D&D 5E Damage Spell Scaling

[CreamCloud0]

@dave2008 you say your cantrips don't scale, but I primarily play on a vtt nowadays and it'd be simpler to limit how often cantrips can be cast, rather than edit the cantrips damage scale. I wonder how limiting frequency, instead of scaling, would compare

you mean limiting simply by self enforced restrictions? yeah i guess that is easier than needing to specifically mod your VTT so they don't scale but i personally feel that's pretty antithetical to the (IMO) primary role cantrips play of being your magic at will-slash-'emergency weapon', limiting their use goes against them always being there for you to use.

 

[Distracted DM]

you mean limiting simply by self enforced restrictions? yeah i guess that is easier than needing to specifically mod your VTT so they don't scale but i personally feel that's pretty antithetical to the (IMO) primary role cantrips play of being your magic at will-slash-'emergency weapon', limiting their use goes against them always being there for you to use.

not so much self-enforced, as house-rule in a "4 cantrips per short rest" limit or something like that.

 

[CreamCloud0]

not so much self-enforced, as house-rule in a "4 cantrips per short rest" limit or something like that.

i meant self-enforced in the sense that it's not hard-coded into the system enforced rules of the VTT, the VTT doesn't actively prevent you from using fire bolt a 5th time if you've already used it 4 times already before you get to your rest, as far as the VTT is concerned fire bolt is an unlimited use action.

 

[Distracted DM]

i meant self-enforced in the sense that it's not hard-coded into the system enforced rules of the VTT, the VTT doesn't actively prevent you from using fire bolt a 5th time if you've already used it 4 times already before you get to your rest, as far as the VTT is concerned fire bolt is an unlimited use action.

ohhh, I gotcha. AFAIK setting a limit on cantrips is easier to do on Foundy, at least, than to change how all cantrips scale. that was my thinking

 

[Tessarael]

Two of the variant rules in the DMG we tried at a few levels when 5e first came out and then dropped hard - spell points was one of them. Higher level spells are more efficient per action, and the casters would invariably use more high level slots than they could have with the spell slot system, and then be low for the rest of the adventuring day. So then they are either clamouring for a short adventuring day (which is unfair to the at-will classes that have a steady output) or are bored with few points left and just doing cantrips for like 75% of combats.

It just didn't work psychologically, even when the player knew this happened they couldn't avoid it on a regular basis.

I've been playing an A5E Warlock with spell points that recover on a short rest. It works fine. As a typical Warlock would, I tend to cast a couple of spells at my highest level (4th), and Hex if I have the spell points spare, then Eldritch Blast.

Maybe a significant point here is short rest vs. long rest. If you nova, you're going to be desperate for a rest to recover. So the A5E Warlock spell points recovering on a short rest is a happy medium, with less spell points to burn out, but quicker recovery.

 

[Blue]

I've been playing an A5E Warlock with spell points that recover on a short rest. It works fine. As a typical Warlock would, I tend to cast a couple of spells at my highest level (4th), and Hex if I have the spell points spare, then Eldritch Blast.

Maybe a significant point here is short rest vs. long rest. If you nova, you're going to be desperate for a rest to recover. So the A5E Warlock spell points recovering on a short rest is a happy medium, with less spell points to burn out, but quicker recovery.

The warlock is an entirely different case than the others. My issue was spending all of your adventuring day's spells on more high level spell slots than you have. A warlock cannot do that. First, they are short rest recovery. And second all of their spells al already their max-slot -- what this would do would let them cast spells that are less than their full slot. So the Warlock with their Pact Magic isn't what I was talking about in even a single detail.

And frankly, if damage scaling is put in to make those lesser spells do more damage, the point of this thread, then that would still be OP as the warlock could be casting more spells than expected and their damage would be scaled up.

 

[Distracted DM]

The warlock is an entirely different case than the others. My issue was spending all of your adventuring day's spells on more high level spell slots than you have. A warlock cannot do that. First, they are short rest recovery. And second all of their spells al already their max-slot -- what this would do would let them cast spells that are less than their full slot. So the Warlock with their Pact Magic isn't what I was talking about in even a single detail.

And frankly, if damage scaling is put in to make those lesser spells do more damage, the point of this thread, then that would still be OP as the warlock could be casting more spells than expected and their damage would be scaled up.

Just FYI, I think the reason that the A5E warlock was specified was because they don't have to spend their points on max slot casts. They can cast lower level to stretch their points, or to only spend what they have to on spells that don't upcast.

 

[Tessarael]

The warlock is an entirely different case than the others. My issue was spending all of your adventuring day's spells on more high level spell slots than you have. A warlock cannot do that. First, they are short rest recovery. And second all of their spells al already their max-slot -- what this would do would let them cast spells that are less than their full slot. So the Warlock with their Pact Magic isn't what I was talking about in even a single detail.

And frankly, if damage scaling is put in to make those lesser spells do more damage, the point of this thread, then that would still be OP as the warlock could be casting more spells than expected and their damage would be scaled up.

As Distracted DM said, the A5E Warlock doesn't have to use their highest level spell slot when casting. It is a good improvement over the 5E D&D Warlock, and works well in practice.

The point that I'm trying to make about spell points is: You can choose if you want to nova with spell slots up to your highest level (5th max for A5E Warlock), getting the additional damage by casting a higher level spell, typically, or up-casting a lower level spell. Or you go with a lower level spell slot and conserve spell points. So it's a resource trade-off, and you're not nerfed with the lower spell slots being not useful in comparison to cantrips at higher levels, as you can use those spell points to caster a higher level spell slot, or some utility spell outside of combat.

Looking at the variant spell points 5E D&D rules, let's say you're a 10th level spell caster. With 64 spell points, you can cast nine 5th level spells per long rest. That's very good. If the concern is about them going nova and burning out of spell points, then limit it to a smaller amount per short rest, say a third of the above, so 21 spell points, which is: 3x 5th level; or 3x 4th level + 1x 3rd level; or 1x 4th level + 3x 3rd level; etc., depending on how you want to break it down.

Getting back to the original proposal from FrogReaver, I think the assumption by the 5E D&D creators is that higher level spellcasters won't typically bother casting say their 1st and 2nd level spells in combat to do damage, if they have 4th and 5th level spells in a big fight. But they'll still want to use those spell slots in other ways such as with Absorb Elements, Divine Favor, Expeditious Retreat, Healing Word, Shield, or for utility purposes outside combat, e.g. Detect Magic.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'm on the side of "5e did the right thing by weakening casters". I ran 3e from 1st-23rd level. Having casters able to throw dozens of high damage spells totally eclipsed other classes.

Making 1st level spell slots switch to utility because cantrips are worth casting is just fine. There's nothing wrong with casters learning they can cast Detect (stuff), Absorb Element, Shield, Feather Fall, and the like.

 

[Blue]

As Distracted DM said, the A5E Warlock doesn't have to use their highest level spell slot when casting. It is a good improvement over the 5E D&D Warlock, and works well in practice.

Then it's not really relevant to the discussion. I can bring up things from various OGL games, but we're talking 5e.

Getting back to the original proposal from FrogReaver, I think the assumption is that higher level spellcasters won't typically bother casting say their 1st and 2nd level spells in combat to do damage, if they have 4th and 5th level spells in a big fight. But they'll still want to use those spell slots in other ways such as with Absorb Elements, Divine Favor, Expeditious Retreat, Healing Word, Shield, or for utility purposes outside combat, e.g. Detect Magic.

Um no, you misunderstand him completely. Now, he wrote that back in 2019, but he explicitly wants the low level spells to do more damage -- in other words, be useful as combat damaging spells.