Fixing Spell Upcasting

[Bjarkmundur]

There's an ongoing discussion whether Divine Favor is too weak. I won't get into it here, but Stoutstien (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?121205-stoutstien) came up with a rather elegant solution of simply fixing how the spell can be upcast.

It got me wondering, what other spells can be made significantly more favourable choices by simply fixing its scaling?

[JNAProductions]

There's an ongoing discussion whether Divine Favor is too weak. I won't get into it here, but Stoutstien (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?121205-stoutstien) came up with a rather elegant solution of simply fixing how the spell can be upcast.

It got me wondering, what other spells can be made significantly more favourable choices by simply fixing its scaling?

Find me a broken spell with upcasting first.

Because, as it stands now, most spells are weaker when upcast relative to spells of the appropriate level-and that's by design. It's working as intended.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the simplest thing to do in this case that won't result in a crapton of work is just to increase the spellcasting modifier by +1 for every upcast level. This does mean that a level 9 Bane can impact 11 creatures and has a DC of 15 + Mod, but that's a level 9 spell for yah.

But I agree with JNA on this one. For the most part, it's not needed. In the rare case that it is needed, it usually relates to damage (like when Cantrips outdamage something like Chromatic Orb).

[JNAProductions]

I think the simplest thing to do in this case that won't result in a crapton of work is just to increase the spellcasting modifier by +1 for every upcast level. This does mean that a level 9 Bane can impact 11 creatures and has a DC of 15 + Mod, but that's a level 9 spell for yah.

But I agree with JNA on this one. For the most part, it's not needed. In the rare case that it is needed, it usually relates to damage (like when Cantrips outdamage something like Chromatic Orb).

It'd actually be 16+Proficiency+Modifier.

Which is, in a word, UNACCEPTABLE.

Why? Hold Person, upcast to level 9, hits eight people with a DC (assuming Casting Stat of 20) of 26.

You want to try making that DC 26 Wisdom save or be Paralyzed?

[stoutstien]

Off the top of my head
Arcane lock
Compelled duel
Crusader mantle
Dark vision
Divine favor
Grease
Silence
Protection from g/e
Barkskin
Hunger of hadar
Jump

[PhoenixPhyre]

It'd actually be 16+Proficiency+Modifier.

Which is, in a word, UNACCEPTABLE.

Why? Hold Person, upcast to level 9, hits eight people with a DC (assuming Casting Stat of 20) of 26.

You want to try making that DC 26 Wisdom save or be Paralyzed?

It also brings back the specter of multiple DCs/attack bonuses for different spells. That was a major part of 3e that should remain buried forever. But also, I agree with this completely. I had issues on a campaign where the lower-CR monsters can't pass their saves (because of a +X save DC rod and a +CHA tome). Utterly trivialized encounters in a way that wasn't very fun.

Upcasting isn't broken at all (except witch bolt, but that needs more than just upcasting changes to be meaningful).

[Keravath]

Off the top of my head
Arcane lock
Compelled duel
Crusader mantle
Dark vision
Divine favor
Grease
Silence
Protection from g/e
Barkskin
Hunger of hadar
Jump

The title of the thread implies that there is something broken.

Most of these spells listed just don't have any upcasting options. Why is there something broken or wrong with that?

Yes it might be cool to modify some of them if you were interested. It might be nice if Darkvision affected more creatures if upcast but there is nothing broken with having spells that don't change when upcast (other than affecting counterspell or dispel magic chances).

[TyGuy]

Find me a broken spell with upcasting first.

Because, as it stands now, most spells are weaker when upcast relative to spells of the appropriate level-and that's by design. It's working as intended. The two issues with this are cantrips outpacing spells and having to choose between flavor and effectiveness as one progresses.

[Pex]

Find me a broken spell with upcasting first.

Because, as it stands now, most spells are weaker when upcast relative to spells of the appropriate level-and that's by design. It's working as intended.

Players aren't minding an upcast spell being weaker than a spell of that level. They're bothered the upcasting of the spell itself is non-existent or not worthy. Witch Bolt is a good example of not worthy. Upcasting only increases the initial damage, not the ongoing damage. Despite its other problems, if upcasting at least increased the ongoing damage it might be of some worth.

[Bjarkmundur]

My idea is solving this hypothetical problem, for hypothetical reasons.


I have a player who is anything but a metagamer. He likes certain things just because of how it plays, and not just how useful they are. That being said, just because he doesn't need his options to be the best, he'd still like for them not to be the worst.
This player is particularly fond of a few spells that simply don't scale. I asked why he didn't just swap them out, and he replied "why can't they just scale". I didn't have an answer.

[stoutstien]

The title of the thread implies that there is something broken.

Most of these spells listed just don't have any upcasting options. Why is there something broken or wrong with that?

Yes it might be cool to modify some of them if you were interested. It might be nice if Darkvision affected more creatures if upcast but there is nothing broken with having spells that don't change when upcast (other than affecting counterspell or dispel magic chances).

Nothing wrong with them as printed but allowing some form of upcasting wouldn't break anything ether.
*Jump is weak but if you could up cast jump so a the whole party can play super Mario for a minute it could be a good spell at least.
*As you said upcast darkvision could help a group of human guards keep watch
*I want bigger grease spells. That's a person one because I love grease as a DM
*Protection from good/evil is used maybe once a campaign? If it could target one more every other slot it would still be niche but worth considering.

[Man_Over_Game]

It'd actually be 16+Proficiency+Modifier.

Which is, in a word, UNACCEPTABLE.

Why? Hold Person, upcast to level 9, hits eight people with a DC (assuming Casting Stat of 20) of 26.

You want to try making that DC 26 Wisdom save or be Paralyzed?

Sorry, I forgot to include the 8 base. You got it right.

You could make it for every 2 upcasted levels. That'd change that 26 to 22, which is a lot more manageable.

Another option you could do is Twincasting. When you upcast a spell, you can choose to ignore any upcasting benefits of that spell. Instead, choose a spell that you can cast who's level is equal to 1/2 of the number of upcasted spell levels (so if you spent a level 5 spell slot for a level 3 spell, you upcasted 2 spell levels). You can cast that spell without spending any additional spell slots with your Action or Bonus Action.

This way, you could cast something like an Upcasted level 3 Fog Cloud and cast Ice Knife at the same time. A level 3 spell slot for two level 1 spells. Quantity can always be a valid substitute for quality.

[JNAProductions]

Sorry, I forgot to include the 8 base. You got it right.

You could make it for every 2 upcasted levels. That'd change that 26 to 22, which is a lot more manageable.

Another option you could do is Twincasting. When you upcast a spell, you can choose to ignore any upcasting benefits of that spell. Instead, choose a spell that you can cast who's level is equal to 1/2 of the number of upcasted spell levels (so if you spent a level 5 spell slot for a level 3 spell, you upcasted 2 spell levels). You can cast that spell without spending any additional spell slots with your Action or Bonus Action.

This way, you could cast something like an Upcasted level 3 Fog Cloud and cast Ice Knife at the same time. A level 3 spell slot for two level 1 spells. Quantity can always be a valid substitute for quality.

22 still requires either Proficiency or a good stat to even have a chance of saving. (Or a special feature, like Aura of Protection.)

I'm pretty dang sure DC 19 is the cap because the lowest modifier you can get with the Standard Array is -1. Which can hit DC 19.

Also, wouldn't it be 23? Looking closer... That's my bad-I mathed wrong and I should've said 27.

Your multicast idea, though-that's cool! I like it.

Edit: Minor issue, though-some spells become BETTER with multicast, relative to upcasting.

Healing Word is 1d4+5 (at level 8 and beyond, usually) for 7.5 on average. Increases to 10 (2d4+5) at slot level 2.

Multicast nets you 15 HP from a level 2 slot.

Perhaps add an addendum that you cannot target the same person with the same spell in a multicast?

[stoutstien]

22 still requires either Proficiency or a good stat to even have a chance of saving. (Or a special feature, like Aura of Protection.)

I'm pretty dang sure DC 19 is the cap because the lowest modifier you can get with the Standard Array is -1. Which can hit DC 19.

Also, wouldn't it be 23? Looking closer... That's my bad-I mathed wrong and I should've said 27.

Your multicast idea, though-that's cool! I like it.

Edit: Minor issue, though-some spells become BETTER with multicast, relative to upcasting.

Healing Word is 1d4+5 (at level 8 and beyond, usually) for 7.5 on average. Increases to 10 (2d4+5) at slot level 2.

Multicast nets you 15 HP from a level 2 slot.

Perhaps add an addendum that you cannot target the same person with the same spell in a multicast?

I was thinking the same thing. Toss a bunch of save or suck spells at once and something bound to stick.
Speaking of stick it could mean some dinner combos with web+fire spells and actually make pyrotechnics usable

[Man_Over_Game]

Thinking about it, I don't see many reasons why it'd be a bad thing to just make the whole Multicast thing work on a 1:1 ratio with upcasted spell slots. That is, if you spent a level 5 spell slot on a level 3 spell, why can't you use the other 2 levels to cast a level 2 spell?

I think a level 3 + level 2 spell is roughly worse than a single level 5 casting, but I could be off on my math.

I guess there could be 3 ways of doing it:


Free spell = 1/2 Upcasting levels (Lvl 8 slot = lvl 4 spell + lvl 2 free spell)
Free spell = Upcasting levels (lvl 8 slot = lvl 4 spell + lvl 4 free spell)
Free spell = Upcasting Levels -1 (lvl 8 slot = lvl 4 spell + lvl 3 free spell)


For comparison's sake, a level 8 spell slot is available at caster level 15.

As for the problem with multicasting being better than upcasting, I'd just make it so that you have to pick a different spell than the original. This means that if you want a singular, potent effect, you're better off using Upcasting.

[JNAProductions]

Thinking about it, I don't see many reasons why it'd be a bad thing to just make the whole Multicast thing work on a 1:1 ratio with upcasted spell slots. That is, if you spent a level 5 spell slot on a level 3 spell, why can't you use the other 2 levels to cast a level 2 spell?

I think a level 3 + level 2 spell is roughly worse than a single level 5 casting, but I could be off on my math. I guess there could be 3 ways of doing it:


Free spell = 1/2 Upcasting levels (Lvl 8 slot = lvl 4 spell + lvl 2 free spell)
Free spell = Upcasting levels (lvl 8 slot = lvl 4 spell + lvl 4 free spell)
Free spell = Upcasting Levels -1 (lvl 8 slot = lvl 4 spell + lvl 3 free spell)


For comparison's sake, a level 8 spell slot is available at caster level 15.

Minor issue of spamming low-level spells then.

Blindness AND Hold Person AND Levitate (if they're a melee dude and there's an open ceiling) AND Cause Fear AND... Um... Magic Missile for fun?

That's four saves from one action.

[Bjarkmundur]

Wait.

Are you suggesting that for a player who prefers lower levels spells, he could simply cast two spells with the combined spell level of his spell slot?

If thst is actually balanced, that sounds awesome :0

[Man_Over_Game]

Minor issue of spamming low-level spells then.

Blindness AND Hold Person AND Levitate (if they're a melee dude and there's an open ceiling) AND Cause Fear AND... Um... Magic Missile for fun?

That's four saves from one action.

That's why there's the limitation that you can cast that spell without a spell slot with your action or bonus action. Assuming you already casted a spell that turn to trigger Multicasting, you can only cast one more spell. At most, an Eldritch Knight could Action Surge to cast 3 spells in the same turn with this kind of system.

It'd be hard to balance, as someone would need to compare it to Twinned Spell and Sorcery Point rates, and...ain't nobody got time for that. This solution shouldn't be better than the investment someone makes into Sorcerer, but I think it could work if we got the rates just right.

[Mitsu]

As for Divine Favour- just make it 1d6 as it's great.

If you want to make upcasting option for it- I say extra 1d4 for each slot, up to maximum of 3d4 from 3rd slot to not make it too strong.

There are many spells that are great upcasted, like Spirit Guardians or Conjure Animals, Hold spells, Armor of Agathys, Aid, Bigby's Hand etc.

Some are totally not worth upcasting but I once tried to balance all of the upcasting and it was a mess so apart from some individual cases- I would not touch that as a whole. Just tweak individual spells that your table like but scales bad and it's gonna be ok.

[Laserlight]

A Darkness / Devil Sight lock would love to have upcast Darkness get a longer duration, the way Hex does.

[Bjarkmundur]

I find that a lot of the times a game only needs to be balanced for its specific table.

So if for example I don't have a sorcerer in my game, is this multcasting thing a real possibility?

[Galithar]

I find that a lot of the times a game only needs to be balanced for its specific table.

So if for example I don't have a sorcerer in my game, is this multcasting thing a real possibility?

So long as you're aware that it will increase the burst potential of your casters significantly. It will make your casters edge towards trying to run a 5 minute adventuring day as they can throw spells out really fast by using their high level slots, but then they'll be left with only their low level ones and ready to rest. Honestly though I think if this is going to be an issue at your table is already would be, since it doesn't make it FASTER to burn the slots, it just makes using the high level ones up quickly to get 4-6 spells off in two or three rounds more appealing/powerful in a lot of situations.

If you don't have a sorcerer and know you won't, I think it's okay to step on the toes of the class so long as your table is happy with it. At the end of the day that's the only thing that's really important anyways.

[Man_Over_Game]

I find that a lot of the times a game only needs to be balanced for its specific table.

So if for example I don't have a sorcerer in my game, is this multcasting thing a real possibility?

I suppose, but I always assume that part of what makes these changes balanced is the fact that investing into Sorcerer is part of the cost. That is, it's inherently one of the weaknesses of the casting system that brings it down to the level of the martial classes, and Sorcerer is one such investment that gets around these weaknesses. Adding these features, and ignoring the Sorcerer in doing so, would effectively make all casters quite a bit better.

So while you might not have Sorcerers at your table, I'd still either make the Multicasting have some sort of cost, so that casters, as a whole, keep the power spike to a minimum. A Feat would be fine with something like this. If you don't want it to have a feat cost, then I'd use one of the more expensive rates that I listed before.

For some basic estimates, a Sorcerer spends 2 Sorcery Points for Quicken Spell, which is the same cost of a level 1 spell slot in terms of Sorcery Points. Assuming we ignore the whole "You can't cast more than one leveled spell per turn" shenanigans, and the Sorcerer wants to cast another level 1 spell instead of a cantrip, he'd be spending about 6 sorcery points worth of value. Rather, he'd be spending 3 level 1 spell slots worth of value to cast 2 spells in the same turn.

If we were to deal with higher level spells, like a level 4 spell and a level 2 spell in the same turn, he'd be spending about 11 Sorcery Points worth (Level 4 spell = 6, level 2 spell = 3, Quicken = 2), which is roughly the equivalent of two level 4 spells.

Assuming my math is correct, it seems like my original estimate wasn't far off (Free Spell = Overcasted levels/2). Then I'd make it a feat, since this is a feature that's normally only accessible by having 2 levels into Sorcerer, and that investment should count for something.

[stoutstien]

I think the spell that need some form of upcasting are mostly non damage spell. using the jump example, the next step up is fly.
Using a 3rd lv slot to let one person fly vs same slot to let 3 players triple jump is an actual Choice. Especially if the caster has an other long term spell to concentrate on.

[Misterwhisper]

The real issue is Hunger of Hadar’s upcast problema.

[Galithar]

The real issue is Hunger of Hadar’s upcast problema.

Simple to fix that one I think. You've got three options that I can come up with real quick. If you want it to up cast either increase the radius by 5 ft per level, or increase it's damage by 1d6 per level.
Alternatively as an 'interesting' option, pull from Bestow Curse. If it's cast with a level 5 it greater slot it doesn't require concentration.

[stoutstien]

Simple to fix that one I think. You've got three options that I can come up with real quick. If you want it to up cast either increase the radius by 5 ft per level, or increase it's damage by 1d6 per level.
Alternatively as an 'interesting' option, pull from Bestow Curse. If it's cast with a level 5 it greater slot it doesn't require concentration.
The area and damage are both fine but no concentration worries me. Maybe add a rider that they are blind for x rounds after leave the spell area?

[Galithar]

The area and damage are both fine but no concentration worries me. Maybe add a rider that they are blind for x rounds after leave the spell area?

I actually think that causes way more issues then removing concentration. The number I've way to counter Hunger is to simply walk out of it. Letting it continue to hammer someone that isn't in it's AoE is a massive boost to it's power, even if only for one turn. Being blinded while in it is effectively negated (in regards to Advantage/Disadvantage) because you are also unseen. Making it capable of binding you (no saving throw???) For X time after leaving means you still attack at Disadvantage/are attacked at advantage.

Concentration is a really poorly implemented mechanic in my opinion. One of the few things I truly dislike about 5e. It's often arbitrary in what requires it. Some combos that seem like they should work are nullified by it, yet others (Spiritual Weapon/Spirit Guardians) that maybe SHOULD be stopped are allowed. AKA I'm admitting to bring biased against concentration :P

[Hytheter]

I think the spell that need some form of upcasting are mostly non damage spell. using the jump example, the next step up is fly.
Using a 3rd lv slot to let one person fly vs same slot to let 3 players triple jump is an actual Choice. Especially if the caster has an other long term spell to concentrate on.

This is especially a problem for Warlocks who can't just use lower level slots. Short rest Shield is kinda nice when you are level 2, but it doesn't feel so good when you're dropping a 4th level slot on it. Sure, they have a lot of spells that scale, but they also have a lot that don't.

[stoutstien]

I actually think that causes way more issues then removing concentration. The number I've way to counter Hunger is to simply walk out of it. Letting it continue to hammer someone that isn't in it's AoE is a massive boost to it's power, even if only for one turn. Being blinded while in it is effectively negated (in regards to Advantage/Disadvantage) because you are also unseen. Making it capable of binding you (no saving throw???) For X time after leaving means you still attack at Disadvantage/are attacked at advantage.

Concentration is a really poorly implemented mechanic in my opinion. One of the few things I truly dislike about 5e. It's often arbitrary in what requires it. Some combos that seem like they should work are nullified by it, yet others (Spiritual Weapon/Spirit Guardians) that maybe SHOULD be stopped are allowed. AKA I'm admitting to bring biased against concentration :P
I was thinking about madding darkness for some reason.
As far as HoH goes, I see it as the spirit guardian of the warlock list. Auto damage combo with repelling blast is simple and effective.

[Galithar]

I was thinking about madding darkness for some reason.
As far as HoH goes, I see it as the spirit guardian of the warlock list. Auto damage combo with repelling blast is simple and effective.

True, but I could see giving it some ability for up cast. Dropping concentration would be my lowest choice for the three examples I gave though. I would rather see it get a boost in damage or range. It's not quite as good as Spirit Guardians in my opinion because it's at a fixed location. If the enemy moves out of it in a direction you can't easily push them back in it can quickly become useless.

Though I'm looking at the idea of using both on my Divine Sorlock for different situations. Though it might be hard to justify taking both of them with my limited spell selection. Especially since I won't be using repelling blast to have that push back effect.