D&D 5E Spells cast at higher level spell slots. Worth it?

[raleel]

It would make sense to me if power balancing was anchored on 3rd level spell slots. Possibly even the damage of archetypal spells like Fireball was chosen first and then all other spells offset from that. Burning Hands then speaks to what a 1st level casting slot is worth.

I feel like the balancing is coherent even though I can see that it has features that are vexing for specific classes.

I don't know that I'd phrase it quite like that, but I agree with the intent. It seems that below 3rd, you are not working with a full set of components. You can't get to "normal" or "baseline" area or range. It would not surprise me in the slightest if they decided that fireball was the baseline, consciously or subconsciously.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So I found another spell that demonstrates huge discrepancies between spells that deal damage of a given spell level. Burning Hands and Fireball has been the typical example used. But let's look at Fireball versus Circle of Death.

Fireball is a 3rd level spell, 150' range, 20' blast radius, 8d6 fire damage (Dex save for half).

Circle of Death is a 6th level spell, 150' range, 60' blast radius, 8d6 necrotic damage (Con save for half), and requires an expensive material component (I'm unsure if it gets consumed by casting the spell).

Circle of Death is 3 levels higher, no increase in damage, significant increase in area of effect, but also requires a costly material component. Not only that, Fireball does 2d6 more damage than the recommended damage presented on the table in the DMG spell creation guidelines, meanwhile Circle of Death does 3d6 less damage than recommended.

Where is the consistency? How can we assume spells are balanced when there is such discrepancy? And, how can we accurately dissect spells and eyeball them well enough to judge whether a new spell/homebrew spell is balanced for its level?

Say what you want about the spellcasting in 3.5, but I felt way more confident in judging whether spells seemed appropriate for their level and new homebrew spells were balanced against their peers.

It would make sense to me if power balancing was anchored on 3rd level spell slots. Possibly even the damage of archetypal spells like Fireball was chosen first and then all other spells offset from that. Burning Hands then speaks to what a 1st level casting slot is worth.

I feel like the balancing is coherent even though I can see that it has features that are vexing for specific classes.

I don't know that I'd phrase it quite like that, but I agree with the intent. It seems that below 3rd, you are not working with a full set of components. You can't get to "normal" or "baseline" area or range. It would not surprise me in the slightest if they decided that fireball was the baseline, consciously or subconsciously.

As has been mentioned, 'iconic' spells like Fireball were specifically given higher damage than an otherwise normal spell of that level would have.

Circle of Death covers an area ten times the size of Fireball. That is probably why it has lower damage than the table would indicate. Note also that is scales better and that the material component is not used in the casting.

 

[jgsugden]

In 5e, the damage a wizard can do is generally not reflective of where they are most effective. The melee classes can generally dish out as much, if not more, without using a limited resource like a spell.

Disintegrate is a dex save or deal 75 damage. That DC at level 11 is likely 16 or 17. There is not much out there that will augment that damage and most foes will fail that save between 40% and 75% of the time at that level.

An 11th level fighter with great weapon master and great weapon fighting on a +2 2d6 weapon Is likely attacking at +5 to +7. That will likely connect slightly less often than the disintegrate - but when you factor in the availability of criticals and advantage, individual attacks will likely connect as much, if not more, than disintegrate. The damage for three attacks is about 25 each before considering critcs, so the total for all three attacks is comparable - although you're less likely to have overkill wasted and if you only need ~20 damage you're a heck of a lot more likely to get it with the three chances of a fighter than the one chance of a wizard's disintegrate (although they do have other options like scorching ray, etc...) And we have not even factored in a bonus action attack.... That could give the fighter a 33% damage advantage.

All in all, you can argue about whether the 11th level fighter or the wizard with disintegrate is going to deal more damage - but arguing the damage focused fighter is not going to be in the same ball park or better would be disingenuous.

However, when it comes to taking an enemy out of the fight - the fighter can try to grapple the enemy while the wizard has spells at every single level that can take the enemy out of the fight for at least a round and can target almost any save defense. Yes, technicallty those first and second level spells are not renewable resources, but you have enough by 11th level for multiple spells per level easily.

Long story short: How does damage scale for these damage spells? Who cares. If you're relying upon spells for damage, you're not getting the most out of them.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Long story short: How does damage scale for these damage spells? Who cares. If you're relying upon spells for damage, you're not getting the most out of them.

A couple reasons. It may not effect wizards as badly due to the number of spells they can prepare and the variety of spells they can cast, but it greatly impacts sorcerers and warlocks. Sorcerers have extremely few spells known even compared to the number a wizard can prepare, let alone the number a wizard can have in their spell book. Sorcerers need to know their spells can scale well in higher spell slots to keep them competitive. And warlock spells, the very few they get to cast, automatically scale, which creates its own problems. As a result, warlocks need to be very conscious of they cast and insuring they are maximizing how much they get out of their spell usage.

Another reason is that it creates problems when you are trying to create new spells. How can you judge whether a spell is balanced if you can't be sure of how aspects of spells are weighted and there is so much inconsistency in how spells, even within the same spell level, function.

 

[jgsugden]

You're simultaneously missing and reinforcing my main point: Spell slots and prepared spells are precious for all the spellcasting classes. As you note, even more so for sorcerers and warlocks than for wizards. So why waste them being inefficient damage dealers when you can control the field of battle? Other classes deal damage better than you. Do the things that you do better than others.

That is not to say that there is no room for one or two damage spells in your bag of tricks. A fireball to sweep out fodder, a single target spell to help out when damage is really needed all at once... these things are not necessarily a bad idea. But the spellcaster that is really being all they can be is not going to be doing it as a damage dealer.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

You're simultaneously missing and reinforcing my main point: Spell slots and prepared spells are precious for all the spellcasting classes. As you note, even more so for sorcerers and warlocks than for wizards. So why waste them being inefficient damage dealers when you can control the field of battle? Other classes deal damage better than you. Do the things that you do better than others.

That is not to say that there is no room for one or two damage spells in your bag of tricks. A fireball to sweep out fodder, a single target spell to help out when damage is really needed all at once... these things are not necessarily a bad idea. But the spellcaster that is really being all they can be is not going to be doing it as a damage dealer.

But then you are artificially limiting these spellcasters by design. You are essentially telling them there is a right and a wrong choice for how they choose spells and use spellcasting, which by extension forces system mastery and requires power gaming attitudes over playing concepts and characters, which is exactly what 5e is supposed to be stepping away from.

By increasing consistency between damage spells and power level between spells of a given spell slot level, you make choice less constrained and improve a spell's longevity of usefulness.

 

[raleel]

I think mostly damage is compared because it is a tangible and concrete effect. It is really hard to measure the effectiveness of something like minor illusion or wall of fire or misty step. Those things don't have clear metrics, though all are arguably very good spells.