D&D 5E Power/Spell scaling seems off

[Squidmaster]

For the most part, I'm really digging this latest version of the next edition of Dungeons & Dragons, but it still seems that class abilities and spells often are not scaling in a way that makes any sense. I'm curious if you guys agree with me. Here are a few examples:

Two weapon fighting gives you one additional attack regardless of how many attacks you get. That makes it fantastic at levels 1 through 8 (or 5 for fighters), but then increasingly less so in the higher levels.

A Cleric of the sun gets a nifty use of Channel Divinity called Radiance of the Dawn, allowing him or her to deal 2d10 damage + an additional 1 per level to certain enemies, among other things. That seems terrific at level 2, but far less so at levels 10, 15, or 20.

The Weaponmaster Fighter deals 1d6 extra damage on attacks where a specific maneuver fails, and that never increases with level. This version of the Fighter Has to hope more and more for success even while the statistics of his enemies make that less and less likely as levels increase.

The classic Fireball spell deals 6d6 damage when cast at level 3, but only an additional 1d6 per level thereafter.

There are numerous other examples, but this should suffice to illustrate my concerns.

Perhaps this method of scaling is intentional for spells so as to make the higher-level spells attractive, but it seems unlikely that this is true for all of the various powers that fit into this category. It's not as if monster hit points start high at the low levels and then taper off into the higher levels. Glancing at the Beastiary, it seems that creature hit points often increase at a much faster rate than just 1 die per challenge level.

Am I missing something here, or is this a problem?

 

[pemerton]

The fighter's Second Wind is another example of this.

 

[Falling Icicle]

For the most part, I'm really digging this latest version of the next edition of Dungeons & Dragons, but it still seems that class abilities and spells often are not scaling in a way that makes any sense. I'm curious if you guys agree with me. Here are a few examples:

Two weapon fighting gives you one additional attack regardless of how many attacks you get. That makes it fantastic at levels 1 through 8 (or 5 for fighters), but then increasingly less so in the higher levels.

Two-Weapon Fighting would be really overpowered if it doubled your extra attacks as well.

A Cleric of the sun gets a nifty use of Channel Divinity called Radiance of the Dawn, allowing him or her to deal 2d10 damage + an additional 1 per level to certain enemies, among other things. That seems terrific at level 2, but far less so at levels 10, 15, or 20.

Yeah, this one needs to be revised.

The Weaponmaster Fighter deals 1d6 extra damage on attacks where a specific maneuver fails, and that never increases with level. This version of the Fighter Has to hope more and more for success even while the statistics of his enemies make that less and less likely as levels increase.

Fighters not only get more expertise dice as they go up in level, they also get more attacks to use them with. Trust me, fighters are fine. If anything, they're bordering on overpowered right now.

The classic Fireball spell deals 6d6 damage when cast at level 3, but only an additional 1d6 per level thereafter.

I'm actually really fond of the way spells scale in this edition. They grow quite a bit in power, but not ridiculously so. It's not unlike 4e in that respect. A fighter at level 20 has four attacks and thus does about four times as much damage as a 1st level fighter. Meteor Swarm, a 9th level spell, does 12d6 damage, which is four times as much as burning hands, a 1st level spell. So it's actually pretty well balanced.

Perhaps this method of scaling is intentional for spells so as to make the higher-level spells attractive, but it seems unlikely that this is true for all of the various powers that fit into this category. It's not as if monster hit points start high at the low levels and then taper off into the higher levels. Glancing at the Beastiary, it seems that creature hit points often increase at a much faster rate than just 1 die per challenge level.

Am I missing something here, or is this a problem?

While it is true that character damage doesn't scale at the same rate as HPs do, there are also other things to consider. Even the toughest monsters in the bestiary can be brought down pretty quickly by similar level characters. Even at very high levels, most monsters die in like 3-4 rounds, or 1 round with 3-4 characters attacking it. If anything, people have been complaining that the monsters may be too weak. Higher level monsters are also more likely to be boss-type monsters or fought in fewer numbers, while often being accompanied by lower level monsters. Thanks to bounded accuracy, those lower level monsters can still participate, and your characters' damage will be quite effective against them.

But yes, there are some problems that need to be fixed. They've admitted as much and have said they'll be doing a thorough review of the game's math after the public playtest is over.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

These things are probably all classified by the lead design team as maths problems. They'll leave it to the recently announced secondary team to worry about these sorts of numbers.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
Perhaps this method of scaling is intentional for spells so as to make the higher-level spells attractive, but it seems unlikely that this is true for all of the various powers that fit into this category. It's not as if monster hit points start high at the low levels and then taper off into the higher levels. Glancing at the Beastiary, it seems that creature hit points often increase at a much faster rate than just 1 die per challenge level.
...

My emphasis. Yeah, you are correct with that first sentence. One "problem" DnD had in 3e was the linear fighter vs quadratic wizard syndrome. One of the reasons for this was that as you got more powerful spells, the previous low-level spells also increased in power. In 5e they let you scale the spells by using higher level spell slots, and they scale much lower than they did in 3e. Fireball scaled up to level 9 does 12d6 damage, while Meteor Swarm, a level 9 spell does 12d6 damage. Seems pretty consistent.

Regarding "various powers that fit into this category", I really agree, class abilities/powers shouldn't use the same scaling method as spells, and probably should stay at about the same power-level relative to your character level. Either that, or you should get new and improved ones as you level up.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I think with the idea of being able to use many lower monsters for larger scale encounters, those powers will still be useful in dropping the lvl 2-3 mooks when you're at level 10. Are they less useful against the lvl 10 sub-boss, perhaps, but keep in mind that they still also have work regarding the math to sort out and adjust over the coming months.

 

[Mistwell]

These things are probably all classified by the lead design team as maths problems. They'll leave it to the recently announced secondary team to worry about these sorts of numbers.

What's with this trend to make the word "math" into a plural? That's a British slang for mathematics, but I am noticing most people who use it are not British.

 

[Cyberen]

In french, "mathematiques" are abbreviated as "maths".
Voilà, c'est la vie !

 

[Squidmaster]

I hope they do address these issues in the math corrections that we have all heard about. I'm a little wary because of the game's past history. Maybe this is a good place to point out the things that may (or ultimately may not) need correcting and discuss them.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

What's with this trend to make the word "math" into a plural? That's a British slang for mathematics, but I am noticing most people who use it are not British.

It's called English.

It's the origin of the second language that most Americans are monolingual in.