The power level scaling of spells and my lack of understanding

[Melcar]

So… after trying to buff the hell out of a Inspire courage of bards, I have posted a homebrew spell identical to inspirational boost, but as a level 6, that gives a +6 bonus.

Now, some said that it is too powerful for a level 6, and some thinks its fine. This leads me to think, that somehow the scaling of spells should be in some way easy to calculate.

First I wanted to rate all spells of each level from 1-100 and then, by doing some linear regression, trying to calculate the scaling, but this seems like an immense and almost impossible task. Not only would it take sooo long time, but I have no way to determine the power of the individual scale of the individual spells except for my own judgment, which might not be consistent or scientific.

I would like to give some examples of the reason for me wanting to have a firm basis of understanding what is possible within the limits of each spell level and how to calculate this.

Mage Armor gives a +4 armor bonus as a level 1 spell.
Greater mage armor gives a +6 armor bonus as a level 3 spell.

This shows me that by increasing the spell level by 2, one can increase the amount of bonus given by 1,5. Meaning that a level 5 version would give a bonus of +9. Following this to level 9 it gives then 20.5 meaning that a level 9 spell is only 5,125 times more powerful than a level 1.

To show another example we have the spell Shield of Faith which gives a +5 deflection bonus to AC at level 1. Meaning that a level 3 version (by following the mage armor spell line) would give +7,5. Following this to level 9 we get: 25,3. Meaning a total of 5,06 times more powerful.
Or shield… same thing as mage armor.

What about Bull strength. It gives +4 strength at level 2. What about a level 4 version of this spell which if following the same patterns would give +6. Or a level 6 giving +9 and a level 8 giving +13.5 strength. Making a level 8 spell only 3,375 times more powerful than a level 2.

(I am by no means a math buff, so please if my calculations are way off, I apologize and hope that you will correct me respectfully without putting me down)

It seems to me, that the potential outcome of a single spell level is greatest at the low level spells and that spell power by level do not scale “the right way.”

I’m not saying that I feel magic is not powerful enough, but something about the way spells scale in power annoys me.

At level 9 you have spells that alter reality, the tide of war, create matter from noting and opens portals to any place. Basically “press enter to win” spells, but if this is the pinnacle of mortal power (not taking epic magic into account) then surely the scaling of things like armor is way off.

So I leave it to you guys to comment on this.

How many times more powerful should a level 9 be compared to a level 1?
Damage spells like magic missile, which is level 1, has a max damage of 25, Moonbow, which is level 5, has a max damage of 180 hence 7,2 times as much as a level 1 spell. If these numbers are in fact right, then why can’t we have a level 5 mage armor giving +28 armor class???? And if we very to following my example of mage armor then a level 5 spell should damage 56,25.

I know I have not taken duration and number of targets into much consideration, I have tried to take only single target spells (except for Moonbow).

Can we find a scaling that fits properly?

In advance, thanks!

[Mando Knight]

First I wanted to rate all spells of each level from 1-100 and then, by doing some linear regression,Linear regression is completely wrong for spell scaling. Also, not all bonuses scale equally, nor are spells really balanced against each other:
How many times more powerful should a level 9 be compared to a level 1?
Damage spells like magic missile, which is level 1, has a max damage of 25, Moonbow, which is level 5, has a max damage of 180 hence 7,2 times as much as a level 1 spell. If these numbers are in fact right, then why can’t we have a level 5 mage armor giving +28 armor class???? And if we very to following my example of mage armor then a level 5 spell should damage 56,25.
AC is considered much more valuable than damage. Even with WotC overvaluing AC, +28 AC turns many certain hits into nearly impossible attacks, while the average damage (unless comparing Maximized spells, never compare max damage, since maximum on 15d6 will come up maybe once if you have everyone on earth roll it two or three times) of a pure damage spell just can't keep up with the HD of tougher creatures, such as Outsiders or Dragons.

So, +28 AC: god-like armor bonus. 30-180 damage at caster level 20? Waste of a spell slot.

[Prime32]

Think of things in terms of percentages. A spell that deals 1 damage might shave off 25% of a standard enemy's health at lv1, but less than 1% at lv20; hence damage numbers need to scale at ever-increasing rates just to keep having the same effect.
Conversely, a spell that grants +1 AC will always make attacks 5% less likely to hit no matter what level you are (as long as the AC/attack numbers aren't so wildly apart that you're hitting/missing automatically).

[Just to Browse]

There are, unfortunately, too many changing factors that increase differently as you level. Some examples off the top of my head:
Long buffs scale slowly: Mage armor and its greater version are 1hr/lvl spells. You will have them up before combat and for a long time after. As such, they don't provide huge benefits to the players. Spells like divine power happen for 1r/lvl and grant enormous benefits like changing your BAB and increasing your size, which makes sense because your in-combat buffs should be worth spending an entire turn on.
Immunities are irregular: At level 1, force damage is barely any different from fire damage, because your most exotic enemies are probably large rats or angry orcs. But at level 10, force damage is wayyyyyyy more useful than fire, because your enemies include ghosts, demons, and fire elementals. There's basically nothing with fire immunity at CR 1, but half the worthwhile CR 10 enemies boast it. In contrast, immunity to death effects is almost worthless at level 1, but it becomes a huge deal when bodaks and wraiths enter play.
Stats have irregular values: To-hit is a big offender in the 3.x world. At level 1, a +2 bonus is a big deal because it makes you hit 10% more often (so you deal 10% more damage). But at level 15, a +2 to hit is just something you burn for more power attack damage, so it'll be more like a 2% increase. On the other hand, +4 Intelligence is sort of meh for a fighter (and becomes less useful as you gain levels), but retains a high value for wizards of all levels.


There are a lot more quirks in D&D by-level scaling, but I think those are he big offenders. They're not at all obvious, and most of them occur simply because of the way the Monster Manual was written, but they strongly characterize game balance as we know it, and their semi-organic nature makes writing algorithms for usefulness very hard.

[Vadskye]

As others have pointed out, systematically defining spell scaling is actually really, really hard. I built an algorithm to generate assign spell levels to spells as part of the Spell Reformation, and it's only useful because I wrote a program to do the calculations for me. In order to understand spell scaling definitively, you'll need to do some mathematical analysis on comparing monster statistics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172050) to PC statistics (http://www.distanceeducationconsultants.com/ddcalc.php). It's not something you can just eyeball by looking at existing spells - particularly because a decent number of existing spells aren't all that balanced to begin with.

[GGambrel]

...
To show another example we have the spell Shield of Faith which gives a +5 deflection bonus to AC at level 1. Meaning that a level 3 version (by following the mage armor spell line) would give +7,5. Following this to level 9 we get: 25,3. Meaning a total of 5,06 times more powerful.
Or shield… same thing as mage armor.
...


It seems to me that you should include the effect of the caster level (CL) as well. For your example of Shield of Faith, a level 1 cleric only gets a +2 shield bonus to AC for his 1st level spell. He doesn't get that +5 bonus until he has reached level 18. Spells that scale throughout a character's entire career may not require higher-level versions, since the original keeps getting better anyway.

Mage Armor doesn't scale on its own, so having improved versions makes sense. However a 9th level Mage Armor spell would probably give an Armor Bonus comparable to that of magical armor with a level-appropriate enhancement bonus (maybe a base of 4 + 1 per approx. CL/3 = 10 or so).

Rather than trying to determine the methods used to scale spell effects, I think you'd be better off comparing a new spell with similarly leveled spells or the equipment which those spells replace.

Were I homebrewing an improved version of Inspirational Boost, I would look at the base spell along with similar spells such as Heroism, Greater (LV5) and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (LV 5), along with a bard's normal ability to Inspire Courage. The listed spells all grant (or improve) a Morale bonus to various rolls, but none gives a bonus greater than +4 (prior to epic levels anyway).

Looking at Inspirational Boost again, it grants a +1 increase to your normal Inspire Courage, effectively doubling its usefulness at levels 1-7. If this trend continued, a 6th-level version might be expected to grant a +3/+4 bonus, doubling a 16th/20th level bard's. So I'd probably go with one of those. It doesn't seem overpowered compared to the other spells mentioned, but it grants a +6/+8 morale bonus to Attack, Damage, and Saving Throw rolls when combined with Inspire Courage which is quite substantial, particularly since morale bonuses are somewhat rare in my experience.

I guess I got off topic, but I think creating general rules for everything is very difficult, especially with spells that don't grant a flat bonus.

Whew! Hopefully I didn't bore anyone. :smalltongue: