Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 7038228" data-attributes="member: 23716">I remain unconvinced that spell damage scaling does not need to be adjusted.  The comparisons to 3.x are unjustified as that edition (and previous editions iirc) got scaling for free, without having to spend a higher level slot.  Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 3.x allowed one to prepare a lower level spell in a higher level slot, it was just inefficient to do so and was rarely used.  Another point is that many of the non-damage spells or utility spells scale much better by adding additional targets or effects.  Some even get a certain amount of free scaling (i.e. your save difficulty for spells such as Hold Person goes up as you level, thereby making these spells more effective in the same slot).  Taken in this light, damage scaling does seem to be very sub-optimal.  Yes, some spells that have additional utility might be worth it (Magic Missile: auto hit & more targets, Thunderwave pushes targets away, the Bard doesn't have many damaging spells), but that does not seem to justify poor scaling.  The 'flexibility' of being able to use a lower level slot for a spell is undercut by cantrip scaling.  In the rare case in which the caster would be tempted to use a low level damaging spell to fry a mook and such, a cantrip will probably suffice (or at least be in the same ball park).  Sure, the low level spell may have slightly better damage or better area (ahhh! get these spiders off me! Thunderwave).  I'm not sure I'd want exact parity in damage though.  To take the common example: I would be happy if Burning Hands cast in a 3rd level slot did 7d6 damage rather than 8d6.  It would still make it useful without being on par with Fireball (despite having a smaller area and range).  And I'm not sure I'd want it to do 40d6 damage in a 9th level slot.  I think the further you up cast, the more 'loss' you would take.  If Burning Hands did +2d6 per spell level, that would be fine.  That's 7d6 at third level and 19d6 at ninth level.  The further from the 'original' level you get, the less efficient you are.  Honestly, I'm not sure who would want to use Burning Hands in a ninth level slot anyway.</blockquote>

Verification