D&D (2024) Make SPELLS Balanced

[tetrasodium]

I never like this argument. It's my suspicion that the reason a lot of campaigns end early is that higher level D&D is not well balanced and breaks down. Higher levels spells are a big part of this. It is especially important to balance and rework spells at higher levels.

But perhaps that is a different thread rather than trying to balance spells within their current power levels.

That bolded bit is a thousand percent accurate but it's not just spells. In the case of 5e you have the first strike where monsters are not balanced for high level PCs because they are aimed at low level parties & hamstrung by bounded accuracy before they even have a chance against higher level PCs. D&d is math at all levels for 5e to crash into a second strike when the gm finds themselves without the very tools like SR, DR, touchAC, resist #/x, narrow telegraphable saves that allow certain types of spells to be (dis) favored, & so on right when it becomes most important for the gm of a high level party to start employing those tools with finesse to monsters based on their high level party's size & make up. Finally 5e gets a well deserved third strike that manages to throw the bat at the gm for injury with its by replacing those tools with crude & primative analogs of 50%resist msgic/legendary resist and a pointless excess of saves that monsters rarely even waste ink having anything more than +ability mod to saves when it matters.

 

[Yaarel]

Spells are the essence of the high-tier gaming engine.

Normally, the designers reallocate the spell design space, when measuring out the impact of new non-spell features for high level classes.

It is vital, the high-tier spells balance well thus merit the value of their assigned spell slot.

 

[Yaarel]

The "standard" damage spell has an instantaneous duration, deals an amount of damage within a specific range per slot, and saves for half damage. These standard spells are well understood, and easy to evaluate.

Spells that do damage no-save, or else save for zero damage, are variants of the standard damage spell that are also easy to calculate and evaluate.

(By the way. Even spells whose purpose is to purely deal damage should probably include a "ribbon", namely a low-tier or less useful minor feature, for the sake of flavor. For example, even the Fireball spell has a ribbon where it can damage unattended objects along with the intended creatures. Usually, the DM can narratively adjudicate what objects the Fireball destroys, but sometimes the DM will want to roll a save for a specific object. Here the ribbon helps actualize the flavor of extreme heat.)



The standard damage spells that are instantaneous, contrast the nonstandard damage spells that are non-instantaneous. The non-instantaneous deal smaller amounts of ongoing damage, whether across multiple turns or multiple hours, whether dealing auto-damage, using bonus actions, or enhancing actions.

In the context of the gaming engine, these ongoing damage spells are centrally important. Because. The ongoing at-will damage is where the caster classes like Wizard and the noncaster classes like Fighter, intersect. When a Wizard casts an ongoing damage spell, the damage-dealing per turn behaves more like a Fighter wielding at-will high weapon damage.

The standard damage spells are clear to me. These ongoing damage spells are less clear − but so important to get right. How much ongoing damage should a spell deal for each higher slot?

Typically, the Wizard avoids these ongoing damage spells, because the instantaneous higher damage is more effective to eliminate any hostiles and prevent the hostiles from continuing to harm the teammates. Even so, when the Wizard does choose an ongoing spell, the Wizard character resembles the gaming engine of the Fighter class. I need to understand this event better. How much ongoing damage is appropriate at each slot.

 

[MNblockhead]

I never like this argument. It's my suspicion that the reason a lot of campaigns end early is that higher level D&D is not well balanced and breaks down. Higher levels spells are a big part of this. It is especially important to balance and rework spells at higher levels.

But perhaps that is a different thread rather than trying to balance spells within their current power levels.

A welcome addition to the DMG would be to add a section to help newer DMs understand the effects certain spells can have on the game and over advise on revising the available spells based on genre or play style.

 

[Yaarel]

A welcome addition to the DMG would be to add a section to help newer DMs understand the effects certain spells can have on the game and over advise on revising the available spells based on genre or play style.

A simple suggestion for a "low magic" "high fantasy" setting, ban full-casters and only use half-casters. For example, the Paladin is great for a Gandalf archetype. A Trickster Rogue is awesome for a Conan sorcerer. A nature-mage Ranger. Even a Monk fits right in. The magic is vivid but low key. These mages are still effective characters.

 

[Yaarel]

Looking closer at the "ongoing" damage spells. They are all over the place. The following are my current impressions.

The "standard" ongoing damage spell targets multiple creatures.

Ongoing damage typically targets any "creatures", including harming friends too. "Safe" spells that only target chosen hostiles are uncommon.

"Ongoing" can mean various things. Creatures might incur damage per-turn at start or end. Bonus actions might inflict damage. Extra damage might add to weapon attacks. To inflict the damage might require an Attack Roll, or allow a Save, or be Automatic. A creature might need to make multiple Saves, each time the damage occurs, or the Save might end the ongoing damage. The creatures might need to waste an action to end the ongoing damage. The caster might need to spend future actions to wield a "heavy weapon", like Call Lightning. And so on. In some way, new damage continues to occur in future turns after the spell has been cast.

Summon spells that position an additional creature as an ally, come with their own complications. Even so, a summon spell is a kind of ongoing damage spell, and it is important to consider how much ongoing damage the summoning contributes.

It is "Good" when the creature incurs damage at the "start" of its turn. But it is "Less Useful" when the creature incurs it at the "end" of its turn. If at the end, the hostile can continue to harm the team of the caster before elimination.

Ongoing damage from an unmovable area is seriously Less Useful. Compare Wall of Fire or Mordenkainens Faithful Hound. The caster can probably catch creatures when the area first appears, but afterward the creatures can simply avoid the area, so that there is no more ongoing damage. If the damage incurs at the end of the turn, so that the creature can walk away without taking any damage, then the spell is almost pointless. An immovable damaging area is moreorless equivalent to a one-time instantaneous Fireball, so the initial damage at the appearance of the spell must be worthwhile, and the possibility of future damage later is more like a "situational" minor ribbon.

By contrast, a movable damaging area, such as Call Lightning, is Good, to bring the ongoing damage to the creatures in future rounds.

An area that deals damage if the creature "enters" can be worthwhile, because the team can Push the creatures into the area for respectable extra damage once per turn.

The "standard" ongoing damage spell has duration of 1 minute. This means, the damage remains in effect for one very long combat encounter, or two or three interrelated combat encounters. The duration of 10 minutes is not meaningfully better. It might be useful, it might not. A 1 hour duration is more significant, so at least the spell remains in effect for some session or mission.

Almost always, ongoing damage requires Concentration. The few spells that dont might even seem accidental. Designers view layering many ongoing damage effects as seriously imbalancing to the gaming engine.



In 5e so far, the amounts of ongoing damage that these spells do are all over the place. I have in mind how much damage these should do: at least 4 damage per spell slot. So, a 2nd-slot spell should deal at least 8 damage per round to each creature, and a 4th-slot spell should deal at least 16. I will post more about damage in a later post.

 

[tetrasodium]

Looking closer at the "ongoing" damage spells. They are all over the place. The following are my current impressions.

The "standard" ongoing damage spell targets multiple creatures.

Ongoing damage typically targets any "creatures", including harming friends too. "Safe" spells that only target chosen hostiles are uncommon.

"Ongoing" can mean various things. Creatures might incur damage per-turn at start or end. Bonus actions might inflict damage. Extra damage might add to weapon attacks. To inflict the damage might require an Attack Roll, or allow a Save, or be Automatic. A creature might need to make multiple Saves, each time the damage occurs, or the Save might end the ongoing damage. The creatures might need to waste an action to end the ongoing damage. The caster might need to spend future actions to wield a "heavy weapon", like Call Lightning. And so on. In some way, new damage continues to occur in future turns after the spell has been cast.

Summon spells that position an additional creature as an ally, come with their own complications. Even so, a summon spell is a kind of ongoing damage spell, and it is important to consider how much ongoing damage the summoning contributes.

It is "Good" when the creature incurs damage at the "start" of its turn. But it is "Less Useful" when the creature incurs it at the "end" of its turn. If at the end, the hostile can continue to harm the team of the caster before elimination.

Ongoing damage from an unmovable area is seriously Less Useful. Compare Wall of Fire or Mordenkainens Faithful Hound. The caster can probably catch creatures when the area first appears, but afterward the creatures can simply avoid the area, so that there is no more ongoing damage. If the damage incurs at the end of the turn, so that the creature can walk away without taking any damage, then the spell is almost pointless. An immovable damaging area is moreorless equivalent to a one-time instantaneous Fireball, so the initial damage at the appearance of the spell must be worthwhile, and the possibility of future damage later is more like a "situational" minor ribbon.

By contrast, a movable damaging area, such as Call Lightning, is Good, to bring the ongoing damage to the creatures in future rounds.

An area that deals damage if the creature "enters" can be worthwhile, because the team can Push the creatures into the area for respectable extra damage once per turn.



In 5e so far, the amounts of ongoing damage that these spells do are all over the place. I have in mind how much damage these should do: at least 4 damage per spell slot. So, a 2nd-slot spell should deal at least i damage per round to each creature, and a 4th-slot spell should deal at least 16. I will post more about damage in a later post.

Ongoing damage spells are mostly carrying over values used in the past (cook & book excluded since it once kinda sucked). Being able to deal a damage type that disables regen etherealness or whatever round after round with a single spell was huge against certain monsters back then. Cantrips trivialize dealing a damage type each round (even more so when the most popular high damage cantrips tend to be the go to damage type for this). If WotC provided GMs with a good way of removing offensive cantrips or limiting them to the old "N level zero slots/day with nonscaling 1d3 damage but gain X" it would go a long way towards creating a situation where it matters for at least some tables.

 

[Yaarel]

Ongoing damage spells are mostly carrying over values used in the past (cook & book excluded since it once kinda sucked). Being able to deal a damage type that disables regen etherealness or whatever round after round with a single spell was huge against certain monsters back then. Cantrips trivialize dealing a damage type each round (even more so when the most popular high damage cantrips tend to be the go to damage type for this). If WotC provided GMs with a good way of removing offensive cantrips or limiting them to the old "N level zero slots/day with nonscaling 1d3 damage buHet gain X" it would go a long way towards creating a situation where it matters for at least some tables.

I love cantrips. Their at-will magic makes my characters feel magical.

Heh, one of the reasons I can no longer play 3e is its lack of cantrips. I dont want to spend the game shooting mundane crossbolts when I want to play a magical character.



That said.

Cantrips seem to replace a number of ongoing damage concepts. Even some of the 5e ongoing damage spells feel more like a cantrip. Consider the Divine Favor spell: it makes weapon attacks deal radiant damage. This could be a cantrip, like Shillelagh, that can add the ability to the cantrip damage, while transfiguring the damage type into radiant. The cantrip could use a slot to augment extra damage to each attack.

 

[Yaarel]

In the context of a Psion discussion, I suggested a new mechanic. I invented it, but suspect "nothing is new under the sun".



Certain spells "occupy" a spell slot, rather than spend it. While the slot is occupied, the spell is in effect. It is always on, for an indefinite period of time. The occupied slot cannot be used for any other spell. But, it remains an option to free up the spell slot thus ending the always-on effect. Then the slot can be used for an other spell. To reuse the occupied slot for an other spell can represent going nova. The purpose of this new Occupant mechanic is to represent a superhero-like magical effects− that is always on.

The description for the spell itself says if it is a Occupant spell. For example, the Divine Favor spell could be one. This version would occupy a 1st-slot to deal 1d6 damage (or 4) extra radiant damage per weapon attack. At higher levels, it could instead occupy a higher slot indefinitely, such as 3rd-slot for about 3d6 extra damage. (At this level, the Extra Attack feature might come online, making the extra damage toward twice as good.) The radiant damage is always on, like a superhero power.



Designing ongoing damage spells to "occupy" a spell slot for an always-on effect, might be the best way to think about ongoing damage spells, generally.

The Occupant mechanic can also apply to nondamage effects that are always on, such as force armor.

 

[tetrasodium]

I love cantrips. Their at-will magic makes my characters feel magical.

Heh, one of the reasons I can no longer play 3e is its lack of cantrips. I dont want to spend the game shooting mundane crossbolts when I want to play a magical character.



That said.

Cantrips seem to replace a number of ongoing damage concepts. Even some of the 5e ongoing damage spells feel more like a cantrip. Consider the Divine Favor spell: it makes weapon attacks deal radiant damage. This could be a cantrip, like Shillelagh, that can add the ability to the cantrip damage, while transfiguring the damage type into radiant. The cantrip could use a slot to augment extra damage to each attack.

I kinda like them as well but the implementation of a cradle to grave primary caster attribute at will no resource cost attack that scales by character level with no attached item responsible* is just too good in too many ways. It squeezes out too many areas of the game from relevance as a result. The DoT type spells that deal critical damage type round after round is one example, the value of limited use scrolls & wands being nullified if those aren't top shelf or problematically balanced is another. Having wands recharge rather than deplete just turbo charges the problem cantrips apply to them.

If casters started with a cantrip wand(s) that let them cast/power the lowest tier of cantrips & needed to get wands rings or whatever to cast later tiers they would have treasure that was important to them. If casters only had x cabtrip casts per Y-period that too would provide an important need in the form of equipment to extend that with more casts of something. If base cantrip damage was trash it would provide room for equipment to improve that. None of those are true though & cantrips just wind up being a glut of good that overwhelms a lot of stuff

* Yes I know a player technically needs a focus item but that's just a pass/fail boolean thing not a wand or whatever acquired through adventuring or similar. Barring edge cases like "you wake up in prison" scenarios almost always available with no need to consider it.