D&D (2024) Down Leveling spells, from the Expert Classes playtest.

[Krachek]

Conjure barrage, for now, is not a good spell,
a fireball dealing 6d6 with a first level slot, that is the real case to discuss for down casting on a wide basis.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Conjure barrage, for now, is not a good spell,
a fireball dealing 6d6 with a first level slot, that is the real case to discuss for down casting on a wide basis.

6d6 (especially aoe) from a first level slot is INSANE, WHAT?

 

[Krachek]

6d6 (especially aoe) from a first level slot is INSANE, WHAT?

Indeed it is insane.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

6d6 (especially aoe) from a first level slot is INSANE, WHAT?

Indeed it is insane.

But that's not how Downleveling for Fireball works. We don't know if there will a feature that allows you to downlevel fireball, but if there is one, it surely will not be a simple "reduced die of damage every level below 3rd" and will probably be more like the possible version I provided earlier in the thread.

 

[Krachek]

But that's not how Downleveling for Fireball works. We don't know if there will a feature that allows you to downlevel fireball, but if there is one, it surely will not be a simple "reduced die of damage every level below 3rd" and will probably be more like the possible version I provided earlier in the thread.

Indeed you are right, we make speculation based on the conjure barrage and the Ranger UA.
on some specific case it might be interesting, as a standard mechanics OMG there is a lot a work to do!

 

[DeviousQuail]

I could see it becoming a recurring subclass feature to be able to downcast certain spells. That way there is a level requirement and you can specifically design the downcasting for the spell in question. Animate Dead for necromancers, Vampiric Touch for a new version of a blackguard or long death monk, and Heal for a life cleric jump out to me as potential candidates.

Including general downcasting for all spells seems like way more work than it is worth though.

 

[Neonchameleon]

From the playtest.

I haven’t seen this discussed much. Has anyone tried this in play yet? I wonder if this would mean spells level ranges might get rearranged.

Was anyone doing this as a house rule?

There is one spell that the playtest lets you down level. It's an awful spell as a third level spell to the point that if you literally doubled the damage it still probably wouldn't be as good as fireball and by the time you get it it's arguably worse when down levelled because by the time you get it 1d8 damage (save for half) even over a wide area is basically pointless and you need a ludicrous number of targets or a collection of targets made of glass for it to do more damage than two hunter's mark backed arrows (thanks to Extra Attack) and with the Hunter damage boost, never mind focus fire being more valuable.

(Another good reason to upcast is single target spells becoming multi-target)

 

[darjr]

There is one spell that the playtest lets you down level. It's an awful spell as a third level spell to the point that if you literally doubled the damage it still probably wouldn't be as good as fireball and by the time you get it it's arguably worse when down levelled because by the time you get it 1d8 damage (save for half) even over a wide area is basically pointless and you need a ludicrous number of targets or a collection of targets made of glass for it to do more damage than two hunter's mark backed arrows (thanks to Extra Attack) and with the Hunter damage boost, never mind focus fire being more valuable.

(Another good reason to upcast is single target spells becoming multi-target)

In the video they said that spell is a test for the whole idea and we may see more.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In the video they said that spell is a test for the whole idea and we may see more.

I hope we see more - but the base spell is a terrible one to the point it might sabotage the test.

 

[Blue]

a few reasons have already been said - spells should be designed from one level and then have upcasting make them better, downcasting will never be worth it, etc. - but what gets me the most is that it gives off the impression that a spell's level doesn't actually mean anything within the context of the world. like, i'd assume conjure barrage is 3rd level in the context of the world because it's particularly complicated or difficult to cast. but then rangers can just downcast it...but it's still a 3rd level spell. like...why is it a 3rd level spell, then? why not 1st level?

in other words, at least to me, it makes the spell* feel even more arbitrary then it already is. hence, it's cursed, and i hate it.

This basically says: "this one subclass is a prodigy at this one spell, and can do things others can't". And for a half-caster, there aren't a whole lot of 3rd level slots to use it with.

As long as they keep on making things spells instead of features, we need the flexibility to give a spell normally above level to a (sub)class. And that seems to be their direction, so this is a needed tool.