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

[schnee]

I see where you're going with that, but I don't see a sling and bullets as equivalent to a bow and arrow... The difference in damage between a short bow and sling is not that significant.

Yeah, like most analogies, it's not perfect, but I was thinking damage, range, magic ammo, etcetera. The longbow is superior in many ways.

And I'm not claiming that spells should be equivalent. The common example being used is burning hands versus fireball. Burning Hands cast as a 3rd level spell should be on par with Fireball.
...
Otherwise, my experience is that my spell is wasted if I do not use that 3rd level slot to cast Fireball, even if Fireball is not the most strategic or useful option in situations that require things to get hurt/killed/damaged.

That's where we differ, even though I completely understand your position.

I think it's OK that a wizard's spells are a bit 'level specific', where stuff like Entangle becomes less and less useful as creatures get bigger and stronger, the go-to level-equivalent spells are different, and that means you have to adjust tactics rather than staying with the ones you used at lower level.

If every single low-level spell can be bumped to a higher slot to be *almost* as effective as the go-to spell of that higher level, then you basically give the caster an insane amount of flexibility.

For example, Flaming Hands isn't that powerful, and it's area of effect is fairly small and manageable - it can be cast in ways that don't endanger your party mates in a small to medium space. Fireball, however, is much more potent, but also comes with the limitation of being a HUGE area of effect that makes it more dangerous or even unusable in some situations. That seems like an innate feature in balance and flavor. That makes fights in different spaces have different characteristics and solutions, and IMO that makes it more interesting.

I also hated 3.x due to the power creep in casters, so I think it's additionally risky to change it based on common sense or 'fairness' when that's at risk. So, YMMV, and if someone home-brewed these in their game I wouldn't quit or anything, but when I DM I leave these as written. It hasn't been a problem yet.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Let's use another example in Thunderwave vs Shatter. Thunderwave cast at 2nd level should do similar damage (and I believe in this instance actually does). The difference is Thunderwave is centered on you, while Shatter gives you the freedom and flexibility to cast it anywhere within 60 feet. Each of these have a similar area of effect (15' cube vs 10' radius) so the choice is not what does more damage (since in that department they are equivalent) but in how you can use the spell on the battlefield.

Then why is shatter a 2nd-level spell and thunderwave 1st? What's the difference?

Otherwise, my experience is that my spell is wasted if I do not use that 3rd level slot to cast Fireball, even if Fireball is not the most strategic or useful option in situations that require things to get hurt/killed/damaged.

Yeah, sort of. You chose to prepare/learn fireball, which is a spell that can only be used with 3rd-level spell slots (or higher). For that opportunity cost of not being able to use lower-level spell slots, you are rewarded with damage. What you're proposing is eliminating the reward without eliminating the cost.

Take a look at the total daily single-target damage a 5th-level wizard can do with burning hands vs. fireball if the spell in question is the only damage-dealing one he prepared:

Burning hands: 5d6 + 5d6 + 4d6 + 4d6 + 4d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 +3d6 = 34d6
Fireball: 8d6 + 8d6 = 16d6

Now, don't mistake my point here. I'm not trying to say that burning hands is better than fireball because 34d6 is bigger than 16d6. I'm fully aware that it takes nine rounds and nine spell slots to do all that with burning hands but only two rounds and slots to cast two fireballs. I'm also aware that fireball can multiply its damage with its large area of effect more easily than burning hands. My point is simply that the choice between prepping burning hands and fireball is meaningful. Fireball is not strictly superior just because it says "8d6" instead of "3d6 + 1d6/level". You can potentially deal a lot more damage with burning hands, if the circumstances favor sustained damage over big bursts. That's cool. That's interesting. But if burning hands deals the same or nearly the same damage as fireball --

Burning hands: 7d6 + 7d6 + 5d6 + 5d6 + 5d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 = 41d6

-- it stops being "interesting" and becomes just "obviously the right choice unless you know today you're going to fight exactly two large, clustered groups of monsters at long range".

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Yeah, like most analogies, it's not perfect, but I was thinking damage, range, magic ammo, etcetera. The longbow is superior in many ways.

Yea, I know what you mean. But then, if you're comparing the sling to a long bow, there is the additional barrier that the long bow requires the extra proficiency in martial weapons. It's a low barrier, but still a barrier.

That's where we differ, even though I completely understand your position.

I really enjoy when people can find ways to agree to disagree. ^_^

I think it's OK that a wizard's spells are a bit 'level specific', where stuff like Entangle becomes less and less useful as creatures get bigger and stronger, the go-to level-equivalent spells are different, and that means you have to adjust tactics rather than staying with the ones you used at lower level.

I would agree with this statement more if the magic in 5e was more like in 3.5. In 3.5, you could cast a lower level spell slot and it would automatically scale with your level. A 1st level magic missile cast by a 3rd level caster was not the same as a 1st level magic missile cast by a 20th level caster. Since 5e came out, I wholeheartedly disagree with this. A first level spell slot should always be as powerful as a first level spell. So it would make sense that casting something like Entangle as a 1st level spell might be effective against some stampeding bears, but less so against the storm giants.

However, that being said, a 9th level spell is a 9th level spell. If I can use a slot to cast Wish or Meteor Swarm, that indicates to me that there is a certain amount of power inherent in expending that resource. If you spend $5, you want to get the value of your $5. If I ask for $5 in quarters, I don't expect $4.50 in quarters just because I can more easily put it into the soda machine or do laundry with it. So if I use a 9th level slot to cast Chromatic Orb or Entangle, I expect to get an equivalent return on what I'm spending that resource on.

In this way, I think 5e combats the problems of the 3.5 spell casting BECAUSE your effects are tied directly to the resources you are willing to use, rather than directly tied to how high a level you are. You mention the flexibility such casting allows, and sure it provides some flexibility. But I see it more as resource expenditure. If you are expending a resource, you should get the return based on the resource you are expending.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Then why is shatter a 2nd-level spell and thunderwave 1st? What's the difference?

Yeah, sort of. You chose to prepare/learn fireball, which is a spell that can only be used with 3rd-level spell slots (or higher). For that opportunity cost of not being able to use lower-level spell slots, you are rewarded with damage. What you're proposing is eliminating the reward without eliminating the cost.

Take a look at the total daily single-target damage a 5th-level wizard can do with burning hands vs. fireball if the spell in question is the only damage-dealing one he prepared:

Burning hands: 5d6 + 5d6 + 4d6 + 4d6 + 4d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 +3d6 = 34d6
Fireball: 8d6 + 8d6 = 16d6

Now, don't mistake my point here. I'm not trying to say that burning hands is better than fireball because 34d6 is bigger than 16d6. I'm fully aware that it takes nine rounds and nine spell slots to do all that with burning hands but only two rounds and slots to cast two fireballs. I'm also aware that fireball can multiply its damage with its large area of effect more easily than burning hands. My point is simply that the choice between prepping burning hands and fireball is meaningful. Fireball is not strictly superior just because it says "8d6" instead of "3d6 + 1d6/level". You can potentially deal a lot more damage with burning hands, if the circumstances favor sustained damage over big bursts. That's cool. That's interesting. But if burning hands deals the same or nearly the same damage as fireball --

Burning hands: 7d6 + 7d6 + 5d6 + 5d6 + 5d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 = 41d6

-- it stops being "interesting" and becomes just "obviously the right choice unless you know today you're going to fight exactly two large, clustered groups of monsters at long range".

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. You ask what is the cost of the Burning Hands versus Fireball, then you explicitly state the cost. The fireball gives you way more damage potential in fewer rounds against a greater number of individuals. Even when Burning Hands does a similar amount of damage, Fireball is the better choice against large numbers of distant enemies. Burning Hands can target a MAXIMUM number of medium or small sized creatures equal to 7. With a casting of Fireball, you can hit 41 medium or small sized creatures in a single blast. Additionally, those targets you hit with your Burning Hands are close enough to close on you and attack that same round if they have yet to act. At long range, you can launch a Fireball at enemies that may need two or three rounds to even get close to melee range.

As for why Shatter is 2nd level and Thunderwave is first, I specifically state that in my post. Thunderwave is limited because it only affects enemies right in your face, whereas you can cast Shatter against enemies 60' away. How is that not a large enough difference to justify the higher level of Shatter?

-- it stops being "interesting" and becomes just "obviously the right choice unless you know today you're going to fight exactly two large, clustered groups of monsters at long range".

Isn't that the point of the Wizard? You do the best when you go in prepared for what you're about to face? And wouldn't it be more useful for a sorcerer with their SUPER limited number of spells known to know that their choice to learn Burning Hands won't ever lead to regret because it will remain just as useful in higher level spell slots?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Burning hands: 5d6 + 5d6 + 4d6 + 4d6 + 4d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 + 3d6 +3d6 = 34d6
Fireball: 8d6 + 8d6 = 16d6

Except, you're not accounting for what else you're doing on those extra rounds. Mathematically speaking, you should at least be comparing nine Burning Hands in successively-weaker spell slots against two Fireballs and seven Fire Bolts. That's 16d6 +14d10 damage, if you're level 5, and you still have all of your lower-level spell slots to save for Shield or whatever.

Which goes back to my earlier point: if you can cast Fireball in a third-level spell slot, then you won't be in a situation where you would want to cast Burning Hands in a first-level spell slot. If you're fighting an enemy that's strong enough to warrant a fifth-level spellcaster spending slots against, then 3d6 is a meaningless contribution.

 

[Prism]

Which goes back to my earlier point: if you can cast Fireball in a third-level spell slot, then you won't be in a situation where you would want to cast Burning Hands in a first-level spell slot. If you're fighting an enemy that's strong enough to warrant a fifth-level spellcaster spending slots against, then 3d6 is a meaningless contribution.

I think at the level you have picked for this example you are absolutely right, that most spellcasters will easily make room for a 3rd level fireball as opposed to a scaled up 1st level burning hands. However at higher levels, at least in my experience, this doesn't continue. A fireball may well be the highest pure damage spell that a spellcaster prepares for a while, and there is more chance that a bit of scaling goes on, especially towards the end of the adventuring day when you have eliminated the need to preserve slots for more conditional spells like plane shift, seeming and passwall

 

[Xeviat]

I'd like to see damaging spells scale the same, or at least similarly.

What if the damage dice were adjusted a bit? What if every damage spell got some scaling, like cantrips. The existing spell damages would be adjusted, with high level spells having their damage reduced because of the inherent bonuses. This would grant some scaling to low level damage spells with low level slots, and possibly normalize some of the progressions.

I like the Spell Point system. I wonder if damage could be more closely based upon Spell point costs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[schnee]

I would agree with this statement more if the magic in 5e was more like in 3.5. In 3.5, you could cast a lower level spell slot and it would automatically scale with your level.

And there's a damn good reason that, and every single gift to casters in 3.x, was absolute overkill and nerfed for this edition. And rightfully so.

However, that being said, a 9th level spell is a 9th level spell. If I can use a slot to cast Wish or Meteor Swarm, that indicates to me that there is a certain amount of power inherent in expending that resource. If you spend $5, you want to get the value of your $5. If I ask for $5 in quarters, I don't expect $4.50 in quarters just because I can more easily put it into the soda machine or do laundry with it. So if I use a 9th level slot to cast Chromatic Orb or Entangle, I expect to get an equivalent return on what I'm spending that resource on.

Except, you're forgetting one huge part of the spellcaster balance economy: scarcity of power of the choice high level spells.

A spellcaster has very few spells they can memorize, and if you allow every single lower-level spell to be booted to the equivalent power of a 9th level spell by expending a 9th level slot, then you just gave an 18th level caster access to ~22 9th level spell choices.

That's completely backwards. The higher up spells are a more powerful, scarce, and valuable resource. Being able to expend that slot to take every single spell in your book to godlike power is way, way too much, when every single other trend is to bring the wizards down in power level closer to AD&D era while avoiding the limitations that are annoying to modern gamers.

You mention the flexibility such casting allows, and sure it provides some flexibility. But I see it more as resource expenditure. If you are expending a resource, you should get the return based on the resource you are expending.

Well, if by 'some' you mean 'game-breaking', sure. At 18th level I'd LOVE to have one 9th level spell slot and 23 spells I could use to power them, all of equal efficacy. But that's incredibly unbalanced. And the past two editions have been about nerfing the ridiculous godlike power of 3.x spellcasters while giving them a bit more to do, hence the smaller number of spells known but more frequent refreshing of lower-level slots via rests and whatnot.

The real problem they tried to solve with this feature isn't 'hey, I should be able to use my 9th level spell slot to make anything awesome', it's 'hey Burning Hands' is the most useful thing right now but I'm all out of 1st level spell slots, I wish I could burn a 2nd level slot to do it' and the game designers said 'sure, and here's a bit of a benefit so it doesn't sting as much'.

 

[jgsugden]

Higher level spells are generally intended to be better than lower level spells up cast to the higher level spell's level. It makes the new spell level special. The added benefit uf up leveling a spell is just intended to give you some benefit from using the higher level slot, not all the benefits of using a spell of that level. No changes neded.

 

[jgsugden]

Well, if by 'some' you mean 'game-breaking', sure. At 18th level I'd LOVE to have one 9th level spell slot and 23 spells I could use to power them...

I think you mean you WISH....