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

[Minigiant]

Not for this spell, I agree. Does not mean the concept is bad.

It's bad for most spells.

5e spells were not designed for Downcasting.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's bad for most spells.

5e spells were not designed for Downcasting.

I disagree. You can easily balance the numbers so they align with lower level spells, or better, are slightly better than those. Also, having the option is better than not having the option. Upcasting is also bad in the case of most damage spells, but it is still nice to have the option.

 

[NotAYakk]

It's not worth the class feature.

If old Favored enemy and terrain was too niche, Downcasting is too.

Suppose Conjure Barrage read:
5d8 damage, 60' cone
And you got -1d8 per level under 3.

5d8 makes it a solid spell (22.5). Not fireball good (smaller area, way less range, 20% less damage).

And maybe add 1 use/long rest for free.

Now that feature is "get a good spell automatically known" and get a way to spend L 1/2 slots on it (4d8/3d8).

Even at 4d8 (18) it isn't bad, and 3d8/2d8 for 1st/2nd level slots isn't a total waste of an action.

But right now, it is a bad spell you get to downlevel, and the downleveling is inefficient.

 

[Horwath]

If I were to "downlevel" Fireball, I would have it be something like this:

That would make it so 1st level fireball would be a 10-foot radius sphere that deals 2d6 damage and 2nd level fireball has a radius of 15 feet and deals 5d6. That's still pretty powerful for those levels, but not super game-breaking.

Now if only fireball scales UP like that so it is not a complete waste of a slot at spell levels 4+
maybe only +2d6 damage and +5ft radius per spell level.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Now if only fireball scales UP like that so it is not a complete waste of a slot at spell levels 4+
maybe only +2d6 damage and +5ft radius per spell level.

Good idea!

 

[Marandahir]

I actually really like the idea of downcasting because it's basically just saying - this spell has a level entry requirement, but that requirement is unrelated to which spell slot it's cast with. This supports a bunch of fictional concepts (I'll shoot my fireball, but not at full power so I can conserve my magic for later in the fight, etc).

I don't think it's going to pan out; I think it's something you'd need to build the system from the ground up around, and the 5e return to Vancian spell slots and spell levels makes this just too convoluted or possible to cause too much confusion between spell level, spell slot level, and character level (already confusing enough for the latter two).

I think it's worth considering for a theoretical 6E rebuild or an alternate D&D-based fantasy RPG. But it's too much effort and confusion for too little gain to graft onto 5E at this stage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I actually really like the idea of downcasting because it's basically just saying - this spell has a level entry requirement, but that requirement is unrelated to which spell slot it's cast with. This supports a bunch of fictional concepts (I'll shoot my fireball, but not at full power so I can conserve my magic for later in the fight, etc).

I don't think it's going to pan out; I think it's something you'd need to build the system from the ground up around, and the 5e return to Vancian spell slots and spell levels makes this just too convoluted or possible to cause too much confusion between spell level, spell slot level, and character level (already confusing enough for the latter two).

I think it's worth considering for a theoretical 6E rebuild or an alternate D&D-based fantasy RPG. But it's too much effort and confusion for too little gain to graft onto 5E at this stage.

I liked your first paragraph. I don't agree with others though.
I really can't see a reason why you can't balance it.
It does not have to be a general rule. But an evoker being able to downcast fireball will be great.
Also, if the sorcerer really stays a known caster, what I expect, being able to forget burning hands and learn fireball instead and then still being able to cast a 1st level fire spell would be a great addition to the game. I might keep it, even if it is not official in 1D&D.

Remember: downscaling might cost you more dice than you gain by upscaling.

 

[Marandahir]

I liked your first paragraph. I don't agree with others though.
I really can't see a reason why you can't balance it.
It does not have to be a general rule. But an evoker being able to downcast fireball will be great.
Also, if the sorcerer really stays a known caster, what I expect, being able to forget burning hands and learn fireball instead and then still being able to cast a 1st level fire spell would be a great addition to the game. I might keep it, even if it is not official in 1D&D.

Remember: downscaling might cost you more dice than you gain by upscaling.

Sorry for any confusion, my concern was not about balance, it was about communication. I think you can balance it quite well. But introducing this to the game at this point has a major cost associated with it: lack of clarity regarding what level means. Remember that allegedly Kate Welch departure had a bit to do with the game being extraordinarily confusing on this very issue, and WotC being unwilling to slaughter the sacred cow for the sake of clarity. I'm not saying we should get rid of spell levels, just that the idea of spells that slide up and down depending on the slot you cast them with only introduces more confusion into what a spell level actually means.

"So you're telling me I'm a 9th level wizard, but I can only cast up to 5th level spells, but I can cast my 3rd level spell fireball as a 2nd level spell, but I couldn't cast fireball as a 2nd level spell when I was 3rd level and thus had access to 2nd level spells like my downcasted fireball?"

You see the confusion here?

I do think that spell levels are important to the 5e system, since they allow the spells to be a uniform resource, and allow different access progressions for different classes (for example, so that Rangers get higher level spells at half the rate of Druids, and Eldritch Knights at 1/3 the rate of Wizards), But now we're introducing questions about what level that spell even is, inherently. Upcasting makes more intuitive sense, since you're gatekept from learning the spell until its lowest slot it can be cast with is something that you have. But once you have spells that can be cast with a lower slot than they actually are, then players are going to ask why they couldn't cast it at that lower level. And this only adds to the confusion regarding class vs spell level.

4e solved the problem by doing away with unified levels for spells and tailoring each special spell-like class feature that could be learned or prepared to the specific class. But this meant a lot of wasted space for barely different powers that have just be slightly spiced with a hint of that class' secret sauce.

Another system might solve it by having "Fire" be a basic spell idea that can be shaped into a fireball by 5th level wizards, but could be used to light torches or campfires or lightly burn close by enemies at lower levels. Thus the spell itself doesn't have a level, but you shape it by the level the slot you cast it with (sort of like how big you make your kamehameha wave - whether you pull a Roshi and get all muscular and giant to put off a max power 100% and put out a burning castle, or whether it's just a small poof of energy you use because you don't want to waste your most powerful slots). This is actually kinda what Psionics did in 4e too, with all the powers being at-will (essentially cantrips), but you being able to spend power points of various degrees to turn them into your higher leveled features akin to another class' 1/short rest or 1/long rest powers, respectively. But such a system has to be built from the ground up and communicated in such a way that clears up the level issue, and grafting it on here would only serve to further confuse players.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sorry for any confusion, my concern was not about balance, it was about communication. I think you can balance it quite well. But introducing this to the game at this point has a major cost associated with it: lack of clarity regarding what level means. Remember that allegedly Kate Welch departure had a bit to do with the game being extraordinarily confusing on this very issue, and WotC being unwilling to slaughter the sacred cow for the sake of clarity. I'm not saying we should get rid of spell levels, just that the idea of spells that slide up and down depending on the slot you cast them with only introduces more confusion into what a spell level actually means.

"So you're telling me I'm a 9th level wizard, but I can only cast up to 5th level spells, but I can cast my 3rd level spell fireball as a 2nd level spell, but I couldn't cast fireball as a 2nd level spell when I was 3rd level and thus had access to 2nd level spells like my downcasted fireball?"

You see the confusion here?

Actually... not really... but maybe my imagination is limited.

and even if back then it was not time to slay the sacred cow, now is the time to try it out.

 

[Marandahir]

Actually... not really... but maybe my imagination is limited.

and even if back then it was not time to slay the sacred cow, now is the time to try it out.

I'd argue that trying to make that change in an iterative edition morph is futile - the time to make that change would have been 2012-2013, when we were helping curate the direction of 5e at a whole. One D&D is built upon the body of 5e, unlike 4e which wasn't shackled to 3e or 5e that wasn't shackled to 4e. This is more like 3.5e or 4Essentials or 2e Player's Option, so trying to make major changes to how spellcasting works in its entirety is probably off the table.