Level-Based Abilities -- Class Level vs Total Level

[Max_Killjoy]

Leaping off from discussion on my Artificer thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570650-Artificer).

It seems to me that across various editions of D&D, there's been a tension between basing abilities on Class Level, some subset of Levels (ie, "caster levels" or "arcane levels"), and total character Level.

First, there doesn't seem to be much consistency on which is used, even within the same edition.

Second, there seem to be instances in which this randomly makes a Class (or specialization) quite unsuited for multiclassing -- if enemy Hit Points keep going up, but the strength of an attack or spell only goes up with the Levels in a that particular Class (rather than overall), then they fall behind the curve as soon as much Multiclassing comes into play, for example.

Any thoughts on this?

Would it be better to adjust everything to use total levels? (Tweaking rate of gain in some spells or abilities to account for this, if needed.)

[Corpsecandle717]

That seems like a very bad idea. No DM is going to want a 6/14 moon druid/anything with level 20 improved wild shape.

Or full sneak attack on 1 rogue/ 19 paladin.

Most the the decisions to scale with class over level are pretty well reasoned out. The mechanic exists to keep too much synergy for multi-classed abilities. I don't doubt there's edge cases where the restrictions are too tight, but in those instances it makes more sense to make small incremental changes rather than making one large change that is going to blatantly introduce a power creep issue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e has a very clear pattern. If it's only mentioned in a class description, it scales via class levels. If it's mentioned elsewhere, it scales with character level. For multi-class characters, all deviations from this (proficiency bonus, spell slots, proficiencies) are explicitly set out in the Multiclassing text. And things that scale with class levels do so for a reason. Otherwise a character that only took 1 level in each class would have all the powers of an archetype-less level 12 character in each class simultaneously.

[Maxilian]

It can easily get out of hand, if you do it that way, you will push people to get as many MC lvl as possible, as MC will almost always just be a power up (you get many extras without much of a pay back)

[MilkmanDanimal]

Otherwise a character that only took 1 level in each class would have all the powers of an archetype-less level 12 character in each class simultaneously.

This. So much this. There would literally be zero reason to not multiclass into every single class if someone for some reason decided to do this.

[Max_Killjoy]

5e has a very clear pattern. If it's only mentioned in a class description, it scales via class levels. If it's mentioned elsewhere, it scales with character level. For multi-class characters, all deviations from this (proficiency bonus, spell slots, proficiencies) are explicitly set out in the Multiclassing text. And things that scale with class levels do so for a reason. Otherwise a character that only took 1 level in each class would have all the powers of an archetype-less level 12 character in each class simultaneously.

Aren't many of the Class powers attached to higher Levels in that Class?

To make sure we're not talking about two different things.

There are powers that are gained at a certain Level in a class -- character gets X ability at Level 3, or whatever. I'm not talking about giving those out based on total Level.

There are powers that gain more efficacy (dice of damage, area of affect, difficulty of opponent saves, etc) scaled with either Class or total Level. That is what I'm talking about. So, character gains a power at Level 3, and then that Power gains more efficacy at Levels 6, 9, 12, etc, for example. If that efficacy is attached to Class Level, then a multiclass character with 5 Levels in that Class in a Level 12 campaign never gains the extra efficacy from 6, 9, or 12, making the Power largely useless against many of the challenges faced by a group of Level 12 characters.


(It should come as no surprise that "archetype preservation" doesn't so much as register a blip on the radar of my concerns here.)

[Max_Killjoy]

This. So much this. There would literally be zero reason to not multiclass into every single class if someone for some reason decided to do this.

If you took 1 level in every Class, you'd only get the level 1 abilities / powers from each Class.

See my post above clarifying what I'm talking about.

[Lacuna Caster]

Leaping off from discussion on my Artificer thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570650-Artificer&p=23419884#post23419884).
Max Killjoy, designing a custom D&D class? *gasp!* Have you succumbed to the dark side!?

Anyway, I would broadly agree that the default interpretation seems to be that levels-in-a-particular class are used for most purposes. The fact that many class features scale in a linear or even quadratic manner is offset against potential synergies with features that belong to other classes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aren't many of the Class powers attached to higher Levels in that Class?

To make sure we're not talking about two different things.

There are powers that are gained at a certain Level in a class -- character gets X ability at Level 3, or whatever. I'm not talking about giving those out based on total Level.

There are powers that gain more efficacy (dice of damage, area of affect, difficulty of opponent saves, etc) scaled with either Class or total Level. That is what I'm talking about. So, character gains a power at Level 3, and then that Power gains more efficacy at Levels 6, 9, 12, etc, for example. If that efficacy is attached to Class Level, then a multiclass character with 5 Levels in that Class in a Level 12 campaign never gains the extra efficacy from 6, 9, or 12, making the Power largely useless against many of the challenges faced by a group of Level 12 characters.


(It should come as no surprise that "archetype preservation" doesn't so much as register a blip on the radar of my concerns here.)

That does change things, but you'd get the aforementioned Rogue 1/Paladin X with both smites and full sneak attack. Or, depending on how you read it, Warlock 2/X with full invocations and scaling spell slots. It would encourage small dips into front-loaded classes, something that 5e discourages.

5e really isn't that tightly power balanced. Most things remain useful despite not scaling strongly, and those that do degenerate are there to encourage people to stick with one class for a while. They're trying to discourage cherry-picking abilities (whether for fictional reasons or for power-seeking reasons).

5e's designers do care about archetypes. In fact, it's a major concern of theirs. Remember, multi-classing is specifically an optional rule. They tried to get people to think in terms of their character's past/present in the fiction and let the mechanics flow from that (instead of vice versa). Not all mechanical concepts are supposed to be playable in 5e--in that sense it's a much more constrained vision than 3e's "anything's possible + the kitchen sink" vision. They (and I) would rather do a few things well than do many many things, most of them poorly.

[Maxilian]

If you took 1 level in every Class, you'd only get the level 1 abilities / powers from each Class.

See my post above clarifying what I'm talking about.

Most of the best abilities are at the lower lvls, i mean... imagine a Rogue 2 / Artificer (gunsmith) 2 / Barbarian 2

with only those things, you get 10d6 from Sneak Attack, 11d6 from the Thunder Canon, Unlimited Rages and that's just 2 lvls in 3 classes, still have other 14 lvls to spare.

[Max_Killjoy]

Max Killjoy, designing a custom D&D class? *gasp!* Have you succumbed to the dark side!?

Anyway, I would broadly agree that the default interpretation seems to be that levels-in-a-particular class are used for most purposes. The fact that many class features scale in a linear or even quadratic manner is offset against potential synergies with features that belong to other classes.

Trying to port an older character into 5e for a side project, was looking at the Artificer from UA in that other thread. It was asserted that Artificer doesn't multiclass well because of the Class-level-scaling abilities, which seemed like a seed for this broader discussion.

[Lacuna Caster]

Trying to port an older character into 5e for a side project, was looking at the Artificer from UA in that other thread. It was asserted that Artificer doesn't multiclass well because of the Class-level-scaling abilities, which seemed like a seed for this broader discussion.
Well, a lot of stuff in 5e seems to work that way, I wouldn't worry about it too much. (The URL in your OP is broken by the way.)

Weren't there, like, 4 different versions of the artificer in 3e?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Trying to port an older character into 5e for a side project, was looking at the Artificer from UA in that other thread. It was asserted that Artificer doesn't multiclass well because of the Class-level-scaling abilities, which seemed like a seed for this broader discussion.

Another thing that class-level-scaling allows is for many straight-forward characters to come online quicker (at the cost of being more front-loaded). If everything scaled via "caster level" or "character level", then you'd have to push back those features quite a bit or gate them behind punishing prereqs. Which hurts the default. I remember but cannot cite some survey data showing that the majority of all characters are single-classed, and if you include a single level or two dip it accounts for 99+% of all characters. So hurting them (by making more dead levels at the beginning) to keep the super-multi-classers happy is counterproductive.

Most 5e characters are online by level 3 with their feature-set-defining traits. A few wait till level 5, but most get their big stuff in the first few levels. Pushing that back makes them less likely to ever see those cool abilities, since most games go to level 10 at most.

[Max_Killjoy]

That does change things, but you'd get the aforementioned Rogue 1/Paladin X with both smites and full sneak attack. Or, depending on how you read it, Warlock 2/X with full invocations and scaling spell slots. It would encourage small dips into front-loaded classes, something that 5e discourages.

5e really isn't that tightly power balanced. Most things remain useful despite not scaling strongly, and those that do degenerate are there to encourage people to stick with one class for a while. They're trying to discourage cherry-picking abilities (whether for fictional reasons or for power-seeking reasons).

5e's designers do care about archetypes. In fact, it's a major concern of theirs. Remember, multi-classing is specifically an optional rule. They tried to get people to think in terms of their character's past/present in the fiction and let the mechanics flow from that (instead of vice versa). Not all mechanical concepts are supposed to be playable in 5e--in that sense it's a much more constrained vision than 3e's "anything's possible + the kitchen sink" vision. They (and I) would rather do a few things well than do many many things, most of them poorly.

From my perspective, "preserving archetypes" and "letting the mechanics flow from the character" would seem to be at high risk of conflicting.

I can't really speak for the person who made the assertion about Artificer not being good for multi, but I have to ask, is that a contentious assertion in 5e's mechanics?

If anyone wants to go over to that thread and take a look, please do.

[Maxilian]

Trying to port an older character into 5e for a side project, was looking at the Artificer from UA in that other thread. It was asserted that Artificer doesn't multiclass well because of the Class-level-scaling abilities, which seemed like a seed for this broader discussion.

Its quite hard to port character from older edition, unless you go for Reflavor, in most cases the best classes that work for that is Warlock (as 2 lvl in it give you a good at will damage, letting you MC into something else that goes with the character that you want, even if its not that optimal, without making your character bad), Fighter being the second choice for reflavor class for their versatility thanks to the extra ASIS.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, a lot of stuff in 5e seems to work that way, I wouldn't worry about it too much. (The URL in your OP is broken by the way.)

Weren't there, like, 4 different versions of the artificer in 3e?

Fixed, and here -- http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570650-Artificer

I can't find the old character sheet, just some basic description and notes, and my memory -- I have no idea which version of Artificer the character might have used at this point umpteen years later. :smalleek:

[HolyDraconus]

Fighter being the second choice for reflavor class for their versatility thanks to the extra ASIS.

I disagree with this. Fighters aren't versatile. The closest they came to that was in 3e and they wasn't then either. They can only damage or damage. The ASI means nothing since attributes doesn't directly lead to versatility and feats in this edition is so freaking hamstrung that the few worth picking up is more damage.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I disagree with this. Fighters aren't versatile. The closest they came to that was in 3e and they wasn't then either. They can only damage or damage. The ASI means nothing since attributes doesn't directly lead to versatility and feats in this edition is so freaking hamstrung that the few worth picking up is more damage.

Have you looked at an archtype other than champion?

[HolyDraconus]

Have you looked at an archtype other than champion?

Battlemaster: damage.
Samarai: damage
Cavalier: damage
Purple Knight: damage.
Eldritch knight: pure? Damage.

The better question is, have you?
The only sub the fighter has to date that isn't all about damage only shines as such when he...gasp.... multi class as a wizard.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sounds like a seed for a new thread, unless we can bring it back around to resolving possible quirks in Level-scaled powers/abilities, and how they interact with multiclassing, etc.

:smallsmile:

[qube]

First, there doesn't seem to be much consistency on which is used, even within the same edition.perhaps - but there seems to be a method to the madness, oposite to it being picked at random.

As Corpsecandle717 pointed out, at lvl 19, dipping in 1 lvl rogue to get 10d6 sneak attack would be MASSIVELY overpowered, while dipping into wizard to spend your action casting a 4d10 firebolt wouldn't.


but the strength of an attack or spell only goes up with the Levels in a that particular Class (rather than overall), then they fall behind the curve as soon as much Multiclassing comes into play, for example.the price of versatility.
Or else, everyone would multiclass.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Battlemaster: damage.
Samarai: damage
Cavalier: damage
Purple Knight: damage.
Eldritch knight: pure? Damage.

The better question is, have you?
The only sub the fighter has to date that isn't all about damage only shines as such when he...gasp.... multi class as a wizard.

So tripping a flying creature with a longbow is just about damage? Both the Eldritch knight and the battle master can use their abilities to Lock down a fall and hold them in place. The purple knight can share it’s fighter abilities with other characters.

[qube]

So tripping a flying creature with a longbow is just about damage? Both the Eldritch knight and the battle master can use their abilities to Lock down a fall and hold them in place. The purple knight can share it’s fighter abilities with other characters.last game session our battlemaster disarmed the big bad evil beserker (and the halfling rogue swooped in and picked it up the weapon).

Very hard to easy encounter :smallcool: .

[HolyDraconus]

So tripping a flying creature with a longbow is just about damage? Both the Eldritch knight and the battle master can use their abilities to Lock down a fall and hold them in place. The purple knight can share it’s fighter abilities with other characters.

To answer your first question, yes. Combat is a single pillar of gameplay. And that's what the fighter excels at. That doesn't mean its terrible; that's just its limitation. That same fighter will be stuck twiddling their thumbs in near any other situation that isn't fighting or that random niche they chose to pick up at character creation via background.
To put it simply, if you want to fight a monster, you play a fighter, but if you want to kill it, you play something else. A fighter will beat a dragon. A rogue can also beat it, or just rob it, or simply confuse it since they have the skills available to attempt to outwit it. A bard can do all that, or just straight up try to seduce it. A wizard could do all that given prep in certain circumstances, or just say" the universe is against you" and be done with it. The fighter can only beat it.
There is no versatility in the fighter. Their actions are almost always attack. When that isn't an option they either sit there feeling dumb( cause most dump int) or get out the way so their more versatile companions can solve the problem.
Hell, they literally had to nerf the entire spell list for spellcasters and make save or die a pain of hoops to jump through AND introduce an entire mechanic specifically for limiting spellcasters, just to make the fighter relevant past 4. And they still fall off when hitting things isn't the answer, which from the games I've seen is around 6.

[Max_Killjoy]

To answer your first question, yes. Combat is a single pillar of gameplay. And that's what the fighter excels at. That doesn't mean its terrible; that's just its limitation. That same fighter will be stuck twiddling their thumbs in near any other situation that isn't fighting or that random niche they chose to pick up at character creation via background.
To put it simply, if you want to fight a monster, you play a fighter, but if you want to kill it, you play something else. A fighter will beat a dragon. A rogue can also beat it, or just rob it, or simply confuse it since they have the skills available to attempt to outwit it. A bard can do all that, or just straight up try to seduce it. A wizard could do all that given prep in certain circumstances, or just say" the universe is against you" and be done with it. The fighter can only beat it.
There is no versatility in the fighter. Their actions are almost always attack. When that isn't an option they either sit there feeling dumb( cause most dump int) or get out the way so their more versatile companions can solve the problem.
Hell, they literally had to nerf the entire spell list for spellcasters and make save or die a pain of hoops to jump through AND introduce an entire mechanic specifically for limiting spellcasters, just to make the fighter relevant past 4. And they still fall off when hitting things isn't the answer, which from the games I've seen is around 6.

Is this caused by abilities scaling by class level instead of total level, or by how that interacts with multiclassing, or whether 5e is more concerned with building to archetype or with building to individual character?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is this caused by abilities scaling by class level instead of total level, or by how that interacts with multiclassing, or whether 5e is more concerned with building to archetype or with building to individual character?

None of the above. The quoted statement isn't even true. It's a prime example of being able to play 3e in any game system.

5e's flat skill DCs allow anyone to contribute, even if their modifier isn't great and they don't have proficiency. All classes (except rogues and bards) have the same number of skill proficiencies. Most classes and subclasses have "ribbons" (non-combat) class features.

For example for Fighters:
Champion: level 7 Remarkable Athlete (half-proficiency in STR/DEX/CON checks + longer jumps).
Battlemaster: Level 3 (Student of War, extra tool proficiency). Level 7 (Know your enemy is specifically out of combat).
Eldritch Knight: Spells + Arcane Charge (teleports are useful out of combat)

And that's pretty normal for most classes. Take Bards (at the high end):
Base class: Spells (a restricted list), Jack of all trades, expertise.
Lore (the skill-monkey subclass): more proficiencies, Peerless Skill (use BI on your own ability checks after the fact).
Valor: None.

I have seen no correlation between class and ability to contribute out of combat.

[Max_Killjoy]

None of the above. The quoted statement isn't even true. It's a prime example of being able to play 3e in any game system.

5e's flat skill DCs allow anyone to contribute, even if their modifier isn't great and they don't have proficiency. All classes (except rogues and bards) have the same number of skill proficiencies. Most classes and subclasses have "ribbons" (non-combat) class features.

For example for Fighters:
Champion: level 7 Remarkable Athlete (half-proficiency in STR/DEX/CON checks + longer jumps).
Battlemaster: Level 3 (Student of War, extra tool proficiency). Level 7 (Know your enemy is specifically out of combat).
Eldritch Knight: Spells + Arcane Charge (teleports are useful out of combat)

And that's pretty normal for most classes. Take Bards (at the high end):
Base class: Spells (a restricted list), Jack of all trades, expertise.
Lore (the skill-monkey subclass): more proficiencies, Peerless Skill (use BI on your own ability checks after the fact).
Valor: None.

I have seen no correlation between class and ability to contribute out of combat.

I suspected as much.

Honestly, we've had plenty of "fighters have it bad" threads, I'm sure we'll have more, but that's not what I want this thread to diverge toward.

[Corpsecandle717]

Is this caused by abilities scaling by class level instead of total level, or by how that interacts with multiclassing, or whether 5e is more concerned with building to archetype or with building to individual character?

It's about making it so one character can't do all the things. At it's core DnD is a game meant to play with friends, and generally it's necessary to give each player a purpose. This is achieved by sticking to archetypes and loosely defined party roles. If any character can do anything, there's no point in playing the game with a group unless you're really good at splitting the party and working parallel objectives (at which point the group isn't really playing together anymore).

[PeteNutButter]

Overall 5e did a fair job of making the right features scale with class level. Eldritch Blast and Divine smite are probably the worst offenders with smite gaining power when MC into full caster and eldritch blast never needing more than 2 warlock levels. But that’s why paladin and warlock are dippped into more than ketchup. (The paladin often gets even more levels since his level 6 feature is about as strong as you get.)

There are other oddities, like the beastmaster pet and necromancers scaling on minions. Both of these features scale with class level and with proficiency so are give and take. In the both cases though it seems the defense (hp) is tied to class level while the damage is proficiency based.

There are a whole slew of features that are tied to proficieny bonus and thus scale with character level. I’m not sure how much of that was designed with or without MCing in mind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm in the process of listing all the features that scale with class level and aren't spell slots.

It's not that many, actually. Most improvements are new features tied to levels rather than just numerical changes.

[HolyDraconus]

Is this caused by abilities scaling by class level instead of total level, or by how that interacts with multiclassing, or whether 5e is more concerned with building to archetype or with building to individual character?
its 5e building to archetype. Its pretty much how the game is ran. Sit down at any AL group and you can be guaranteed that the fighter will contribute the heaviest in combat, and slightly in other areas, with role playing making a huge point to it.

None of the above. The quoted statement isn't even true. It's a prime example of being able to play 3e in any game system.

5e's flat skill DCs allow anyone to contribute, even if their modifier isn't great and they don't have proficiency. All classes (except rogues and bards) have the same number of skill proficiencies. Most classes and subclasses have "ribbons" (non-combat) class features.

For example for Fighters:
Champion: level 7 Remarkable Athlete (half-proficiency in STR/DEX/CON checks + longer jumps).
Battlemaster: Level 3 (Student of War, extra tool proficiency). Level 7 (Know your enemy is specifically out of combat).
Eldritch Knight: Spells + Arcane Charge (teleports are useful out of combat)

And that's pretty normal for most classes. Take Bards (at the high end):
Base class: Spells (a restricted list), Jack of all trades, expertise.
Lore (the skill-monkey subclass): more proficiencies, Peerless Skill (use BI on your own ability checks after the fact).
Valor: None.

I have seen no correlation between class and ability to contribute out of combat.
This is wrong. Lets delve into it.
Flattened DC's doesn't at all change the fact that class features are or are NOT guided in a certain manner. In the case of the fighter, chances are if you optimized you picked up athletics since all you do is fight. The hell does athletics have to do with bartering? With searching? With sussing out lies? To add to that, while the fighters abilities are geared toward combat, the other classes has things that can help without "roll initiative" being said. Bartering? More likely to get what you want if you charm them. Searching? If you can see anything, then you can find anything. Sussing out lies? How about not being lied to in the first place? Sure, you can pick up a skill to help out in a few areas, but you will fail in others. Other classes with their abilities do not need to make that sacrifice. To be versatile literally means to be able to use ones abilities in a manner that fits the situation. Hitting it with a stick is not adapting. Period. Picking up Find Familiar is literally the most versatile I have ever seen a fighter, and at that point they are using their ASI to do what other classes can do.... just by being themselves. But yes, cause DC's are flattened anyone can contribute... except not really. The fighter isn't going to see the illusion with the DC of 18 without serious investment. They aren't picking any locks. Not finding any game. Not learning any secrets. Maybe moving the furniture. But they get that participation medal cause they can try right? Fighters aren't versatile. Get over it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As promised--a total list of class-level scaling features for PHB classes/sub-classes. This includes anything where the feature says "X increase when you reach levels Y and Z" or "see class table". Things that are separate features don't count.

Generic: Ability score improvements at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. Exceptions as noted.

Barbarian:
* Rage uses (1, 3, 6, 12, 16, 20) and damage scaling (1, 9, 16)
* Brutal Critical dice (9, 13, 17)
Berserker: N/A
Totem: N/A

Bard:
* Spells Known
* Bardic Inspiration dice size (1, 5, 10, 15)
* Song of Rest dice size (2, 9, 13, 17)
* Expertise # of skills (3, 10)
* Magical Secrets (10, 14, 18)
Lore: N/A
Valor: N/A

Cleric:
* Spells Prepared, Domain spells (1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
* Channel Divinity uses (2, 6, 18)
* Destroy Undead (5, 8, 11, 14, 17)
* Divine Intervention (10, every level after)
Knowledge: N/A
Life: Divine Strike (8, 14)
Light: N/A
Nature: Divine Strike (8, 14)
Tempest: Divine Strike (8, 14)
Trickery: Divine Strike (8, 14)
War: Divine Strike (8, 14)

Druid:
* Spells Prepared
* Wild Shape CR (2, 4, 8)
Land: Natural Recovery (1/2 level), Circle Spells (3, 5, 7, 9)
Moon: Circle Forms (2, 6+)

Fighter:
* Second Wind (every level)
* Extra Attack (11, 20)
* Indomitable (9, 13, 17)
* Extra ASI (6, 14)
Champion: N/A
Battlemaster: Maneuvers (3, 7, 10, 15), Dice (3, 7, 15)
Eldritch Knight: Spells known

Monk:
* Martial Arts die (1, 5, 11, 17)
* Ki points (2, == level)
* Unarmored movement (2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18)
* Slow Fall (4, 5x level)
Open Hand: Wholeness of body (6, 3x level)
Shadow: N/A
4E: max ki points/spell (5, 9, 13, 17), disciplines known (3, 6, 11, 17)

Paladin:
* Lay on Hands (1, 5x level)
* Spells prepared
* Aura of X Range (18)
* Oath spells (3, 5, 9, 13, 17)
Devotion: N/A
Ancients: N/A
Vengeance: N/A

Ranger:
* Favored Enemy # (1, 6, 14)
* Natural Explorer # (1, 6, 14)
* Spells Known
Hunter: N/A
Beast Master: Beast HP

Rogue:
* Expertise # (1, 6)
* Sneak Attack dice (every odd level)
* Extra ASI (10)
Thief: N/A
Assassin: N/A
Arcane Trickster: Spells Known

Sorcerer:
* Spells Known
* Sorcery Points (2, equal level)
* Metamagic known (3, 10, 17)
Draconic: N/A
Wild Magic: N/A

Warlock:
* Spells Known
* Slot level (1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
* Mystic Arcanum (11, 13, 15, 17)
* Invocations known (2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18)
* Expanded Spells (1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
Archfey: N/A
Fiend: Dark One’s Blessing (CHA + level)
GOO: N/A

Wizard:
* Arcane Recovery (1/2 level)
* Spells Known, prepared
Abjuration: N/A
Conjuration: N/A
Divination: N/A (Greater Portent is a separate feature)
Enchantment: N/A
Evocation: N/A
Illusion: N/A
Necromancy: Undead Thralls HP bonus (equal to level)
Transmutation: N/A

[sophontteks]

Athletics is one of the most versitile skills around and a fighter can do any of those things quite well with the support of his team.
-Divine caster to give him guidance.
-Someone beside him giving advantage.
-The bard giving him inspiration.

The fighter will be just fine, even if its not a skill he picked up, though he does still have 3 more skills outside athletics as well.

Guidance, inspiration, and advantage all really tip the scales against profeciency points to the point where anyone can do anything.

[Max_Killjoy]

As promised--a total list of class-level scaling features for PHB classes/sub-classes. This includes anything where the feature says "X increase when you reach levels Y and Z" or "see class table". Things that are separate features don't count.

Generic: Ability score improvements at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. Exceptions as noted.

Barbarian:
* Rage uses (1, 3, 6, 12, 16, 20) and damage scaling (1, 9, 16)
* Brutal Critical dice (9, 13, 17)
Berserker: N/A
Totem: N/A

Bard:
* Spells Known
* Bardic Inspiration dice size (1, 5, 10, 15)
* Song of Rest dice size (2, 9, 13, 17)
* Expertise # of skills (3, 10)
* Magical Secrets (10, 14, 18)
Lore: N/A
Valor: N/A

Cleric:
* Spells Prepared, Domain spells (1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
* Channel Divinity uses (2, 6, 18)
* Destroy Undead (5, 8, 11, 14, 17)
* Divine Intervention (10, every level after)
Knowledge: N/A
Life: Divine Strike (8, 14)
Light: N/A
Nature: Divine Strike (8, 14)
Tempest: Divine Strike (8, 14)
Trickery: Divine Strike (8, 14)
War: Divine Strike (8, 14)

Druid:
* Spells Prepared
* Wild Shape CR (2, 4, 8)
Land: Natural Recovery (1/2 level), Circle Spells (3, 5, 7, 9)
Moon: Circle Forms (2, 6+)

Fighter:
* Second Wind (every level)
* Extra Attack (11, 20)
* Indomitable (9, 13, 17)
* Extra ASI (6, 14)
Champion: N/A
Battlemaster: Maneuvers (3, 7, 10, 15), Dice (3, 7, 15)
Eldritch Knight: Spells known

Monk:
* Martial Arts die (1, 5, 11, 17)
* Ki points (2, == level)
* Unarmored movement (2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18)
* Slow Fall (4, 5x level)
Open Hand: Wholeness of body (6, 3x level)
Shadow: N/A
4E: max ki points/spell (5, 9, 13, 17), disciplines known (3, 6, 11, 17)

Paladin:
* Lay on Hands (1, 5x level)
* Spells prepared
* Aura of X Range (18)
* Oath spells (3, 5, 9, 13, 17)
Devotion: N/A
Ancients: N/A
Vengeance: N/A

Ranger:
* Favored Enemy # (1, 6, 14)
* Natural Explorer # (1, 6, 14)
* Spells Known
Hunter: N/A
Beast Master: Beast HP

Rogue:
* Expertise # (1, 6)
* Sneak Attack dice (every odd level)
* Extra ASI (10)
Thief: N/A
Assassin: N/A
Arcane Trickster: Spells Known

Sorcerer:
* Spells Known
* Sorcery Points (2, equal level)
* Metamagic known (3, 10, 17)
Draconic: N/A
Wild Magic: N/A

Warlock:
* Spells Known
* Slot level (1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
* Mystic Arcanum (11, 13, 15, 17)
* Invocations known (2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18)
* Expanded Spells (1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
Archfey: N/A
Fiend: Dark One’s Blessing (CHA + level)
GOO: N/A

Wizard:
* Arcane Recovery (1/2 level)
* Spells Known, prepared
Abjuration: N/A
Conjuration: N/A
Divination: N/A (Greater Portent is a separate feature)
Enchantment: N/A
Evocation: N/A
Illusion: N/A
Necromancy: Undead Thralls HP bonus (equal to level)
Transmutation: N/A

Any way to distinguish "this ability improves by adding more dice or something to keep up with the power scale" vs "you get more uses of this ability"?

If I'm being very specific, what I'm concerned with are the things that have scaling damage or opponent's save difficulty or the like, that gets left behind if the character multi-classes -- and how much of a problem that can be. So the Class gets say an attack power at Level 1, that starts out with 1d8 damage (just spitballing). At Level X, they get +1d8, at level Y they get another +1d8, and so on.

Iif they're not getting those extra damage dice, does the power fall behind and become obsolete as the campaign "levels up"?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Any way to distinguish "this ability improves by adding more dice or something to keep up with the power scale" vs "you get more uses of this ability"?

If I'm being very specific, what I'm concerned with are the things that have scaling damage or opponent's save difficulty or the like, that gets left behind if the character multi-classes -- and how much of a problem that can be. So the Class gets say an attack power at Level 1, that starts out with 1d8 damage (just spitballing). At Level X, they get +1d8, at level Y they get another +1d8, and so on.

Iif they're not getting those extra damage dice, does the power fall behind and become obsolete as the campaign "levels up"?

I tried to mention which were which, but the only power increases (rather than uses) are (important ones in bold):

* Barbarians: rage (from +2 to +4 at the biggest swing), brutal critical (from adding +1 die on a crit to adding +3), but that starts at level 9
* Bards: Inspiration goes from a d6 -> d12; song of rest does similar
* Clerics: destroy undead (max CR goes up, but that's niche), some subclasses get an additional die on their divine strike at very high levels (first die at 8, second at 15)
* Druid: Wild Shape CR/movement restrictions. This is a big one, especially for moon druids.
* Fighters: Second wind (healing = 1d10 + level).
* Monk: Ki points = level, martial arts die (important), movement speed (also useful). Monks are strongly level dependent.
* Paladins: Lay on Hands = 5 x level
* Rogues: Sneak attack is every other level. This is critical.
* Sorcerer: Sorcery Points. As a refillable resource, having more is great but not critical.
* Warlock: Spell levels. But people either drop out after 2 or 3 or stay in for the long haul, and the power mostly comes from EB + invocations, not spell slots.
* Wizard: Arcane recovery. Nice but not vital.

So generally moon druids, monks, and rogues suffer if they dip out for more than a level or two. They can serve as a dip for other classes that don't particularly care about the scaling feature, but otherwise should stay in for the long haul.

And note that save DCs don't scale with level. They scale with proficiency (character level) and with ability scores.

[Max_Killjoy]

(OK, so none of the save DCs are level-scaled, that's good to know.)

At least based on this -- https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf -- the Artificer would seem to be very class-level-dependent, a lot of things seem to scale based on class level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

(OK, so none of the save DCs are level-scaled, that's good to know.)

At least based on this -- https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf -- the Artificer would seem to be very class-level-dependent, a lot of things seem to scale based on class level.

That's true. It's basically a rogue-analogue. It's also UA, so those are never as balanced (since they're trying weird things). I'd expect a printed version to be more coherent.

Things I see as level-scaling:
* Inventions (number and power, since the higher level ones are more powerful...sort of). Not a huge deal IMO.
* Superior attunement (5 and 15 and 20). Comes on so late that it isn't all that important of scaling.
Alchemists: damaging/healing "potion" effects scale dramatically. If you knew you were only taking a few levels, you'd take the non-dice versions (tanglefoot bag, etc).
Gunsmith: everything scales with level. Don't take this one for a dip.

As another note, even the healing potions are still not bad if they don't scale. 1d8 is competitive with most of the healing effects and it's rare to upcast healing spells except in rare circumstances.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's true. It's basically a rogue-analogue. It's also UA, so those are never as balanced (since they're trying weird things). I'd expect a printed version to be more coherent.

Things I see as level-scaling:
* Inventions (number and power, since the higher level ones are more powerful...sort of). Not a huge deal IMO.
* Superior attunement (5 and 15 and 20). Comes on so late that it isn't all that important of scaling.
Alchemists: damaging/healing "potion" effects scale dramatically. If you knew you were only taking a few levels, you'd take the non-dice versions (tanglefoot bag, etc).
Gunsmith: everything scales with level. Don't take this one for a dip.

As another note, even the healing potions are still not bad if they don't scale. 1d8 is competitive with most of the healing effects and it's rare to upcast healing spells except in rare circumstances.

Making it even more forced to scaling-dependent, as-written, the UA Artificer (Alchemist) forces taking the Fire and Acid first. If I were playing one I'd ask my DM to allow other options instead.

"At 1st level, you learn three Alchemical Formula options: Alchemical Fire, Alchemical Acid, and one other option of your choice. You learn an additional formula of your choice at 3rd, 9th, 14th, and 17th levels."

At least the Acid and Healing bump up to 2 dice at 3rd level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Making it even more forced to scaling-dependent, as-written, the UA Artificer (Alchemist) forces taking the Fire and Acid first. If I were playing one I'd ask my DM to allow other options instead.

"At 1st level, you learn three Alchemical Formula options: Alchemical Fire, Alchemical Acid, and one other option of your choice. You learn an additional formula of your choice at 3rd, 9th, 14th, and 17th levels."

At least the Acid and Healing bump up to 2 dice at 3rd level.

I hadn't noticed that. Very true.

One key thing about UA is that it's intentionally not balanced for multiclassing. It's not made with multiclassing in mind at all, and there's no attempt to make it play nice (or not be broken) with other classes. That's not on their radar at all. Multiclassing is an optional rule anyway, so...

[Max_Killjoy]

I hadn't noticed that. Very true.

One key thing about UA is that it's intentionally not balanced for multiclassing. It's not made with multiclassing in mind at all, and there's no attempt to make it play nice (or not be broken) with other classes. That's not on their radar at all. Multiclassing is an optional rule anyway, so...

So unless/until a more official printed version of the class comes out, the UA version would be "take with a grain of salt" and probably in need of some house-ruling to make it more compatible with any particular table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So unless/until a more official printed version of the class comes out, the UA version would be "take with a grain of salt" and probably in need of some house-ruling to make it more compatible with any particular table.

Absolutely. They're explicitly play-test. And often they're test-beds for abilities or features that they may put as sub-class features of other classes. Or ideas they're spitballing. They're definitely use at your own risk.

[visitor]

So what is everyone’s take on damage cantrips scaling with total level? What is the justification of a wizard 1/ fighter 19 having a fire bolt as powerful as a wizard 20?

(Sorry if this has been brought up already...just browsing this thread. It’s probably well known by those who do a short warlock dip for EB)

[PhoenixPhyre]

So what is everyone’s take on damage cantrips scaling with total level? What is the justification of a wizard 1/ fighter 19 having a fire bolt as powerful as a wizard 20?

(Sorry if this has been brought up already...just browsing this thread. It’s probably well known by those who do a short warlock dip for EB)

They don't, really. And cantrips suck for damage anyway (except EB, and that only because it has multiple beams and has the agonizing blast invocation).

A wizard 20 may have features that modify his cantrips (evocation sure does). Or isn't even really casting cantrips at that point as he has 1st and 2nd level spells at will (his 18th level feature).

And a fighter 20 has much better things to do than plink away with a 4d10 (at best) cantrip using an ability score that he's not good at (+8 instead of +11 attack modifier due to having a +2 INT at best). Generally, cantrips do ~50% of the damage of a "normal" attack pattern. And if you want a ranged weapon, fighters have plenty of ASIs to pump Dex a bit and use a bow. Better range, better damage (4d8 + 4xDEX instead of 4d8 flat), can multi-target, better variance (a fire bolt is all or nothing), can be magic or use magic arrows (which might add +1 to +3 to the attack and damage), works better with action economy (allows substitution for grapples/shoves), etc.

[qube]

The fighter isn't going to see the illusion with the DC of 18 without serious investment. They aren't picking any locks. Not finding any game. Not learning any secrets. Maybe moving the furniture. But they get that participation medal cause they can try right? Fighters aren't versatile. Get over it. Characters are more then a class - and while "the fighter class" doesn't always give specific bonusses to these things, doesn't mean "a fighter" can't do them. To argue "a fighter will never find any game" - is either trolling, willful ignorance, or simply not understanding the rules of D&D.

A fighter outlander litterly has

You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.

and thus, that fighter will in fact be superiour in finding game then, for instance the druid hermit. Likewise, if your party doesn't have a skill monkey, it's quite possible that the dex-fighter trade sherif will be the best lock-picker of the party.

Sure, "the fighter class" doesn't give boosts in finding game or picking locks. But to claim "fighters" can't do that, is utter nonsense. It's utterly stupid to hold a class to the bar of "should do X or sucks", when that need is created artificially; created by ignoring half the game; ignoring that characters - the things people actually play - can get them quite easily other ways.

Might as well argue spellcasters are the only ones that can see through the darkness ... 'cause we're blatently ignoring races with darkvision, the existance of torches, etc ...

[visitor]

They don't, really. And cantrips suck for damage anyway (except EB, and that only because it has multiple beams and has the agonizing blast invocation).

A wizard 20 may have features that modify his cantrips (evocation sure does). Or isn't even really casting cantrips at that point as he has 1st and 2nd level spells at will (his 18th level feature).

And a fighter 20 has much better things to do than plink away with a 4d10 (at best) cantrip using an ability score that he's not good at (+8 instead of +11 attack modifier due to having a +2 INT at best). Generally, cantrips do ~50% of the damage of a "normal" attack pattern. And if you want a ranged weapon, fighters have plenty of ASIs to pump Dex a bit and use a bow. Better range, better damage (4d8 + 4xDEX instead of 4d8 flat), can multi-target, better variance (a fire bolt is all or nothing), can be magic or use magic arrows (which might add +1 to +3 to the attack and damage), works better with action economy (allows substitution for grapples/shoves), etc.



It may be a poor option for the level 20 character, but is that the argument that it’s okay to scale to character level? That its not that powerful, so let it go?

Im not saying cantrips are or should be able to be a viable choice in combat all the way to level 20. I’m looking at it in the same way as say, sneak attack. One level of rogue = one level of sneak attack. And one level of spellcaster = one level of cantrip power.

I don’t know, maybe they weren’t thinking about multiclassing and cantrips. It seems like an odd duck compared to everything else (without mulriclassing it’s fine)

[MaxWilson]

So what is everyone’s take on damage cantrips scaling with total level? What is the justification of a wizard 1/ fighter 19 having a fire bolt as powerful as a wizard 20?

(Sorry if this has been brought up already...just browsing this thread. It’s probably well known by those who do a short warlock dip for EB)

One justification: if you have a cantrip due to a racial ability (e.g. High Elf Champion Fighter), what else is there to scale by except character level? There is no relevant class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It may be a poor option for the level 20 character, but is that the argument that it’s okay to scale to character level? That its not that powerful, so let it go?

Im not saying cantrips are or should be able to be a viable choice in combat all the way to level 20. I’m looking at it in the same way as say, sneak attack. One level of rogue = one level of sneak attack. And one level of spellcaster = one level of cantrip power.

I don’t know, maybe they weren’t thinking about multiclassing and cantrips. It seems like an odd duck compared to everything else

Arguments from symmetry do nothing for me. Sneak attack is the dominant damage scaling for rogues. Cantrips aren't. They're a fallback when you're out of everything else (except for warlocks).

And to change it you'd have to break the more important writing guidelines in a bunch of ways with bad consequences.

1) The rule is "class features scale with class levels. Anything else scales by character level." Specific cantrips are spells, not class features. Thus, they scale with character level. Otherwise you'd have to hard code all the progression into the class features explicitly.
2) You'd make Magic Initiate useless for damage cantrips (exactly the kind of thing Max_Killjoy was complaining about).
3) Spells don't care what spell slots they're cast out of. They only scale with the level of spells.
4) If you had multiple spell-casting classes you'd have to track each one's cantrips separately or include another line in the multiclassing section.

Multiclassing is an optional feature and most don't. So for 99% of the people who never multiclass, the two are identical. For those small fraction who do, this is both easier and more generous. As it's not imbalancing at any level (no-feature cantrips always being ~50% of a proper weapon-attack routine in straight DPR and much inferior in terms of variability and spreading damage), changing it would cost more than it's worth.

[Lord Haart]

It may be a poor option for the level 20 character, but is that the argument that it’s okay to scale to character level? That its not that powerful, so let it go?

Im not saying cantrips are or should be able to be a viable choice in combat all the way to level 20. I’m looking at it in the same way as say, sneak attack. One level of rogue = one level of sneak attack. And one level of spellcaster = one level of cantrip power.

Sneak attack gets tacked on your attack routine that you get from your other class (well, assuming it's a martial class, it's not designed to work with spellcasters at all). A fighter x/rogue 1 only adds those 1d6 once per turn, and it's probably a forgettable increase in damage for him, but at least it doesn't cost him anything; it's just happens, so it's a net gain anyway.

Cantrips, on the other hand, cost an Action. So there is concern about making them underpowered: an Action is the most contended-for type of actions in the game, and if anyone dips a spellcaster, he probably already has a reliable way to use his Action in combat. (Even spellcasters themselves. Spells cast from level-appropriate slots are stronger than cantrips, and the intended way to play a spellcaster is to blow slots first and resort to cantrip only if he runs dry or a perfect opportunity for a cantrip presents itself; not to hoard the slots). So if there's a goal to let the multiclassed (or Spell Sniper/Magic Initiate) character use cantrips — even as a secondary attack (javelins profit from Extra Attack and Sneak Attack too, you know; and if they didn't, they would be universally worse than a Dodge action+move) — without wasting their turn (and feeling it, too), then cantrips need to, from a dip alone, scale enough with level to be at least comparable in magnitude with a basic, no-extra-class-features used (and in real play, every class gets them), Attack Action with Extra Attack.

Note that even within the current system, the only combat cantrips (aside from Eldritch Blast with a Warlock dip that lets it basically triple-dip scaling) that are actually multiclass-friendly (in that a martial character who simply takes them, without further optimising around them instead of around his inherent capabilities, generally ends up with more power at his disposal than without them, not including level/feat cost in calculations) are SCAG melee cantrips, which work much more like a Sneak Attack (in that they add to an existing attack mode, rather than being an isolated alternative). And even these have a cost — they aren't compatible with Extra Attack, so while a Rogue would always be happy to grab them, a Ranger wouldn't be in a hurry, and a high-level Fighter is solidly advised against considering those.

So it's either one level of spellcaster=enough cantrip power to be useful at any level (without being stackable and too useful — and no matter my general opinion about 5e, that's one thing they've handled perfectly), or one level of spellcaster=nothing you would actually use when you could sneeze instead and your snooze would do twice as much damage on a better attack roll. (Or one level of spellcaster=one level of cantrip power, but you can use it on a separate action and in the same turn as your other modes of attack. A system like that, where every class uses a different type of action for its primary attack, could work, but it would be extremely complex, and if simply tacked on the current edition of D&D would cause endless problems with bonus-stacking and hex-abusing).

[visitor]

Sneak attack gets tacked on your attack routine that you get from your other class (well, assuming it's a martial class, it's not designed to work with spellcasters at all). A fighter x/rogue 1 only adds those 1d6 once per turn, and it's probably a forgettable increase in damage for him, but at least it doesn't cost him anything; it's just happens, so it's a net gain anyway.

Cantrips, on the other hand, cost an Action. So there is concern about making them underpowered: an Action is the most contended-for type of actions in the game, and if anyone dips a spellcaster, he probably already has a reliable way to use his Action in combat. (Even spellcasters themselves. Spells cast from level-appropriate slots are stronger than cantrips, and the intended way to play a spellcaster is to blow slots first and resort to cantrip only if he runs dry or a perfect opportunity for a cantrip presents itself; not to hoard the slots). So if there's a goal to let the multiclassed (or Spell Sniper/Magic Initiate) character use cantrips — even as a secondary attack (javelins profit from Extra Attack and Sneak Attack too, you know; and if they didn't, they would be universally worse than a Dodge action+move) — without wasting their turn (and feeling it, too), then cantrips need to, from a dip alone, scale enough with level to be at least comparable in magnitude with a basic, no-extra-class-features used (and in real play, every class gets them), Attack Action with Extra Attack.

Note that even within the current system, the only combat cantrips (aside from Eldritch Blast with a Warlock dip that lets it basically triple-dip scaling) that are actually multiclass-friendly (in that a martial character who simply takes them, without further optimising around them instead of around his inherent capabilities, generally ends up with more power at his disposal than without them, not including level/feat cost in calculations) are SCAG melee cantrips, which work much more like a Sneak Attack (in that they add to an existing attack mode, rather than being an isolated alternative). And even these have a cost — they aren't compatible with Extra Attack, so while a Rogue would always be happy to grab them, a Ranger wouldn't be in a hurry, and a high-level Fighter is solidly advised against considering those.

So it's either one level of spellcaster=enough cantrip power to be useful at any level (without being stackable and too useful — and no matter my general opinion about 5e, that's one thing they've handled perfectly), or one level of spellcaster=nothing you would actually use when you could sneeze instead and your snooze would do twice as much damage on a better attack roll. (Or one level of spellcaster=one level of cantrip power, but you can use it on a separate action and in the same turn as your other modes of attack. A system like that, where every class uses a different type of action for its primary attack, could work, but it would be extremely complex, and if simply tacked on the current edition of D&D would cause endless problems with bonus-stacking and hex-abusing).



I think your point of the action economy is a good one.

But a couple nitpicks: "spells from the appropriate slots are stronger than cantrips". But that isn't necessarily the case. Our wizard 1/ fighter 19 could only cast one magic missle for 3 x (1d4 +1) per long rest. But he could cast firebolt for 4d10 all day long. Now this is also the case for a wizard 20 (his first level slot spells vs his cantrips); but I'm just looking at our wizard 1/fighter 19's firebolt being as potent as a single class character.





1) The rule is "class features scale with class levels. Anything else scales by character level."

I can't find that text. Though I did find this on p 164 PHB (in regards to multiclassing):

Spellcasting:
Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes. Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.


So, I don't know. Looking at this now, it seems a case could be made that cantrip power = total spellcaster level. That makes more 'sense' to me, but really will it make a big difference? I doubt it.

[visitor]

2) You'd make Magic Initiate useless for damage cantrips (exactly the kind of thing Max_Killjoy was complaining about).



There are a bunch of things in 5e that don't work as optimally as some would like. You probably wouldn't take magic missile or sleep as your spell pick for Magic Initiate and expect them to be viable throughout your career; why should you choose Firebolt? Maybe the best use of the feat are spells like Goodberry or Find Familiar.




One justification: if you have a cantrip due to a racial ability (e.g. High Elf Champion Fighter), what else is there to scale by except character level? There is no relevant class.

Racial features are a bit odd...though again, if you don't expect them to scale, why choose a damage cantrip as your elf racial? Other races, like drow and tiefling have spells that are set at the base level: there is no provision to upcast them.

Dragonborn are the exception, in that their breath weapon has specific rules/text about scaling with level.

[qube]

It may be a poor option for the level 20 character, but is that the argument that it’s okay to scale to character level? That its not that powerful, so let it go?

Im not saying cantrips are or should be able to be a viable choice in combat all the way to level 20. I’m looking at it in the same way as say, sneak attack. One level of rogue = one level of sneak attack. And one level of spellcaster = one level of cantrip power.

I don’t know, maybe they weren’t thinking about multiclassing and cantrips. It seems like an odd duck compared to everything else (without mulriclassing it’s fine)One level of rogue = one die of additional damage (sneak attack)
One level of caster = gives you an alternative to your attack. and by the time cantrips do x2 damage, you got to comapare to characters with the extra attack feature

I think the rule of thumb is that extra things follow class level, while alternative things follow total level


There are a bunch of things in 5e that don't work as optimally as some would like. You probably wouldn't take magic missile or sleep as your spell pick for Magic Initiate and expect them to be viable throughout your career; why should you choose Firebolt? Maybe the best use of the feat are spells like Goodberry or Find Familiar.dunno. While the damage of magic missle doesn't scale up, it remains being auto-hit. So, from that perspective, they do remain somewhat viable (just like, for instance, healing word remains viable, as bonus action ranged heal is able to bring back dying allies, dispite the heal amount not scaling)

[sambojin]

Because firebolt sets things on fire? Out to 120' (further than you can hit things with thrown objects, or depending on stats and weapon proficiency, bows).
I'm not saying this makes it a good pick, but for a pyro or just for the utility, it still does something else than just damage. How many flammable items are there in any particular adventure? Well, define flammable. With enough firebolts it's probably anything that isn't made of metal or stone. And you have an unlimited amount of firebolts.

So there's some utility on distraction, action-wasting-firefighting, ranged backup, intimidation/social and item destruction in even "the worst" cantrip (even though it's not the worst, 4d10 damage isn't the point at lvl17+. It's "I could burn your things whenever I wanted to, and if you don't believe me, I'll show you." Is this good at this level? No. But it's still a thing you can do that you couldn't do without that as your cantrip pick or ones like it).


Is sleep a good pick? Well, ummm, no. But being able to sleep out a 5d8HP creature (22.5HP on average) covers most common urban animals, most commoners/basic urban humanoids, and that's about it. At lvl17+ you've probably had at least some downtime experience. So it won't "not come up as a useful thing to be able to do" ever, it probably just won't come up often. But having it in your toolkit certainly helps sway DMs on "Yeah, I definitely can do that on my day off in town".

[Lord Haart]

Firebolt can only target a creature.

[qube]

Firebolt can only target a creature."A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried. " - implying that it can in fact target objects.

Honestly, your DM SERIOUSLY needs to learn the difference between computer games and tabletop games if he doesn't allow you to cast firebolt on objects.

(and if not - you just made firebolt the perfect golem/mimic/animate rug/... detector)

[Zalabim]

Firebolt can only target a creature.
What does green mean? Is that for sheer dishonesty?

"A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried. " - implying that it can in fact target objects.

Honestly, your DM SERIOUSLY needs to learn the difference between computer games and tabletop games if he doesn't allow you to cast firebolt on objects.

(and if not - you just made firebolt the perfect golem/mimic/animate rug/... detector)
No implying about it. Fire Bolt outright says "...creature or object within range."