Spell Scaling by Spell Slot Level... WTF?

[Granite26]

Been playing a good bit of 5e lately and something just seems... off... about the way spells scale by spell slot level.

I get why HP effects scale at the 1D per level rate (or there-abouts). So damage and healing spells work out ok.

It's the spells that affect X creatures, or X amount of things that just blow my mind. Take Create/Destroy Water. 10 gallons at first level is pretty cool. A good bit of water, useful for... water stuff. At 9th level, the maximum level of power a wizard can aspire to, you can create (90 gallons) is enough water to fill a 5x5 dungeon square with 6in of water. That's not scaling right. I would expect... I dunno, at least a full 5x5 10ft pit? Are biblical floods to much to ask for?

Or take Bless... 3 creatures + 1(!) per spell level. I get that there's a concentration cost effect here, but shouldn't a player be able to bless an entire army at that point?

As a comparison, Bestow Curse Scales from minutes to hours to days to permanent, which seems to flow better.

Are there any discussions about the about why the scaling is so weaksauce? People just can't handle geometric scaling?

[CNagy]

Because at the end of the day, you can only juice basic magic up so much. The lack of complexity translates to a lack of efficiency--a 2nd level damage spell scaled up to 5th level shouldn't deal with a 5th level damage spell deals, because the 2nd level spell is built on a simpler (and probably less efficient) understanding of magic.


I think the weaker spell slot scaling works nicely, also because with multiclassing in 5e you can very easily get your hands on spells slot above the highest level spell that you know. Giving up knowing 9th/8th/7th level spells is a significant choice when it comes to multiclassing, a choice that loses a lot of its impact if you can just scale up a Hold Person to Power Word Stun levels of usefulness.

[Estrillian]

I've noticed a similar thing, 5E seems terrified of effects that last a long time, or cover a big area, or get a boost that's big in %age terms. You get frightened for 1 minute, or paralysed for 1 minute, or charmed for 1 minute. Similarly spells affect 20 square feet, or maybe a hundred, rarely more. It isn't just spells. Look at the Champion's shameful 25% increase in maximum Jumping distance.

I get why some of that matters for combat. You look at a fight and think "oh 10 rounds is a fair time" and make your spells 1 minute, but it makes some of the out of combat effects just ridiculously short (if I charm someone for a few minutes I'll be lucky to get them anywhere or do anything) or tiny. If you think about it from a fiction first perspective you expect a "Remarkable Athlete" to be leaping from building to building and running up walls, or for Archmagi to be flooding entire countries under tidal waves.

I think the poor scaling is just another example of that.

[Granite26]

I certainly agree that a scaled 1st level spell should be less effective than a 9th level spell cast with the same slot, but this seems like it's an extreme

EDIT : Check out holy aura. Very comparable in effect to bless. Better effect, but not more than one order of magnitude better. Affects up to 120 allies (if my math is close). 8th level spell.

The comparable scaled first level spell affects 11... Geometric scaling would be lvl^2 +3 or 67 people. Less powerful effect, around half the people of the actual 8th level spell.

[MaxWilson]

I've noticed a similar thing, 5E seems terrified of effects that last a long time, or cover a big area, or get a boost that's big in %age terms. You get frightened for 1 minute, or paralysed for 1 minute, or charmed for 1 minute. Similarly spells affect 20 square feet, or maybe a hundred, rarely more. It isn't just spells. Look at the Champion's shameful 25% increase in maximum Jumping distance.

I get why some of that matters for combat. You look at a fight and think "oh 10 rounds is a fair time" and make your spells 1 minute, but it makes some of the out of combat effects just ridiculously short (if I charm someone for a few minutes I'll be lucky to get them anywhere or do anything) or tiny. If you think about it from a fiction first perspective you expect a "Remarkable Athlete" to be leaping from building to building and running up walls, or for Archmagi to be flooding entire countries under tidal waves.

I think the poor scaling is just another example of that.

Insightful, +1.

OP is also insightful.

Bestow Curse, Planar Binding, Mass Suggestion, are some of the only spells which actually reward overcasting at high level.

There are some iffy in-betweeners which scale decently but not in a way that feels appropriate for high-level spells. E.g. Conjure Elemental IX gets you a buffed-up elemental (using DMG quick-create tables), and you'll be glad to have it, but it doesn't feel at all on par with True Polymorph (Clay Golem). Spirit Guardians VIII for 8d8 each round is nifty, but is it 8th-level nifty? Holy Aura seems a couple of levels better. Spirit Guardians VIII is more on par with Circle of Power at 5th level, possibly a bit better.

[steppedonad4]

I actually think that this is one of the best aspects of 5e. Spells have always been very problematic and the concentration mechanic and basic underlying structure of spells in this edition is very elegant and works well with both maintaining the sense of caster power whilst not overshadowing the awesome stuff other classes can do. And the scaling mechanic not only chops out a lot of redundancy in the spell lists but also makes a lot of spells useful across twenty levels rather than being basically ignored the higher you go.

Plus, some of the scaling can be amazing. Scorching Ray on a Hexed target by a warlock, for instance. I have a divination wizard whose only offensive spell is magic missile. I scale it based on the threat and target distribution whilst maintaining whatever particular control spell effect I felt was the best for the situation. Works really well.

[Falco1029]

Personally, I think even the damage scaling is off. Burning hands does 5d6 in a 15 foot cone as a 1st level cast at 3rd level, compared to fireball which does 8d6 in a 20 foot radius burst (which can be placed within a much larger range, or you can center it so it's effectively 'originating' from you at one end if you wanna do the direct comparison thing). I think damage scaling and similar should be about double what they are. That'd put burning hands at 7d6, still below fireball, and still much smaller, but it feels less like a wasted slot if you don't have fireball to fall back on. The math works out similarly in a lot of cases.

Beyond that, I agree with you that more spells should have been more generous with their spell scaling. Yes, higher level spells should be more potent, but a spell cast at a higher level should still feel like a higher level spell, even if comparatively 'simpler'. Spells like Mass Suggestion, as one person pointed out, are a good example of the sort of way things SHOULD scale overall.

Even when you take multiclassing into account, this would still give single class casters the advantage, but multiclass wouldn't be as skewed a hit if you lost spell levels known while doing a caster-only multiclass.

[Joe the Rat]

I've noticed a similar thing, 5E seems terrified of effects that last a long time, or cover a big area, or get a boost that's big in %age terms. You get frightened for 1 minute, or paralysed for 1 minute, or charmed for 1 minute. Similarly spells affect 20 square feet, or maybe a hundred, rarely more. It isn't just spells. Look at the Champion's shameful 25% increase in maximum Jumping distance.

I get why some of that matters for combat. You look at a fight and think "oh 10 rounds is a fair time" and make your spells 1 minute, but it makes some of the out of combat effects just ridiculously short (if I charm someone for a few minutes I'll be lucky to get them anywhere or do anything) or tiny. If you think about it from a fiction first perspective you expect a "Remarkable Athlete" to be leaping from building to building and running up walls, or for Archmagi to be flooding entire countries under tidal waves.

I think the poor scaling is just another example of that.Well to be fair, Charm Person does last a full hour. And the one-minute Friendship is a no-save cantrip.

For Hold Person and the like, I think what you will see is that most of the offensive 1-minute debuffs are also save at end of turn debuffs. There's a fair chance that the save will be made before duration expires. But this cuts both ways: Being hit with the spell means a PC can shake it off, and may not be taken out for an entire battle - or worst case, goes away shortly after the end of a battle. I've had to wait out Ghoul Paralysis enough times to appreciate this.

One thing that you could have instead of simple scaling (and in some cases, no scaling) is overcast options - Instead of just letting you ramp up the number of targets, you could extend the duration. Like casting Charm Person III (from a 3rd level slot) can last 8 hours, and Charm Person V lasts 24 hours. There are other spells that have this sort of scale-up (Hunter's Mark, Bestow Curse), it would simply be a matter of At Higher Levels giving you "You can do A, or you can do B."

[Granite26]

I was thinking something along those lines for the Create Water spell this morning.

Keep the 10 gallons of water per level, but add [per round] and have it last level rounds as well... (that's still too little, but it's getting closer, and it's adding a new dimension that avoids op effects, like summoning a ton of water into a hanging metal tub as a weapon...

[Demonic Spoon]

Are there any discussions about the about why the scaling is so weaksauce? People just can't handle geometric scaling?

It's a question of preference. Some people want characters to become nearly gods by the time they hit high levels, able to perform feats like creating biblical floods or blessing an entire army. 5e is not written for that (all classes would need to be redesigned - and non-full-casters would need some major changes to be able to keep up).


More generally, when you reach higher levels, you're supposed to use higher level spells in those slots. For the most part, scaled-up low level spells do not compete. I will point out that you can create more of a "real" flood with the druid's Tsunami spell.

[Anonymouswizard]

The only problem I have with 5e's spell system is that, if I'm playing a sorcerer (or maybe a bard, but they're better) I'm unlikely to waste one of my very limited spells known on a spell above 5th level, let alone more than four of them. It seems like world changing magic is the domain of Wizards, Clerics, and Druids, while those with a natural talent for magic have to give up a tool they can use several times a day for one 'big magic spell'. In short, wizards are casting meteor swarm, while sorcerers use level 9 fireballs (to give a silly example). The reason prepared casters have no problems is because they can swap out their entire spells known list every day.

Oh, and I wish the default system was spell points instead of spell slots as that would be easier to explain to people new to RPGs (who I'd probably point at the bard and sorcerer over other spellcasting classes, but that's another story), and Sorcerers could have been able to use spell energy to manipulate spells.

Okay, my biggest beef is that the Sorcerer class is awesome to me for the first time and it doesn't get enough spells or metamagic for high level spells, sorcerers being the only ones able to regain 6th level slots during the day would have made up for it though.

[Slipperychicken]

It's an appropriate nerf. Casters used to be much stronger than non-casters for a number of reasons. Their ludicrous scaling was one of the bigger ones. By high levels, wizards were capable of doing literally anything imaginable and could render themselves unbeatable if they chose (see my sig), while fighters would get small bonuses in their ability to hit things.

Caster scaling was a huge issue in 3rd edition, and severe nerfs to their scaling was necessary to alleviate complaints about it.

[CNagy]

The only problem I have with 5e's spell system is that, if I'm playing a sorcerer (or maybe a bard, but they're better) I'm unlikely to waste one of my very limited spells known on a spell above 5th level, let alone more than four of them. It seems like world changing magic is the domain of Wizards, Clerics, and Druids, while those with a natural talent for magic have to give up a tool they can use several times a day for one 'big magic spell'. In short, wizards are casting meteor swarm, while sorcerers use level 9 fireballs (to give a silly example). The reason prepared casters have no problems is because they can swap out their entire spells known list every day.


Whoa, that is counter to my experience. Usually the problem is limiting the number of spells you want to grab from those levels because you can't use them that often. Levels 6-9 are generally your "make this encounter easy" spells, I've never had anyone hesitate to grab them because it would limit the number of lower level spells they knew.

I mean, it is always a tight squeeze with Sorcerer--I feel like their origins should give them a specific spell at each level up to 5th level spells (since apparently 10 extra spells known is too powerful, if the Storm Sorcerer is anything to go by), but usually my players stick to a handful of fairly versatile spells, a smaller handful that you might consider that sorcerer's specialty (elemental damage of a specific type, crowd control, whatever), and then the few high level spells (Meteor Swarm or Wish, Power Word: Stun or Dominate Monster, Plane Shift or Finger of Death, etc, that sort of thing.)

[Anonymouswizard]

Whoa, that is counter to my experience. Usually the problem is limiting the number of spells you want to grab from those levels because you can't use them that often. Levels 6-9 are generally your "make this encounter easy" spells, I've never had anyone hesitate to grab them because it would limit the number of lower level spells they knew.

I mean I'd rather have a useful tool than a 'make this encounter easy' button I can push 1-4 times a day.


I mean, it is always a tight squeeze with Sorcerer--I feel like their origins should give them a specific spell at each level up to 5th level spells (since apparently 10 extra spells known is too powerful, if the Storm Sorcerer is anything to go by), but usually my players stick to a handful of fairly versatile spells, a smaller handful that you might consider that sorcerer's specialty (elemental damage of a specific type, crowd control, whatever), and then the few high level spells (Meteor Swarm or Wish, Power Word: Stun or Dominate Monster, Plane Shift or Finger of Death, etc, that sort of thing.)

Umm.. that's exactly the reason I'd love to play a Storm Sorcerer, I'd be happy to drop half the extra spells known for balance reasons.

[CNagy]

I mean I'd rather have a useful tool than a 'make this encounter easy' button I can push 1-4 times a day.
Your party might have a different opinion on that one. The first time you Twin Dominate Monster on the BBEG's nasty pets and instruct them to rip him to shreds is the last time you ever have to buy a round at the pub. :smallbiggrin:



Umm.. that's exactly the reason I'd love to play a Storm Sorcerer, I'd be happy to drop half the extra spells known for balance reasons.
It doesn't hurt that they've got like the best 18th level ability in the game--or at least tied with the Wizard. Almost, maybe.

[Falco1029]

It's an appropriate nerf. Casters used to be much stronger than non-casters for a number of reasons. Their ludicrous scaling was one of the bigger ones. By high levels, wizards were capable of doing literally anything imaginable and could render themselves unbeatable if they chose (see my sig), while fighters would get small bonuses in their ability to hit things.

Caster scaling was a huge issue in 3rd edition, and severe nerfs to their scaling was necessary to alleviate complaints about it.

That argument makes sense for why spells dont automatically scale just by you leveling up, and I agree that's a good thing. It's not really an argument for why higher level spell slots should so minimally improve lower level spells, though.

[Capac Amaru]

I think its silly that there aren't multiple per level options.

If casting with a level 2 slot allows one extra target, shouldn't it also allow casting with a level 2 slot to affect 1 target for twice as long?

[Slipperychicken]

It's not really an argument for why higher level spell slots should so minimally improve lower level spells, though.

That's right. I think that spell damage does not scale as well as it should. Burning hands should not be doing less damage than a fireball of the same spell level. If anything, it should be getting additional benefits (more damage, or some extra effect) to compensate for its reduced range and area-of-effect. A level 9 burning hands should be just as terrifying as a meteor swarm.

To elaborate, I think spells should have some standardization across levels. Say a 3rd level damage spell could deal 8d6 to a 20ft radius, up to 12d6 to a single target at range, or 10d6 in a 15ft cone. A spell might get less damage than the norm if it has a rarely-resisted damage type or a rider effect. A system like the one I describe could have prevented spells from becoming useless due to poor scaling. However, scaling would have to be nonlinear. That would add complexity as spells would need extra text or even tables to illustrate how they change between levels.



It's the spells that affect X creatures, or X amount of things that just blow my mind. Take Create/Destroy Water. 10 gallons at first level is pretty cool. A good bit of water, useful for... water stuff. At 9th level, the maximum level of power a wizard can aspire to, you can create (90 gallons) is enough water to fill a 5x5 dungeon square with 6in of water. That's not scaling right. I would expect... I dunno, at least a full 5x5 10ft pit? Are biblical floods to much to ask for?


A cleric or druid could cast Control Weather and cause torrential downpour within 5 miles. That can potentially result in flooding. That said, truly apocalyptic events seem to be beyond mortal magic. Remember, those flood-myths generally have floods caused by divine beings, not mortal wizards.

[Falco1029]

I think its silly that there aren't multiple per level options.

If casting with a level 2 slot allows one extra target, shouldn't it also allow casting with a level 2 slot to affect 1 target for twice as long?
Yeah, multiple options would be helpful too.



That's right. I think that spell damage does not scale as well as it should. Burning hands should not be doing less damage than a fireball of the same spell level. If anything, it should be getting additional benefits (more damage, or some extra effect) to compensate for its reduced range and area-of-effect. A level 9 burning hands should be just as terrifying as a meteor swarm.

To elaborate, I think spells should have some standardization across levels. Say a 3rd level damage spell could deal 8d6 to a 20ft radius, up to 12d6 to a single target at range, or 10d6 in a 15ft cone. A spell might get less damage than the norm if it has a rarely-resisted damage type or a rider effect. A system like the one I describe could have prevented spells from becoming useless due to poor scaling. However, scaling would have to be nonlinear. That would add complexity as spells would need extra text or even tables to illustrate how they change between levels.

Alright, I agree with you there, then. Would be a lot of work, definitely, but would make for an ultimately better game, I think.

[Shaofoo]

That's right. I think that spell damage does not scale as well as it should. Burning hands should not be doing less damage than a fireball of the same spell level. If anything, it should be getting additional benefits (more damage, or some extra effect) to compensate for its reduced range and area-of-effect. A level 9 burning hands should be just as terrifying as a meteor swarm.

I don't see this as a problem, why aren't you casting Fireball if you think that it is a better choice than Burning Hands for your 3rd level slot?


To elaborate, I think spells should have some standardization across levels. Say a 3rd level damage spell could deal 8d6 to a 20ft radius, up to 12d6 to a single target at range, or 10d6 in a 15ft cone. A spell might get less damage than the norm if it has a rarely-resisted damage type or a rider effect. A system like the one I describe could have prevented spells from becoming useless due to poor scaling. However, scaling would have to be nonlinear. That would add complexity as spells would need extra text or even tables to illustrate how they change between levels.

Spells never become useless just because they are low level, you can argue that Fireball would replace Burning Hands but you could still use Burning Hands at the 1st and 2nd level while you can't with Fireball.

It makes thematic sense that spells made for certain slots would be more efficient than spells made for lower level slots, there is only so much that more power can actually bring to the table.

[bid]

Burning hands should not be doing less damage than a fireball of the same spell level. If anything, it should be getting additional benefits (more damage, or some extra effect) to compensate for its reduced range and area-of-effect.
Ah but then, a wizard 3 / cleric 3 / bard 3 would perform better than a wizard 9. Why would you go single-class then?

[Slipperychicken]

I don't see this as a problem, why aren't you casting Fireball if you think that it is a better choice than Burning Hands for your 3rd level slot?

That's the point. Due to their poor scaling, these spells incur such a massive opportunity cost that there's little point to casting them after a certain level. I think this should not be the case. If a wizard wants use magic to put someone to sleep at high levels, and casts Sleep at a high level to do it, he shouldn't be penalized for not using a "level-appropriate" spell, despite expending a slot of the proper level.

As for "thematic" concerns, magic can work however we want it to. It's magic. The nature of magic varies between the imaginations of players and DMs.


Ah but then, a wizard 3 / cleric 3 / bard 3 would perform better than a wizard 9. Why would you go single-class then?

Higher level spells that give new effects. Also unique class features, advancing existing class features, ASIs, and reduced attribute requirements. The multiclass build you mentioned doesn't know any spells above level 2, has no ASIs, requires intelligence, wisdom, and charisma to be 13 or higher, and each classes' spells use a different attribute. The wizard 9, however, has access to level 4 spells, two ASIs, and much less attribute-dependency.

[Daishain]

A cleric or druid could cast Control Weather and cause torrential downpour within 5 miles. That can potentially result in flooding. That said, truly apocalyptic events seem to be beyond mortal magic. Remember, those flood-myths generally have floods caused by divine beings, not mortal wizards.
Bit of a side track, since I don't think it actually matters for our purposes. But out of the dozen or so societies that came up with a world ending flood story, every last one of them would consider a man with D&D levels of power to be divine. Hell, most of them had demigods that were weaker than a mid to high level D&D wizard.

[Vogonjeltz]

Personally, I think even the damage scaling is off. Burning hands does 5d6 in a 15 foot cone as a 1st level cast at 3rd level, compared to fireball which does 8d6 in a 20 foot radius burst (which can be placed within a much larger range, or you can center it so it's effectively 'originating' from you at one end if you wanna do the direct comparison thing). I think damage scaling and similar should be about double what they are. That'd put burning hands at 7d6, still below fireball, and still much smaller, but it feels less like a wasted slot if you don't have fireball to fall back on. The math works out similarly in a lot of cases.

Beyond that, I agree with you that more spells should have been more generous with their spell scaling. Yes, higher level spells should be more potent, but a spell cast at a higher level should still feel like a higher level spell, even if comparatively 'simpler'. Spells like Mass Suggestion, as one person pointed out, are a good example of the sort of way things SHOULD scale overall.

Even when you take multiclassing into account, this would still give single class casters the advantage, but multiclass wouldn't be as skewed a hit if you lost spell levels known while doing a caster-only multiclass.

If lower level spells scaled to have even near the same damage as higher level spells, casters would have little reason to pick up attack spells at higher levels, allowing them to select almost all utility spells and see little drop off in combat effectiveness.

This would be bad, the necessity of choosing which spells to take and missing out on some abilities to gain others is part of the game balance.

[ad_hoc]

I like the idea of casting spells in higher slots to power them up.

My problem with it is that the spells that it is applied to benefit unevenly.

Viscious Mockery is a great example of a cantrip not scaling well.

Any of the damage spells with riders are similary affected.

Spells that normally only target 1 creature and get +1 creature per level benefit the most I think. Especially if they require concentration.

[Vogonjeltz]

I like the idea of casting spells in higher slots to power them up.

My problem with it is that the spells that it is applied to benefit unevenly.

Viscious Mockery is a great example of a cantrip not scaling well.

Any of the damage spells with riders are similary affected.

Spells that normally only target 1 creature and get +1 creature per level benefit the most I think. Especially if they require concentration.

All the cantrips scale equally by level...

[Slipperychicken]

If lower level spells scaled to have even near the same damage as higher level spells, casters would have little reason to pick up attack spells at higher levels, allowing them to select almost all utility spells and see little drop off in combat effectiveness.

This would be bad, the necessity of choosing which spells to take and missing out on some abilities to gain others is part of the game balance.

Higher spell levels might unlock previously-unavailable combinations of features in damage spells, such as ranges, areas, damage-types, and rider-effects. For example, fireball's damage might scale well, but its range and area-of-effect are puny compared to meteor swarm.

[Vogonjeltz]

Higher spell levels might unlock previously-unavailable combinations of features in damage spells, such as ranges, areas, damage-types, and rider-effects. For example, fireball's damage might scale well, but its range and area-of-effect are puny compared to meteor swarm.

Yes but meteor swarm is also a 1 a day spell because they don't downscale. You will still have a use for that fireball if you didn't pick up a combat spell for the 4-8 level slots.

If fireball scaled, I would be pretty wasteful to pick meteor swarm instead of foresight or wish

[Slipperychicken]

Yes but meteor swarm is also a 1 a day spell because they don't downscale. You will still have a use for that fireball if you didn't pick up a combat spell for the 4-8 level slots.

If fireball scaled, I would be pretty wasteful to pick meteor swarm instead of foresight or wish

The idea is that neither spell completely obsoletes the other at spell levels where they overlap. They have different uses based on differing features. I could have illustrated the idea better with examples like Burning Hands and Fireball, or Ice Storm and Cone of Cold.

[CNagy]

The idea is that neither spell completely obsoletes the other at spell levels where they overlap. They have different uses based on differing features. I could have illustrated the idea better with examples like Burning Hands and Fireball, or Ice Storm and Cone of Cold.

This would completely screw up the history of magic for my campaigns (though, honestly, it might just screw up magic period.) A system where low-level spells are balanced against high level spells when you cast them from a high-level slot suggests an extremely top-down history of magical research. These days we have Nystul's Magic Aura, Mordenkainen's Mansion, but in a setting thousands of years hence, those spells might just be Magic Aura and <adjective or verb> Mansion. Go back a few millennia and maybe we're talking not about Magic Missile or Cone of Cold but Gaelon's Magic Missile or Kainomen's Cone of Cold.

An elegant and interconnected system of magic, where your rudimentary spells have the potential to be powered up into cataclysmic or reality-warping spells suggests that either magic knowledge was handed down from whatever God of Magic exists in your setting, or that all research in history has been done by 20th level casters looking at spells with an eye for how it could be used within their maximum level of capability. It works, I guess, but it feels sterile and clinical. There's no life in that magic.

Compare that to Gideon the Scribe, 3 level Necromancer, who wants to animate severed hands as a 2nd level spell. And he figures it out (Gideon's Grasping Ghoulish Grippers--dude's a bit... weird). Several levels later, he figures out that by juicing the spell up he can affect more hands, but the spell itself is pretty basic as it was created when he had a basic level of understanding. He can animate an additional swarm of hands using a 4th level slot, or two additional swarms with a 6th level slot, but just adding more power doesn't change the nature (HP, AC, special attributes, attacks, etc) of the hands because, frankly, when he researched the idea he was concerned with body part reanimation, not undead fortification. This is a messy system, with countless individual actors researching and designing according to their own philosophy--some may achieve glory spanning centuries or millennia due to spells they create, other's may find their work consigned to the dustbin of history (Celwig the Reclining's Conjure Half-Decent Ice Tea sadly found its way into no magical textbooks.) It lives and breathes and I'll take it in a heartbeat over the Immaculate Spell-List any day.

[burninatortrog]

The rate of spell power scaling is a design choice. The game would still be balanced if spells didn't scale at all (cantrips excepted), or if they scaled a bit faster, as long as they didn't surpass higher-level spells.

I have a feeling the devs chose the scaling rate to encourage players to learn or prepare an even distribution of low and high level spells. If spells scaled at a sharper rate, players might prefer to learn/prepare more low-level spells and fewer high-level spells.

[Forum Explorer]

I...don't really get this complaint. Primary Spell casters are arguably the strongest classes with the most options. And you want to make them stronger, with even more options. Why? :smallconfused:

Scaling Spells being suboptimal at higher levels is a good thing, it means that a spellcaster is actually punished for choosing the wrong spells, rather then them being able to choose utility spells at almost no cost since their other spells scale so well.

[Shaofoo]

That's the point. Due to their poor scaling, these spells incur such a massive opportunity cost that there's little point to casting them after a certain level. I think this should not be the case. If a wizard wants use magic to put someone to sleep at high levels, and casts Sleep at a high level to do it, he shouldn't be penalized for not using a "level-appropriate" spell, despite expending a slot of the proper level.


Sleep scales very well at high levels, you add 2d8 to the potential pool to sleep per level. It is already very strong being able to knock out people instantly. He isn't being penalized if he wants to cast it at a higher level if he wants to put to sleep a tougher monster. Or you can be creative and damage the target and when he is weak enough then chuck that sleep, you have to be creative not rewrite the game as soon as something doesn't come up your speed.

Part of the reason this is like it is is because of the Action economy, there should be some cost for wanting things more powerful now instead of later.

You could spend a 4th level slot to have six magic missiles now or you can cast Magic Missile twice at 1st level over 2 rounds and still get the same amount of missiles. That kind of decision will be lost if you just ramp up the power.


As for "thematic" concerns, magic can work however we want it to. It's magic. The nature of magic varies between the imaginations of players and DMs.

That says nothing at all. If you disregard the flavor of the book because you can substitute it for your own then I don't think we can have a discussion because you aren't considering why the books put it like it is.

[Dimolyth]

"Poor scaling" is fine. 1st level spell casted as 5th level slot has power of 3rd level spell itself - that IS good.
Most of casters got they features other than spellcasting at low levels. If there is not "poor scaling", there will be no reason to be Cleric20 and not Druid10/Cleric10, Sorcerer20 and not Sorcerer10/Bard10, Wizard20 and not Wizard14/Fighter(Eldritch Knight)6.
The spell slot progress via multiclasses works fine. But the only reason to not multiclass for a spellcaster - are spell known for higher level slots. That`s balance-wise.

And there is logic at it. A scholar, who studied wizardy the whole time, got that firaball. But a guy, who studied wizard, and then turned to bardic lore - would get a lot class features, but will spamming poor burning hands at 3rd level slot.

[MarkTriumphant]

All the cantrips scale equally by level...

I don't think so. The main effect for Vicious Mockery is not the damage - it is the disadvantage on the next attack. This does not change with level, and an extra 1d4, while welcome, is small.

On the other hand, Eldritch Blast does nothing but damage, so the increase is specifically adding to the primary purpose of the spell.

The least Vicious Mockery should do is to extend the number of attacks that have disadvantage with each 1d4.

[Shaofoo]

I don't think so. The main effect for Vicious Mockery is not the damage - it is the disadvantage on the next attack. This does not change with level, and an extra 1d4, while welcome, is small.

On the other hand, Eldritch Blast does nothing but damage, so the increase is specifically adding to the primary purpose of the spell.

The least Vicious Mockery should do is to extend the number of attacks that have disadvantage with each 1d4.

Disadvantage is the same at level 1 and at level 20. There is no need to increase something that is level at all levels.

[Hawkstar]

I...don't really get this complaint. Primary Spell casters are arguably the strongest classes with the most options. And you want to make them stronger, with even more options. Why? :smallconfused:Increasing weak options doesn't increase the strength of strong options.


Scaling Spells being suboptimal at higher levels is a good thing, it means that a spellcaster is actually punished for choosing the wrong spells, rather then them being able to choose utility spells at almost no cost since their other spells scale so well.
Why do you hate sorcerers so much?
Disadvantage is the same at level 1 and at level 20. There is no need to increase something that is level at all levels.

Disadvantage on one attack when your enemies get only one attack is not the same as disadvantage on one attack when enemies get three attacks, though.

[rollingForInit]

If we ignore Fireball and Ligthning Bolt, how do lower level spells scale? IIRC, it's been pointed out that those two spells break the DMG's suggested damage for that spell level. Perhaps because they are supposed to be iconic or something.

[eastmabl]

The rate of spell power scaling is a design choice. The game would still be balanced if spells didn't scale at all (cantrips excepted), or if they scaled a bit faster, as long as they didn't surpass higher-level spells.

This statement is mostly correct for wizards, druids and clerics who don't have a hard cap on the number of spells to which they have access in preparing. Wizards can prepare all spells in their spell book(s), while the divine classes can order off the whole menu of their class/domain spell lists when choosing what to order from their power source.

For classes with fixed spells known which are defined by class (sorcerer, bard, ranger, etc.), you need spell scaling to compensate for the limited resource. If a sorcerer, who only knows approximately 1 spell for each level in the sorcerer class, would only know two spells that could be cast at each spell level, it would make for a very hard class to play.

[Dimolyth]

For classes with fixed spells known which are defined by class (sorcerer, bard, ranger, etc.), you need spell scaling to compensate for the limited resource. If a sorcerer, who only knows approximately 1 spell for each level in the sorcerer class, would only know two spells that could be cast at each spell level, it would make for a very hard class to play.

Very true. But scaling works fine everywhere except for sorcerers. Even there, that is a problem at the quantity of spell known, not spell scaling. The problem of 'better scaling' is multiclassing: we`ll get a sorcerer/bard who is more potent than pure sorcerer or bard ever could be.

[Shaofoo]

Disadvantage on one attack when your enemies get only one attack is not the same as disadvantage on one attack when enemies get three attacks, though.

Multi attacks is not dependent on level. I can easily make a multi attacking enemy at level 1 and make a single attacking enemy at level 20. Correlation does not imply causation.

If you think that multi attacks should be affected in its entirety then instead of saying attack roll then say the next attack action is done with disadvantage, all his potential attacks in the action are now done at a disadvantage. No need to scale anything.


This statement is mostly correct for wizards, druids and clerics who don't have a hard cap on the number of spells to which they have access in preparing. Wizards can prepare all spells in their spell book(s), while the divine classes can order off the whole menu of their class/domain spell lists when choosing what to order from their power source.

For classes with fixed spells known which are defined by class (sorcerer, bard, ranger, etc.), you need spell scaling to compensate for the limited resource. If a sorcerer, who only knows approximately 1 spell for each level in the sorcerer class, would only know two spells that could be cast at each spell level, it would make for a very hard class to play.

Sorcerer seems like they are currently fine with their limited spell selection. It seems that people who have a problem with Sorcerers complain that they aren't Wizards.

Usually characters with "limited" spell selection (and I laugh at your inclusion of bards, the only class that can get any spell from any class) have other things to compensate. Sorcerers have metamagic, Rangers and Paladins have their attacking prowess to compensate even if you think that Bards are lacking they still compensate with their skills and inspiration.

You can't just look at the spell list of class and come up with a general consensus on the class.

[pwykersotz]

This would completely screw up the history of magic for my campaigns (though, honestly, it might just screw up magic period.) A system where low-level spells are balanced against high level spells when you cast them from a high-level slot suggests an extremely top-down history of magical research. These days we have Nystul's Magic Aura, Mordenkainen's Mansion, but in a setting thousands of years hence, those spells might just be Magic Aura and <adjective or verb> Mansion. Go back a few millennia and maybe we're talking not about Magic Missile or Cone of Cold but Gaelon's Magic Missile or Kainomen's Cone of Cold.

An elegant and interconnected system of magic, where your rudimentary spells have the potential to be powered up into cataclysmic or reality-warping spells suggests that either magic knowledge was handed down from whatever God of Magic exists in your setting, or that all research in history has been done by 20th level casters looking at spells with an eye for how it could be used within their maximum level of capability. It works, I guess, but it feels sterile and clinical. There's no life in that magic.

Compare that to Gideon the Scribe, 3 level Necromancer, who wants to animate severed hands as a 2nd level spell. And he figures it out (Gideon's Grasping Ghoulish Grippers--dude's a bit... weird). Several levels later, he figures out that by juicing the spell up he can affect more hands, but the spell itself is pretty basic as it was created when he had a basic level of understanding. He can animate an additional swarm of hands using a 4th level slot, or two additional swarms with a 6th level slot, but just adding more power doesn't change the nature (HP, AC, special attributes, attacks, etc) of the hands because, frankly, when he researched the idea he was concerned with body part reanimation, not undead fortification. This is a messy system, with countless individual actors researching and designing according to their own philosophy--some may achieve glory spanning centuries or millennia due to spells they create, other's may find their work consigned to the dustbin of history (Celwig the Reclining's Conjure Half-Decent Ice Tea sadly found its way into no magical textbooks.) It lives and breathes and I'll take it in a heartbeat over the Immaculate Spell-List any day.

I'm of the opinion that you can justify whatever fluff you want if you try hard enough, and that it shouldn't be the only reason to make design decisions...but this is very interesting and I like it. Best thread comment so far in my opinion.

[HidesHisEyes]

It's an appropriate nerf. Casters used to be much stronger than non-casters for a number of reasons. Their ludicrous scaling was one of the bigger ones. By high levels, wizards were capable of doing literally anything imaginable and could render themselves unbeatable if they chose (see my sig), while fighters would get small bonuses in their ability to hit things.

Caster scaling was a huge issue in 3rd edition, and severe nerfs to their scaling was necessary to alleviate complaints about it.

Yeah I agree. In 3rd I think it got to the point at high levels where not only did casters dominate combat, but even outside combat whatever the problem was, the solution was "cast a spell". Which cuts down a GM's options for adventure-writing somewhat, and takes some of the excitement out of things.

[Forum Explorer]

Increasing weak options doesn't increase the strength of strong options.


Why do you hate sorcerers so much?


That's kinda irrelevant, because increasing the strength of scaling increases your number of strong options.

If you were talking about having more spells scale, just as poorly as the other ones, then that sentence would make sense.


I love sorcerers just the way they are. :smalltongue: Except for wild mages. They don't get to wild surge nearly enough for my tastes.

Point is, Sorcerers aren't weak. Having to make difficult choices on what you want for your spell list is a feature, not a bug.

[Theodoxus]

This is one of those times that getting to know the design intent of the devs would be nice. Looking at the spells that have "At Higher Level" as part of their construction, there isn't much rhyme or reason as to what determines the boosted effect. Some spells don't even benefit every spell level - which is just odd.

I am sad that they didn't take the time to really put creativity into spell casting. Had they generated something like a mashup between 3.0 Psionics (I think that was the one based on attributes, but more importantly, allowed the psion to choose damage type and shape) and White Wolf Mage - granting the player the ability to sculpt the exact spell description they wanted - would have taken D&D into a really fresh direction (and differentiated itself from 4.0 permanently).

However, since they basically went Vancian on Steroids, and brought back all the iconic spells with very little adjustment outside of damage - it only brings up and exacerbates the same issues we've had since the Basic set.

Of course, wishes, horses, dreams and stardust and all that... it'd be a lot of work for the community to rework the spells en masse. But I think picking out specific problem areas wouldn't be too bad.

I agree with Viscous Mockery. My proposed fix is to make it like EB. At 5th+, you can target multiple targets, each that fail their save get Disad on their first attack. If you target the same critter with 2 or more, then for each save they fail, they tack on an additional Disad to an attack.

The multiple saves is balanced by the multiple targets. I don't think there's any way for the caster to get a stat boost to power... but even 1d4+5 (x4) isn't horrid when you're looking at 4 Dex saves...

[Shaofoo]

This is one of those times that getting to know the design intent of the devs would be nice. Looking at the spells that have "At Higher Level" as part of their construction, there isn't much rhyme or reason as to what determines the boosted effect. Some spells don't even benefit every spell level - which is just odd.

I thought it was very easy to determine the rationale.

Most just raise damage if it deals damage

A few raise the number of targets if it can be targeted

Some summoning spells raise the amount that is summoned

It might not raise the amount that you want but I don't find it hard to follow.

And some spells not benefiting from a higher spell slot is also a feature. If you run out of spell slots for the required level and really want to use a spell of that level you can always just burn a higher level slot. Of course you will then have to wage the cost benefit of casting the spell and saving the slot for a higher leveled spell but sometimes that particular spell is all you need so it all depends.


I am sad that they didn't take the time to really put creativity into spell casting. Had they generated something like a mashup between 3.0 Psionics (I think that was the one based on attributes, but more importantly, allowed the psion to choose damage type and shape) and White Wolf Mage - granting the player the ability to sculpt the exact spell description they wanted - would have taken D&D into a really fresh direction (and differentiated itself from 4.0 permanently).

However, since they basically went Vancian on Steroids, and brought back all the iconic spells with very little adjustment outside of damage - it only brings up and exacerbates the same issues we've had since the Basic set.


Then people would complain that it isn't D&D, if there is a point to 5e is that it be as much D&D as possible. Besides you can recreate a bit of the psionic feel by making the Spell Point variant instead of spell slots.


I agree with Viscous Mockery. My proposed fix is to make it like EB. At 5th+, you can target multiple targets, each that fail their save get Disad on their first attack. If you target the same critter with 2 or more, then for each save they fail, they tack on an additional Disad to an attack.

The multiple saves is balanced by the multiple targets. I don't think there's any way for the caster to get a stat boost to power... but even 1d4+5 (x4) isn't horrid when you're looking at 4 Dex saves...

It should not stack at all, if you focus fire on one guy then the guy should only have its first attack affected only regardless of how many times he has been hit, the point is that you hit more often if you split it 4 times instead of just once. So you either affect 4 targets with the hope to inflict disadv on some targets or you focus fire on one guy and hope that it sticks, in fact as you wrote it Vicious Mockery can become more powerful than Bane and Vicious Mockery requires no Concentration or spell slot.

[Hawkstar]

Very true. But scaling works fine everywhere except for sorcerers. Even there, that is a problem at the quantity of spell known, not spell scaling. The problem of 'better scaling' is multiclassing: we`ll get a sorcerer/bard who is more potent than pure sorcerer or bard ever could be.

Not really. It would just let Sorcerer/Bard's numbers keep up with their pure-class counterparts, while pure-class casters get more powerful effects on top of the damage numbers.

It should not stack at all, if you focus fire on one guy then the guy should only have its first attack affected only regardless of how many times he has been hit
Why not? At level 1, Vicious Mockery inflicts disadvantage on 100% of most monsters' attacks in a round. At higher levels, it only inflicts disadvantage on half, at most.

[Shining Wrath]

It would have been nice if WotC had just figured out a formula comparing the power of spell slots and applied it consistently.

Comparing a 9th level spell to a 1st level, they could have gone with

Linear: 9/1
Quadratic: 81/1
Cubic: 729/1
Exponential (base 2): 512/1


I also agree with the poster who said a 1st level spell cast with a 9th level slot shouldn't offer the same power as a 9th level spell cast with the same slot. Given bounded accuracy as a design goal, I think Quadratic growth in spell power for new spells, with Linear growth for casting a spell with a higher level slot, is not unreasonable. No, you don't get archmages casting lightning bolts that blast mile-long swaths through enemy armies. That's a goal, not a bug.

Anyway, if anyone on WotC staff was numerate we might have seen more consistency; but they are writers, not engineers.

[Hawkstar]

I also agree with the poster who said a 1st level spell cast with a 9th level slot shouldn't offer the same power as a 9th level spell cast with the same slot. Given bounded accuracy as a design goal, I think Quadratic growth in spell power for new spells, with Linear growth for casting a spell with a higher level slot, is not unreasonable. No, you don't get archmages casting lightning bolts that blast mile-long swaths through enemy armies. That's a goal, not a bug.
I think they should have gone with linear damage growth per spell slot (Both level-appropriate and upscaled), but have higher-level spell slots allow for more 'riders'.

[Shaofoo]

Why not? At level 1, Vicious Mockery inflicts disadvantage on 100% of most monsters' attacks in a round. At higher levels, it only inflicts disadvantage on half, at most.

And for a cantrip that is good enough, it shouldn't be a replacement for Bane ,a spell that requires both a spell slot and Concentration to work and on average is only half as powerful as disadvantage.

I don't think that Vicious Mockery should compete with Bane at any level.

[Hawkstar]

And for a cantrip that is good enough, it shouldn't be a replacement for Bane ,a spell that requires both a spell slot and Concentration to work and on average is only half as powerful as disadvantage.

I don't think that Vicious Mockery should compete with Bane at any level.

1. They stack
2. Bane is a level 1 spell.
3. Bane effects multiple targets, and even more as it gets upscaled.
4. Sacred Flame, Produce Flame, Fire Bolt, Eldritch Blast, and other cantrips outpace Witch Bolt, chromatic orb, and other low-level attack spells. Why can't cantrips outpace low-level debuffs?

[Shaofoo]

1. They stack

Sure Bane stacks with anything that gives disadvantage that is a point for Bane


2. Bane is a level 1 spell.

And Vicious Mockery is a cantrip


3. Bane effects multiple targets, and even more as it gets upscaled.

Sure, if you want to add multiple persons around then Bane is great, but if it is 1 vs 1 then the extra targets are a waste. Of course I rarely consider 1 vs 1 to be the norm in actual play anyway.

Also I was talking about the "fix" which would then effect multiple targets which means that this point is moot, in fact if we took your words then Vicious Mockery wastes no efficiency cause you can quadruple pile on a solo guy while with Bane if it is 1 vs 1 then the other two targets are wasted without any fanfare.


4. Sacred Flame, Produce Flame, Fire Bolt, Eldritch Blast, and other cantrips outpace Witch Bolt, chromatic orb, and other low-level attack spells. Why can't cantrips outpace low-level debuffs?

Most attack spells are save for half while cantrips are save or miss for all.

Chromatic Orb it isn't save for half but it does give you the flexibility to choose a lot of damage types at the moment.

Witch's Bolt is considered by some to be broken and unusable in its current condition.

If you want sure damage then you spend a slot for save on half damage at least.

Also just because cantrips can outpace some spells later doesn't mean that now all cantrips should outpace low leveled spells, it isn't supposed to happen. It happened now but it doesn't make it right suddenly.

And still the biggest is that it ties up your Concentration while Vicious Mockery doesn't.

[Hawkstar]

And still the biggest is that it ties up your Concentration while Vicious Mockery doesn't.
It is a significant Debuff. Not sure if it has a save, but it really shouldn't, since it just screws with probability instead of actually debilitating or hurting.

[Theodoxus]

And still the biggest is that it ties up your Concentration while Vicious Mockery doesn't.

If that's your issue... I don't know... Tying up your Concentration means you can cast other spells while Bane lingers on. VM requires casting it every round (and hoping it sticks) to get the benefit. Bane just is. Though having used both, my table prefers Bless to Bane. We haven't had the luxury of having both spells on two characters.

[Dimolyth]

I think they should have gone with linear damage growth per spell slot (Both level-appropriate and upscaled), but have higher-level spell slots allow for more 'riders'.

Well, this idea is decent and has its logic. And I personnally like it.

Though, it is unrealisable in the game named D&D. Just because there are traditions (and not following them makes pretty half of players do not use current version of product, but use the former version). Just because fireball is damage efficient without riders, and so is cone of cold, but hold person has a rider without damage. Then, there are not so many riders to create a real scale for ten grades of spells - without recreating chess-like tactic combat (which doesn`t work in 5e, where combats treated to be spontangeous and fast).

Without major fix (total rewriting all spells in game) just changing of scaling spells will lead to disbalance. That will either overpower multiclasses, or discriminate sorcerers.

[MaxWilson]

If we ignore Fireball and Ligthning Bolt, how do lower level spells scale? IIRC, it's been pointed out that those two spells break the DMG's suggested damage for that spell level. Perhaps because they are supposed to be iconic or something.

Conjure Animals scales very well. Conjure Animals IX gives you 4x the HP and 4x the DPR that you get out of Conjure Animals III, which means that it's roughly 16x as powerful.


Compare that to Gideon the Scribe, 3 level Necromancer, who wants to animate severed hands as a 2nd level spell. And he figures it out (Gideon's Grasping Ghoulish Grippers--dude's a bit... weird). Several levels later, he figures out that by juicing the spell up he can affect more hands, but the spell itself is pretty basic as it was created when he had a basic level of understanding. He can animate an additional swarm of hands using a 4th level slot, or two additional swarms with a 6th level slot, but just adding more power doesn't change the nature (HP, AC, special attributes, attacks, etc) of the hands because, frankly, when he researched the idea he was concerned with body part reanimation, not undead fortification. This is a messy system, with countless individual actors researching and designing according to their own philosophy--some may achieve glory spanning centuries or millennia due to spells they create, other's may find their work consigned to the dustbin of history (Celwig the Reclining's Conjure Half-Decent Ice Tea sadly found its way into no magical textbooks.) It lives and breathes and I'll take it in a heartbeat over the Immaculate Spell-List any day.

Give me Gideon's Grasping Ghoulish Grippers which animates a CR 0 Crawling Claw for 24 hours in a way similar to Animate Dead, and I will take one Necromancer 18 and Spell Mastery, and five minutes' work will give me 50 Crawling Claws. Who cares if they only have 2 HP normally? My Crawling Claws have 21 HP + 20-odd temp HP from Inspiring Leader, and they attack at +3 for d4+7 damage.

I need this spell. :)

[Anonymouswizard]

It would have been nice if WotC had just figured out a formula comparing the power of spell slots and applied it consistently.

Comparing a 9th level spell to a 1st level, they could have gone with

Linear: 9/1
Quadratic: 81/1
Cubic: 729/1
Exponential (base 2): 512/1


I think your calculation for exponential is off, you've got 9th levels at 29 while 1st levels are 20, it should be 28/20 or 256/1.


I also agree with the poster who said a 1st level spell cast with a 9th level slot shouldn't offer the same power as a 9th level spell cast with the same slot. Given bounded accuracy as a design goal, I think Quadratic growth in spell power for new spells, with Linear growth for casting a spell with a higher level slot, is not unreasonable. No, you don't get archmages casting lightning bolts that blast mile-long swaths through enemy armies. That's a goal, not a bug.

Anyway, if anyone on WotC staff was numerate we might have seen more consistency; but they are writers, not engineers.

First off, there is no writer/engineer divide, it's just people who are good at maths tend to go into highly paid maths-based jobs like engineering and not low paid mathematics jobs like games design. But this kind of thing they should have definitely put out for public playtest to see what the community thought (I'm not sure if they did, I didn't follow the playtest).

I would have a second point, but I forgot it.

[foobar1969]

I agree that many spells should scale more interestingly in the highest spell slots, particularly ones that are mainly roleplay/social/exploration rather than direct combat effects. For example, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a 9th level casting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?451446-At-Higher-Levels-(spell-addenda)) of Seeming to let you disguise 1000+ people.

One a related note, I'd like 5.1E to use a standardized set of duration increments, with a general rule that any non-instant (but non-permanent) spell could be extended via higher slots, such as:

~3x increments: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 2 hours, 8 hours, 1 day
~4x increments: 1 minute, 4 minutes, 15 minutes, 1 hour, 6 hours, 1 day