Scaling spells by spell level

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, it really does seem so. The Fighter needs some scaling to keep up with the Wizard/Cleric, but it does seem to maybe have gone a bit over board. I would like a bit flatter math in the damage department as well as they have done with to-hit/ac.

Well to be honest, the Fighter is the only class which I want to deal massive damage. Everybody else always have more things to do, so I don't mind the Fighter to be "mildly broken" when it comes to damage in combat.

Everybody else... yeah they could be toned down a bit, starting from the Rogue's Sneak Attack and the Warlock's Eldritch Blast.

 

[Starfox]

No. Basing a character's effectiveness on magic items (which he may or may not get, depending on campaign style, luck, DM preference, etc.) and basing another character's (already greater) effectiveness on things which are completely internal to the class progression is a recipe for disaster.

In 3E and earlier editions, a caster was not nearly as good at using magic items as a fighter. Give both more gear, and a fighter gains power relative to the wizard. So, if you want to have a gear.neutral power scaling, you have to change things so that wizards benefit as much from their gear as fighters do. Until you do that, expected wealth level has to be a part of the power equation.

And it turns out that is quite tricky to do, because the same bonus applied to different classes works out very differently. A bonus of +1 damage per attack is a lot better if you have several attacks (like the fighter), and an increase in AC is more valuable if you start out at a better AC and get attacked more (again like a fighter).

This is one of the things 4E did better than previous editions, introducing implements.

Going back tot he basic discussion, I'd say spells should still auto scale, because even without magic items, fighters also auto scale. And without some kind of scaling damage (and assuming scaling hp), fights will get very slow.

 

[n00bdragon]

In 3E and earlier editions, a caster was not nearly as good at using magic items as a fighter. Give both more gear, and a fighter gains power relative to the wizard. So, if you want to have a gear.neutral power scaling, you have to change things so that wizards benefit as much from their gear as fighters do. Until you do that, expected wealth level has to be a part of the power equation.

And it turns out that is quite tricky to do, because the same bonus applied to different classes works out very differently. A bonus of +1 damage per attack is a lot better if you have several attacks (like the fighter), and an increase in AC is more valuable if you start out at a better AC and get attacked more (again like a fighter).

This is one of the things 4E did better than previous editions, introducing implements.

Going back tot he basic discussion, I'd say spells should still auto scale, because even without magic items, fighters also auto scale. And without some kind of scaling damage (and assuming scaling hp), fights will get very slow.

Most of this is just not true.

If a fighter gained more from magic items it was only because he started at such a low position to begin with that any boost in power multiplied his effectiveness many times over whereas the wizard starts on such a high mountain of power that gaining the same amount of magic item power does not lift him as much relatively.

Of course all that aside the actual boost that spellcasters get out of magic items is leaps and bounds beyond what fighters can possibly get. Casters have access to wands and scrolls for starters which is huge. Most other magic items casters get allow them to cast even more spells per day or cast the ones they have more effectively (or sometimes both, I'm looking at you Headband of Intellect). And then they still have access to all the same wonderous items that fighters can use.

I really don't understand how you conclude the fighter is particularly adept at using magic items. Because he can use magic swords and armor?

----------

As for the topic at hand I don't really care which direction they take, but non-spellcasters need to get the same thing and be brought up to the same level. We need weeaboo fightan magic.

 

[Sadrik]

As for the topic at hand I don't really care which direction they take, but non-spellcasters need to get the same thing and be brought up to the same level. We need weeaboo fightan magic.

I think this is a trap. Balance does not have to be perfectly achieved at every level. I think unlimited minor spells attempts to balance the magic types with the fighting classes. I would prefer more limited scope for the magic types at early levels and I would prefer to have them more powerful later on.

I also think that scaling spells through memorizing/utilizing higher level spell slots is key. As the casters do need some mitigation.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I really don't understand how you conclude the fighter is particularly adept at using magic items. Because he can use magic swords and armor?

----------

Pre 3e, the magic item tables were HEAVILY weighted towards fighters.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Really depends, how the rest of the system works.

If you lose 1st level slots over time, but spells scale with the slot used for it, it should work.

I could imagine a system, where you only have 12 spells max, and only from the highest 3 levels you know.

This is why I prefered the at-will magic missile scaling. Because it had to keep up with the lowest level of spells you can cast.
The fighter base attack with expertise dice and the sneak attack both scale quite fast.

 

[Sadrik]

This is why I prefered the at-will magic missile scaling. Because it had to keep up with the lowest level of spells you can cast.
The fighter base attack with expertise dice and the sneak attack both scale quite fast.

This is why I do not like at-will magic. Balancing at-will magic with a sword swing is not the direction I would like to see. It does not need to be at-will like a sword. It needs to be a resource that is powerful but limited.

 

[Starfox]

Most of this is just not true.

Experiences vary of course, but its been very consistent here.

 

[Drago Rinato]

i voted No autoscale, but i don't like even the spell memorization scale.

I'll prefer Wizards, if they have to use slots at all, to memorize normally the spells in their right slots, and must burn one or more of the memorized spells to power up the spell they want to cast.

So at higher level when they have a lot of slots they must burn a lot of them to power up the spell they will effectively use.

Having a lot of slots they can memorize more different spells and burn the less useful in a moment of need.

I dunno, maybe something like:

*1d6 more damage per level of spell slot
*to extend a spell duration: spend another slot of the half the original spell level
*to increase by 100% the range of a spell: spend another slot of the half the original spell level
*to increase by 100% the area of effect of a spell: spend another slot of the half the original spell level
*to silent or still spend a spell slot of first level

and so on for the other metamagic feat of the 3rd edition...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is why I do not like at-will magic. Balancing at-will magic with a sword swing is not the direction I would like to see. It does not need to be at-will like a sword. It needs to be a resource that is powerful but limited.

either direction is fine for me... but magic missile that only stays at 1d4+1 damage is bad bad bad...
(I could perfectly see a spell called missile barrage though)