Changing Cantrip vs Low Level Spell Slot Damage at High Level

[dmhelp]

Okay, it bothers me that cantrips become better than 1st level slots at high level. So I came up with this fix, but it is awkward. Can anyone suggest a less clunkier design so that a chromatic orb is always better than a firebolt?

Single target leveled damage spells (from casters, not items) gain an additional dice of damage (on first damage roll only if there is a duration) at character level 5 and 11 (e.g. chromatic orb does 4d8 at level 5 and 5d8 at level 11 with a 1st level slot); also applies to lightning arrow (single target portion), but does not apply to magic missile or scorching ray since those are not single target damage spells

I excluded magic missile and scorching ray because of pushback in the past that those spells didn't need to get any better.

Okay, let's not worry about caster vs martial balance. That is easily fixed by what magic items I drop (I can give you a +3 flame tongue halberd that casts forcecage 1/day and a belt of storm giant strength if really necessary).

I want a slot to always be better than a cantrip, because you are spending something. It just bothers me. Is anyone able to help me do this?

This is additive to upcasting so helps warlocks.

Some attack spell averages and their new averages at level 11 with a level 1 slot:
chromatic orb 3d8 (13.5) -> 22.5
guiding bolt 4d6 (14) -> 21
inflict wounds 3d10 (16.5) -> 27.5
ray of sickness 2d8 (9) -> 18
witch bolt 1d12 (6.5) -> 19.5

Firebolt at caster 11 = 16.5
Firebolt at caster 17 = 22

So:
Chromatic Orb at slot 1 caster 5 = 4d8, caster 11 = 5d8
Chromatic Orb at slot 5 caster 11 = 9d8
Witchbolt at slot 1 caster 5 = 2d12, caster 11 = 3d12
Witchbolt at slot 5 caster 11 = 7d12

[nickl_2000]

Why do you need this? When you are higher level you still use lower level spell slots for utility and protection spells (charm, absorb elements, shield, animal friendship, healing word, longstrider, fairie fire, etc).
Is there really a need to give spell casters more power?
Are you planning on make cantrips less effective since you are also making leveled spells more effective to try and keep the same balance level?



I personally don't like this and it would have a significant impact on the class I choose when playing in your campaign. Also, what about warlocks? They can nothing from this.

[Segev]

The classes that really risk suffering from this are warlocks and sorcerers. But warlocks auto-scale their spell slots to the maximum they can cast, and sorcerers can break down lower-level spell slots for SP and build higher-level spell slots from them, which mitigates this considerably. Bards have enough low-level spells known that they reasonably can have utility spells to spend 1st and 2nd level spell slots on with the same desired effectiveness, while wizards, clerics, druids, et al are prepared casters and can just choose to prepare spells that retain their effectiveness even when cast from low-level slots.

A wizard preparing chromatic orb is probably planning to upcast it, and likely has other spells to cast from his first-level slots (mage armor, shield, etc.). A sorcerer who genuinely doesn't have any utility spells for level 1 and 2 has made a very deliberate decision; they have more level 1 and 2 spells known than of any other spell level. But he can burn out all his low-level slots for higher-level slots, too.

[nickl_2000]

The classes that really risk suffering from this are warlocks and sorcerers. But warlocks auto-scale their spell slots to the maximum they can cast, and sorcerers can break down lower-level spell slots for SP and build higher-level spell slots from them, which mitigates this considerably. Bards have enough low-level spells known that they reasonably can have utility spells to spend 1st and 2nd level spell slots on with the same desired effectiveness, while wizards, clerics, druids, et al are prepared casters and can just choose to prepare spells that retain their effectiveness even when cast from low-level slots.

A wizard preparing chromatic orb is probably planning to upcast it, and likely has other spells to cast from his first-level slots (mage armor, shield, etc.). A sorcerer who genuinely doesn't have any utility spells for level 1 and 2 has made a very deliberate decision; they have more level 1 and 2 spells known than of any other spell level. But he can burn out all his low-level slots for higher-level slots, too.

(bolding mine)

And martials, all martials suffer from this change in overall power comparison.

[Segev]

(bolding mine)

And martials, all martials suffer from this change in overall power comparison.

That's an entirely separate issue and is not addressed by "solving" the problem for spellcasters.

I am not 100% sure it's even true. Martials get more attacks at the same rate that cantrips gain greater damage. In fact, a Warlock using eldritch blast almost exactly mirrors fighters' multiple attacks per round. And while they tend to be more limited, there are other classes which get that extra attack even faster (albeit only in limited circumstances and/or at the cost of a bonus action). Warlocks are the only ones who can boost their damage with a stat, too, when casting a cantrip.

[LudicSavant]

Okay, it bothers me that cantrips become better than 1st level slots at high level.

Why does it bother you? What goal are you seeking to accomplish in changing it?

[nickl_2000]

That's an entirely separate issue and is not addressed by "solving" the problem for spellcasters.

I am not 100% sure it's even true. Martials get more attacks at the same rate that cantrips gain greater damage. In fact, a Warlock using eldritch blast almost exactly mirrors fighters' multiple attacks per round. And while they tend to be more limited, there are other classes which get that extra attack even faster (albeit only in limited circumstances and/or at the cost of a bonus action). Warlocks are the only ones who can boost their damage with a stat, too, when casting a cantrip.

Actually my problem isn't casters vs martials when it comes to cantrips/regular spells, I think they are close enough that it doesn't matter. My issue is that the OP is looking to boost level 1 spells to become better, which is a benefit that helps casters only. This is a power boost that that isn't applied all the way around. So, you either need to nerf cantrips to keep the overall balance correct or boost martials for the overall balance.

Frankly it seems like a nightmare to me to do either way.

[Segev]

I want a slot to always be better than a cantrip, because you are spending something. It just bothers me. Is anyone able to help me do this?I'm not sure I can help you do it, unfortunately, because I'm not sure I know how to properly characterize it.

Define "always better." Should it always be better to cast mage armor than to cast firebolt?

I understand you're trying to compare damage spell to damage spell, but to make my point clearly, I have to point out the distinction of utility vs. damage. One of the "strengths" of cantrips is that they eventually become strong enough to "free up" the 1st and 2nd level spell slots for non-damage-spell uses. It essentially gives the wizard or cleric or druid more low-level spell slots for utility, because there's no point to wasting them on damage when cantrips do better.

That's why I question the value of doing this at all.

You're not really comparing first-level SPELLS to cantrips; you're comparing first-level SLOTS to cantrips. First-level spells can be upcast to stay ahead of cantrips. Whether it's better to just use a higher-level spell in that slot is a different question, of course.



This is additive to upcasting so helps warlocks.

Some attack spell averages and their new averages at level 11 with a level 1 slot:
chromatic orb 3d8 (13.5) -> 22.5
guiding bolt 4d6 (14) -> 21
inflict wounds 3d10 (16.5) -> 27.5
ray of sickness 2d8 (9) -> 18
witch bolt 1d12 (6.5) -> 19.5

Firebolt at caster 11 = 16.5
Firebolt at caster 17 = 22

So:
Chromatic Orb at slot 1 caster 5 = 4d8, caster 11 = 5d8
Chromatic Orb at slot 5 caster 11 = 9d8
Witchbolt at slot 1 caster 5 = 2d12, caster 11 = 3d12
Witchbolt at slot 5 caster 11 = 7d12
This honestly makes these too powerful. The paradigm of 5e is that spell slots are fixed in power. Yes, there's variation based on what spell you cast from them, but the same spell cast from the same slot doesn't care about the caster's level (except insofar as that impacts save DC and spell attack bonus, which is independent of spell slot level).

I understand your argument: expending a resource should be better than not expending a resource. I counter this by saying, "There should always be an option for expending a resource that is better than if you used an option that didn't expend that resource." This doesn't mean that every damage spell from a level-1 slot should always be better than every damage cantrip. It just means that you should have things to do with level-1 slots that you can't do with cantrips.

I advise, if you really want to do this, that you just try running a game or few with it. Your players will likely like having more damage on their spells, so they won't complain about testing it.

[cutlery]

Cantrips (other than Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast) are always quite lackluster. Even at level 17, a firebolt is around 22 damage.

For some classes and builds, this is the bulk of their at-will damage - anything else costs resources. At level 17, it's true that a level 1 spell (e.g. Magic Missile) does less damage - 10.5, but that's less damage when cast at first level.

Simply use first and second level spell slots for other things (Shield, Misty Step), and use higher level slots for damage when needed. Fire bolt averaging 22 damage per round at level 17 isn't a big deal.

A big part of running a full caster is managing your resources smartly. Using a level 1 slot for damage when you have full-progression cantrips available is not using either your 1st level spell slot or your round's action well.

It isn't broke.

[Kane0]

Alternative rule: Instead of cantrip damage scaling with character level 5, 11 and 17, when you cast a spell at those same levels in a spellcasting class you can deal an additional +1d6/+2d6/+3d6 on one damage roll.

So doing this, you trade multiclassing ability and the higher damage die of attack cantrips for extra damage on all spells you cast.

Its not perfect, but its a universal way of handling it and gives players the choice of how they want to proceed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure I can help you do it, unfortunately, because I'm not sure I know how to properly characterize it.

Define "always better." Should it always be better to cast mage armor than to cast firebolt?

I understand you're trying to compare damage spell to damage spell, but to make my point clearly, I have to point out the distinction of utility vs. damage. One of the "strengths" of cantrips is that they eventually become strong enough to "free up" the 1st and 2nd level spell slots for non-damage-spell uses. It essentially gives the wizard or cleric or druid more low-level spell slots for utility, because there's no point to wasting them on damage when cantrips do better.

That's why I question the value of doing this at all.

You're not really comparing first-level SPELLS to cantrips; you're comparing first-level SLOTS to cantrips. First-level spells can be upcast to stay ahead of cantrips. Whether it's better to just use a higher-level spell in that slot is a different question, of course.




This agrees with some of the balance work I did a while ago. It seems that the basic assumption is that spell-slot resources boil down into two broad categories:
* Highest-tier slots (top level + the next one or two levels): damage output
* Lower slots (if any): utility/other effects.

It turns out that if a Paladin uses their top level or two of slots for smiting and casts spells out of the rest, the damage works out quite close to that of a fighter expending his resources. It gives enough resources that you have something other than just attacking about half the rounds of an average day (assuming ~18-25 rounds in an average day). Whether that's concentrating on bless, or smiting, or whatever.

Same goes for the full casters. They have fewer non-spell resources/things to do, so they have more spell slots to burn on their "fun stuff".

[Segev]

This agrees with some of the balance work I did a while ago. It seems that the basic assumption is that spell-slot resources boil down into two broad categories:
* Highest-tier slots (top level + the next one or two levels): damage output
* Lower slots (if any): utility/other effects.

It turns out that if a Paladin uses their top level or two of slots for smiting and casts spells out of the rest, the damage works out quite close to that of a fighter expending his resources. It gives enough resources that you have something other than just attacking about half the rounds of an average day (assuming ~18-25 rounds in an average day). Whether that's concentrating on bless, or smiting, or whatever.

Same goes for the full casters. They have fewer non-spell resources/things to do, so they have more spell slots to burn on their "fun stuff".

That's interesting. I wonder if they did the math, themselves, with those assumptions, or if it just worked out that way after play-testing to see how people used things and achieving reasonable "balance" by their metrics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's interesting. I wonder if they did the math, themselves, with those assumptions, or if it just worked out that way after play-testing to see how people used things and achieving reasonable "balance" by their metrics.

My wild guess--

It was both design and consequence. It likely started as
* ok, we want resources to matter and the decision to use them or not to be an important one.
* Being able to do thing about half the time is easy to deal with
* bigger slots should be bigger effects, especially for damage[0, 1]
* iterate over how many rounds and how many resources that is for each group
* end up balancing around top tier of slots being the major brute output, while the lower slots are reserved for long days or utility effects or easy combats.

I doubt it was all that mathematical or top-down of design, more heuristic and iterative.

But I could be totally wrong and that was merely a coincidence. It's one that feels right, and feels in tune with how most (non-forum-goers) have played in my experience. It's also not inconsistent with how warlocks are designed with their auto-scaling slots. So I'd bet that it's either an original design goal or an emergent design property. Or both.

[0] the most consistent spells for upcasting (meaning they're likely to do more when upcast) are damage ones. And while they're not exactly on par with higher-level damage spells, they're (upcasted damage spells) not a total waste most of the time. This lets you pick some non-damage upper level spells but still use your big slots for damage when you have to.
[1] HP damage is one of the balance points. Note that the balance guidelines for making spells focus on giving them appropriate damage for their level. Other effects are...much more vague.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I agree this is an issue, but I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't think full casters need more help. Cantrips seem overpowered and should, in my view, be way less damaging than attacks from a martial of the same level, as casters have the option of leveled spells where martials do not.
On my current gish character, Fighter 5 would be an utterly wasted level because Green Flame Blade is significantly better with 11 total levels. I do think at minimum cantrips should scale with caster level rather than total level;1/2 casters would get 1/2 credit and so forth.

[cutlery]

Cantrips seem overpowered and should, in my view, be way less damaging than attacks from a martial of the same level, as casters have the option of leveled spells where martials do not.


Other than the special case of the Warlock Eldritch Blast with the Agonizing Blast Invocation (which is a problem if you allow multiclassing), full caster cantrips lag far behind what martials can do.

A firebolt at level 11 averages 16.5 damage.

At level 11 a Fighter can (accuracy aside, but over time accuracy hits firebolt just as hard) with a longsword manage 3d8+15 or 28.5 damage.

A paladin at level 11 can (without smites) manage (with a longsword)(1d8+5+1d8)*2 or 28 damage.

A rogue can manage (with a rapier) 1d8+5+6d6 = 30.5


Perhaps a PHB ranger might lag (and we should all know they need help), but that's it. A horizon walker, in melee with a rapier can manage 2d8+10+2d8, the same as the paladin - 28 damage.

All compard to 16.5 damage from firebolt.

Scaling cantrips are fine.

At level 11; 2 attacks would be 2d8+10 or 19 damage. One attack with a SCAG cantrip would be (on one target) 1d8+5+2d8 damage, or 18.5 damage, and the one attack would be spiker than multiattack, and preclude offhand attacks.

Using longswords two handed, or greataxes or greatswords or mauls tip the scales even further towards the martials compared to cantrips.

[Segev]

I agree this is an issue, but I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't think full casters need more help. Cantrips seem overpowered and should, in my view, be way less damaging than attacks from a martial of the same level, as casters have the option of leveled spells where martials do not.
On my current gish character, Fighter 5 would be an utterly wasted level because Green Flame Blade is significantly better with 11 total levels. I do think at minimum cantrips should scale with caster level rather than total level;1/2 casters would get 1/2 credit and so forth.

Point of order: Green Flame Blade is only dependent on your character level. There is no "caster level" in 5e. Fighter 10/[something that gets Green Flame Blade] 1 gets a level 11 Green Flame Blade. (Unless GFB isn't a cantrip, and I'm misremembering.)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Point of order: Green Flame Blade is only dependent on your character level. There is no "caster level" in 5e. Fighter 10/[something that gets Green Flame Blade] 1 gets a level 11 Green Flame Blade. (Unless GFB isn't a cantrip, and I'm misremembering.)

That's my point. GFB is too good raw. I'm suggesting it should scale with caster level. No point in getting multiple attacks as a gish when GFB will outpace it.

[Sindeloke]

I don't think casters need any help, but I definitely appreciate that vague sense of wrongness associated with free magic outstripping costed magic. It feels weird that burning hands has an expiration date but shield never does.

I suppose one could create a kind of Green Spell Blade type cantrip. Call it Agonizing Spell Amplifier, and have it do something along the effect of "when you cast this cantrip, choose a single spell you know of 1st level or higher that deals damage. You cast that spell as normal as part of casting this one, using an appropriate available spell slot of your choice, and dealing 1d6 bonus psychic damage. This bonus damage increases at 5/11/17."

Basically spend a cantrip known to permanently amp your damage spells. Might be too strong prior to level 5, or in conjunction with something like searing ray or lightning bolt, but that can be adjusted (different cantrip for AoE vs single target? Damage dependent on enemy behavior like GFB/BB? Lots of options). As a concept at least it seems like an interesting patch.

[Segev]

That's my point. GFB is too good raw. I'm suggesting it should scale with caster level. No point in getting multiple attacks as a gish when GFB will outpace it.Or you dip 3 levels of sorcerer to get it, and quicken it every now and again so you can bonus-action use it and get your fighter multi-attack at the same time.


I don't think casters need any help, but I definitely appreciate that vague sense of wrongness associated with free magic outstripping costed magic. It feels weird that burning hands has an expiration date but shield never does.

I suppose one could create a kind of Green Spell Blade type cantrip. Call it Agonizing Spell Amplifier, and have it do something along the effect of "when you cast this cantrip, choose a single spell you know of 1st level or higher that deals damage. You cast that spell as normal as part of casting this one, using an appropriate available spell slot of your choice, and dealing 1d6 bonus psychic damage. This bonus damage increases at 5/11/17."

Basically spend a cantrip known to permanently amp your damage spells. Might be too strong prior to level 5, or in conjunction with something like searing ray or lightning bolt, but that can be adjusted (different cantrip for AoE vs single target? Damage dependent on enemy behavior like GFB/BB? Lots of options). As a concept at least it seems like an interesting patch.I suppose you could, though in a sense it's actually weaker than green-flame blade, because GFB can be spammed while this burns spell slots.

I stand by my assertion that it's not necessary. By the time first-level spell slots aren't doing enough damage to be worth it compared to a cantrip, you should be using them for utility spells and for effects other than damage. Casters are meant to be using up their higher-tier spell slots if they are looking for more damage than a cantrip spams out. It is working as intended for casting magic missile from a level-1 slot when you're 15th level to be a waste of both the action and the spell slot. (That said, if you really do just need a tiny amount of force damage, but you can't afford to miss, that would be a niche example where it'd be worth it.)

[Segev]

Good discussion.

It would be cleaner to just give all leveled instantaneous damage spells an extra die at character level 11 and 17.

An alternative would be to just have some wands of war mage have an additional property to add additional dice to leveled spells.

It doesn’t solve my sense of of injustice at chromatic orb being a negative benefit for the use of a level one slot since not everyone would have the wand. But if the playerbase really doesn’t like a rule like this I will just go the magic item route.

In an effort to help you make mental and emotional peace with it, I will suggest that it isn't an "injustice." Sometimes, there are just bad choices people can choose to make. Not every choice of resource-expenditure is created equal. A fighter can choose to spend his action Dashing away, then use Action Surge to Dash back, and do nothing but allow an AO against him and put himself right back where he started. Does this make Dash or Action Surge bad actions? No, just that spending them in this way is a foolish decision.

An 11th level sorcerer can spend his action and a 1st-level spell slot casting chromatic orb, but this is just plain worse than spending that action and a cantrip, or than spending that action and a 4th-level spell slot on chromatic orb. Or that action and a first-level spell slot on something else (maybe jump or something, I dunno) that's situationally useful.

That said, I understand the instinctive discomfort, but it isn't necessarily bad design. And it's clear enough what the effects are that it's not even really a trap.


In addition, however, I love the idea of a magic item wand that gives bonus dice to casting leveled spells.

[cutlery]

That's my point. GFB is too good raw. I'm suggesting it should scale with caster level. No point in getting multiple attacks as a gish when GFB will outpace it.

It won't outpace it, though. The only case where GFB is superior for most of a character progression is two attacks (without something like improved divine smite), and even in the case of an Eldritch knight, it isn't always superior (and that's factoring in the bonus action attack). Multiple attacks is clearly better at 11; non-EKs don't get the bonus action attack, so double attack is better pre 11, they get whatever their class specific damage boost might be (IDS for the paladin) and that outpaces GFB.

GFB/BB as a primary attack works for a one attack character, even two attacks start to outpace it, and characters with PAM or more than two attacks remain well ahead of it throughout progression. Special caveat for one attack or two attack characters with a mediocre damage bonus in tier 4, but martials built for martialing outpace them by a wide margin, anyway.

Additionally, in the case of rogues, they are basically always better off using their bonus action for an offhand attack (which means they must have taken the attack action) to maximize chances to land sneak attacks; at least until enemy AC drops below 13... in Tier 3+.

BB/GFB are cool, but they don't invalidate martials, and when you take accuracy into account they are only a modest damage boost, as it is all or nothing.

[Kane0]

Thanks! That will be my solution then!

Just make sure it gives better results for low level spells otherwise players will just end up using it on the biggest guns they have

[Asisreo1]

Reminder that, for some reasons or another, the following list of weak classes that most forum sleuths have found are: barbarians, bards, certain druids, certain clerics, fighters, monks, rogues, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks.

[bid]

Okay, it bothers me that cantrips become better than 1st level slots at high level. So I came up with this fix, but it is awkward. Can anyone suggest a less clunkier design so that a chromatic orb is always better than a firebolt?

So:
Chromatic Orb at slot 1 caster 5 = 4d8, caster 11 = 5d8
Chromatic Orb at slot 5 caster 11 = 9d8
Witchbolt at slot 1 caster 5 = 2d12, caster 11 = 3d12
Witchbolt at slot 5 caster 11 = 7d12
Just a silly comparison...

You are giving ranged smite and IDS to every caster, right?

- firebolt@5 = 2d8
- firebolt@5 + 1st slot smite = 4d8
- improved chroma orb@5 = 4d8

[Sindeloke]

I stand by my assertion that it's not necessary. By the time first-level spell slots aren't doing enough damage to be worth it compared to a cantrip, you should be using them for utility spells and for effects other than damage.

No houserule is necessary. It's a pretty well-balanced game. But aesthetics are important; if they weren't, people wouldn't keep talking about fixing 4e monks in order to play Avatar characters instead of having to reflavor a druid, or inventing houserule firearms instead of reskinning crossbows, or trying to homebrew warlords when you could make some kind of bard/battlemaster multiclass that basically filled the role. And aesthetically, "this spell that costs something is worse than this free spell and I should no longer ever cast it, it's just gonna sit in my spellbook for the rest of forever serving no purpose and doing literally nothing" is kind of ugly. So why not fix it?

[Segev]

No houserule is necessary. It's a pretty well-balanced game. But aesthetics are important; if they weren't, people wouldn't keep talking about fixing 4e monks in order to play Avatar characters instead of having to reflavor a druid, or inventing houserule firearms instead of reskinning crossbows, or trying to homebrew warlords when you could make some kind of bard/battlemaster multiclass that basically filled the role. And aesthetically, "this spell that costs something is worse than this free spell and I should no longer ever cast it, it's just gonna sit in my spellbook for the rest of forever serving no purpose and doing literally nothing" is kind of ugly. So why not fix it?

Because the described situation (bolded by me) doesn't happen. What happens is you stop casting it out of the lowest-level slot it can be cast from; you upcast it.

[Kane0]

Because the described situation (bolded by me) doesn't happen. What happens is you stop casting it out of the lowest-level slot it can be cast from; you upcast it.

That is its own can of worms though. Few blasting spells are better or as good when upcast as a higher level blast spell.

[Frogreaver]

Actually my problem isn't casters vs martials when it comes to cantrips/regular spells, I think they are close enough that it doesn't matter. My issue is that the OP is looking to boost level 1 spells to become better, which is a benefit that helps casters only. This is a power boost that that isn't applied all the way around. So, you either need to nerf cantrips to keep the overall balance correct or boost martials for the overall balance.

Frankly it seems like a nightmare to me to do either way.

I suggest that the little extra damage you can get by casting a level 1 spell even in this system stops being worth it by the time you have 4th level spells. That is doing +2d6 damage on a few at the cost of a level 1 spell slot that could have went for shield or absorb elements or tasha's hideous laughter or silent image or etc.... just isn't worth it.

I predict those spells would still never be used for damage. So I've got to say I don't think the change would actually have any real impact.


This agrees with some of the balance work I did a while ago. It seems that the basic assumption is that spell-slot resources boil down into two broad categories:
* Highest-tier slots (top level + the next one or two levels): damage output
* Lower slots (if any): utility/other effects.

It turns out that if a Paladin uses their top level or two of slots for smiting and casts spells out of the rest, the damage works out quite close to that of a fighter expending his resources. It gives enough resources that you have something other than just attacking about half the rounds of an average day (assuming ~18-25 rounds in an average day). Whether that's concentrating on bless, or smiting, or whatever.

Same goes for the full casters. They have fewer non-spell resources/things to do, so they have more spell slots to burn on their "fun stuff".

Battlemasters tend do more daily damage damage than paladins using all slots for divine smites (assuming 2 short rests) and that's before looking into manuevers that can actually increase damage output more than the +4.5 per maneuver.

[Kane0]

Ooh, alternatively you could screw around with upcasting.

Say for example all casters can burn two spell slots when casting to add together the slot levels to determine the level the spell is cast at (max what you have access to).
So you might be flush with 1st and 2nd level slots you want to blast with but at level 7+ its not going to be worth your action, so instead you burn two 2nd and you have yourself a more viable 4th level slot upcast.

Or take a leaf out of the Warlock’s book and ‘brew up some auto-scale spell slots for other casters so they dont have any low level slots to waste on subpar blasts.

[Segev]

That is its own can of worms though. Few blasting spells are better or as good when upcast as a higher level blast spell.

This is true. The choice to prepare a lower-level blasting spell is done because you want more flexibility in spell slot level, or because you want particular effects. Magic missile will always have that delightful force damage and auto-targeting. Chromatic orb will always be whatever element you need for only one spell prepared. Or known.

This gets especially important for known-spell casters, rather than prepared-spell casters.

[clash]

I think first level spells intentionally fall behind cantrips in damage or rather the cantrips intentionally outpace first level spells. This gives you the opportunity to completely abandon using 1st level spells for damage and to use them for utility instead at higher levels. At and above level 11, you suddenly have 4 uses per day of Alarm or Animal Friendship or Beast Bond, or Create or Destroy Water, or Disguise Self, or Feather fall etc not to mention Bless, bane, fog cloud, expeditious retreat which are all useful in combat. There are tons of first level spells that dont deal damage and cantrips outpacing first level spells allows you to cast those more without giving up any damage output.

You have 6th level spells, even if you increase 1st level spells to deal more damage than cantrips, it is probably a very poor use of your action and the spellslot at that point.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

Bards have enough low-level spells known that
...
A sorcerer who genuinely doesn't have any utility spells for level 1 and 2 has made a very deliberate decision; they have more level 1 and 2 spells known than of any other spell level.
Number of spells known by spell level isn't a thing any more. You just have a number of spells known, and can use them on spells of whatever level you want. Sure, at first or second level, the only spells you can pick are level 1, but you can replace them with higher-leveled spells as you level up.

[Kane0]

I still think DMs are in complete control of caster vs melee balance thru what magic items are released. I grew up in 1st edition with 1st level slots doing 10d4+10 damage magic missiles and 20d6 fireballs. The more magic items that dropped the more the game favored fighters and rangers with weapon specialization, high saves, and hp.


I think the thing that you’re feeling is the lack of caster level. 5e intentionally dropped it to minimize the quadraticness of casters

If you want to bring it back in some way thats OK, but you will probably want to balance the other side to match. If you’re only concerned about damage spells then that makes it easier.

[cutlery]

I think first level spells intentionally fall behind cantrips in damage or rather the cantrips intentionally outpace first level spells. This gives you the opportunity to completely abandon using 1st level spells for damage and to use them for utility instead at higher levels.


Yep; cantrips will never really be great damage (EB+AB aside, and even then it tends to lag behind what fighters, barbarians, and rogues can do; unless you're adding in hex - which you shouldn't). 22 damage at level 17 from a fire bolt? As a character's entire action? That's pretty pathetic; a bladesinger with a bow beats fire bolt until that point, and is only a few points behind after (19 damage), unless they have a magic bow.


Boosting something like magic missile or scorching ray makes hexing or hexblade cursing blasters even stronger, which is probably not the intent.

[Segev]

Number of spells known by spell level isn't a thing any more. You just have a number of spells known, and can use them on spells of whatever level you want. Sure, at first or second level, the only spells you can pick are level 1, but you can replace them with higher-leveled spells as you level up.

Unless I'm mistaken, you can only replace one spell per character level. That's not QUITE going to get you every low-level spell swapped out. And even with that, a sorcerer might keep chromatic orb specifically for the versatility it offers with a single spell known, even if he has to upcast it to get respectable damage out of it.

[cutlery]

Yeah, in the original post for the rule I was using scorching ray and magic missile did not benefit. The rule just was awkward which is why I was seeking other proposals.

I'm still not seeing the problem, them - aside from warlocks (and warlock dips) with eldritch blast and agonizing blast, ranged cantrips fall well behind other sources of damage.

Melee cantrips (specifically. the SCAG cantrips) aren't much better; they might have a attribute bonus but are down one damage die (and all damage die are smaller), and require a melee (not spell) attack roll.


Any reasonably built martial will have better at-will damage than a ranged cantrip like firebolt or a melee cantrip like green flame blade. I'm not seeing the problem.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm still not seeing the problem, them - aside from warlocks (and warlock dips) with eldritch blast and agonizing blast, ranged cantrips fall well behind other sources of damage.

Melee cantrips (specifically. the SCAG cantrips) aren't much better; they might have a attribute bonus but are down one damage die (and all damage die are smaller), and require a melee (not spell) attack roll.


Any reasonably built martial will have better at-will damage than a ranged cantrip like firebolt or a melee cantrip like green flame blade. I'm not seeing the problem.

I can't help but see it as a benefit that if a spellcaster does want to be frugal with their resources they have a decent option. If the goal becomes to make Cantrips less appealing, when they already fall slightly (or far) behind the alternatives, you're left with that other thing people complain about in that your spellcaster throws their biggest guns out and then complains about how they have nothing left.

I mean, you get a bit of that now, but at least you can point at a handful of cantrips still and say "That's not nothing".

Our party Sorcerer casts a lot of cantrips, not even because he's necessarily trying to maximize his spellcasting efficiency (he was allowed to use spell points, enables a lot of fairly high level spell spamming) but because they're simple, do competitive damage and Fireball isn't very efficient at single target damage.

[Tanarii]

That's my point. GFB is too good raw. I'm suggesting it should scale with caster level. No point in getting multiple attacks as a gish when GFB will outpace it.
Yup. The SCAG cantrips are just broke. It's easier to just not allow them in your campaign than worry about them.

[Cazero]

There already are rules to make low level spells more powerful as you gain levels. You can cast them in higher level slots for extra power.
The problem is not that low level spells are too weak, the problem is that low level slots are beneath high level characters. All you need is a different spell progression table where low level slots are replaced with a smaller number of higher level ones.

[Tanarii]

There already are rules to make low level spells more powerful as you gain levels. You can cast them in higher level slots for extra power.
The problem is not that low level spells are too weak, the problem is that low level slots are beneath high level characters. All you need is a different spell progression table where low level slots are replaced with a smaller number of higher level ones.
13th Age did that.

Of course it's a Heinsoo game, so it's basically a revamped version of The Other Edition That Shall Not Be Named. YMMV.

[Crucius]

I want a slot to always be better than a cantrip, because you are spending something.

So at high level, spell slots are so ubiquitous that it's not the spending of a low level spell slot that matters, but the spending of your action to cast something.
Your action is so valuable because you could have been casting an 8th level spell with it for example.
I feel that this is why cantrips overtake first level spells, and that's okay. Early game a low level spell slot is a valuable resource, but late game, with all the options available to you through spells, your action is the more valuable 'resource'.

[Frogreaver]

I can't help but see it as a benefit that if a spellcaster does want to be frugal with their resources they have a decent option. If the goal becomes to make Cantrips less appealing, when they already fall slightly (or far) behind the alternatives, you're left with that other thing people complain about in that your spellcaster throws their biggest guns out and then complains about how they have nothing left.

I mean, you get a bit of that now, but at least you can point at a handful of cantrips still and say "That's not nothing".

Our party Sorcerer casts a lot of cantrips, not even because he's necessarily trying to maximize his spellcasting efficiency (he was allowed to use spell points, enables a lot of fairly high level spell spamming) but because they're simple, do competitive damage and Fireball isn't very efficient at single target damage.

One could argue Casters at higher level already have too much utility compared to martials such that having some of their daily damage output compete with that utility might not be a terrible thing. As you note, it will more often lead to 5MWD's or similar problems. Concentration and much weaker non-concentration spells and cantrips all work hand in hand to prolong spell resources for the whole adventuring day.

[Eldariel]

There already are rules to make low level spells more powerful as you gain levels. You can cast them in higher level slots for extra power.
The problem is not that low level spells are too weak, the problem is that low level slots are beneath high level characters. All you need is a different spell progression table where low level slots are replaced with a smaller number of higher level ones.

Except, y'know, Shield, Absorb Elements, Mage Armor and even stuff like Hideous Laughter, Silent Image (okay, this is kinda made incredibly niche by permanent Major Image), Fog Cloud, Detect Magic and Grease (for example) remains useful 1-20 as can so many level 2 spells. And most of them don't level scale by slot. It simply restricts what you can use them on.

Incidentally caster level scaling did this for earlier editions but with the normalisation of slots and scaling limited to cantrips, this system broke down.

[Cazero]

Except, y'know, Shield, Absorb Elements, Mage Armor and even stuff like Hideous Laughter, Silent Image (okay, this is kinda made incredibly niche by permanent Major Image), Fog Cloud, Detect Magic and Grease (for example) remains useful 1-20 as can so many level 2 spells. And most of them don't level scale by slot. It simply restricts what you can use them on.
Yes, spells that don't scale well with spell level exist. And with a slightly smaller total number of spell slots, spellcasters would have to manage their limited resources like they already do, except now spamming utility spells will have a meaningful impact on their combat ability for the day even after gaining access to 7th level spells.
The horror.

If anything, I'm more worried my idea would break balance by allowing people to cast really powerful stuff more often.

[cutlery]

Yup. The SCAG cantrips are just broke. It's easier to just not allow them in your campaign than worry about them.

They fall behind melee pretty rapidly if one has even two attacks (and most especially if they have two attacks and some other trick, like improved divine smite). If one has a single attack, they're not bad, but then the question instead becomes why is a character built not for melee in melee?

The real exceptions to this are if you can use the rider - a mobile feat AT can step in to strike with BB and step out (but they reduce their chances to hit and apply SA by not using their offhand attack). An EK can use GFB to get the splash damage. A bladesinger might use GFB to use the splash damage on a harder target.


Even in the case of the bladesinger, GFB/BB is outpaced by a second attack, and in the case of an arcane trickster the added cumulative accuracy from an offhand strike increases average damage with sneak attack, even at level 17 (that is, on average they will do more damage forgoing BB or GFB to take the attack action and then use a bonus action to make an offhand swing).

The classes that benefit most from this are those like the lore bard (who have to use a secret, feat, or level dip to get one) or a tome lock. The tome lock is far better off eldritch blasting, and the lore bard is far better off not being on the front line.

At level 17 instead of 4d10, a lore bard with a rapier and maxed dex can do 1d8+5+3d8 from a SCAG cantrip.

One point, on average, more than a fire bolt.

[Eldariel]

Yes, spells that don't scale well with spell level exist. And with a slightly smaller total number of spell slots, spellcasters would have to manage their limited resources like they already do, except now spamming utility spells will have a meaningful impact on their combat ability for the day even after gaining access to 7th level spells.
The horror.

If anything, I'm more worried my idea would break balance by allowing people to cast really powerful stuff more often.

Point being, those slots remain incredibly important but instead of it being a choice, the Wiz is free to just spend them on their superpowerful reactions essentially freeing them of most of the resource management.

[cutlery]

Point being, those slots remain incredibly important but instead of it being a choice, the Wiz is free to just spend them on their superpowerful reactions essentially freeing them of most of the resource management.

Boosting damage from low level slots doesn't make choosing harder, though, it just offers casters more big guns, as everything else in terms of at-will damage is roughly balanced against the cantrips.

It makes blasters better blasters.

[Eldariel]

Boosting damage from low level slots doesn't make choosing harder, though, it just offers casters more big guns, as everything else in terms of at-will damage is roughly balanced against the cantrips.

It makes blasters better blasters.

Yeah but blasters are already quite weak comparatively (HP scales but CC largely remains as effective): contrast Magic Missile vs. Hideous laughter on level 1 vs. CR1 and level 20 vs. CR20. On level 1, Magic Missile can knock out around a half of their HP with no check. Hideous Laughter has about 60% chance of completely destroying the creature.

Meanwhile, on level 20 Magic Missile hits the target for maybe 2% of their total HP (so 50 Magic Missiles could theoretically kill the target). Meanwhile, Hideous Laughter is still about 50% to completely destroy the enemy. Now, granted, immunity to Laughter gets more common as does Legendary Resistance. But never does the efficiency ever drop anywhere near the 2% ballpark. This goes for CC vs. Damage across the board.

It wouldn't break anything to bring damage scaling back to damage spells; on the contrary, it would help to balance out the different caster builds. Caster vs. Martial balance is ****e anyways. That needs to be dealt with separately; making one kind of Wizard the optimal build over others does nothing to help martials, but it does introduce more trap options and make build diversity among casters smaller.

[Tanarii]

They fall behind melee pretty rapidly if one has even two attacks (and most especially if they have two attacks and some other trick, like improved divine smite). If one has a single attack, they're not bad, but then the question instead becomes why is a character built not for melee in melee?

Not generally unless you're stacking a fair amount of extra damage some how.

But yes, they're most broken on Rogues and Clerics and some Bards, who otherwise have to struggle to get Extra Attack.

The big mistake was they're scaling weapon attacks. No one worries about (or abuses) Lightning Lure or Sword Burst.

[cutlery]

It wouldn't break anything to bring damage scaling back to damage spells; on the contrary, it would help to balance out the different caster builds.




Do casters, particularly casters with access to magic missile, generally lack for damage options?

Not saving slots for shield and absorb elements is foolish. It's foolish at level 1, too.



Not generally unless you're stacking a fair amount of extra damage some how.

But yes, they're most broken on Rogues and Clerics and some Bards, who otherwise have to struggle to get Extra Attack.

The big mistake was they're scaling weapon attacks. No one worries about (or abuses) Lightning Lure or Sword Burst.



Rogues using BB/GFB are missing out on a chance to get an extra attack. From a pure damage maximization perspective, the increased cumulative probability of landing a hit from the bonus action attack outpaces GFB/BB by a few points, from level 1 to level 20. You have to calculate the way an added attack increases their accuracy correctly for this to matter, but it is very much the point for rogues that the SCAG cantrips are a damage loss.

Bards and Clerics have to go out of their way to get them, and they still let them vaguely suck less in melee - and that is only the case if their melee attack stat keeps pace with their spellcasting stat. If it doesn't, and instead they have a 14 or 16, BB/GFB is a net damage loss even for them, and something to use only when pressed. When you account for accuracy and the fact that most single attack classes don't have the ASIs to get their melee attack stat to 20 very fast if ever, the melee cantrips aren't that big a deal.

Now, if you have all the stats in the world, they're a bit better, but still include all the risks of being in melee and only ever about one point better than fire bolt. Fire bolt!

They're flashy, but they just aren't much damage.

[bid]

and that is only the case if their melee attack stat keeps pace with their spellcasting stat. If it doesn't, and instead they have a 14 or 16, BB/GFB is a net damage loss even for them,
Just a note that saves are 3 point worse than attack rolls, so a Wis20 DC is just as likely to harm as a Dex14 attack rolls.

Of course, what you say is true for attack rolls cantrips.

[Tanarii]

Rogues using BB/GFB are missing out on a chance to get an extra attack. From a pure damage maximization perspective, the increased cumulative probability of landing a hit from the bonus action attack outpaces GFB/BB by a few points, from level 1 to level 20. You have to calculate the way an added attack increases their accuracy correctly for this to matter, but it is very much the point for rogues that the SCAG cantrips are a damage loss.

If you're referring to missing on the first attack and hitting with the second, landing sneak attack ... you're wrong on a straight DPR. You gain more than you lose out on from a second chance at SA, and far more if you have advantage anyway. (See examples below).

However there are some other considerations. With dual shortswords the damage is consistent, the DPR number doesn't tell it all, it's also about lower the chance of doing 0 damage. I've broken it out below so that can be seen. Also I consider BB a better option in many situations, you give the enemy the devils choice of moving or taking damage. And of course, you retain your bonus action with the cantrips for other uses, which the rogue has plenty, like Disengage after hitting with BB. True also if you hit with the second attack in dual wielding, and in fact the broken out (second if first hit) below is lost DPR in many cases, because you're not often going to take that second shot if the first hit. Of course the flip side is you're in melee range if you use the cantrips, which isn't true if you use for example dual daggers or an XBE rogue. But if feats are allowed the numbers all change anyway.

5th level rogue with Dex 18 & magic attack stat 14 (probably Int, can be Cha) using shortswords vs rapier with gfb/ bb(no move) / bb (move)

Without advantage (ally next to primary target), 60% hit chance (gold standard for DPR)
SS = .6*(3.5+4+10.5) (first)+ .24*(3.5+10.5) (second if first misses) +.36*(3.5) (second if first hit)= 10.5+3.36+1.26 = 15.12
GFB = .6*(4.5+4+4.5+10.5) {primary}+.6*(6.5) {secondary} = 14.1+3.9 = 17
BB (no move) = .6*(4.5+4+4.5+10.5) {primary} = 14.1
BB (move) = .6*(4.5+4+4.5+10.5) {primary}+.6*(9) {secondary} = 14.1+5.4 = 19.5

With advantage, 84% hit chance (gold standard for DPR with advantage)
SS = .84*(3.5+4+10.5) (first)+ .1344*(3.5+10.5) (second if first misses) +.7056*(3.5) (second if first hit)= 15.12+1.8816+ 2.4696 = 19.4712
GFB = .84*(4.5+4+4.5+10.5) {primary}+.84*(6.5) {secondary} = 19.74+5.46 = 25.2
BB (no move) = .84*(4.5+4+4.5+10.5) {primary} = 19.74
BB (move) = .84*(4.5+4+4.5+10.5) {primary}+.84*(9) {secondary} = 19.74+7.56 = 27.3

(Number crunching post brought to you by coffee in the evening) :smallamused:

[cutlery]

Just a note that saves are 3 point worse than attack rolls, so a Wis20 DC is just as likely to harm as a Dex14 attack rolls.

Of course, what you say is true for attack rolls cantrips.

Right, I don’t even think of those much because of how poor they are when you factor in the likelihood of landing full damage.

[Eldariel]

Just a note that saves are 3 point worse than attack rolls, so a Wis20 DC is just as likely to harm as a Dex14 attack rolls.

That would be true if not for the target numbers being different: whereas AC ranges from ~13-20 on most ordinary enemies, Wis-saves range from 0 to 11ish. Anything without proficient Wis is basically an animal with regards to Wis-save; in general weak saves are much lower than AC and even strong saves are only competitive. So in this sense the -2 is more than made up for by the lower save base.

[bid]

Wis-saves range from 0 to 11ish.
Wis DC, not Wis save. We are talking about cleric here.

Sacred Flame is the only damage cantrip from PHB IIRC, and it's a Dex save.

You'd have to bring armor to cancel out the save penalty, a Dex12 AC14 creature is just as strong against Dex save as attack roll.

[Eldariel]

Wis DC, not Wis save. We are talking about cleric here.

Sacred Flame is the only damage cantrip from PHB IIRC, and it's a Dex save.

You'd have to bring armor to cancel out the save penalty, a Dex12 AC14 creature is just as strong against Dex save as attack roll.

Actually that's +1 weaker. 14 Dex 14 AC creature would be accurate, yes. Toll the Dead is a Cleric cantrip too and while not PHB, well, it's there in PHBII. Either way, saves progress far slower than AC: while AC ranges from ~10-13 to mid-20s, many creatures have non-proficient saves that barely scale. Dex in particular is a stat that doesn't really scale with level. Which is why 1-for-1 comparison is very difficult: AC scales for everyone but saves only for select creatures. Which means it's generally optimal to have an AC-targeting attack and a save-targeting one and pick the one your target is weaker against. AC-targeting is useful against Magic Resistance and such while save-targeting is generally better against ordinary opponents who don't happen to be exceptionally strong in that stat.

[bid]

Actually that's +1 weaker. 14 Dex 14 AC creature would be accurate, yes.
Let's do 50% harm...

Level 1 nature cleric with Wis16 has DC 8+2+3 = 13, casts sacred flame.
The creature has a +2 Dex save and rolling 11+ causes no harm.

Level 1 nature cleric with Wis16 has an attack roll modifier of 2+3 = 5, attacks with shillelagh.
The creature has AC16 save and rolling 11+ causes harm.


So a creature with AC16 and Dex14 has a 50% chance of harm from either attack.