D&D 5E Damage Spell Scaling

[Arnwolf666]

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.

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 )

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.

I would like to always see a spell slot used be noticeable and inarguably better than a cantrip. I have no problem with the damage of higher level spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would like to always see a spell slot used be noticeable and inarguably better than a cantrip. I have no problem with the damage of higher level spells.

There is a question of situational utility. If you're trying to read a book, a Light Cantrip will be better than a Fireball, even though they both produce light and one is a cantrips while the other expends a 3rd level slot. So you can't expect /both/ always & inarguably.

A low-level damaging spell will probably be better than even a highly scaled cantrip in some instances. Magic Missile simply doesn't miss, for instance, it's inarguably better than missing, but cantrips don't /always/ miss, so inarguably but not always better.
Burning hands can hit several enemies if they're neatly arranged in a cone, and will do full damage to a swarm, and, again, won't miss - 1/2 damage is more than 0. Sleep can take a nearly-finished enemy down without killing him, cantrips, being all ranged attack rolls, cannot be used to 'subdue.'...(oh, no, wait, can you taser someone with a shocking grasp? that's amusing), …what's another damaging 1st level spell in 5e? … oh, of course, the voted-Iconic-in-the-first-playtest-survey Thunderwave, well, it pushes, cantrips can't do that.

 

[Lanefan]

There is a question of situational utility. If you're trying to read a book, a Light Cantrip will be better than a Fireball, even though they both produce light and one is a cantrips while the other expends a 3rd level slot. So you can't expect /both/ always & inarguably.

Well, not when you compare apples and motorboats like you're doing here.

But if, say, there's a cantrip that does fire damage and a 1st-level spell that does fire damage, I would expect the 1st-level spell to always be superior no matter what level the caster might be.

 

[Arnwolf666]

There is a question of situational utility. If you're trying to read a book, a Light Cantrip will be better than a Fireball, even though they both produce light and one is a cantrips while the other expends a 3rd level slot. So you can't expect /both/ always & inarguably.

A low-level damaging spell will probably be better than even a highly scaled cantrip in some instances. Magic Missile simply doesn't miss, for instance, it's inarguably better than missing, but cantrips don't /always/ miss, so inarguably but not always better.
Burning hands can hit several enemies if they're neatly arranged in a cone, and will do full damage to a swarm, and, again, won't miss - 1/2 damage is more than 0. Sleep can take a nearly-finished enemy down without killing him, cantrips, being all ranged attack rolls, cannot be used to 'subdue.'...(oh, no, wait, can you taser someone with a shocking grasp? that's amusing), …what's another damaging 1st level spell in 5e? … oh, of course, the voted-Iconic-in-the-first-playtest-survey Thunderwave, well, it pushes, cantrips can't do that.

It never occurred to me to use fireball to produce light to read. Thanks. That makes everything better. Just teasing. Notice how I says noticeable and inarguably better. I want no reasonable doubt. In my humble opinion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, not when you compare apples and motorboats like you're doing here.

My point, exactly. Just because the apple weighs less than a duck, and will therefore float, doesn't make it a better

But if, say, there's a cantrip that does fire damage and a 1st-level spell that does fire damage, I would expect the 1st-level spell to always be superior no matter what level the caster might be.

Well, a fireball always does fire damage, and a firebolt always does fire damage, and the fireball will prettymuch probably always do more...
… but, if you have to stop that troll crashing your kid's birthday party, the firebolt just might be the better choice, at least until you get the kids clear of the blast radius.

Of course, there /is/ a first level spell and a cantrip that both do fire damage - and that's it, really, no cantrip does force or thunder damage - and it the first level spell has multiple advantages over the cantrip, besides doing more average damage until the cantrip has scaled 11th level (because the cantrip can miss). But, /so does the cantrip/, even when it does less damage.

If you're shooting at someone 60 feet away, Firebolt is hands-down superior to Burning Hands, because the latter wont reach, even after you take a move towards the target. True even at 1st level, when the Firebolt does a paltry d10.

So "always superior" is not really ever on the table, even with a Hypothetical scaling Burning Hands.

 

[Helldritch]

The scaling of cantrips is both an excellent feature and a bad one.

The Excellent
Excellent in that it means that casters have something to do if they run out of spell slots or if the threath does not justify a full spell. Traditionally, that role was filled with the magic missile wands. In a system where magic items are now quite rare, a solution had to be found and the scaling of cantrips was that answer. Otherwise our caster would have to throw darts, daggers at a rate of one per round... This is why that we see the utility of those low level slots moving from damage spells to utility spells. Our wizard does not need zounds of magic items to keep relevant once his daily allotted spells are done with. He can always rely on cantrips. In the very rare magic setting of 5ed, this is a must. Since cantrip can now outshine low level spells, the moving of low level slot from damage to utility spells is unavoidable.

The bad. Well, it's not so bad, but it does mean that with the scaling of cantrips, some spell will become inferior in raw damage if they only affect one target. With the reduced spell slots that casters have now, many see this as a flaw. Yet, they forget that even in the earlier editions (save first), those same spells were limited in damage scope (MM was stopped at 5d4+5, fireball at 10d6). Now that damage does not scale per level but per slot, the lack of high level slots has a big impact. Fortunately, that same impact is lessened with the scaling of cantrips but yet again, for those old timers like me, it seems that the amount of high level spells could be a wee bit higher. The arcane casters are now considered battle controlers and AoE damage dealers but the lack of high level slots might ampers them in games where the 5MWD is not in effect. In my games its not rare to see 6 to 10 combats between full rest period (and rarely more than two short rests). The arcane casters must manage their spells quite diligently or they will feel gimped in some fights. As a comparison, the 16th level mage in 5ed can cast: 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1 while our 1ed wizard would cast: 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1. That is 12 spells higher than our current edition wizard. Once they're cast ,the 1ed wizard is toast if he does not have multiple wands. He will have to rely on his dagger or quarter staff. Our fifth edition wizard, however, will have his cantrips to save his precious little *sses. (and let's not talk about the amount of time our 1ed friend will have to take to recover his spells while all it takes for our 5ed is a long rest if no spells are to be changed.) The philosophies behind both editions are quite different. The bad aspect of cantrip scaling is one of perception of what is vs what was.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I would actually like to see wizards be able to fight with staves again. But that is not practical in this system. Although it was with becmi and grand master rules that ant class could take.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Although it was with becmi and grand master rules that ant class could take.

Wow, BECMI took the whole race-as-class thing a little too far if it had an Ant class.

 

[Ashrym]

After giving it more thought, I would still go with restricting cantrips versus scaling up spell damage. It's easy and it resolves any issues one might have with cantrips out-damaging low level spells.

I am extremely reluctant to give spell casting a boost in general. It's too easy to give too much advantage.

While I wasn't a fan of 4e, one of the things I liked about it (and I think there were positive influences on the game that reached into 5e) was that there was a clear intent on what type of role a class might have in the party (without forcing the need for a specific class). Whether a person agrees with the success of that or not (in 4e or anything subsequent) doesn't really matter so much as the intent in 5e is still leaning in to the controller concept. That means AoE's and status effects and not heavy damage. Adding damage seems like it's the opposite of the class role for wizards, bards, clerics, and druids on top of risking too much of a boost to spellcasters. Warlocks already have invocations for eldritch blast and sorcerers already have metamagic so it's also redundant even if those classes do fall more into a damage style.

Most major spell castsers fall into the control and support styles. They may have damage options, but they really don't need stronger damage options. Weaker damage options in cantrips doesn't actually take away from their main foci.

My 2cp.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would actually like to see wizards be able to fight with staves again. But that is not practical in this system. Although it was with becmi and grand master rules that ant class could take.

For my house-ruled edition, I gave wizards an adapted form of the cleric's divine strike. They don't have cantrips, but they can make an arcane-empowered strike with any weapon they're proficient in (staff, dagger, club, or sling), with a damage bonus equivalent to +1d6 per maximum spell level.