I'd like opinions about how spells should be balanced in 5e, treating as given the basic structure where spells automatically increase in power by casting them in a higher level slot. Namely, should we aim for spells that are balanced solely based on what slot they end up using, or should we also take into account that spells with low minimum level are much more flexible than spells with a high minimum level?
The tradeoff between flexibility and power is obviously not unique to this issue (see: feats, balancing utility vs. combat spells of the same level, every siloing discussion ever) but I don't think we've had them in quite this form before. The closest is certainly 3/3.5 metamagic, but the base assumptions of spell-casting were quite a bit different there, and in any case the rules for metamagic tried to handle scaling via a global change to fundamental quantities like doubled duration. Mechanics like that, which change an entire class of spells instead of a single spell, demand a unique set of considerations.
Now, I realize that actually balancing spells that do quite different things is a task unto itself, but I'm trying to grapple with the abstract principle, so maybe it's best to start with the idealized case of spells that already do similar things. Consider Fireball vs. Meteor Swarm, for example. In the most recent playtest a 9th level Fireball will do 12d6 (save for half) damage in a 20' radius. A Meteor Swarm will do 12d6 (save for half) damage in a 40' radius around each of 4 separate points. Leaving aside differences in damage type, range, etc., and regardless of whether damage stacks or overlaps if in the area of multiple meteors, it is clear that Meteor Swarm is the unambiguously more powerful use of a 9th level spell slot. The trade-off, of course, is that one can only cast Meteor Swarm in a 9th level slot, and 9th level slots are a rare commodity indeed.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this sort of trade-off, but adopting it is a shift from earlier editions where spell level and the spell slot used were mostly synonymous, ignoring metamagic or using higher level slots (without any changes in effect) to cast lower-level spells. I also don't have a good sense about how significant those changes should be, and how we can use them smartly for spells that scale from 1st to 9th vs. those that scale from 4th to 9th, or 7th to 9th.
Now, if every spell had the same minimum level this would be a non-issue, since then every spell would have equal flexibility with respect to spell slots. One could also choose to emphasize spell slot as much as possible by having each spell's minimum level suited to the unique qualitative effects it introduces (with appropriate damage or whatever will end up scaling, etc.), and then scale from there. This would be a bit like other games where most spells start low-powered and are improved by spending points or expanding down a spell-tree, although I think it would be difficult to do to an extreme while keeping the game recognizably D&D.
For example, if the large range and area of meteor swarm is its defining feature, why not start it at 2d6 damage and make it a, say, 5th level spell? Then scale the damage in such a way as to be slightly better than a 9th level fireball, since the flexibility loss of a 3rd vs. 5th level spell is much different than a 3rd vs. 9th level spell. And fireball itself would have to undergo this process, to determine if kd6 damage in a 20' radius has its best minimum level as 3. The most extreme case might be Wish as a scaled version of Prestidigitation, in that both have traditionally been "do something I feel like but of appropriate consequence" spells, although it is difficult to see how one could write a functional version with recognizably D&D mechanics, especially since Wish all by itself tends to be problematic.
Nevertheless, a spell with minimum level 9 in the above approach is one for which no balanced 8th level version can be written without sacrificing a defining element, and such spells are likely a very exclusive club. This approach would end up slaying a lot of sacred cows (for better or worse) with respect to a spell's "primary" level, but it also aims to maximize the flexibility of every spell, and as a side-effect minimizes the need to make power/flexibility tradeoffs when increasing the slot used for casting.
So, how should spell power consider flexibility (i.e. minimum spell level) as well the final slot it is cast in? Should we seek maximum flexibility in addition to, or possibly instead of, a power/flexibility tradeoff? Perhaps some other intermediate approach? If we accept the tradeoff, what guidelines might exist for determining the appropriate degree?
The tradeoff between flexibility and power is obviously not unique to this issue (see: feats, balancing utility vs. combat spells of the same level, every siloing discussion ever) but I don't think we've had them in quite this form before. The closest is certainly 3/3.5 metamagic, but the base assumptions of spell-casting were quite a bit different there, and in any case the rules for metamagic tried to handle scaling via a global change to fundamental quantities like doubled duration. Mechanics like that, which change an entire class of spells instead of a single spell, demand a unique set of considerations.
Now, I realize that actually balancing spells that do quite different things is a task unto itself, but I'm trying to grapple with the abstract principle, so maybe it's best to start with the idealized case of spells that already do similar things. Consider Fireball vs. Meteor Swarm, for example. In the most recent playtest a 9th level Fireball will do 12d6 (save for half) damage in a 20' radius. A Meteor Swarm will do 12d6 (save for half) damage in a 40' radius around each of 4 separate points. Leaving aside differences in damage type, range, etc., and regardless of whether damage stacks or overlaps if in the area of multiple meteors, it is clear that Meteor Swarm is the unambiguously more powerful use of a 9th level spell slot. The trade-off, of course, is that one can only cast Meteor Swarm in a 9th level slot, and 9th level slots are a rare commodity indeed.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this sort of trade-off, but adopting it is a shift from earlier editions where spell level and the spell slot used were mostly synonymous, ignoring metamagic or using higher level slots (without any changes in effect) to cast lower-level spells. I also don't have a good sense about how significant those changes should be, and how we can use them smartly for spells that scale from 1st to 9th vs. those that scale from 4th to 9th, or 7th to 9th.
Now, if every spell had the same minimum level this would be a non-issue, since then every spell would have equal flexibility with respect to spell slots. One could also choose to emphasize spell slot as much as possible by having each spell's minimum level suited to the unique qualitative effects it introduces (with appropriate damage or whatever will end up scaling, etc.), and then scale from there. This would be a bit like other games where most spells start low-powered and are improved by spending points or expanding down a spell-tree, although I think it would be difficult to do to an extreme while keeping the game recognizably D&D.
For example, if the large range and area of meteor swarm is its defining feature, why not start it at 2d6 damage and make it a, say, 5th level spell? Then scale the damage in such a way as to be slightly better than a 9th level fireball, since the flexibility loss of a 3rd vs. 5th level spell is much different than a 3rd vs. 9th level spell. And fireball itself would have to undergo this process, to determine if kd6 damage in a 20' radius has its best minimum level as 3. The most extreme case might be Wish as a scaled version of Prestidigitation, in that both have traditionally been "do something I feel like but of appropriate consequence" spells, although it is difficult to see how one could write a functional version with recognizably D&D mechanics, especially since Wish all by itself tends to be problematic.
Nevertheless, a spell with minimum level 9 in the above approach is one for which no balanced 8th level version can be written without sacrificing a defining element, and such spells are likely a very exclusive club. This approach would end up slaying a lot of sacred cows (for better or worse) with respect to a spell's "primary" level, but it also aims to maximize the flexibility of every spell, and as a side-effect minimizes the need to make power/flexibility tradeoffs when increasing the slot used for casting.
So, how should spell power consider flexibility (i.e. minimum spell level) as well the final slot it is cast in? Should we seek maximum flexibility in addition to, or possibly instead of, a power/flexibility tradeoff? Perhaps some other intermediate approach? If we accept the tradeoff, what guidelines might exist for determining the appropriate degree?
Last edited:
