What spells deserve more upcasting options?

[Ionathus]

The discussion about a 5e Permanency spell and the idea of upcasting it got me thinking about other spells that deserve upcast features. What are some that you've always wanted?

I'll go first!

I've always felt that Lesser Restoration deserved more utility: maybe instead of having Greater Restoration as a separate (extremely fringe-case) spell, it could be wrapped in as an upcast.
Spike Growth is a super-cool and flavorful spell that quickly stops dealing meaningful damage at higher levels: a damage boost on upcast, similar to other Evocation spells, would be nice.
Stoneskin on multiple allies would be nice. It's not like resistance to nonmagical weapon damage is all that OP at the point you have 5th level spellslots, anyway.

[Man_Over_Game]

The discussion about a 5e Permanency spell and the idea of upcasting it got me thinking about other spells that deserve upcast features. What are some that you've always wanted?

I'll go first!

I've always felt that Lesser Restoration deserved more utility: maybe instead of having Greater Restoration as a separate (extremely fringe-case) spell, it could be wrapped in as an upcast.
Spike Growth is a super-cool and flavorful spell that quickly stops dealing meaningful damage at higher levels: a damage boost on upcast, similar to other Evocation spells, would be nice.
Stoneskin on multiple allies would be nice. It's not like resistance to nonmagical weapon damage is all that OP at the point you have 5th level spellslots, anyway.


All of them. That's the dream. If upcasting was worthwhile, it'd open a world of opportunities for multicasting between casters. The only reason we don't see multiclassed casters now is because of how weak upcasting is compared to the spells you learn as a single class. The spell slots you earn don't hold value unless they're being spent on higher level spells. So my suggestion is just to make the power curve defined by the spell slots, not the spells. And that happens with good upcasting.

Why would it matter if Sleep was as powerful as a level 3 spell if it cost a level 3 spell slot?

[Hytheter]

I'll second merging Lesser and Greater Restorations to simply be Restoration.

I'd like to see more spells that can have their duration extended, as well as things like area of effect. There are plenty of other things I'd like to see, but I can't think of many of the top of my head. Mirror Image gets more mirrors?

At it's greatest extreme upcasting could be used to drastically cut the spell list down, with spells potentially ranging all the way from lowly cantrip up to ninth with varying changes the further up you go. This would be pretty drastic and likely require changes on a deeper system level, but a man can dream...

[Mastikator]

All of them. That's the dream. If upcasting was worthwhile, it'd open a world of opportunities for multicasting between casters. The only reason we don't see multiclassed casters now is because of how weak upcasting is compared to the spells you learn as a single class. The spell slots you earn don't hold value unless they're being spent on higher level spells. So my suggestion is just to make the power curve defined by the spell slots, not the spells. And that happens with good upcasting.

Why would it matter if Sleep was as powerful as a level 3 spell if it cost a level 3 spell slot?

You can't down cast though, if sleep was as good as any other 3rd level spell when casting using a 3rd level spell slot then it would be objectively better due to having increased utility of also being useful as 1st and 2nd level spell slots. A 3rd level spell slot would be limited in a way that Sleep wouldn't be. All upside and no downside. If a 1st level spell upcast to 3rd level then why ever take a 3rd level spell?

On the other hand maybe all spells should have downcasting as well? Or maybe remake them as 1st level spells with upcasting options.

[Man_Over_Game]

You can't down cast though, if sleep was as good as any other 3rd level spell when casting using a 3rd level spell slot then it would be objectively better due to having increased utility of also being useful as 1st and 2nd level spell slots. A 3rd level spell slot would be limited in a way that Sleep wouldn't be. All upside and no downside. If a 1st level spell upcast to 3rd level then why ever take a 3rd level spell?

On the other hand maybe all spells should have downcasting as well? Or maybe remake them as 1st level spells with upcasting options.

Because versatility. Knocking someone unconscious in a small area is a pretty specific power. But what if you wanted a teleport? Or what if you wanted to deal damage in a larger area? You don't get those things until about level 3 spells.

I don't necessarily mean that lower level spells need to be as good as higher cast spells, but somewhat comparable. I mean, Acid Arrow and Spiritual Weapon are the same level. There's a lot of room for valid variance.

I feel like 0.5 less than the spell level power should be a good estimate. That is, a level 3 spell slot on an upcasted spell is about as powerful as a level 2.5 spell.

[MoiMagnus]

I second "all of them" in principle, though I agree that some upcasting are much harder to balance than others.

Upcasted dimensional door for additional passengers (so caster+2 at lv 5, caster +3 at lv 6) is a recurrent homebrew at our table.

We recently asked for an upcast of Greater Restoration to heal multiple exhaustion levels at once, and the GM approved by just requiring the component cost to be proportional to the number of exhaustion levels healed.

Upcasting Haste to target multiple allies was once used during a battle.

[As you might have guessed by the wording here, we simply ask to the GM "can we upcast this spell?" and the answer is usually "yes, what effect do you have in mind?" and the suggestion is usually approved]

[Mitchellnotes]

I think the ones that need it the most would be any spell that tend to be a more warlock specific spell. Having a casting system designed around limited slots that scale with level only works if they actually scale with level. The others would be spells that do damage but don't scale.

The worst offender is probably Hunger of Hadar. Being a 3rd level spell that doesn't scale that is lock specific is just... something. Even if it just scaled to 5th level, like using a 5th level slot increased the damage to 3d6 instead of 2d6.

Phantasmal force and suggestion (though not lock specific) are also two other spells that would benefit from some scaling. Phantasmal force could benefit from scaling damage (the damage is kind of the least important part of the spell anyway) and upcasting suggestion (again, maybe in a 5th level slot?) could provide a save instead of automatically ending the spell on damage. Adding targets per spell level would likely be a bit much.

Spells that either don't provide additional saves (hypnotic pattern) or just work (misty step) are likely fine, but spells that do damage or require saves (especially ongoing) should have some upcast benefit

[Hytheter]

[As you might have guessed by the wording here, we simply ask to the GM "can we upcast this spell?" and the answer is usually "yes, what effect do you have in mind?" and the suggestion is usually approved]

You know, I might actually try that out in a session some time.

[Mastikator]

Because versatility. Knocking someone unconscious in a small area is a pretty specific power. But what if you wanted a teleport? Or what if you wanted to deal damage in a larger area? You don't get those things until about level 3 spells.

I don't necessarily mean that lower level spells need to be as good as higher cast spells, but somewhat comparable. I mean, Acid Arrow and Spiritual Weapon are the same level. There's a lot of room for valid variance.

I feel like 0.5 less than the spell level power should be a good estimate. That is, a level 3 spell slot on an upcasted spell is about as powerful as a level 2.5 spell.

How should a spell like Misty Step or Dimension Door be upcast to level 7? Obviously it can't be as strong as Teleport as that would render Teleport redundant.

[Man_Over_Game]

How should a spell like Misty Step or Dimension Door be upcast to level 7? Obviously it can't be as strong as Teleport as that would render Teleport redundant.

Add 1 more valid target, add a bonus to the range equal to the base.

For instance, a level 5 Misty Step lets you grab three willing+adjacent allies and has a range of 150 feet. A level 5 Dimension Door lets you take two allies and has a range of 1000 feet.

Using this kind of scaling, each of them are valid for different reasons at different levels. You could, for example:

Use Teleport for super-long distances (like miles) to get past the foe's blockades without alerting anyone. Once your party sneaks into position, you use Misty Step as a level 6 spell for a surprise attack on the enemy general. If things go to hell, you saved a level 6 Dimension Door as an escape option for 4 members of your party, hoping the rest can get out fine.

[Emongnome777]

How should a spell like Misty Step or Dimension Door be upcast to level 7? Obviously it can't be as strong as Teleport as that would render Teleport redundant.

What about additional uses for Misty Step? “You can teleport 30ft one additional time as a bonus action on a later round (within 1 minute of the casting of the spell) for each additional spell slot used above 2nd.” Yeah, the wording needs to be cleaned up before final use, but you get the gist.

[Segev]

Compare 5e (https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantomSteed.htm) to 3.5e (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantomSteed.htm) phantom steed:


Phantom Steed (5e)
3rd-level illusion (ritual)
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 hour
A Large quasi-real, horselike creature appears on the ground in an unoccupied space of your choice within range. You decide the creature’s appearance, but it is equipped with a saddle, bit, and bridle. Any of the equipment created by the spell vanishes in a puff of smoke if it is carried more than 10 feet away from the steed.

For the duration, you or a creature you choose can ride the steed. The creature uses the statistics for a riding horse, except it has a speed of 100 feet and can travel 10 miles in an hour, or 13 miles at a fast pace. When the spell ends, the steed gradually fades, giving the rider 1 minute to dismount. The spell ends if you use an action to dismiss it or if the steed takes any damage.


Phantom Steed (3.5e)
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 0 ft.
Effect: One quasi-real, horselike creature
Duration: 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You conjure a Large, quasi-real, horselike creature. The steed can be ridden only by you or by the one person for whom you specifically created the mount. A phantom steed has a black head and body, gray mane and tail, and smoke-colored, insubstantial hooves that make no sound. It has what seems to be a saddle, bit, and bridle. It does not fight, but animals shun it and refuse to attack it.

The mount has an AC of 18 (-1 size, +4 natural armor, +5 Dex) and 7 hit points +1 hit point per caster level. If it loses all its hit points, the phantom steed disappears. A phantom steed has a speed of 20 feet per caster level, to a maximum of 240 feet. It can bear its rider’s weight plus up to 10 pounds per caster level.

These mounts gain certain powers according to caster level. A mount’s abilities include those of mounts of lower caster levels.

8th Level
The mount can ride over sandy, muddy, or even swampy ground without difficulty or decrease in speed.

10th Level
The mount can use water walk at will (as the spell, no action required to activate this ability).

12th Level
The mount can use air walk at will (as the spell, no action required to activate this ability) for up to 1 round at a time, after which it falls to the ground.

14th Level
The mount can fly at its speed (average maneuverability).

The spell is almost custom-built from 3e for upcasting! The base form in 5e is nearly useless, but is a ritual so you can cast it if for some reason it really helps and you don't have the spell slot available. But if you could upcast it, it would actually be pretty worthwhile. Give it the 8th-level boost when upcast to a 4th level spell slot. The 10th level boost when upcast to a 5th level spell slot. The 12th level boost as a 6th level spell slot, and the 14th level boost as a 7th. Maybe increase its duration to 8 hours with an upcast to at least 4th level.



What about additional uses for Misty Step? “You can teleport 30ft one additional time as a bonus action on a later round (within 1 minute of the casting of the spell) for each additional spell slot used above 2nd.” Yeah, the wording needs to be cleaned up before final use, but you get the gist.

Or increase the distance on the single teleport. An additional 30 ft. per spell slot level above 2nd would get you to 500 ft. for a 6th level spell slot, compared to dimension door having a fixed range of 500 ft. Could give dimension door an additional 100 ft. per spell slot above level 4, too, at that rate.

[GeneralVryth]

I will join the chorus of all them. Here is a quote of a post I made awhile back on this issue (as well as the more general issue of balancing spellcasters and sub-class bonuses) with a couple example spells modified to be more up-castable while also shrinking the spell lists:



Here are a couple of examples (and I would be tempted to go further than this adding a choice of bonuses for the major up-casting bonuses):

Fireball
1st-level
Tags: Evocation, Fire, Destruction, Dexterity
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: Instantaneous
A glowing bead flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 2d6 for each slot level above 1st. When cast with a spell slot 3rd level or higher the range increases to 150 feet and the radius increases to 20 feet. When cast with a spell slot of 6th level or higher the Duration becomes "Concentration, up to 1 minute" and instead of detonating immediately the bead detonates when your concentration ends (which you can choose to do voluntarily). When cast with a 9th level spell slot the range increases to 1 mile, the radius becomes 40 feet, and the damage increases by an additional 6d6.

Dimension Door
2nd-level
Tags: Conjuration, Teleportation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
Briefly surrounded by a ring of light, you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 3rd level or higher you increase the range by 15 feet for each slot level above 2nd.
When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 4th level or higher you may cast this spell as an action instead of a bonus action to multiply the range by 10, and teleport to a location you can see, you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating distance and direction, such as “200 feet straight downward” or “upward to the northwest at a 45-degree angle, 300 feet.” Additionally, when cast with a spell slot of 4th level or higher you can also bring one willing creature within 5 feet of you that is of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 7th or higher you can bring additional willing creature along, and the willing creatures you bring along can be within 20 feet of you. You can bring an additional creature for each slot level above 7th.

If you re-did all of the spells in the game with robust up-casting, and stringing together related spells in the up-casting chains (pretty much every spell from 1 to 4 has some kind of higher level version, and most higher level spells could be brought down a couple levels in controlled ways, Foresight for example could easily be a 6th or 7th level spell with a duration of "Concentration, 1 minute"), you could remove 1/3 to 1/2 of the spells in the game while simultaneously increasing the number of "good" spells. By giving spells tags you can have classes or sub-classes that are restricted to learning spells with given tags (I would probably have a tag for each school, 1 for each damage type, 1 for the kinds of saving throws, and 1 category of tags that is more descriptive like "Destruction, Teleportation, Restoration, Summoning etc..." and each spell should have 2 to 6 tags, with some spells potentially having tags for multiple schools Fear being one that could have both Necromancy and Enchantment).

Once you do that, because individual spells are more flexible you go through and re-balance the spell casters to have a max prepared/known spells of somewhere between 6 and 18 (or something along those lines). Wizards probably only get 1 free new spell to their spell book at every Wizard level (or every other Wizard level with sub-classes giving a few bonuses). Finally, every ability in the game like "Empowered Evocation" instead of giving a flat damage increase it gives you a free 1 level up-cast for the spell type in question. This helps with balancing spells by allowing fewer outside factors to adjust their operation (and removes non-sense like the Nuclear Wizard). I would probably also completely remove meta-magic from Sorcerers as part of their re-design instead making them feats with more controlled effects and limits.

With that done Wizards would be better balanced straight away. Most of the other caster classes would become stronger. Multi-classing with casters would become more reasonable (you would probably need to do something to control spells prepared when mutli-classed, but that shouldn't be too hard). You are going to have an easier time creating specialized caster classes in general (the tags are huge here). The only really major piece missing in my mind would be a major re-work of the Sorcerer. But if you still want to want to re-do the Wizard sub-classes to be more specialized you will have a much easier time of it, I would probably just do something simple and for each of the school based sub-classes have it choose 1 of 2 or 3 schools that it can't learn spells from, along side better abilities that buff its specialized school, that should get you the specialization you are looking for, while leaving the Bladesinger, War Wizard, and Scribe as more generalist Wizards.

Anyways, that would be my kind of 5.5 or 6.0 vision for spell-casting and casters. Martials are a different story.

[Hytheter]

How should a spell like Misty Step or Dimension Door be upcast to level 7? Obviously it can't be as strong as Teleport as that would render Teleport redundant.

MOG already posed a good answer, but my solution would be to cull two of them and condense the whole line into a single upcastable spell.

[quindraco]

How should a spell like Misty Step or Dimension Door be upcast to level 7? Obviously it can't be as strong as Teleport as that would render Teleport redundant.

Teleport is crazy powerful, so that's an easy bar to pass. SL means Spell Level below. Note that Misty Step already has an L5 version called "Far Step" because Xanathar's should have reprinted Misty Step with an upcast and failed to do so. My version of Misty Step is far more powerful than Far Step, but Far Step is underpowered for an L5 spell.

Misty Step
2nd-level conjuration
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous+

Briefly surrounded by silvery mist, you and up to (SL-2) willing creatures your size or smaller within your reach teleport up to 15*SL feet to an unoccupied space that you can see. If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you can make the duration Concentration: (SL-3) minutes; on each of your turns before the spell ends, you can use a bonus action to teleport in this way again.

[Kane0]

Given that upcasting currently covers more damage, more targets and more duration, i'd like more range and more area added to the list.

Edit: some modularity might be good too. Say for example misty step could be an extra 30' per spell level upcast, or take one ally with you for one level of upcast too. Cone of cold cpuld add extra damage or extra area affected for each level upcast (your choice when casting), etc etc

[diplomancer]

Find Steed, with increasing CR/slot level. Find Greater Steed is basically a patch.

[Hytheter]

Find Steed, with increasing CR/slot level. Find Greater Steed is basically a patch.

Good call. I'd say it makes sense for spells like Polymorph to scale with slot level instead of target level/CR as well.

[Chronic]

I would take a different approach and say that upcasting should stay like it is. Why give caster more versatility when they already are the most versatile classes in the game. They don't need it.

[RSP]

I go back and forth on this.

As Chronic stated, Wizards don’t need more oomph to their class, however, if a Sorcerer could have 1 spell that was “Fire Damage” and was Burning Hands at lvl 1, Flaming Sphere at level 2, Fireball at 3…Meteor Swarm at 9, would kind of make sense.

Having Prot From Evil and Good as a 4th level upcast to make the entire party immune to a lot of creature’s abilities basically means using those creatures is a waste of time for the DM. Yeah you have resource attrition in the form of thst 4th level slot, but are those encounters now any fun? Likewise, Sleep is one of the best spells at lower levels: it just ends encounters. I’m not sure I want that throughout a campaign.

Combining Lesser Res and Greater Res seems fine, though it actually then adds GR to some spell lists (not a huge deal in my book, but other add one might be for some class lists).

Ultimately, I wish this had been done on the outset of 5e, but I’m not sure the implications of homebrewing it as a whole system is worth it, due to casters already being versatile / powerful enough. I certainly can see it on a few select spells.

[JellyPooga]

The Devs definitely missed a trick with regard to upcasting, from the get-go, IMO.

The very fact that spells like Lesser and Greater Restoration or Cure Wounds and its Mass version are separate spells just baffled me entirely. For me, if upcasting is going to be a thing at all, it may as well go whole hog; start with some basic effects (heal, damage, teleport, etc.) and scale everything up from there in a modular fashion; an ingrained and innate 3ed metamagic system, if you want to think of it in that fashion. At higher levels, more complex or powerful effects get their "baseline" spell level.

Let's face it, is there really any good reason to separate Misty Step from Dimension Door from Teleport? They all functionally do the same thing, just at different ranges. The same goes for Burning Hands, Fireball, all the way up to Meteor Swarm. Is there a terribly compelling reason to separate their effects out into discrete spells? The only reason I can think of is marketing; discrete spells means more can be released at a later date, but even then, Wizards could have adopted the GURPS model of giving examples of how the basic kit can function in supplementary releases; essentially doing the groundwork for you that you'd otherwise have to do yourself, in addition to releasing additional content/effects.

[MoiMagnus]

Let's face it, is there really any good reason to separate Misty Step from Dimension Door from Teleport? They all functionally do the same thing, just at different range.

I agree with most of what you say, but small nitpicking:
Misty Step use a BA, which is a major feature as it means the spell can be used tactically at the middle of a fight (which other teleportation spells cannot, or at least are awkward to use as such). It's the "healing word" of teleportation, not the "cure wound".

[Chronic]

I go back and forth on this.

As Chronic stated, Wizards don’t need more oomph to their class, however, if a Sorcerer could have 1 spell that was “Fire Damage” and was Burning Hands at lvl 1, Flaming Sphere at level 2, Fireball at 3…Meteor Swarm at 9, would kind of make sense.

Having Prot From Evil and Good as a 4th level upcast to make the entire party immune to a lot of creature’s abilities basically means using those creatures is a waste of time for the DM. Yeah you have resource attrition in the form of thst 4th level slot, but are those encounters now any fun? Likewise, Sleep is one of the best spells at lower levels: it just ends encounters. I’m not sure I want that throughout a campaign.

Combining Lesser Res and Greater Res seems fine, though it actually then adds GR to some spell lists (not a huge deal in my book, but other add one might be for some class lists).

Ultimately, I wish this had been done on the outset of 5e, but I’m not sure the implications of homebrewing it as a whole system is worth it, due to casters already being versatile / powerful enough. I certainly can see it on a few select spells.

Actually I don't think sorcerer need a special treatment, even less now that they have tasha's subclass. I always considered sorcerers as a powerful class that require a lot of careful decision regarding the spell list. The cost of having metamagic in my opinion.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Let's face it, is there really any good reason to separate Misty Step from Dimension Door from Teleport?

Spells known and prepared would be a pretty large reason, whether it's a good reason depends on how well you think it does it's job.

I'd worry if too many spells could be upcast into a variety of useful effects for different situations that we would have a real chance of seeing the white room spellcaster who is ready for anything. That's just my personal worry though, I'd be open to trying out a lot of these changes for a practical test rather than a theoretical one.

[JellyPooga]

I agree with most of what you say, but small nitpicking:
Misty Step use a BA, which is a major feature as it means the spell can be used tactically at the middle of a fight (which other teleportation spells cannot, or at least are awkward to use as such). It's the "healing word" of teleportation, not the "cure wound".

Granted, but consider that the shorter cast time is potentially part of the modularity of spells. To spitball, let's call a lvl.1 effect "Teleport" that is cast as an Action, with an upcast option to reduce than to a Bonus Action as a lvl.2 spell.

Where a modular system falls down is the potential for too much leeway; by learning just a few spell effects per level, you have access to an exponential number of actual spells. There are ways to limit this somewhat, by limiting the number of "modulators" a given caster has, but it would still be a balancing nightmare to introduce even a single additional effect or modulator.

[Chronos]

Quoth Man Over Game:

Why would it matter if Sleep was as powerful as a level 3 spell if it cost a level 3 spell slot?
You just spent a long paragraph explaining why it would matter: It would make spellcasters more versatile and powerful. Casters don't need a buff.

[RSP]

Actually I don't think sorcerer need a special treatment, even less now that they have tasha's subclass. I always considered sorcerers as a powerful class that require a lot of careful decision regarding the spell list. The cost of having metamagic in my opinion.

Sorcerers, minus Tasha’s, are just bad Wizards. How bad is a point that can be argued, but their class design puts way too much stress on one resource: Sorc Points. Add in a low number of spells known and having to select those around two metamagic options and, yeah, they’re bad Wizards.

They can be effective in their roles, for sure, but I’m not putting them in the same class as Wizards (pun intended).

Using something like this upcasting of spells would help the Sorc in terms of spells known, but it would make Wizards ridiculously more versatile. So it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

And again, just flat up upping what casters can do, while ignoring martials, might not be a good thing anyway.

[kingcheesepants]

I'd agree with those saying that most spells should have at least some option for upcasting and that there are a fair number of buffs (haste, fire shield, protection from energy, etc) would be really nice if they upcast to allow coverage for multiple people. I'd also like to see better versions of phantom steed and magnificent mansion. Neither are bad spells in and of themselves but having a flying mount or allowing your whole party to ride or making the steed capable of lasting past 1 AoE would be extremely handy and I am rarely in a situation where having the mansion for a day is worth a spell slot but it might be worthwhile if it lasted for longer.

[GeneralVryth]

You just spent a long paragraph explaining why it would matter: It would make spellcasters more versatile and powerful. Casters don't need a buff.

Man this is an awful sentiment. Something being strong is no excuse for leaving mechanics in a clunky fashion. It's also why I pretty much always advocate re-balancing spells, including the number of spells known for the various caster classes alongside improving up-casting. Improved up-casting likely reducing (if not significantly reducing) the number of spells in the game overall also helps with this. It's a lot easier to balance 100 of something instead of 200 of something, even if those 100 are slightly more complex.

[Kane0]

Man this is an awful sentiment. Something being strong is no excuse for leaving mechanics in a clunky fashion. It's also why I pretty much always advocate re-balancing spells, including the number of spells known for the various caster classes alongside improving up-casting. Improved up-casting likely reducing (if not significantly reducing) the number of spells in the game overall also helps with this. It's a lot easier to balance 100 of something instead of 200 of something, even if those 100 are slightly more complex.

Aye. If we're reducing the number of spells because we're collapsing them together we can also reduce the number of spells known/prepped to compensate.

[Chronic]

Sorcerers, minus Tasha’s, are just bad Wizards. How bad is a point that can be argued, but their class design puts way too much stress on one resource: Sorc Points. Add in a low number of spells known and having to select those around two metamagic options and, yeah, they’re bad Wizards.

They can be effective in their roles, for sure, but I’m not putting them in the same class as Wizards (pun intended).

Using something like this upcasting of spells would help the Sorc in terms of spells known, but it would make Wizards ridiculously more versatile. So it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

And again, just flat up upping what casters can do, while ignoring martials, might not be a good thing anyway.

Sorcerers are excellent spellcasters and always have been. Metamagic is a really strong feature and subtle especially is both unique and extremely powerful in social situations (and is decent in combat) . Empower and the one that change damage type makes them the best blaster casters outside of edge cases such as the gimmicky nuclear wizard.
Sure if you just dungeon delve they are lacking compared to a wizard, but in games that relly on all pillars of plays, I've had more fun and felt more powerful playing sorcerers. They are also massively better at multiclassing. With tasha's subclass, I don't think I will ever play a wizard again.

[RSP]

Sorcerers are excellent spellcasters and always have been. Metamagic is a really strong feature and subtle especially is both unique and extremely powerful in social situations (and is decent in combat) . Empower and the one that change damage type makes them the best blaster casters outside of edge cases such as the gimmicky nuclear wizard.
Sure if you just dungeon delve they are lacking compared to a wizard, but in games that relly on all pillars of plays, I've had more fun and felt more powerful playing sorcerers. They are also massively better at multiclassing. With tasha's subclass, I don't think I will ever play a wizard again.

I’m not sure what the bar is for being an “excellent” spellcaster as being a full caster is a fantastic ability in 5e. Non-combat, Wizards win just by sheer versatility, in my opinion. Subtle is the best Metamagic, but it’s campaign/DM dependent on if it’s even needed. Sorc as a whole are fine, but aren’t as good as Wizards.

The new subclasses, particularly AM, are probably on par with Wizards for what they do. But that’s different than saying the class is on par with Wizards, and they each are kind of contained in what they do (not sure either has enough variance to make me want to make multiple characters with the same subclass).

[Sorinth]

All spells should have good upcasting qualities. But it will have to be a 6e thing since it has to be built from the ground alongside class features.

[LudicSavant]

Let's ask ourselves, what's upcasting for? And what's it do for gameplay in the current design? Why might we want to change it, or not change it?

Upcasting's primary function is to give some extra slot versatility and longevity to spells that otherwise don't stay relevant as you level up -- direct damage spells being first and foremost among these (which is why they're the ones that usually have upcasting options). But things like Shield (and indeed, basically all AC-boosting spells) don't need upcasting to stay relevant at higher levels (and thus usually don't have upcasting options).

What upcasting doesn't (usually) do is make lower level spells as good as higher level spells that do the same thing. And that makes sense -- access to those higher level spells represents an additional investment, and they have lower slot versatility (e.g. you can't 'downcast' them) and so you'd have to eat more preparation slots to get the 'optimal' spell for each role in each spell level slot.

This also allows creates some decision points and opportunities for character expression. For example, you could decide to have the optimal level 3, level 4, and level 5 spell for a single role all prepared, in which case you're basically saying "I'm a specialist at this." Whereas another character might have just the level 3 spell prepared (e.g. "I just prepped Fireball for my AoE option"), and use those other 2 preparation slots on covering other roles (like Banishment or Scrying).


Why would it matter if Sleep was as powerful as a level 3 spell if it cost a level 3 spell slot?

Some examples of why it makes a game design difference: If a 3rd level blast spell was as powerful in a 9th level spell slot as Meteor Swarm, then (1) you would have to prepare fewer spells to fully cover the "blaster" role, making casters even more versatile. And (2) you would have lesser rewards for staying single-classed, since it matters less whether you were able to learn Meteor Swarm instead of just having the 9th level slot. Players would also (3) have less of an incentive to revise their playstyle as they level up, since they could just keep casting the same spells they were last level, and the level before that. Basically, the fact that abilities don't fit neatly into all slots forces players to stop and consider what will fit.

___

Upcasting isn't really supposed to eliminate the benefit of learning and preparing higher level spells (as opposed to just having access to the slots).

You could make a game with different design principles, of course. Both ways of doing it have various pros and cons for gameplay design. But it's important to recognize that those differences exist, and why a designer might go for one or the other.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Hot take: disguise self upcasts to multiple people.

Best used for temporary sneaking through enemy lines, while seeming is for more long-term infiltration.

[GeneralVryth]

All spells should have good upcasting qualities. But it will have to be a 6e thing since it has to be built from the ground alongside class features.

This is pretty much correct. You may be able to get away with a 5.5e kind of thing instead, but well built and balanced up-casting goes with modifications to casters and how they are set up now.


Let's ask ourselves, what's upcasting for? And what's it do for gameplay in the current design? Why might we want to change it, or not change it?

Upcasting's primary function is to give some extra slot versatility and longevity to spells that otherwise don't stay relevant as you level up -- direct damage spells being first and foremost among these (which is why they're the ones that usually have upcasting options). But things like Shield (and indeed, basically all AC-boosting spells) don't need upcasting to stay relevant at higher levels (and thus usually don't have upcasting options).

What upcasting doesn't (usually) do is make lower level spells as good as higher level spells that do the same thing. And that makes sense -- access to those higher level spells represents an additional investment, and they have lower slot versatility (e.g. you can't 'downcast' them) and so you'd have to eat more preparation slots to get the 'optimal' spell for each role in each spell level slot.

This also allows creates some decision points and opportunities for character expression. For example, you could decide to have the optimal level 3, level 4, and level 5 spell for a single role all prepared, in which case you're basically saying "I'm a specialist at this." Whereas another character might have just the level 3 spell prepared (e.g. "I just prepped Fireball for my AoE option"), and use those other 2 preparation slots on covering other roles (like Banishment or Scrying).



Some examples of why it makes a game design difference: If a 3rd level blast spell was as powerful in a 9th level spell slot as Meteor Swarm, then (1) you would have to prepare fewer spells to fully cover the "blaster" role, making casters even more versatile. And (2) you would have lesser rewards for staying single-classed, since it matters less whether you were able to learn Meteor Swarm instead of just having the 9th level slot. Players would also (3) have less of an incentive to revise their playstyle as they level up, since they could just keep casting the same spells they were last level, and the level before that. Basically, the fact that abilities don't fit neatly into all slots forces players to stop and consider what will fit.

___

Upcasting isn't really supposed to eliminate the benefit of learning and preparing higher level spells (as opposed to just having access to the slots).

You could make a game with different design principles, of course. Both ways of doing it have various pros and cons for gameplay design. But it's important to recognize that those differences exist, and why a designer might go for one or the other.

This is true. I know I am in the camp of wanting to change the game design (a relatively slight amount considering 4e to 5e but still a change). But I also think it would be beneficial for the game overall. By building scaling into spells, especially scaling that involves options, you create a natural ways to indicate specialization, that are tailored to the spells (things like the Nuclear Wizard come from trying to do indicate specialization with a spell in a way the spell wasn't designed to handle). An Evoker for example could have a special ability that counts his evocation spells as if they were cast 1 spell level higher, and you could give the same ability to a Transmuter and trust it give a similar bonus.

Also, how many different damage spells do we have in the game? How many become pointless when crossing tier boundaries? How many elemental damage specialists still feel like their isn't enough damage spells to cover their focus? It's perfectly reasonable for a base level 1 spell to never be as good as a base level 3 spell, but if the level 1 spell when up cast were a lot closer, we could theoretically have fewer damage spells while making it feel like there is actually more choice for elemental specialists.

This doesn't even touch the multi-classing aspect. If you were to do this with the current class design, spell casters ironically would start have a similar problem as martials, their high level features aren't as strong of a justification to stay single class. Which would be good for a number of reasons, 1 it shines a further spotlight on the problem on weaker high level features, 2 it creates greater emphasis on the multi-classing rules and the need for them to be elegant and balanced, 3 it opens the door for more interesting class combinations because casters can more reasonably multi-class without taking a huge penalty.

[Sorinth]

Let's ask ourselves, what's upcasting for? And what's it do for gameplay in the current design? Why might we want to change it, or not change it?

Upcasting's primary function is to give some extra slot versatility and longevity to spells that otherwise don't stay relevant as you level up -- direct damage spells being first and foremost among these (which is why they're the ones that usually have upcasting options). But things like Shield (and indeed, basically all AC-boosting spells) don't need upcasting to stay relevant at higher levels (and thus usually don't have upcasting options).

What upcasting doesn't (usually) do is make lower level spells as good as higher level spells that do the same thing. And that makes sense -- access to those higher level spells represents an additional investment, and they have lower slot versatility (e.g. you can't 'downcast' them) and so you'd have to eat more preparation slots to get the 'optimal' spell for each role in each spell level slot.

This also allows creates some decision points and opportunities for character expression. For example, you could decide to have the optimal level 3, level 4, and level 5 spell for a single role all prepared, in which case you're basically saying "I'm a specialist at this." Whereas another character might have just the level 3 spell prepared (e.g. "I just prepped Fireball for my AoE option"), and use those other 2 preparation slots on covering other roles (like Banishment or Scrying).



Some examples of why it makes a game design difference: If a 3rd level blast spell was as powerful in a 9th level spell slot as Meteor Swarm, then (1) you would have to prepare fewer spells to fully cover the "blaster" role, making casters even more versatile. And (2) you would have lesser rewards for staying single-classed, since it matters less whether you were able to learn Meteor Swarm instead of just having the 9th level slot. Players would also (3) have less of an incentive to revise their playstyle as they level up, since they could just keep casting the same spells they were last level, and the level before that. Basically, the fact that abilities don't fit neatly into all slots forces players to stop and consider what will fit.

___

Upcasting isn't really supposed to eliminate the benefit of learning and preparing higher level spells (as opposed to just having access to the slots).

You could make a game with different design principles, of course. Both ways of doing it have various pros and cons for gameplay design. But it's important to recognize that those differences exist, and why a designer might go for one or the other.

Although upcasting provides more versatility, I would say the primary function is reinforcing a characters theme. The current spells will allow for some standard themes like Pyromancer but if I want a different damage type, it's a bit hit and miss. And if I wanted something even more out of the box like a Dream Wizard that specializes in knocking out enemies, there's Sleep at 1st level, and then nothing until Eyebite. Without upcasting or a bunch of new spells it's hard to create that character theme.

The benefits of upcasting in this context is that you don't need an exhaustive list of spells in order to flesh out all the different possible themes. You just need a few spells that upcast well and you can support the various character themes much easier since rather then half a dozen spells that are basically the same but just a bit better in some way, you have a signature spell that caster defines themselves with.

Now I agree that if they make spells upcast well they probably need to make a bunch of other changes like reducing the number of spells known/prepared to rebalance how versatile casters are and maybe do something with mutliclassing. So all in all it's something for 6e, but it's definitely what they should be aiming for.

[TyGuy]

(3) have less of an incentive to revise their playstyle as they level up, since they could just keep casting the same spells they were last level, and the level before that. Basically, the fact that abilities don't fit neatly into all slots forces players to stop and consider what will fit.
I loathe this aspect of 5e. If I have a strong theme, then I want to add to and reinforce it over time, not reinvent and adjust it to adapt to arbitrary "slots" mechanics.

Although upcasting provides more versatility, I would say the primary function is reinforcing a characters theme. The current spells will allow for some standard themes like Pyromancer but if I want a different damage type, it's a bit hit and miss. And if I wanted something even more out of the box like a Dream Wizard that specializes in knocking out enemies, there's Sleep at 1st level, and then nothing until Eyebite. Without upcasting or a bunch of new spells it's hard to create that character theme.

The benefits of upcasting in this context is that you don't need an exhaustive list of spells in order to flesh out all the different possible themes. You just need a few spells that upcast well and you can support the various character themes much easier since rather then half a dozen spells that are basically the same but just a bit better in some way, you have a signature spell that caster defines themselves with.

+1

[Segev]

I agree with Ludic Savant's analysis...mostly. I have one caveat that may or may not qualify as "disagreement" that I want to offer, however: It would be nice if more Warlock spells had upcasting options, even if those options are objectively not worth it for most spellcasters. The auto-scaling of Warlock spell slots is a unique mechanic that benefits greatly from usually-not-worth-it upcasts.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I agree with Ludic Savant's analysis...mostly. I have one caveat that may or may not qualify as "disagreement" that I want to offer, however: It would be nice if more Warlock spells had upcasting options, even if those options are objectively not worth it for most spellcasters. The auto-scaling of Warlock spell slots is a unique mechanic that benefits greatly from usually-not-worth-it upcasts.

This. Absolutely, 100% this. So hard.

[LudicSavant]

I agree with Ludic Savant's analysis...mostly. I have one caveat that may or may not qualify as "disagreement" that I want to offer, however: It would be nice if more Warlock spells had upcasting options, even if those options are objectively not worth it for most spellcasters. The auto-scaling of Warlock spell slots is a unique mechanic that benefits greatly from usually-not-worth-it upcasts.

Yeah. It's different for Warlocks, and it's a damn shame when Warlock spells become irrelevant over time.

This phenomenon is also part of the reason the Hexblade does what it does to the game: It has Shield on its list. This doesn't make a big difference for single class Warlocks (because as crazy good as Shield is, it's usually not 5th level slot good), but for 1-level dippers, getting Shield an an extra spell slot per short rest to use it with is bloody huge.

If you want to nerf Hexblades as a multiclass option while mostly leaving them alone as single class, taking Shield off their list is one of the easier steps to take.

[Ertwin]

Although upcasting provides more versatility, I would say the primary function is reinforcing a characters theme. The current spells will allow for some standard themes like Pyromancer but if I want a different damage type, it's a bit hit and miss. And if I wanted something even more out of the box like a Dream Wizard that specializes in knocking out enemies, there's Sleep at 1st level, and then nothing until Eyebite. Without upcasting or a bunch of new spells it's hard to create that character theme.


Or if your theme is auto-matic damage, you're stuck with Magic Missile.

[Segev]

Or if your theme is auto-matic damage, you're stuck with Magic Missile.

Not really; any save-for-half spell is automatically doing damage, too. Barring something like Evasion, which is super-rare in 5e.

[Derges]

Daylight and Darkness dispel a set level of spell when they overlap. Why they don't upcast ala counterspell when it would have been so easy has always confused me.

[sambojin]

I'd love it if Wind Wall and Tidal Wave could be upcast. As damage spells, they're rather unique, but with no upcasting possible they quickly (or already are) just there for their utility effects.

Mini-chain-lightning for Wind Wall and soccer ball/ marble size to proper AoE size targeting (Tidal Wave is an "up to this size" spell) makes them really fun to use.

[KorvinStarmast]

me thinking about other spells that deserve upcast features. What are some that you've always wanted?

I'll go first!

I've always felt that Lesser Restoration deserved more utility: maybe instead of having Greater Restoration as a separate (extremely fringe-case) spell, it could be wrapped in as an upcast.
Spike Growth is a super-cool and flavorful spell that quickly stops dealing meaningful damage at higher levels: a damage boost on upcast, similar to other Evocation spells, would be nice.
Stoneskin on multiple allies would be nice. It's not like resistance to nonmagical weapon damage is all that OP at the point you have 5th level spellslots, anyway.

a. Blatant one from the PHB: Find Steed. Needs to be able to upcast to boost the CR of the creature as spell level goes up. (We didn't really need that xanathar's spell ...)
b. I'd like to see the Druid's Conjure Animals be able to upcast the max/ceiling CR as one uses level 5, 7, and 9 slots. Yes, I'd like to be able to summon that giant scorpion. :smallsmile: Or a giant crocodile at higher levels.
c. I'd like Tasha's to be up-castable so that more people (enemies) get the joke. :smallbiggrin:

[Kuulvheysoon]

Daylight and Darkness dispel a set level of spell when they overlap. Why they don't upcast ala counterspell when it would have been so easy has always confused me.

Technically darkness can be upcast to pseudo-counter daylight (when casting it through a spell slot of 4th level, it's a 4th level spell and cannot be dispelled by daylight) but yeah, it would have been way better if instead of specifying a level it called out a spell of lower level.

[Chronos]

Yeah, that was even how it worked in 3rd edition, so there's not even the excuse that it never occurred to them.

As an aside, it also leads to the one case in the game where there's a reason to cast a cantrip using a spell slot (which is technically allowed, but almost never something you would want to do): If you need a light, and your only light spell is the Light cantrip, and you're in the area of a Darkness spell.

For Find Steed, the question is really just whether you want there to be a higher-level version at all. The only class who natively casts it is the paladin, a prepared caster with access to their entire list, and it's a spell that you can cast once in downtime and still benefit from a week later, without ever needing to prepare it again (as long as your steed doesn't die or need to be dismissed). If you accept that higher-level paladins should be able to have better mounts (and it would be perfectly reasonable to not accept that at all), then it makes almost no difference to them whether it's one spell or two, since a paladin who's preparing the spell usually already knows how they're going to be casting it. The biggest practical difference would be that making it a single upcastable spell would make things a little easier on bards poaching the spell.

[Derges]

Technically darkness can be upcast to pseudo-counter daylight (when casting it through a spell slot of 4th level, it's a 4th level spell and cannot be dispelled by daylight) but yeah, it would have been way better if instead of specifying a level it called out a spell of lower level.

I feel even pseudo-counter is a bit strong the spell text suggests that magical light penetrates darkness ("nonmagical light can't illuminate it."). So a 4th level darkness, while not dispelled doesn't make the overlap dark.

[Segev]

As an aside, it also leads to the one case in the game where there's a reason to cast a cantrip using a spell slot (which is technically allowed, but almost never something you would want to do): If you need a light, and your only light spell is the Light cantrip, and you're in the area of a Darkness spell.

Can you provide a citation for why this is technically allowed?

[Chronos]

Cantrips are spells. You know cantrips, so they're spells you know. They're 0th-level. You can cast a spell you know using a slot of a higher level than the spell. 3rd level is a higher level than 0th level. Ergo, if you know the Light cantrip, and have a third-level slot available, you can use the 3rd-level slot to cast Light.

[Draz74]

They're 0th-level.

I think this is the controversial bit that Segev wants a citation for. Does 5e have a precedent defining cantrips as 0th-level?

[KorvinStarmast]

I think this is the controversial bit that Segev wants a citation for. Does 5e have a precedent defining cantrips as 0th-level? It's in chapter 10 of PHB and in Chapter 10 of Basic rules (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=79).

Spell Level
Every spell has a level from 0 to 9. A spell’s level is a general indicator of how powerful it is, with the lowly (but still impressive) magic missile at 1st level and the incredible time stop at 9th. Cantrips—simple but powerful spells that characters can cast almost by rote—are level 0 . The higher a spell’s level, the higher level a spellcaster must be to use that spell. Spell level and character level don’t correspond directly. Typically, a character has to be at least 17th level, not 9th level, to cast a 9th-level spell.
But I think that(strictly speaking) Chronos is incorrect, for a different reason.

Cantrips
A cantrip is a spell that can be cast at will, without using a spell slot and without being prepared in advance. Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over. A cantrip’s spell level is 0. A cantrip does not use a spell slot. Beyond that, in none of the spell descriptions for casting a cantrip is there "At Higher Level" provisions as there is for any spell that can be up cast. What there is for some cantrips is an upgrade based on Character Level, not Spell Level.

But, if you as a DM want to let someone cast a more powerful light spell by eating a level 3 slot, in theory it would 'expand to fill the magical space of the slot' just as my cleric using a level 3 slot to cast Lesser Restoration could be done.

Casting a Spell at a Higher Level
When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into. Some spells, such as magic missile and cure wounds, have more powerful effects when cast at a higher level, as detailed in a spell’s description. I think that's where Chronos is hanging his hat.

I'd probably rule favorably on that at my table (what Chronos proposes) as regards the light spell. I think that his reasoning is that 'you don't usually use a slot to cast it, but since it is level 0 you can use a level 3 slot to cast it' - but there's no explicit 'at higher level you get this added damage/radius/feature/duration' thing for any cantrip.

If that is what's being proposed, 'it's more powerful if I use a leveled slot than if I don't!' we are dealing in a ruling.

If you did it with fire bolt, you don't get more damage, for example. All of those boosts are tied to Character Level.

[MrCharlie]

All of them. That's the dream. If upcasting was worthwhile, it'd open a world of opportunities for multicasting between casters. The only reason we don't see multiclassed casters now is because of how weak upcasting is compared to the spells you learn as a single class. The spell slots you earn don't hold value unless they're being spent on higher level spells. So my suggestion is just to make the power curve defined by the spell slots, not the spells. And that happens with good upcasting.

Why would it matter if Sleep was as powerful as a level 3 spell if it cost a level 3 spell slot?
I'll drop in to say that there are a few upcast spells that are worth it. In general they

A. Scale in ways other than add +1 damage or healing dice. Spells which add +1 damage or healing dice are generally awful unless the base spell is already great, like fireball, and you're just upcasting it because you've already spammed it three times.

B. Either add duration, or multiplicative bonuses.

or

C. Add new targets to an already great effect.

Hence why bless is a decent upcast spell-targeting another person is decently strong, and the bless effect is good. Planar binding, in constrast, is a great upcast-it's a situational spell, but a situational spell that lets you make a minion for 180 days, I.E. the length of 99% of campaigns, is better than a situational spell making a minion for 1 day. Other incredible upcast spells are conjure spells which just double the number of summons-often there is a stronger summon spell, but double the summons is tempting even then. Counterspell and dispel magic are great examples of good scaling. A bit less for dispel magic because it lacks the absurd action economy, but still.

So generally, what this suggests is that to make upcasting viable we need better upcast damage and healing spells. Except, I'm not sure creating upcast damage or healing spells is needed at all-there should be some real penalty for using a lower level spell in a higher level slot. My personal take is that non-aoe damage spells need a better upcast than AOE damage spells, if only because non-aoe damage spells are generally bad for what they do, but they already trend that way in general.

This leaves spells which don't need upcast versions because of balance reasons, but should get upcast versions because A. They can upgrade in intuitive ways that replace other spells which are purely superfluous, or B. They have unique, but intuitively scalable, effects, in other words A. but the higher level spell doesen't exist.

For instance, suggestion ought to just upcast to mass suggestion. The only thing that mass suggestion has over suggestion is range, duration, and targets. All three are easily adjustable by upcasting. Lesser-->Greater restoration is another good example.

For B., I'd argue Haste is a good example. If it targeted more creatures at higher levels it would be a risky but still viable spell for at least a few spell levels. Haste even auto-balances itself; haste's downside arguably becomes even more of a downside as you cast it on more people, but haste is powerful enough that risking it is still a valid tactical decision, if you can mitigate that risk.

[PhantomSoul]

But I think that(strictly speaking) Chronos is incorrect, for a different reason.
A cantrip does not use a spell slot. Beyond that, in none of the spell descriptions for casting a cantrip is there "At Higher Level" provisions as there is for any spell that can be up cast. What there is for some cantrips is an upgrade based on Character Level, not Spell Level.


It is "a spell that can be cast ... without using a spell slot" even if it can also be cast with spell slots through some other feature or mechanism, so this (on its own) does support Chronos. (It doesn't say "can only be cast without using a spell slot" or "must be cast without using a spell slot", but I haven't checked whether the definition for spell slots describes that it's only for spells of first level or higher... though I guess that's also not a problem since casting spells with a higher-level slot means treating those instances of the spells as being of the slot level.) There might be other things getting in the way, but this part still works! (I guess being nitpicky, the fact that it doesn't say "any spell that can be cast ... without using a spell slot" is good because otherwise any bonus to cantrips could apply in a whole lot more contexts!)

[Chronos]

Quoth KorvinStarmast:

Beyond that, in none of the spell descriptions for casting a cantrip is there "At Higher Level" provisions as there is for any spell that can be up cast.
All spells can be upcast; not all spells benefit from being upcast. For instance, Shield doesn't benefit from being upcast, but a ninth-level hexblade can still cast it. You usually don't upcast spells that don't have an "At Higher Level" provision, because it's a waste of a slot, but you might still do it anyway if you don't have any of the lower-level slots available (as happens often for a warlock).

Now, not having the slot available is never going to be a reason to upcast a cantrip, because they don't need a slot. And, as you point out, none of them gain more damage or extra targets or anything like that from upcasting. That's why Light is the only one you'd ever actually use this for.

Or, wait, I guess I can think of one other situation, but it's extremely niche: If you're fighting a highly-injured rakshasa, and you really need to deal just a few more points of damage to it to put it down, but you have no damaging spells whatsoever beyond your cantrips. That'd almost never actually happen, but it theoretically could, and in that case it might be reasonable to upcast a cantrip, too.

[Man_Over_Game]

I go back and forth on this.

As Chronic stated, Wizards don’t need more oomph to their class

I used to believe the same thing, but my mentality's changed with experience.

We aren't talking about a Player vs. Player experience, so 'balance' isn't exactly a huge priority. It certainly isn't for WOTC.

But more than that, justifying that one player's experience sucks as a reason why yours should too isn't a good idea for making a game fun. "Well, martials have crappy multiclassing, so casters should too". It's not really a view that supports either player's perspective, since it only dulls out the issues that both of sides are having for the sake of doing less work.

[Chronos]

But if all spells upcast as well as spells of that actual level, or even a significant fraction of them, then there'd be no reason at all for a caster to not multiclass. Given the choice between nobody ever multiclassing or everyone always multiclassing, the first is definitely preferable for thematic reasons, and that's even before you consider that the versatility boost from all casters multiclassing would be a huge power boost for what are already the most versatile and powerful characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or, wait, I guess I can think of one other situation, but it's extremely niche: If you're fighting a highly-injured rakshasa, and you really need to deal just a few more points of damage to it to put it down, but you have no damaging spells whatsoever beyond your cantrips. That'd almost never actually happen, but it theoretically could, and in that case it might be reasonable to upcast a cantrip, too. Interesting edge case.

I just ground my teeth, there's another spell that I want to see as being upcastable: Protection from Evil/Good. One more person per spell level (like fly or hold person) or, they could do it like the druid conjure animal spell, and every other spell slot level offers a boost.
Level 1: one ally
Level 3: two allies
Level 5: three allies

Why can't this be upcast? Grrr, WoTC, grrrr. :smallfurious:

[Sorinth]

But if all spells upcast as well as spells of that actual level, or even a significant fraction of them, then there'd be no reason at all for a caster to not multiclass. Given the choice between nobody ever multiclassing or everyone always multiclassing, the first is definitely preferable for thematic reasons, and that's even before you consider that the versatility boost from all casters multiclassing would be a huge power boost for what are already the most versatile and powerful characters.

That's only a problem if you change the spells and nothing else. But presumably such a change would come in a 6e where you would also change the classes themselves and multiclass rules to account for it.

[Chronos]

Yeah, it might be possible in a completely different system. Though I suspect that if you followed all of the knock-on effects, and all of the changes you needed to accommodate those changes, and so on, you'd end up with something so different to not even be recognizable as D&D any more, a change greater than any previous edition (including 4th).

[GeneralVryth]

But if all spells upcast as well as spells of that actual level, or even a significant fraction of them, then there'd be no reason at all for a caster to not multiclass. Given the choice between nobody ever multiclassing or everyone always multiclassing, the first is definitely preferable for thematic reasons, and that's even before you consider that the versatility boost from all casters multiclassing would be a huge power boost for what are already the most versatile and powerful characters.

Having spells up-cast well doesn't necessarily mean every high level effect will have a lower level counterpart. While I would probably link Teleportation Circle and Teleport, I would leave them separate from Misty Step/Dimension Door as an example. And there are other similar examples as well. In general if you look at the spell lists there are 4 distinct tiers levels 1/2, 3/4/5, 6/7/8, and 9 With 8 and 9 getting a little blurry has long as you have a variety of spells that only start at the higher tiers you will be fine (and realistically the only unique spell level 9 needs is Wish given how powerful it is, but there are others that would stay there as well without lower level versions. And you could also have an excuse to come up with some new unique high level effect since overall you will fewer spells that are more useful so you don't need as much bloat).


That's only a problem if you change the spells and nothing else. But presumably such a change would come in a 6e where you would also change the classes themselves and multiclass rules to account for it.


Yeah, it might be possible in a completely different system. Though I suspect that if you followed all of the knock-on effects, and all of the changes you needed to accommodate those changes, and so on, you'd end up with something so different to not even be recognizable as D&D any more, a change greater than any previous edition (including 4th).

High level class features are certainly part of it. Most classes have underwhelming high level features, all better up-casting does is give casters the same incentives as martials to multi-class due to comparably weak high level features. But I don't think adding some stronger and more distinct higher level features will have substantial knock-on effects to the point of significantly changing how the edition looks. In general I imagine you could fix the up-casting issue, class rest imbalance, high level class feature, martial social/exploration pillar, and multi-classing issues without significantly changing the structure of 5e. I think the result would look more like Pathfinder versus 3.0/3.5 than 4.0 to 3.0/3.5.

[Man_Over_Game]

But if all spells upcast as well as spells of that actual level, or even a significant fraction of them, then there'd be no reason at all for a caster to not multiclass. Given the choice between nobody ever multiclassing or everyone always multiclassing, the first is definitely preferable for thematic reasons, and that's even before you consider that the versatility boost from all casters multiclassing would be a huge power boost for what are already the most versatile and powerful characters.

One interesting note for balance, you can scale things up to 90% of the currently best option or alternative, and you're still well within balance.

More specifically, if you make it so that each upcast level is worth about 0.9 spell levels instead of 1 spell level, you're still well within balance.

For instance, if you make a level 3 Burning Hands worth about 2.8 spell level's worth of value, you still have a very valid reason to pack Fireball or Lightning Bolt. For the folks that care about numbers, they will still go into a single class for those higher level spells (exactly like they were already going to), pumping out 15% or so more damage than the other guy, and both players are still happy.

Plus, multiclassing will get you a bunch of low level spells and a lot of low level versatility...in casting the same spells that everyone has. But you're not ever going to get stuff that can match nearly the same effect as Hallucinatory Terrain or Find Greater Steed without making some expensive investments. Not all effects can be duplicated with just bigger numbers when it comes to spells. Additionally, you'll likely lack a lot of specialization you'd get out of single-classing (I.E. Wizard school perks) while the multiclasser shows off a bunch of flashy, low-level features that often be replaced with feats.

All this does is add more viability to a subsection of players who are still unlikely to surpass the players who are still playing by the old rules.

If I modified redundant Extra Attack features to grant a +1 to a stat instead of nothing, would you expect any martial to outperform a straight Fighter?

As long as it's worse than the best, it's perfect.

[GeneralVryth]

One interesting note for balance, you can scale things up to 90% of the currently best option or alternative, and you're still well within balance.

More specifically, if you make it so that each upcast level is worth about 0.9 spell levels instead of 1 spell level, you're still well within balance.

For instance, if you make a level 3 Burning Hands worth about 2.8 spell level's worth of value, you still have a very valid reason to pack Fireball or Lightning Bolt. For the folks that care about numbers, they will still go into a single class for those higher level spells (exactly like they were already going to), pumping out 15% or so more damage than the other guy, and both players are still happy.

Plus, multiclassing will get you a bunch of low level spells and a lot of low level versatility...in casting the same spells that everyone has. But you're not ever going to get stuff that can match nearly the same effect as Hallucinatory Terrain or Find Greater Steed without making some expensive investments. Not all effects can be duplicated with just bigger numbers when it comes to spells. Additionally, you'll likely lack a lot of specialization you'd get out of single-classing (I.E. Wizard school perks) while the multiclasser shows off a bunch of flashy, low-level features that often be replaced with feats.

All this does is add more viability to a subsection of players who are still unlikely to surpass the players who are still playing by the old rules.

If I modified redundant Extra Attack features to grant a +1 to a stat instead of nothing, would you expect any martial to outperform a straight Fighter?

As long as it's worse than the best, it's perfect.

I think this is the right sentiment around the issue. To provide another example, would Burning Hands doing 7d6 when up-cast to a 3rd level slot really change the desirability of Fireball? Even if it was 8d6 or Fireball's damage was reduced to 7d6, people would still prefer Fireball if all else is equal, but now they can make a more meaningful choice when all else is not equal.