Scaling spells by spell level

[Li Shenron]

I'm undecided... Scale by slot level adds an interesting level of tactical freedom, and I just loved the 3ed concept of metamagic. However 3ed spells also scaled automatically by level.

But I'm undecided because the math of 5e might make it different. It seems damage in 5e currently scales for everyone faster than in previous editions. Still there are people concerned with spellcasting being still "quadratic". Therefore, rather than going with my personal preference, I think I'm just going to hope that the designers make a decision based on balance in this case.

 

[Obryn]

If fighters don't scale fast enough to keep up, add more magic items. Fighters are the ultimate weapon-carriers.

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.

Unless you're suggesting giving fighters magic items as part of their class progression, or tying wizards' and clerics' progression to finding magic items (like requiring scrolls & learn percentages for both arcane and divine spells), it's a bad assumption for the new edition. (And it's not like casters don't already want magic items, too.)

And I agree we don't want too much scaling in Call of Cthulhu. This is D&D though.

-O

 

[Leatherhead]

That's a loaded poll.

I prefer scaling by spell points.

That's effectively the same thing as scaling by spell slot.

But then again I have always hated spell point systems. Everyone is always using the biggest boom possible, and all the lesser spells fade away into something akin to planned obsolescence.

However, scaling by spell slot is the worst. Nobody is going to use a standard action for 1d4+1 damage at level 20. All the lower level spell slots are useless unless they are loaded with spells specifically designed to break or bypass the system, in which case they are probobly going to be considered "broken."

 

[steeldragons]

I think...if the spell is going to scale at all, then just do it by level.

It is most likely going to be damage (though possibly duration also) so a line in the spell description: "this spell does d6 per caster level" or "does 3d4 +d4 per caster level above X" is not really at all disruptive.

I DO like the idea of spells just getting more powerful as you go up in level, though...as opposed to "Silent Image, Minor Image, Major Image, Super Mega Major Image, etc. etc." or "Invisibility Rare, Invisibility Medium Rare, Invisibility Medium, blah blah". That just all seems unnecessary.

But at the same time I don't want to see spell lists that explain the spell and then beneath each description you have: Cast as the following slot...
1st: You turn yourself invisible for 1 hour +caster level (or Int bonus or whatever it might be).
2nd: As 1st but can now cast it on someone else.
3rd: You turn the recipient of the spell (either yourself or someone else) invisible for 24 hours without concentration.
4th: You can now turn anything you want within a 10' radius Invisible.
5th: Your invisibility is not longer dispelled by making an attack. Duration is auto 24 hours or until dismissed by the caster.
6th: wuteva wuteva
7th: moh wuteva
8th:...how many spell levels did they decide 5e was gonna have?

And then, you only have to do that, maybe, 100 times (out of the hundreds of spells in the various lists) for the spells that would be scaling. That's gonna amount to a looooooot of page count.

So, yeah, I think the scaling by level is a more practical choice from a lot of angles.

I also want to second the suggestion that "playing around with the spell"/ metamagic-esque should/could be tricks built into the caster classes that are gained as one increases in level/power. Extending durations, expanding range or speed of casting or doubling up damage, using it on an object instead of person or vice versa, etc... . So the spell itself doesn't change/have to change or be different...just how the caster is using it.

"Being 7th level, I can now cast an 'Extended' [the 'Range Extension' class feat/skill/whatever] Invisibility. That means I now make things invisible in a radius up to...30 feet. I'll hide every villager I can within 60 feet, centered on me, from the encroaching orc raiders." [or whatever it happens to be/however it works]

It's early...more coffee...I'll come back to this later after the babblerium subsides.
-SD

 

[Scipio202]

I think it should scale by spell slot (or spell casting resource more generally). Rather than have every spell need extra text, I would think they could have generic rules like "for every extra spell level increase damage and hp affected by one die and range/duration/aoe by 10%".

I'm sure that they have system math rules that say a level X spell should do Y damage if single target or Z damage if aoe. That should make it fairly easy to balance the base and scaling damages.

 

[Scipio202]

Of course there is already a bit of level-scaling already built in due to scaling save DCs. A fireball cast by a level 10 wizard is going to do higher average damage (but not max damage) than a fireball cast by a level 5 wizard, since fewer targets will make their Dex save for half damage.

 

[Li Shenron]

Of course there is already a bit of level-scaling already built in due to scaling save DCs. A fireball cast by a level 10 wizard is going to do higher average damage (but not max damage) than a fireball cast by a level 5 wizard, since fewer targets will make their Dex save for half damage.

Currently in 5e the DC goes up very slowly*, and in the previous iteration of the rules (with PC limited to level 3) it seemed fixed. I think it might even work if they made it always fixed, which would be a good simplification. After all, saving throws do not improve by level except because of ability score increase (up to +5) just like DC improve in the same way, so why is DC still scaling with level? I don't think we really need that anymore.

*check the spellcasting classes progression and notice that until level 5 it increases (by 1) only for one class

 

[The Choice]

My preferred option is not presented in the poll: no scaling.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it should scale by spell slot (or spell casting resource more generally). Rather than have every spell need extra text, I would think they could have generic rules like "for every extra spell level increase damage and hp affected by one die and range/duration/aoe by 10%".

This is quite a good point, at least to save some space in the books. It might however be slightly more math-complicated for some gamers compared to have formulas inside the spell description, and it might also be skewed in favor of spells with many parameters compared with spells with few (e.g. touch spells with instantaneous duration and non-damaging effects... such spell would not scale at all).

But on the other hand, there is one benefit we haven't thought about, from making spells scale with slot level instead of caster level. It becomes a trade-off because it's not automatic, you need to spend a higher level slot to improve the spell. The benefit is that this is entirely optional. This rules complicates the game for spellcasters, but if the player feels it's too hard or confusing for him, he can safely ignore the option, without fear of getting gimped (while if they scale automatically, you shouldn't ignore the fact).

 

[Blackbrrd]

... It seems damage in 5e currently scales for everyone faster than in previous editions....

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.