little clunky, which I'm sure can be simplified, but the basic idea is one you can cast spells of a certain level, your lower level spells get an free +1 spell slot level bump. So if it was 2 levels higher, when a 5th-level wizard cast Magic Missile, it would automatically scale as if a 2nd-level spell slot was used. If the wizard used a 2nd-level spell slot, it would count as a 3rd-level spell slot, etc.

No idea on balance though. This could be a universal rule for all casters, a class ability for specific classes, or a feat or subclass ability. And for any of those it could an "always-on" ability or certain number of uses per rest.

My design gut says it should be a 3-level difference so as not to overshadow cantrips too much. I like the idea of limiting to a number of uses per rest but I also like the simplicity of making it a universal rule. Playtesting!

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

Currently, most casters transition from low level damage spells to low level utility spells as they gain more levels. Some consider this a feature, not a bug, but YMMV.

The real issue IMO, is the combination that damage cantrips scale, while casters stop gaining lower level spell slots. If cantrips did not scale, but casters had more spells slots to use instead, then casters would have to choose between doing extra damage by casting a lower level spell, or holding it for utility and casting a cantrip for less damage.

The only argument against this is the increase in utility spells for non-combat adventuring, and that non-damaging combat spells (charm, hold, etc.) remain viable at any level. I don't personally see a problem with increasing low level utility spells, mostly because Ritual Casting exists for many of them anyway. As for non-damage combat spells (excluding Color Spray and Sleep, which I include with damage spells, since they are dice based), they still require the use of an action which may not result in any benefit if the target saves. Most players are going to the better higher level spells (or upcast these spells for more targets) anyway.

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?

A simple solution, but not quite right IMO. Level 5 is too early IMO, even though that's when cantrips get their first boost. While 1st level spells start to fall off a little at level 5, 2nd level spells are still go-to options. Additionally, spells that deal damage over time can be abused by this, such as flaming sphere or moonbeam, since they'd add the damage every round. I think a more detailed option is necessary instead.

Lv 5: spells cast at level 1 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 1 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 7: spells cast at level 2 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 1 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 9: spells cast at level 1 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 2 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 11: spells cast at level 2 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 2 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 13: spells cast at level 1 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 3 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 15: spells cast at level 2 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 3 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 17: spells cast at level 1 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 4 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 19: spells cast at level 2 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 4 additional die during the duration of the spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

Currently, most casters transition from low level damage spells to low level utility spells as they gain more levels. Some consider this a feature, not a bug, but YMMV.

The real issue IMO, is the combination that damage cantrips scale, while casters stop gaining lower level spell slots. If cantrips did not scale, but casters had more spells slots to use instead, then casters would have to choose between doing extra damage by casting a lower level spell, or holding it for utility and casting a cantrip for less damage.

The only argument against this is the increase in utility spells for non-combat adventuring, and that non-damaging combat spells (charm, hold, etc.) remain viable at any level. I don't personally see a problem with increasing low level utility spells, mostly because Ritual Casting exists for many of them anyway. As for non-damage combat spells (excluding Color Spray and Sleep, which I include with damage spells, since they are dice based), they still require the use of an action which may not result in any benefit if the target saves. Most players are going to the better higher level spells (or upcast these spells for more targets) anyway.

A simple solution, but not quite right IMO. Level 5 is too early IMO, even though that's when cantrips get their first boost. While 1st level spells start to fall off a little at level 5, 2nd level spells are still go-to options. Additionally, spells that deal damage over time can be abused by this, such as flaming sphere or moonbeam, since they'd add the damage every round. I think a more detailed option is necessary instead.

Lv 5: spells cast at level 1 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 1 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 7: spells cast at level 2 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 1 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 9: spells cast at level 1 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 2 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 11: spells cast at level 2 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 2 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 13: spells cast at level 1 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 3 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 15: spells cast at level 2 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 3 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 17: spells cast at level 1 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 4 additional die during the duration of the spell.

Lv 19: spells cast at level 2 that rolls dice for damage or to compare against HP (such as Color Spray and Sleep) may roll 4 additional die during the duration of the spell.

I guess where I'm at now is - 6d6 damage on a first level spell is too much - because now the only incentive to cast fireball is massive aoe damage. going from 1st to 3rd level spells for 2d6 more damage just isn't worth it - which is not an effect I want to occur.

So the top end damage I'm looking at definitely needs toned back. Maybe I should embrace low level damage spells as good options to target vulnerabilities or avoid resistance or immunities my higher level spells might face.

If that's the "utility" angle of low level damage spells I could get behind that. And it would mean the current damages are pretty close. If that's the view then at most a single dice of damage at maybe level 11 would be sufficient.

 

[Shiroiken]

I guess where I'm at now is - 6d6 damage on a first level spell is too much - because now the only incentive to cast fireball is massive aoe damage. going from 1st to 3rd level spells for 2d6 more damage just isn't worth it - which is not an effect I want to occur.

That's the issue too. If you scale level 1-2 spells, you eventually need to start scaling level 3+ or you're just moving the problem from cantrips to them. I can still see it working, but it once again requires more complication, possibly to the point of making the problems outweighing the benefits.

So the top end damage I'm looking at definitely needs toned back. Maybe I should embrace low level damage spells as good options to target vulnerabilities or avoid resistance or immunities my higher level spells might face.

If that's the "utility" angle of low level damage spells I could get behind that. And it would mean the current damages are pretty close. If that's the view then at most a single dice of damage at maybe level 11 would be sufficient.

Something I didn't originally consider was the disincentive to upcast once you grant an additional die of damage, since that's usually the same benefit. This starts to put things in a weird place with level 2 spells, since you'd never want to upcast them. This starts to bring a lot of things into question that you might want to consider.

 

[Horwath]

Only problem is that, as mentioned damage spells scale poorly with increased spell level.

3 dice for single target and 2 dice for AoE spell should be default for scaling.

 

[TheSword]

Scaling 1st level damage spells by level (against the general principal that CL doesn’t scale spell effects) is pretty illogical.

You have starter ability cantrips that scale to allow them to remain useful throughout a PCs life. Therefore you should have another method of dealing damage with starter level abilities as well?

It either makes Cantrips or 1st level damage spells redundant. Doesn’t make sense.

Secondly if it’s only a insignificant amount of damage In the grand scheme you’ve just put an argument against going to the effort of making a change to what is a fairly finely balanced system.

 

[Helldritch]

The more I read, the more I realize that the "scaling" is a desire to revert to a time where wizards (and sorcerers) reigned supreme in the raw damage potential. Now they are clearly the masters of mass AOE and crowd control. The single target damage is now the province of the martial classes and I believe that, in a sense, a balance has been achieved. Is it a perfect balance? Nope. But it is a better one than what we had before.

 

[Arnwolf666]

The more I read, the more I realize that the "scaling" is a desire to revert to a time where wizards (and sorcerers) reigned supreme in the raw damage potential. Now they are clearly the masters of mass AOE and crowd control. The single target damage is now the province of the martial classes and I believe that, in a sense, a balance has been achieved. Is it a perfect balance? Nope. But it is a better one than what we had before.

i kind of agree. But casting fireball in a 9th level slot should be badass in my opinion. I would like it to scale at 2d6per additional slot. That’s just my opinion. Still inferior to a meteor swarm. But more respectable damage for a 9th level slot

 

[Tony Vargas]

The more I read, the more I realize that the "scaling" is a desire to revert to a time where wizards (and sorcerers) reigned supreme in the raw damage potential.

Frogreaver has made it clear that's not the point. It's a much more focused quibble with the way cantrips' damage scaling compares to low-level damage-causing spells.
Now, if it were just "get rid of cantrips, give us back damage scaling spells by caster level," you'd have a much stronger case.

Now they are clearly the masters of mass AOE and crowd control. The single target damage is now the province of the martial classes

If you include Paladin and, well, er, Warlock, in "martial classes," maybe.

But, that's pretty nearly the idea behind the Controller (plus de-buffs) and Striker roles as formalized in 4e. (Which, I know, it burns, it's not D&D, &c... insert fast-forward re-play of 10 years of edition warring, settle nothing.... lather, rinse, repeat )

and I believe that, in a sense, a balance has been achieved. Is it a perfect balance? Nope. But it is a better one than what we had before.

Better balance than you had before in 3.5? Sure.
Better balance than we had before in 4e? No.

I mean, that's prettymuch the definition of a compromise, it's between the two former extremes. That those extremes were wildly imbalanced in favor of casters, and only somewhat imbalanced in favor of casters, notwithstanding.