Spell Scaling in the Basic Rules - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 omegajeff Jul 17, 2014 21:22:20	There are many many MANY things I like about the new D&D. That said, there is one thing I absolutely do not like, scaling for magic. Even if it fits some new balance for damage, they have effectively ruined the most iconic spell in the list: Magic Missile (among others). In all previous versions of the game, you get up to five missiles based on experience/caster level. In the new version, you get one extra missile by increasing it's spell level by one. So, to get five missiles for a whopping 5d4+5 damage, you cast it as a level five spell. Other 5th level spell options? Cone of Cold for 8D8 AOE damage. Each spell level is supposed to reflect an exponential increase in power. But with meta-casting low level spells with higher level slots as the only method for scaling the effects, they've made it disappointingly linear. They've also effectively doubled down on making low level spell slots useless for higher level casters. Another example would be that Fireball now does 8d6 right off the bat. From my understanding of their narrowed scale, 8D6 will always be a good amount of damage, so it could still be worth casting without raising it's level. So in looking over the spell list, it's really just 1st and 2nd level spells that have their longevity impacted.
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Jul 17, 2014 22:10:39	uh... magic missile does 1d4+1 per missile, and has 3 missiles as a 1st level spell, plus 1 missile for each level higher it is cast as, so a 5 missile casting would be a 3rd level spell. If you are going to complain about things, at least be correct about what you are complaining about.
#3 Ashrym Jul 17, 2014 23:48:10	The spell scaling is something like about this edition. I wouldn't have given cantrips scaling as a personal choice either but I see I might have been in the minority on that point.
(Reply to #2) Lord_Kyrion	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #4) rookrock	Lord_Kyrion wrote:
(Reply to #4) Shiroiken	Lord_Kyrion wrote:
#7 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 5:33:39	rookrock wrote:
#8 UngeheuerLich Jul 18, 2014 4:09:28	DC is 15. I also see the reduced efficiency as an increase in flexibility. It also prevents multiclas casters from being too good. Again tradung a little bit of power for flexibility. I also believe, low level spells are useful if you for some reason can´t use the higher level spell. Fireball in close quarters (if you are no evoker) or if the enemy is resistant to fire or particular dextrous. Also, sometimes you need that guaranteed hit, when a fireball would be quite risky. So overall i like the balance.
#9 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 4:35:45	UngeheuerLich wrote:
#10 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 4:51:34	UngeheuerLich wrote:
#11 Mephi1234 Jul 18, 2014 5:08:50	Magic missile's no-miss feature is pretty good. And it has a lot of benefit when just cast as just a level 1 spell. Enemy spellcasters? Shoot off a magic missile. You'll hit everyone and force a Concentration check! So, yes. It probably scales badly. But putting a fireball empowered up to level 9 is no match for a Meteor Swarm either. Even in previous editions. Double the radius for four times the area, plus a potential 40d6 damage on a failed save. Compare to fireball's 14d6 damage. I feel like the only real reason to scale a damage spell isn't for damage, but if you really want to cast the spell, but you only have higher level spell slots left.
#12 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 5:19:36	The reason I did the math is because Magic Missile's "no miss" feature actually seems to be a lot better than it really is. A lot of this is basic psychology and that's why I laid out the naked math for everyone to see. Given a choice (even to force concentration checks) between a fireball and a magic missile and you need to use a third level slot, you should be picking fireball virtually all of the time....even if you can only get a single target! Like I said before, I don't really mind if spells didn't scale quite up to spells of higher level. To a certain degree that's fine (like paying a premium), but it should at least be in the ballpark! Otherwise it becomes a trap option and we're back to dedicated spells for dedicated slots like in prior editions...at least de-facto if not de-jure. -Polaris
#13 autolycus Jul 18, 2014 5:23:23	If the only spells you care about are damage spells, there might be something to what you say. But as a high-level caster I don't want to be leaning on my 1st and 2nd level slots for damage. Those will be freed up for utility spells to assist in the other 2/3 of adventuring (exploration, interaction).
#14 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 5:30:12	autolycus wrote:
#15 Cyber-Dave Jul 18, 2014 5:31:03	omegajeff wrote:
#16 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 5:37:17	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#17 autolycus Jul 18, 2014 5:45:12	Polaris wrote:
#18 1eejit Jul 18, 2014 5:49:37	As far as I see up-levelled spells shouldn't be your go-to for damage, natural level spells should. The exceptions are fringe cases, e.g. when you're up against a creature with resistance or immunity to fire damage and your Fireball spell just won't cut it.
#19 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 6:07:01	autolycus wrote:
#20 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 6:08:18	1eejit wrote:
#21 1eejit Jul 18, 2014 6:19:23	Perhaps Magic Missile simply isn't one of the best scaling damage spells, given its auto-hit feature? If you look at Chromatic Orb it has 3d8 at level 1, so 5d8 cast at level 3 or 22.5 damage average. No additional effects, but you can choose the damage type. Burning hands would give 5d6 with a level 3 slot in a cone with a dex save. So a good bit less damage than fireball, though a non-evoker is more likely to be able to use it safely point-blank. Thunderwave would deal 4d8 with a level 3 slot, with a pushback on failed save. So the spells all have their niche, making them better than Fireball in certain circumstances.
#22 Cyber-Dave Jul 18, 2014 6:38:47	Even if we accept your numbers, 17.5 is 78% of 22.4 Or, are you counting the fireball`s damage as its total damage dealt to multiple targets? If so, I do not think that your comparison is fair. I do not think that a spell like magic missile should be able to do 70-80% of the total AoE damage a fireball is likely to do, but to a single target. That is WAY too powerful. Focus fire tends to be a little more potent than single target damage as is. And, the salient point you seem to be forgetting is that magic missile can be used safely in close quarters fights where a fireball would engulf your own party in its damage dealt. Is fireball a better spell when cast in a 3rd level slot than magic missile cast in a 3rd level slot? Yes. It should be. There are still situations, however, where it is better to cast magic missile in a 3rd level slot than fireball. And, after you have used all your 3rd level slots, fireball is a wasted memorization slot. Magic missile, on the other hand, can be used with your 1st and 2nd level spell slots. And, there are also the numbers to question. Fireball is a 3rd level spell. You will be able to cast it at level 5. You are likely to have a save DC of 8 + 3 (prof bonus) + 3 or 4 (Int bonus) at that level. So, we are talking a save DC of 14 or 15. Lets use 15 for the sake of argument. The creatures you will be fighting will have a Dex save of between +0 to +8. Versus a Dex save of +0 your fireball will have an average damage of (28.75)+(14.25)=24.5. In such cases, obviously fireball is the better choice. If a creature has +8 to its save, however, then your average damage is (280.3)+(140.7)=18.2. That is, however, over-time. 70% of the time you will be dealing 14 points of damage. With magic missile, 100% of the time you will be dealing 17.5 points of damage. You only have 2 5th level spell slots. For an over-time increase of 1.5 points of damage, I would probably play it safe and not gamble on fireball when using it against a creature with a good Dex save. That is double true if I am fighting in a dungeon where fireball is likely to hurt my allies. In such a situation, magic missile seems like the better option. Honestly Polaris, if the spells did what you seem to want them to do, I think magic missile would be too good of an option. I think it is fine as is.
(Reply to #21) Polaris	1eejit wrote:
(Reply to #10) UngeheuerLich	Polaris wrote:
#25 Karnos Jul 18, 2014 6:42:16	Part of the "no-miss" advantage of magic missile is it's damage type. While we haven't seen the 5e Monster Manual yet, historically D&D contains many monsters with resistance to fire, and some with outright immunity to it. In addition, there will probably be some monsters with evasion abilities, reducing fireball damage on save to 0 instead of 1/2. Magic-damage immune monsters are very rare, on the other hand. Currently only the Shield spell blocks magic missile, as far as I can tell, and even in that case you are forcing an enemy to use his reaction and a level 1 spell slot to cast shield. With the way spell preperation and casting works, there isn't really a serious drawback to keeping magic missile memorized, just to have the option to use it in cases where fireball (or whatever your normal go-to spell) is not optimal. For an evoker at least, at 10+ you can start adding your Int mod to spell damage for evocations. Magic missile doesn't get the benefit to every bolt when they all hit the same target, but when they are spread among targets it does. This gives it an interesting level of flexibility, as doing 1d4+6 damage to each of 5 targets (when cast in a 3rd level slot, to make it comparable to fireball) might be more useful than a fireball, if the targets are spread among a wide area, or if you have too many allies in melee to safely fireball (spell shape is limited). All said and done, when you reach a new level of spells it should feel like an upgrade, so I am glad the scaling works as it does. At level 5, you generally want to cast fireballs or lightning bolts with your 3rd level slots, and this is fine. It would feel a little disapointing to reach a new level of spells but realize you are better off if you just keep on casting your 1st level magic missile because it's still better.
#26 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 6:46:21	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#27 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 6:48:36	UngeheuerLich wrote:
#28 Cyber-Dave Jul 18, 2014 7:06:54	Polaris wrote:
#29 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 7:23:44	I am assuming that PCs will generally be facing monsters and not PCs. At level 11, a +4 to a Dex save would require either an 18 Dex or proficiency with a Dex save and I somehow doubt that most monsters will be getting save proficiencies (and even if they do it won't generally be Dex). So if anything I was being generous, but I did it to keep the math simple and the same. -Polaris
#30 Mephi1234 Jul 18, 2014 7:26:39	After a lot of thought, looking at the stuff from the sorcerer and their metamagic.... I really think that scaling damage spells isn't really meant to be a thing. Oh, sure, it happens... but its coming across more as a consolation prize in majority of cases, rather than the actual damage. You cast spells at a higher level only when you need the extra spell slots. If you want someone who super pumps select spells, you go sorcerer. You want variety of spells at each level, you go wizard. Few spells multiple uses? Warlock.
#31 Polaris Jul 18, 2014 7:29:06	Mephi1234 wrote:
#32 emwasick Jul 18, 2014 7:49:28	Karnos wrote:
#33 The_Jester Jul 18, 2014 8:02:09	The single target damage is pretty close between magic missile and fireball. As a level 3 spell the damage is 17.5 vs 28. But fireball requires a save, so if the target makes a save half the time the average damage of fireball becomes 21. Fireball is better when facing multiple close together opponents. That's when it shines. Magic missile is better when facing a couple really spread out opponents or one that is really hard to hit.
#34 Mephi1234 Jul 18, 2014 8:13:43	Polaris wrote:
#35 Dastion Jul 18, 2014 11:13:34	As a DM at D&D Encounters I can say that this week magic missile has really shined for our level 8 Wizard. She's used it to negate the defenses of a Mirror Image happy spell caster and to put a serious beat down on some will o' wisps (they have the ethereal trait and were taking half damage to everything else the party threw at them). Even in older versions spells like Magic Missile eventually petered off, the new system is just meant to help balance out magic'a potency and give low level spells some scaling. Would you ever use a level 3 Burning Hands instead of a Fireball? Not likely, but if you're not an Evocation Wizard and you're in tight quarters you may. The spells maintain some relevancy in this way but don't outshine spells of that level. A high level wizard may be able to cast a spell all apprentices know in a masterful way (ie a 11 missile magic missile). But to say that that should be comparable to mastering the Wish spell? That seems unlikely.
#36 omegajeff Jul 18, 2014 11:46:50	There are some really great points here, and I do apologize for missing that Magic Missile begins with three missiles. But that too supports my point. I feel like maybe it's a bit odd for a level one mage to begin with 3 missiles, or for a level 5 mage to be able to bust out at 8d6 for a fireball. I feel like, balance aside (but still a very important consideration), narratively a higher level mage should be better at casting lower level spells. On the balance side, my real complaint is that a high level caster basically stops getting any milage out of their 1st and 2nd level spell slots. Whether around the table or playing Baldur's Gate, my teen level casters still got use out of spells like mage armor, shield and magic missile. I can see some use for low level utility spells enduring, but by the time your in the teens your cantrips are outpacing your first level attack spell options.
(Reply to #36) Ashrym	omegajeff wrote:
(Reply to #36) Karnos	omegajeff wrote:
#39 FallingIcicle Jul 18, 2014 15:47:41	If magic missile added two missiles per spell level instead of one, it would compare more favorably to the other higher level spells. A 3rd level MM would deal an average of 24.5 damage. That's still less than fireball's average of 28, but it has the auto hit advantage, so it would be somewhat comparable. As it is now, MM's average of 17.5 damage is not a very good use for a 3rd level slot. It seems to me like the damaging spells don't scale nearly as well as the non-damaging spells do. Charm person and hold person, for example, add +1 target for each extra spell level. Paralyzing 8 people is a pretty powerful effect, worthy of a 9th level spell. Dealing 38.5 damage with magic missile is not.
#40 seti Jul 18, 2014 18:14:50	IMO wizards do plenty of damage across all levels, and have some pretty awesome utility spells to boot. No other 5th level class can dish out 8d6 (save for half) to a roomful of monsters. No other class has an auto-hit ray gun (magic Missile) and no other class does as much DoaM. Plus all the non-healing utilities in the game. Wizards are powerful. Almost too much so. Honestly, the only thing balanced with other PC's about them is the attack cantrips. They do 'weapon' damage that scales with melee PC's getting extra attacks as they level up. A rogue at least gets to roll a handful of dice at high levels, with sneak attack...But, they can miss outright, can only target one creature, and (especially in TotM conbat) are at the wims of the DM.
#41 Grazel Jul 19, 2014 3:58:36	I think the reason MM doesn't compare to a Fireball in the same level slot is because the option to overpower a spell by using a higher slot is meant to give situational flexibility to the spell. It's not meant to replace a similar (damage dealing, defensive, etc.) spell of that level, just a way that it's still useful on a situational basis. Say you are fighting something with fire resistance, or ethereal enemies. Magic Missile becomes useful but if you can ONLY cast it as a 1st level spell it's not going to help you much at higher levels and just counts as bee-stinging the enemy (possibly to death if you can cast it THAT many times). Being able to power it up by using a higher level slot makes it more relevant and possibly even life-saving. The scaling isn't meant to be an "always the best route" option, it's a situational flexibility option that suits the concept of the wizard being a flexibility magic master over the other caster types.
#42 Nesian42Ryukaiel Jul 19, 2014 0:27:03	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#43 Emerikol. Jul 19, 2014 12:30:43	Something some of you may have missed. Magic missile is now back the way it was in the old days. It does force damage period. If you want to cut 5 ropes with 5 missiles you can do it. There is a lot of flexibility in magic missile. It is also immune to evasion like things so a rogue that can ignore a fireball cannot ignore magic missile which will still strike him unerringly. I think it feels a lot like the old school magic missile. I hated the living matter restrictions etc... Welcome back magic missile. I've missed you.
#44 Lawolf Jul 19, 2014 12:47:56	How do you cut something with force damage? And what is the difference between force damage and bludgeoning damage? And what editions of D&D had magic missile not work on inanimate objects?
(Reply to #44) 1eejit	Lawolf wrote:
#46 Lawolf Jul 19, 2014 13:03:52	1eejit wrote:
#47 Mephi1234 Jul 19, 2014 13:10:54	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #46) Ashrym	Lawolf wrote:
#49 Lawolf Jul 19, 2014 13:52:23	I would rather have an "arcane" damage type that covers the whole pure magical energy damage thing. Magic missile, eldritch blast, and the like could deal arcane damage. I also think disintegrate dealing force damage feels...forced.
#50 1eejit Jul 19, 2014 13:58:28	It essentially is arcane damage by another name, it doesn't bother me.
#51 seti Jul 19, 2014 14:06:22	I see 'force' damage from spells like a light saber, phaser, or ray gun. So...Magic missile being like that is totally ok. Same with disintagrate. I even made a light saber for 3e and 4e. It ignored armor (ie: touch AC or Reflex), was a finesse weapon only, was vorpal-like on a crit, and did force damage. It also really hurt you if you rolled a 1.
#52 Prom Jul 19, 2014 14:36:20	I really don't see the issue. It's often not advisable to increase a spell higher than 1 spell slot, but given the limits on how many spells you can prepare it's still useful. I've seen this arguement about magic missile and fireball damage before in other editions, it's a lost cause. You can't compare a mortar shell blast to a semi-automatic sniper rifle shot, they have different purposes.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

omegajeff

Jul 17, 2014 21:22:20

There are many many MANY things I like about the new D&D. That said, there is one thing I absolutely do not like, scaling for magic. Even if it fits some new balance for damage, they have effectively ruined the most iconic spell in the list: Magic Missile (among others).

In all previous versions of the game, you get up to five missiles based on experience/caster level. In the new version, you get one extra missile by increasing it's spell level by one. So, to get five missiles for a whopping 5d4+5 damage, you cast it as a level five spell. Other 5th level spell options? Cone of Cold for 8D8 AOE damage.

Each spell level is supposed to reflect an exponential increase in power. But with meta-casting low level spells with higher level slots as the only method for scaling the effects, they've made it disappointingly linear. They've also effectively doubled down on making low level spell slots useless for higher level casters.

Another example would be that Fireball now does 8d6 right off the bat. From my understanding of their narrowed scale, 8D6 will always be a good amount of damage, so it could still be worth casting without raising it's level. So in looking over the spell list, it's really just 1st and 2nd level spells that have their longevity impacted.

AaronOfBarbaria

Jul 17, 2014 22:10:39

uh... magic missile does 1d4+1 per missile, and has 3 missiles as a 1st level spell, plus 1 missile for each level higher it is cast as, so a 5 missile casting would be a 3rd level spell.

If you are going to complain about things, at least be correct about what you are complaining about.

Ashrym

Jul 17, 2014 23:48:10

The spell scaling is something like about this edition. I wouldn't have given cantrips scaling as a personal choice either but I see I might have been in the minority on that point.

(Reply to #2)

Lord_Kyrion

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #4)

rookrock

Lord_Kyrion wrote:

(Reply to #4)

Shiroiken

Lord_Kyrion wrote:

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 5:33:39

rookrock wrote:

UngeheuerLich

Jul 18, 2014 4:09:28

DC is 15.

I also see the reduced efficiency as an increase in flexibility. It also prevents multiclas casters from being too good. Again tradung a little bit of power for flexibility.

I also believe, low level spells are useful if you for some reason can´t use the higher level spell. Fireball in close quarters (if you are no evoker) or if the enemy is resistant to fire or particular dextrous.

Also, sometimes you need that guaranteed hit, when a fireball would be quite risky. So overall i like the balance.

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 4:35:45

UngeheuerLich wrote:

#10

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 4:51:34

UngeheuerLich wrote:

#11

Mephi1234

Jul 18, 2014 5:08:50

Magic missile's no-miss feature is pretty good. And it has a lot of benefit when just cast as just a level 1 spell. Enemy spellcasters? Shoot off a magic missile. You'll hit everyone and force a Concentration check!

So, yes. It probably scales badly. But putting a fireball empowered up to level 9 is no match for a Meteor Swarm either. Even in previous editions. Double the radius for four times the area, plus a potential 40d6 damage on a failed save. Compare to fireball's 14d6 damage.

I feel like the only real reason to scale a damage spell isn't for damage, but if you really want to cast the spell, but you only have higher level spell slots left.

#12

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 5:19:36

The reason I did the math is because Magic Missile's "no miss" feature actually seems to be a lot better than it really is. A lot of this is basic psychology and that's why I laid out the naked math for everyone to see.

Given a choice (even to force concentration checks) between a fireball and a magic missile and you need to use a third level slot, you should be picking fireball virtually all of the time....even if you can only get a single target!

Like I said before, I don't really mind if spells didn't scale quite up to spells of higher level. To a certain degree that's fine (like paying a premium), but it should at least be in the ballpark! Otherwise it becomes a trap option and we're back to dedicated spells for dedicated slots like in prior editions...at least de-facto if not de-jure.

-Polaris

#13

autolycus

Jul 18, 2014 5:23:23

If the only spells you care about are damage spells, there might be something to what you say.

But as a high-level caster I don't want to be leaning on my 1st and 2nd level slots for damage. Those will be freed up for utility spells to assist in the other 2/3 of adventuring (exploration, interaction).

#14

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 5:30:12

autolycus wrote:

#15

Cyber-Dave

Jul 18, 2014 5:31:03

omegajeff wrote:

#16

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 5:37:17

Cyber-Dave wrote:

#17

autolycus

Jul 18, 2014 5:45:12

Polaris wrote:

#18

1eejit

Jul 18, 2014 5:49:37

As far as I see up-levelled spells shouldn't be your go-to for damage, natural level spells should. The exceptions are fringe cases, e.g. when you're up against a creature with resistance or immunity to fire damage and your Fireball spell just won't cut it.

#19

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 6:07:01

autolycus wrote:

#20

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 6:08:18

1eejit wrote:

#21

1eejit

Jul 18, 2014 6:19:23

Perhaps Magic Missile simply isn't one of the best scaling damage spells, given its auto-hit feature?

If you look at Chromatic Orb it has 3d8 at level 1, so 5d8 cast at level 3 or 22.5 damage average. No additional effects, but you can choose the damage type.

Burning hands would give 5d6 with a level 3 slot in a cone with a dex save. So a good bit less damage than fireball, though a non-evoker is more likely to be able to use it safely point-blank.

Thunderwave would deal 4d8 with a level 3 slot, with a pushback on failed save.

So the spells all have their niche, making them better than Fireball in certain circumstances.

#22

Cyber-Dave

Jul 18, 2014 6:38:47

Even if we accept your numbers, 17.5 is 78% of 22.4 Or, are you counting the fireball`s damage as its total damage dealt to multiple targets? If so, I do not think that your comparison is fair. I do not think that a spell like magic missile should be able to do 70-80% of the total AoE damage a fireball is likely to do, but to a single target. That is WAY too powerful. Focus fire tends to be a little more potent than single target damage as is. And, the salient point you seem to be forgetting is that magic missile can be used safely in close quarters fights where a fireball would engulf your own party in its damage dealt. Is fireball a better spell when cast in a 3rd level slot than magic missile cast in a 3rd level slot? Yes. It should be. There are still situations, however, where it is better to cast magic missile in a 3rd level slot than fireball. And, after you have used all your 3rd level slots, fireball is a wasted memorization slot. Magic missile, on the other hand, can be used with your 1st and 2nd level spell slots.

And, there are also the numbers to question. Fireball is a 3rd level spell. You will be able to cast it at level 5. You are likely to have a save DC of 8 + 3 (prof bonus) + 3 or 4 (Int bonus) at that level. So, we are talking a save DC of 14 or 15. Lets use 15 for the sake of argument. The creatures you will be fighting will have a Dex save of between +0 to +8. Versus a Dex save of +0 your fireball will have an average damage of (28*.75)+(14*.25)=24.5. In such cases, obviously fireball is the better choice. If a creature has +8 to its save, however, then your average damage is (28*0.3)+(14*0.7)=18.2. That is, however, over-time. 70% of the time you will be dealing 14 points of damage. With magic missile, 100% of the time you will be dealing 17.5 points of damage. You only have 2 5th level spell slots. For an over-time increase of 1.5 points of damage, I would probably play it safe and not gamble on fireball when using it against a creature with a good Dex save. That is double true if I am fighting in a dungeon where fireball is likely to hurt my allies. In such a situation, magic missile seems like the better option.

Honestly Polaris, if the spells did what you seem to want them to do, I think magic missile would be too good of an option. I think it is fine as is.

(Reply to #21)

Polaris

1eejit wrote:

(Reply to #10)

UngeheuerLich

Polaris wrote:

#25

Karnos

Jul 18, 2014 6:42:16

Part of the "no-miss" advantage of magic missile is it's damage type. While we haven't seen the 5e Monster Manual yet, historically D&D contains many monsters with resistance to fire, and some with outright immunity to it. In addition, there will probably be some monsters with evasion abilities, reducing fireball damage on save to 0 instead of 1/2.

Magic-damage immune monsters are very rare, on the other hand. Currently only the Shield spell blocks magic missile, as far as I can tell, and even in that case you are forcing an enemy to use his reaction and a level 1 spell slot to cast shield.

With the way spell preperation and casting works, there isn't really a serious drawback to keeping magic missile memorized, just to have the option to use it in cases where fireball (or whatever your normal go-to spell) is not optimal.

For an evoker at least, at 10+ you can start adding your Int mod to spell damage for evocations. Magic missile doesn't get the benefit to every bolt when they all hit the same target, but when they are spread among targets it does. This gives it an interesting level of flexibility, as doing 1d4+6 damage to each of 5 targets (when cast in a 3rd level slot, to make it comparable to fireball) might be more useful than a fireball, if the targets are spread among a wide area, or if you have too many allies in melee to safely fireball (spell shape is limited).

All said and done, when you reach a new level of spells it *should* feel like an upgrade, so I am glad the scaling works as it does. At level 5, you generally want to cast fireballs or lightning bolts with your 3rd level slots, and this is fine. It would feel a little disapointing to reach a new level of spells but realize you are better off if you just keep on casting your 1st level magic missile because it's still better.

#26

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 6:46:21

Cyber-Dave wrote:

#27

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 6:48:36

UngeheuerLich wrote:

#28

Cyber-Dave

Jul 18, 2014 7:06:54

Polaris wrote:

#29

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 7:23:44

I am assuming that PCs will generally be facing monsters and not PCs. At level 11, a +4 to a Dex save would require either an 18 Dex or proficiency with a Dex save and I somehow doubt that most monsters will be getting save proficiencies (and even if they do it won't generally be Dex). So if anything I was being generous, but I did it to keep the math simple and the same.

-Polaris

#30

Mephi1234

Jul 18, 2014 7:26:39

After a lot of thought, looking at the stuff from the sorcerer and their metamagic....

I really think that scaling damage spells isn't really meant to be a thing. Oh, sure, it happens... but its coming across more as a consolation prize in majority of cases, rather than the actual damage. You cast spells at a higher level only when you need the extra spell slots.

If you want someone who super pumps select spells, you go sorcerer. You want variety of spells at each level, you go wizard. Few spells multiple uses? Warlock.

#31

Polaris

Jul 18, 2014 7:29:06

Mephi1234 wrote:

#32

emwasick

Jul 18, 2014 7:49:28

Karnos wrote:

#33

The_Jester

Jul 18, 2014 8:02:09

The single target damage is pretty close between magic missile and fireball. As a level 3 spell the damage is 17.5 vs 28. But fireball requires a save, so if the target makes a save half the time the average damage of fireball becomes 21.

Fireball is better when facing multiple close together opponents. That's when it shines. Magic missile is better when facing a couple really spread out opponents or one that is really hard to hit.

#34

Mephi1234

Jul 18, 2014 8:13:43

Polaris wrote:

#35

Dastion

Jul 18, 2014 11:13:34

As a DM at D&D Encounters I can say that this week magic missile has really shined for our level 8 Wizard.

She's used it to negate the defenses of a Mirror Image happy spell caster and to put a serious beat down on some will o' wisps (they have the ethereal trait and were taking half damage to everything else the party threw at them).

Even in older versions spells like Magic Missile eventually petered off, the new system is just meant to help balance out magic'a potency and give low level spells some scaling. Would you ever use a level 3 Burning Hands instead of a Fireball? Not likely, but if you're not an Evocation Wizard and you're in tight quarters you may. The spells maintain some relevancy in this way but don't outshine spells of that level.

A high level wizard may be able to cast a spell all apprentices know in a masterful way (ie a 11 missile magic missile). But to say that that should be comparable to mastering the Wish spell? That seems unlikely.

#36

omegajeff

Jul 18, 2014 11:46:50

There are some really great points here, and I do apologize for missing that Magic Missile begins with three missiles.

But that too supports my point. I feel like maybe it's a bit odd for a level one mage to begin with 3 missiles, or for a level 5 mage to be able to bust out at 8d6 for a fireball.

I feel like, balance aside (but still a very important consideration), narratively a higher level mage should be better at casting lower level spells.

On the balance side, my real complaint is that a high level caster basically stops getting any milage out of their 1st and 2nd level spell slots. Whether around the table or playing Baldur's Gate, my teen level casters still got use out of spells like mage armor, shield and magic missile. I can see some use for low level utility spells enduring, but by the time your in the teens your cantrips are outpacing your first level attack spell options.

(Reply to #36)

Ashrym

omegajeff wrote:

(Reply to #36)

Karnos

omegajeff wrote:

#39

FallingIcicle

Jul 18, 2014 15:47:41

If magic missile added two missiles per spell level instead of one, it would compare more favorably to the other higher level spells. A 3rd level MM would deal an average of 24.5 damage. That's still less than fireball's average of 28, but it has the auto hit advantage, so it would be somewhat comparable. As it is now, MM's average of 17.5 damage is not a very good use for a 3rd level slot.

It seems to me like the damaging spells don't scale nearly as well as the non-damaging spells do. Charm person and hold person, for example, add +1 target for each extra spell level. Paralyzing 8 people is a pretty powerful effect, worthy of a 9th level spell. Dealing 38.5 damage with magic missile is not.

#40

seti

Jul 18, 2014 18:14:50

IMO wizards do plenty of damage across all levels, and have some pretty awesome utility spells to boot.

No other 5th level class can dish out 8d6 (save for half) to a roomful of monsters. No other class has an auto-hit ray gun (magic Missile) and no other class does as much DoaM. Plus all the non-healing utilities in the game.

Wizards are powerful. Almost too much so.

Honestly, the only thing balanced with other PC's about them is the attack cantrips. They do 'weapon' damage that scales with melee PC's getting extra attacks as they level up.

A rogue at least gets to roll a handful of dice at high levels, with sneak attack...But, they can miss outright, can only target one creature, and (especially in TotM conbat) are at the wims of the DM.

#41

Grazel

Jul 19, 2014 3:58:36

I think the reason MM doesn't compare to a Fireball in the same level slot is because the option to overpower a spell by using a higher slot is meant to give situational flexibility to the spell. It's not meant to replace a similar (damage dealing, defensive, etc.) spell of that level, just a way that it's still useful on a situational basis.

Say you are fighting something with fire resistance, or ethereal enemies. Magic Missile becomes useful but if you can ONLY cast it as a 1st level spell it's not going to help you much at higher levels and just counts as bee-stinging the enemy (possibly to death if you can cast it THAT many times). Being able to power it up by using a higher level slot makes it more relevant and possibly even life-saving.

The scaling isn't meant to be an "always the best route" option, it's a situational flexibility option that suits the concept of the wizard being a flexibility magic master over the other caster types.

#42

Nesian42Ryukaiel

Jul 19, 2014 0:27:03

Cyber-Dave wrote:

#43

Emerikol.

Jul 19, 2014 12:30:43

Something some of you may have missed. Magic missile is now back the way it was in the old days. It does force damage period. If you want to cut 5 ropes with 5 missiles you can do it. There is a lot of flexibility in magic missile. It is also immune to evasion like things so a rogue that can ignore a fireball cannot ignore magic missile which will still strike him unerringly.

I think it feels a lot like the old school magic missile. I hated the living matter restrictions etc...

Welcome back magic missile. I've missed you.

#44

Lawolf

Jul 19, 2014 12:47:56

How do you cut something with force damage?

And what is the difference between force damage and bludgeoning damage?

And what editions of D&D had magic missile not work on inanimate objects?

(Reply to #44)

1eejit

Lawolf wrote:

#46

Lawolf

Jul 19, 2014 13:03:52

1eejit wrote:

#47

Mephi1234

Jul 19, 2014 13:10:54

Lawolf wrote:

(Reply to #46)

Ashrym

Lawolf wrote:

#49

Lawolf

Jul 19, 2014 13:52:23

I would rather have an "arcane" damage type that covers the whole pure magical energy damage thing. Magic missile, eldritch blast, and the like could deal arcane damage. I also think disintegrate dealing force damage feels...forced.

#50

1eejit

Jul 19, 2014 13:58:28

It essentially is arcane damage by another name, it doesn't bother me.

#51

seti

Jul 19, 2014 14:06:22

I see 'force' damage from spells like a light saber, phaser, or ray gun. So...Magic missile being like that is totally ok. Same with disintagrate.

I even made a light saber for 3e and 4e. It ignored armor (ie: touch AC or Reflex), was a finesse weapon only, was vorpal-like on a crit, and did force damage. It also really hurt you if you rolled a 1.

#52

Prom

Jul 19, 2014 14:36:20

I really don't see the issue. It's often not advisable to increase a spell higher than 1 spell slot, but given the limits on how many spells you can prepare it's still useful. I've seen this arguement about magic missile and fireball damage before in other editions, it's a lost cause. You can't compare a mortar shell blast to a semi-automatic sniper rifle shot, they have different purposes.