Upcasting spells to or above tier levels should probably give more benefit

[Rebonack]

Spells that add more dice when upcast in particular.

Classic example, compare a level 3 Shatter with Fireball. Fireball has better range, a better AoE and targets a save that's generally weaker on most monsters. More things resist fire damage, but fire damage is also useful against regenerating monsters. So even aside from all the perks above, Fireball boasts an average damage of 28 versus Shatter's 18. Yes yes, Fireball is iconic, but I don't think 'being iconic' is a particularly great justification for such a stark contrast. This is true about blasty spells in general, upcasting them is almost always a pretty bad idea (sorry Warlock) as opposed to just using a higher level spell. Disables that gain more targets (Hold Person, Banish, ect) don't feel like they really suffer from this problem.

So to that end, what if blasty spells gained an extra die of damage and some other perk (more range, larger AoE, what have you) when they get upcast to one of the three tier levels (3, 6, 9)?

That would put Shatter at, say, a 15 foot radius and 22.5 average damage. Still handily beaten out by the super iconic Fireball, but a better contender all the same. I really doubt this would be particularly game-breaking. And it would make upcasting blasty spells feel a bit less trap-y.

Edit:

For another example, contrast Burning Hands with Cone of Cold. We're looking at 36 damage (and massively better AoE) versus 24.5. Again, about a ten damage difference. Bumping Burning Hands up to 28 damage and improving its AoE a bit would still leave it trailing behind Cone of Cold pretty significantly, just not nearly as badly.

[Contrast]

I feel comparing to Fireball is a bad example as other spells of the same level (or even higher levels) often compare poorly to Fireball.

It's definitely intentional that up-casting isn't as powerful as higher level spells. That's your reward for levelling up (and one of the costs of multi-classing). To rephrase your premise, you aren't being punished for upcasting - you're being given an opportunity to still cast a spell even though you don't have any of that level slot left.

[E’Tallitnics]

Spells that add more dice when upcast in particular.

Classic example, compare a level 3 Shatter with Fireball. Fireball has better range, a better AoE and targets a save that's generally weaker on most monsters. More things resist fire damage, but fire damage is also useful against regenerating monsters. So even aside from all the perks above, Fireball boasts an average damage of 28 versus Shatter's 18. Yes yes, Fireball is iconic, but I don't think 'being iconic' is a particularly great justification for such a stark contrast. This is true about blasty spells in general, upcasting them is almost always a pretty bad idea (sorry Warlock) as opposed to just using a higher level spell. Disables that gain more targets (Hold Person, Banish, ect) don't feel like they really suffer from this problem.

So to that end, what if blasty spells gained an extra die of damage and some other perk (more range, larger AoE, what have you) when they get upcast to one of the three tier levels (3, 6, 9)?

That would put Shatter at, say, a 15 foot radius and 22.5 average damage. Still handily beaten out by the super iconic Fireball, but a better contender all the same. I really doubt this would be particularly game-breaking. And it would make upcasting blasty spells feel a bit less trap-y.

Fireball is a very bad example to use as it's been intentionally designed to not follow the rules in the DMG for how to create spells. It's been designed to be more powerful than it should be for a 3rd level spell.

[Afrodactyl]

I agree that it's probably intentional that lower level spells upcast aren't as powerful as higher level ones. The obvious benefit is that a class that may not have a super powerful high level blast spell can still fall back on an upcast Shatter or Scorching Ray or whatever spell it is you cast, and the benefit of being able to cast that spell more often because you can cast it with lower level slots too.

Also, I personally think that Fireball is an unfair point of comparison as it is considerably better than most comparable spells.

[Rebonack]

Comparing to Fireball works decently since both spells offer a pretty similar effect.

And I would agree upcasting should generally be weaker than just using a higher level spell. I'm questioning the wisdom of making the difference so stark.

For another example, contrast Burning Hands with Cone of Cold. We're looking at 36 damage (and massively better AoE) versus 24.5. Again, about a ten damage difference. Bumping Burning Hands up to 28 damage and improving its AoE a bit would still leave it trailing behind Cone of Cold pretty significantly.

[MaxWilson]

That would put Shatter at, say, a 15 foot radius and 22.5 average damage. Still handily beaten out by the super iconic Fireball, but a better contender all the same. I really doubt this would be particularly game-breaking. And it would make upcasting blasty spells feel a bit less trap-y.

Concur. Blasty spells are relatively crummy in 5E compared to summoning and control spells; letting them scale better will definitely not be game-breaking.

Just look at Conjure Animals V vs. Fireball V: Conjure Animals V is twice as powerful as Conjure Animals III in raw numbers (which translates to about 3x to 4x the combat power due to quadratic scaling), whereas Fireball V is only 25% more powerful than Fireball III.

[UrielAwakened]

Upcast Fireball actually out damages everything except maybe Cone of Cold until you get to Disintegrate, and then it still does the most AoE damage until you get Meteor Swarm.

[Contrast]

Concur. Blasty spells are relatively crummy in 5E compared to summoning and control spells; letting them scale better will definitely not be game-breaking.

Just look at Conjure Animals V vs. Fireball V: Conjure Animals V is twice as powerful as Conjure Animals III in raw numbers (which translates to about 3x to 4x the combat power due to quadratic scaling), whereas Fireball V is only 25% more powerful than Fireball III.

Amusingly I would anticipate damage actually going down slightly if you did this. I would imagine casters would learn a single AoE spell and single target spell and just upcast as needed if upcasting was close enough to keeping in touch with full levelled spells then use their spell picks for utility or control spells. If an upcast fireball does similar damage/AoE to meteor storm, why bother learning meteor storm?

[Unoriginal]

Magic does not need a boost in power.

You upcast spells because you lack an higher-level spell with similar effects. The upcasting not being as good as a spell of the appropriate level is the cost you pay for using that kind of power despite selecting a different kind of higher level spell. It's already pretty nice you *can* choose to make a spell stronger.

[MaxWilson]

Amusingly I would anticipate damage actually going down slightly if you did this. I would imagine casters would learn a single AoE spell and single target spell and just upcast as needed if upcasting was close enough to keeping in touch with full levelled spells then use their spell picks for utility or control spells. If an upcast fireball does similar damage/AoE to meteor storm, why bother learning meteor storm?

(1) Why assume it does as much damage as Meteor Storm? There's a whole lot of gap between current Fireball IX (14d6=49 points of fire damage) and Meteor Swarm (70 points of fire damage + 70 points of magical bludgeoning damage). You could increase damage significantly without coming close to Meteor Swarm. Even if you doubled the scaling of Fireball to +2d6/level, giving Fireball IX 20d6 = 70 points of damage, Meteor Swarm would still be doing twice as much damage overall. Or you could keep Fireball's damage the same and let it scale in some other characteristic like range or AoE, as the OP suggested.

(2) Another reason to choose Meteor Swarm has a bigger AoE and a much longer range (1 mile).

Other spells like Shapechange/True Polymorph are still much, much better than Meteor Swarm, and they'd still be better than even a tweaked Fireball IX with improved scaling.

Bottom line: all those spellcasters you're talking about who would ignore blasting spells if you boosted Fireball? They're already ignoring blasting spells today.

[sophontteks]

Fireball is specifically OP. It has nothing to do with spell tiers or upcasting. Its a better aoe blasting spell then those below it, better then those at its level, and even beats out most of the stuff above it.

Fireball was intentionally made stronger then other similiar spells.

[Tetrasodium]

Spells that add more dice when upcast in particular.

Classic example, compare a level 3 Shatter with Fireball. Fireball has better range, a better AoE and targets a save that's generally weaker on most monsters. More things resist fire damage, but fire damage is also useful against regenerating monsters. So even aside from all the perks above, Fireball boasts an average damage of 28 versus Shatter's 18. Yes yes, Fireball is iconic, but I don't think 'being iconic' is a particularly great justification for such a stark contrast. This is true about blasty spells in general, upcasting them is almost always a pretty bad idea (sorry Warlock) as opposed to just using a higher level spell. Disables that gain more targets (Hold Person, Banish, ect) don't feel like they really suffer from this problem.

So to that end, what if blasty spells gained an extra die of damage and some other perk (more range, larger AoE, what have you) when they get upcast to one of the three tier levels (3, 6, 9)?

That would put Shatter at, say, a 15 foot radius and 22.5 average damage. Still handily beaten out by the super iconic Fireball, but a better contender all the same. I really doubt this would be particularly game-breaking. And it would make upcasting blasty spells feel a bit less trap-y.

Edit:

For another example, contrast Burning Hands with Cone of Cold. We're looking at 36 damage (and massively better AoE) versus 24.5. Again, about a ten damage difference. Bumping Burning Hands up to 28 damage and improving its AoE a bit would still leave it trailing behind Cone of Cold pretty significantly, just not nearly as badly.


Upcasting spells solves a problem that existed in older versions where a caster would take certain spells just to have a spell of that level that does x damage or a caster would get extra damage from x damage spells, but only able to use it on level x y & eventually z spells. The importance of damage types in 5e are dramatically minimized to the point where basically the only damage type you need is "magic" or "a magic weapon"to deal full damage to nearly everything though.

[Contrast]

(1) Why assume it does as much damage as Meteor Storm?

Because OP explicitly outlined that what they wanted to do was make upcasting spells keep in touching distance of the spells currently at that level and mentioned special jumps in AoE and damage to keep them at this level?


Other spells like Shapechange/True Polymorph are still much, much better than Meteor Swarm, and they'd still be better than even a tweaked Fireball IX with improved scaling.

Bottom line: all those spellcasters you're talking about who would ignore blasting spells if you boosted Fireball? They're already ignoring blasting spells today.

You appear to be agreeing with me here - if you think higher level damage spells aren't worth it, surely we shouldn't be devaluing them further by improving upcasting of lower level damage spells?

[MrStabby]

Better updating kind of undermines the limits of spells known/spells prepared. If you just need a couple of low level damage types and can effectively update them it gives you a huge amount of extra resources in the spells department.

[MaxWilson]

Because OP explicitly outlined that what they wanted to do was make upcasting spells keep in touching distance of the spells currently at that level and mentioned special jumps in AoE and damage to keep them at this level?

I feel like we must not have read the same OP. The OP I read said nothing at all about quadrupling Fireball's scaling damage, which is what you'd need to get within shouting distance of Meteor Swarm. (If Fireball gave +4d6 per spell level, Fireball IX would do 32d6 = 112 points of damage, which is still only 80% of Meteor Swarm's damage.) And Meteor Swarm would still have way better range and AoE.

The OP I read was much more modest in its proposal, "So to that end, what if blasty spells gained an extra die of damage and some other perk (more range, larger AoE, what have you) when they get upcast to one of the three tier levels (3, 6, 9)?"

I don't know how you made the jump from the OP to "If an upcast fireball does similar damage/AoE to meteor storm, why bother learning meteor storm?"


You appear to be agreeing with me here - if you think higher level damage spells aren't worth it, surely we shouldn't be devaluing them further by improving upcasting of lower level damage spells?

I'm shrugging and opining that it's a non-issue. I'm not persuaded that your conjecture is correct and that usage would drop; I'm not persuaded that it's wrong; but I am persuaded that the impact on the game as whole would be small either way: if blasty spells go from e.g. 4% usage to either 3% (per your conjecture) or 5% (if the opposite happens), either way they'll still be fairly niche.

I do think the game would be somewhat more fun for spellcasters if blasty spells scaled better; but it might be less fun for fighters, since right now doing direct damage is sort of the fighters' (and sorlocks') niche. That's an observation, not an endorsement.

[Kane0]

I don't think upcasting is supposed to necessarily match a higher level spell. It's there to give extra longevity to the spell and an extra option for its use. If you use the logic that upcasting should equal a higher level spell, then you could make the leap that a higher level spell should be able to be downcast for a lesser effect.

Which wouldn't be a bad idea, come to think of it. Would just need it's own subsystem to avoid getting out of hand is all.

[Contrast]

I feel like we must not have read the same OP. The OP I read said nothing at all about quadrupling Fireball's scaling damage, which is what you'd need to get within shouting distance of Meteor Swarm. (If Fireball gave +4d6 per spell level, Fireball IX would do 32d6 = 112 points of damage, which is still only 80% of Meteor Swarm's damage.) And Meteor Swarm would still have way better range and AoE.

For reference both the changes posited by OP result in the upcast spell doing ~80% the damage of a regular spell.

I'm not arguing that the regular spells aren't still better (in OPs Shatter/Fireball example, Fireball still does more damage with a larger AoE). I'm arguing there's going to be many situations where they're not better enough to warrant learning/preparing if you're too generous with upcasting. We could argue specific numbers but that would really have to be done on a spell by spell basis (which I freely admit I cannot be bothered to do :smalltongue:).



I'm shrugging and opining that it's a non-issue. I'm not persuaded that your conjecture is correct and that usage would drop; I'm not persuaded that it's wrong; but I am persuaded that the impact on the game as whole would be small either way: if blasty spells go from e.g. 4% usage to either 3% (per your conjecture) or 5% (if the opposite happens), either way they'll still be fairly niche.

I do think the game would be somewhat more fun for spellcasters if blasty spells scaled better; but it might be less fun for fighters, since right now doing direct damage is sort of the fighters' (and sorlocks') niche. That's an observation, not an endorsement.

I would agree that direct damage spells are often not the best option but I find the suggestion that they represent 3-5% of spells cast so wildly different from my experience that I don't know how usefully we can even discuss as we're clearly playing under an extremely different set of assumptions. Mostly we're just discussing a straight buff to classes which I feel are generally not in need of one so my initial response is to say no until a reason more compelling than 'it would make them better' appears.

[Snails]

I don't think upcasting is supposed to necessarily match a higher level spell. It's there to give extra longevity to the spell and an extra option for its use. If you use the logic that upcasting should equal a higher level spell, then you could make the leap that a higher level spell should be able to be downcast for a lesser effect.

Which wouldn't be a bad idea, come to think of it. Would just need it's own subsystem to avoid getting out of hand is all.

Upcasting is a very successful way of eliminating a mind-numbing amount of clutter in spell lists. It also makes it much easier on casual players and busy DMs, who can find a good enough option for the tactical scenario quickly by inspecting a smaller list.

The most abstract system would be to have pieces like:

Create <energy>
Form <blast | cone | etc.>
Extend range
etc.


And then my Wizard do a 3rd level Create Fire + Create Fire + Form Cone to nuke things close up. Imagine the combos!

The system would work, but a lot of people would hate it, because it expands the fiddliness of something that tips into being too fiddly for a lot of players already.

[Kane0]

It could get messy. You could model it like the 3.5 Warlock with a handful of base effects with descriptors you could attach upcasting options to in the form of prefix, suffix and/or straight extra damage.
You'd need a whole new class to fit it though, and it would probably step on at least one caster that currently exists.

[Rebonack]

The amount of hyperbole in some of these replies is unreal.

I'm not suggesting that Burning Hands 9 should be as strong as Meteor Swarm. I'm suggesting that Burning Hands 9 gets an extra 3d6 damage and another 30 feet worth of range (or what have you) to take into account the fact that the three spell tier levels (3, 6, 9) represent a greater jump in power than other spell levels.

Upcast blasty spells would still be weaker than their higher level counterparts.

[MaxWilson]

The amount of hyperbole in some of these replies is unreal.

I'm not suggesting that Burning Hands 9 should be as strong as Meteor Swarm. I'm suggesting that Burning Hands 9 gets an extra 3d6 damage and another 30 feet worth of range (or what have you) to take into account the fact that the three spell tier levels (3, 6, 9) represent a greater jump in power than other spell levels.

Upcast blasty spells would still be weaker than their higher level counterparts.

It wouldn't break the game.

It would have the additional interesting effect of making every extra spell point have the same return on investment: 1d6 per extra spell point spent.

[Jama7301]

Upcasting is a very successful way of eliminated a mind-numbing amount of clutter in spell lists. It also makes it much easier on casual players and busy DMs, who can find a good enough option for the tactical scenario quickly by inspecting a smaller list.

The most abstract system would be to have pieces like:

Create <energy>
Form <blast | cone | etc.>
Extend range
etc.


And then my Wizard do a 3rd level Create Fire + Create Fire + Form Cone to nuke things close up. Imagine the combos!

The system would work, but a lot of people would hate it, because it expands the fiddliness of something that tips into being too fiddly for a lot of players already.

Isn't that how Ars Magica does magic, or am I thinking of a different game?

[Coretex]

I don't understand why there is a huge negative reaction to having upcasted spells being anywhere near the power level of the spells at that level. Why is that a big deal?

From a balance perspective: as long as the spells do something different and the higher level spells do more damage, they are different spells with merits to both.

Why should a wizard player who enjoys using a particular spell be forced to use a higher level spell to do decent damage? The slot is the important cost here, and that gets used either way.
Heck, for a Sorcerer this might help with the limited spells known. Instead of having to take fireball they could stick with shatter (for slightly less damage) and learn some other interesting spells for damage from those levels.

This doesn't turn every aoe spell into fireball with a different damage type, but it does mean you can enjoy the spells you like to use for longer as long as you are willing to take a hit to potential damage.

Seems like a worthy trade off to me.

[MrStabby]

Why should a wizard player who enjoys using a particular spell be forced to use a higher level spell to do decent damage? The slot is the important cost here, and that gets used either way.

Well there are two resources and staying within both constraints sets the power of the characters. Stay within spells known/prepared and spell slots. There is a reason that spells known is a limit - letting spells overlap in function is a really big step up in power for classes that don't really need them.

This gets particularly dire when you consider multiclassing - when a low level spell obtained through a dip is upcast to me only a little less effective than a higher level damage spell. Likewise with things like bards magical secrets.

[MaxWilson]

I don't understand why there is a huge negative reaction to having upcasted spells being anywhere near the power level of the spells at that level. Why is that a big deal?

I don't see any huge negative reaction in this thread. Mostly people are reacting negatively to the idea of using Fireball as a baseline, but that's tangential to the upcasting discussion.

[Snails]

Isn't that how Ars Magica does magic, or am I thinking of a different game?

In loose generalities, yes. Ars Magica allows building spells based on Verb + Noun patterns.

The original idea of formulaically building spells from pieces was a magical subsystem in Chivalry & Sorcery, which predates AD&D.

[Kane0]

In loose generalities, yes. Ars Magica allows building spells based on Verb + Noun patterns.

The original idea of formulaically building spells from pieces was a magical subsystem in Chivalry & Sorcery, which predates AD&D.

Sounds like a job for a 5e Truenamer! Tempted to get on this, but I have actual work to do for once...

[Dr. Cliché]

Better updating kind of undermines the limits of spells known/spells prepared. If you just need a couple of low level damage types and can effectively update them it gives you a huge amount of extra resources in the spells department.

Given the state of Sorcerers, might this not be a good thing?

[MrStabby]

Given the state of Sorcerers, might this not be a good thing?

Making one of the most powerful classes in the game even more powerful by removing their only downside? Nope. Pretty sure not a good thing.

[Dr. Cliché]

Making one of the most powerful classes in the game even more powerful by removing their only downside? Nope. Pretty sure not a good thing.

Straw men are made of straw.

[MrStabby]

Straw men are made of straw.

My apologies for thinking you thought making the sorcerer more powerful would be a good thing.

[Dr. Cliché]

My apologies for thinking you thought making the sorcerer more powerful would be a good thing.

Given that one of the persistent complaints about the sorcerer is the absolutely pathetic number of spells known, I don't see a huge issue with allowing lower-level blast spells to remain effective at higher levels, so that they can actually use higher level spell slots for more fluffy/interesting spells.

But I forgot that fun is a bad thing in 5th edition D&D.

[MrStabby]

But I forgot that fun is a bad thing in 5th edition D&D.

Fun isn't the problem. Outshining THE other players is the problem. If it's a solo campaign do what you like.





Straw men are made of straw.
I thought this an apt comment to remind you of.

[UrielAwakened]

I just don't understand how this argument is still going on.

As I said, Fireball already does scale for better AOE damage than anything but Meteor Swarm so what is the problem?

[MaxWilson]

I just don't understand how this argument is still going on.

As I said, Fireball already does scale for better AOE damage than anything but Meteor Swarm so what is the problem?

Fireball's damage scaling is still so pathetic that intelligent players don't want to upcast it. They'd rather stick to Evard's Black Tentacles, Telekinesis, Confusion, Wall of Force, Mass Suggestion, etc. while using Booming Blade or basic Fireball III or Cone of Cold V to do the damage. Meteor Swarm is the only high-level blasting spell that's worth casting, and even then it's typically better just to Shapechange into a dragon.

Being better than garbage is irrelevant. The preposition is to make upcast blasting spells like Burning Hands at least vaguely tempting if you have them prepared instead of an utter waste.

I'm skeptical that it would make much difference either way, and it might make fighters sad to be more redundant, but it wouldn't break the game even if it did result in more blasty spells getting cast. It might make the game feel more iconic I suppose, since wizards started off as magical artillery, and maybe that's a good thing especially if you increase encounter sizes at the same time.

Bottom line: go ahead and try it if you like. There won't be serious problems.

[UrielAwakened]

Then the problem you have isn't with the way damage scales, it's the fact that there's no interaction between the axis of damage and the axis of magical debilitation.

It's a fundamental flaw of every version of D&D except 4e. Why blast something when you can banish it. When hit something with a sword when you can imprison it miles below earth.

If spells like banishment had caveats dependent on HP remaining then blast spells would be more valuable at higher levels. Something like, "If a creature has 50 hp or less it is banished to a demiplane. Otherwise, it is banished for 1 round. If the creature is extraplanar, the threshold is 75 hp instead" Then you can no longer short-cut hundreds of HP and the damage equivalent of such a spell is closer to 50 instead.

[MaxWilson]

Then the problem you have isn't with the way damage scales, it's the fact that there's no interaction between the axis of damage and the axis of magical debilitation.

It's a fundamental flaw of every version of D&D except 4e. Why blast something when you can banish it. When hit something with a sword when you can imprison it miles below earth.

Note that this isn't really an option in 5E. Someone still has to hit it with a sword (or a cantrip). It just doesn't make sense to spend spell slots on it.

So the fact that control spells don't interact with HP doesn't appear to be a fundamental flaw at all. It keeps both fighters and mages relevant. (The cantrip scaling thing is closer to fundamental flaw in that it can make warrior types kind of irrelevant if you're not careful, since it lets a Cleric 1/Wizard 19 potentially do almost as much at-will damage as an bog-standard Fighter 20, which is about 60-70% of the damage of a specialized (Sharpshooter or GWM) Fighter 20, while still retaining full spellcasting options.)

[UrielAwakened]

What are you talking about?

If I'm fighting a Balor I can either whack it a bunch of times or cast one spell and it's gone. That spell can be banishment or imprisonment or baleful polymorph into a tree. Or a dozen others.

There is zero interaction between the two potential ways of ending the encounter. Precisely because hard-control spells in 5e still interact on a different axis than damage spells, just like they did in 3e. In 4e, hard control was at best "The target is unconscious (save ends)." Which was really good but still required reducing something to 0 hit points to beat it. In 5e, hard control is "You turn the creature into a rock forever" or "you banish it to a demiplane for eternity."

[MrStabby]

I agree that more of this would be good. Sleep is a bit of an example.

Even advantage on saves if above 75% hp would be cool. It would make it important to work out who do damage and slow down nova combat.

Downside is that now there is a bit of an incentive to not dump stats too hard. If you can avoid damage and thereby pass saves it might make some tools a bit good (like sharpshooter to enable you to engage from range a bit more).

[Rebonack]

I agree that more of this would be good. Sleep is a bit of an example.

Even advantage on saves if above 75% hp would be cool. It would make it important to work out who do damage and slow down nova combat.

Downside is that now there is a bit of an incentive to not dump stats too hard. If you can avoid damage and thereby pass saves it might make some tools a bit good (like sharpshooter to enable you to engage from range a bit more).

I'm actually with you on Sleep. I thought the way it was put together was just great. If disabling spells worked more like that, it would suddenly make blasting spells and straight up damage far more important. Yes, you can lock those dudes down, but you have to soften them up a bit first to make it stick. It would also make it less disastrous to give martial classes better access to hard disables rather than that being the property of casters (and the Monk).

I'm sure we've all had encounters totally shut down by Hypnotic Pattern or Hold Monster. They even introduced Legendary Resistance specifically to counter that.

[Beelzebubba]

This is the usual logic that inevitably leads to power creep in casters.

"This limitation doesn't make sense". So someone boosts a seeming limitation. Then, every single ability the Wizard had improves equally every level, which gets geometrically crazy... and we're back in 'linear fighter quadratic wizard'.

You are NOT supposed to have every spell become significantly better over time. When you gain new spell levels, some old spells will now be less useful, and you're supposed to drop them. That's why Clerics can always choose between everything, Bards/Sorcerers/etc. swap old spells out over time, and Wizards steadily accumulate them as treasure all along the game. You're supposed to change to different tools at different tiers.

That is an intentional design choice, probably one of many adopted in 5e (like Concentration) to prevent the 'linear fighter quadratic wizard' problem I'm talking about. It also forces casters to think differently at different tiers of play, which keeps the game more interesting for the mentally restless. And, it actually forces a caster to balance their spell resources more carefully, which is good when you can change the entire direction of the battle with one action.

(edit: fixed a few 'whoop's mistakes)

[UrielAwakened]

I'm actually with you on Sleep. I thought the way it was put together was just great. If disabling spells worked more like that, it would suddenly make blasting spells and straight up damage far more important. Yes, you can lock those dudes down, but you have to soften them up a bit first to make it stick. It would also make it less disastrous to give martial classes better access to hard disables rather than that being the property of casters (and the Monk).

I'm sure we've all had encounters totally shut down by Hypnotic Pattern or Hold Monster. They even introduced Legendary Resistance specifically to counter that.

They also did this for stuff like Power Word Kill so they definitely played with the idea. They just didn't go far enough with it.

[MaxWilson]

What are you talking about?

If I'm fighting a Balor I can either whack it a bunch of times or cast one spell and it's gone. That spell can be banishment or imprisonment or baleful polymorph into a tree. Or a dozen others.

Are we talking about the same game (5E)? In 5E, there is no Baleful Polymorph, most high-level monsters have legendary saves, and Banishment is almost unique in being a low-level spell which can, under certain circumstances, remove certain monsters from the adventure entirely without having to go through their HP. (If you lose concentration before the minute is up, the Balor pops back into your face.) It's tricky to use effectively, it doesn't work against most monsters, and there certainly aren't a dozen others like it.


There is zero interaction between the two potential ways of ending the encounter. Precisely because hard-control spells in 5e still interact on a different axis than damage spells, just like they did in 3e. In 4e, hard control was at best "The target is unconscious (save ends)." Which was really good but still required reducing something to 0 hit points to beat it. In 5e, hard control is "You turn the creature into a rock forever" or "you banish it to a demiplane for eternity."

"You turn the creature into a rock until someone casts Dispel Magic on it," which many monsters can cast and some monsters (Glabrezu, Nycaloth, maybe others) can cast at will. So even if you blow a True Polymorph spell on turning a dragon into a rock, and the dragon has somehow used up all its legendary saves on other True Polymorphs cast by your fellow PCs, and the dragon doesn't Counterspell it, and the dragon fails its saving throw... even then, all it takes is a single Dispel Magic and your True Polymorph was useless.

There's a reason attempting True Polymorph on big bad enemies is not a favored tactic in 5E compared to just depleting all of their HP.

[UrielAwakened]

Are we talking about the same game (5E)? In 5E, there is no Baleful Polymorph, most high-level monsters have legendary saves, and Banishment is almost unique in being a low-level spell which can, under certain circumstances, remove certain monsters from the adventure entirely without having to go through their HP. (If you lose concentration before the minute is up, the Balor pops back into your face.) It's tricky to use effectively, it doesn't work against most monsters, and there certainly aren't a dozen others like it.



"You turn the creature into a rock until someone casts Dispel Magic on it," which many monsters can cast and some monsters (Glabrezu, Nycaloth, maybe others) can cast at will. So even if you blow a True Polymorph spell on turning a dragon into a rock, and the dragon has somehow used up all its legendary saves on other True Polymorphs cast by your fellow PCs, and the dragon doesn't Counterspell it, and the dragon fails its saving throw... even then, all it takes is a single Dispel Magic and your True Polymorph was useless.

There's a reason attempting True Polymorph on big bad enemies is not a favored tactic in 5E compared to just depleting all of their HP.

Off the top of my head, a list of spells that can end an encounter without reducing anything to 0 hit points unless your DM comes up with a bunch of caveats and additional conditional encounter building work that's completely unreasonable to impose on a GM:

True Polymorph
Imprisonment
Prismatic Wall
Dominate Monster
Forcecage
Plane Shift
Banishment
Flesh to Stone

Legendary Resistance is a really poor work-around that's hastily depleted.

[Nadan]

the dragon has somehow used up all its legendary saves on other True Polymorphs cast by your fellow PCs, and the dragon doesn't Counterspell it, and the dragon fails its saving throw... even then, all it takes is a single Dispel Magic and your True Polymorph was useless.

There's a reason attempting True Polymorph on big bad enemies is not a favored tactic in 5E compared to just depleting all of their HP.

You forgot to mention Magic Resistance. Although dragons don't have, but I sure there are lots of monsters have it.

[UrielAwakened]

How is that even helpful to this discussion though.

You still don't have degrees of success where damage and these sorts of spells interact in a meaningful way. All you've done is pile on resistances that shut down those spells from working.

[Snails]

Given that one of the persistent complaints about the sorcerer is the absolutely pathetic number of spells known, I don't see a huge issue with allowing lower-level blast spells to remain effective at higher levels, so that they can actually use higher level spell slots for more fluffy/interesting spells.

An aside: It is not just blast spells that flexible formulas could apply to -- that is just the easiest kind to imagine and compare head to head. Ars Magica does this broadly, though the details in my head are foggy.

Imagine...
Create Fear + Form Cone
Create Water + Extend Range (= fog?)
Create Stone + Form Wall

And there could be slightly different slot costs for ad hoc spells versus carefully researched and prepared spells.

Obviously, flexibility tends to be powerful. But in Ars Magica that does not matter, because everyone has a Wizard PC (although not everyone necessarily plays their wizard every session).

[Rebonack]

This is the usual logic that inevitably leads to power creep in casters.

"This limitation doesn't make sense". So someone boosts a seeming limitation. Then, every single ability the Wizard had improves equally every level, which gets geometrically crazy... and we're back in 'linear fighter quadratic wizard'.

You are NOT supposed to have every spell become significantly better over time. When you gain new spell levels, some old spells will now be less useful, and you're supposed to drop them. That's why Clerics can always choose between everything, Bards/Sorcerers/etc. swap old spells out over time, and Wizards steadily accumulate them as treasure all along the game. You're supposed to change to different tools at different tiers.

That is an intentional design choice, probably one of many adopted in 5e (like Concentration) to prevent the 'linear fighter quadratic wizard' problem I'm talking about. It also forces casters to think differently at different tiers of play, which keeps the game more interesting for the mentally restless. And, it actually forces a caster to balance their spell resources more carefully, which is good when you can change the entire direction of the battle with one action.

(edit: fixed a few 'whoop's mistakes)

If Burning Hands 9 did 3d6 more damage than it does as written in addition to getting 30 extra range, would that cause the delicate balance between casters and martials to come unwound?

[Psikerlord]

I think the proposed change is a good idea. Aoe damage is the worst kind of damage there is, increasing it slightly wont hurt at all. Esp in 5e with its monster hp inflation.

[Beelzebubba]

If Burning Hands 9 did 3d6 more damage than it does as written in addition to getting 30 extra range, would that cause the delicate balance between casters and martials to come unwound?

I dunno, does keeping the upcasting scaling as it is now completely ruin your ability as a caster to function and make the class not worth playing at all?

(Dishonest framing is dishonest. Who'd have thought?)

I gave you a lens to use to think why the game designers built the game the way they did, after seeing this exact garbage thinking play out time and time again in the previous editions, ALWAYS incrementally creeping forward towards absolute caster supremacy.

I'm not playing at your table, I don't care what you do.

[Willie the Duck]

If Burning Hands 9 did 3d6 more damage than it does as written in addition to getting 30 extra range, would that cause the delicate balance between casters and martials to come unwound?

That one specific example in isolation? No. Not really. Go ahead and make the house rule. Of course burning hands is fairly sup-optimal to begin with, so tweaking it upwards in general is not going to break the game. 5e is balanced (such as it is) in broad strokes, but not in all specifics. If you absolutely want to do any one given thing (such as play a spellcaster whose only direct damage are low level spells that they want to upcast), it might be sub-optimal. If you as the DM want to make an exception that benefits someone wanting to do that, go ahead. As an individual DM, who can then proceed to keep a lid on any resultant overcomplexity/bizarre interactions, individual exceptions to rebalance specifics is a fine and grand tradition. However, generally speaking, anyone* who has access to burning hands and higher level slots also has access to fireball and meteor swarm, so the number of people that can't (not decline to for flavor reasons, or the like) get bang for their buck** with high level slots is vanishingly small. Thus I understand why this was not done by the designers in the printed books.
*excepting maybe some edge case like a wizard1/cleric19
**actual bang of high level AoE notwithstanding

[2D6GREATAXE]

I feel we need to mention up casting vs counter spelling as well as that's a great mechanic that can add drama to a game.

[Hooligan]

While I agree with the OP that upcasting is underwhelming for the vast majority of spells, I've never once thought to myself "Gee I wish this scorching ray did more damage when cast with a 5th level slot"; surely not while I have Wall of Force, Scrying, Hold Monster, Banishment, Polymorph, Hypnotic Pattern, etc at my disposal.

More importantly, as others have mentioned, improvement to upcasting would be giving the most versatile & powerful classes in the game even more versatility and power. It is a terrible idea.

[Doug Lampert]

While I agree with the OP that upcasting is underwhelming for the vast majority of spells, I've never once thought to myself "Gee I wish this scorching ray did more damage when cast with a 5th level slot"; surely not while I have Wall of Force, Scrying, Hold Monster, Banishment, Polymorph, Hypnotic Pattern, etc at my disposal.

More importantly, as others have mentioned, improvement to upcasting would be giving the most versatile & powerful classes in the game even more versatility and power. It is a terrible idea.

I'm not sure it would break single class casters, but it would certainly do a number on the balance in a game with multiclassing allowed. Being behind a spell level on spell choices is the major cost of having your caster dip cleric or sorcerer, with the proposed rule, you'd do the same damage as the single class, while still getting all the advantages of the multiclass.

If I were designing a system from the ground up, I'd have almost all spells start at level 1 and scale up with higher level powers, but that's not how 5th is designed, it is a deliberate design decision that low level spells scale some, but higher level spells are still far better, and this is the main method of balancing most caster multiclasses.

[Snails]

I'm not sure it would break single class casters, but it would certainly do a number on the balance in a game with multiclassing allowed. Being behind a spell level on spell choices is the major cost of having your caster dip cleric or sorcerer, with the proposed rule, you'd do the same damage as the single class, while still getting all the advantages of the multiclass.

I think this is the thread winning argument.