# Down Leveling spells, from the Expert Classes playtest.



## darjr (Oct 1, 2022)

From the playtest.

I haven’t seen this discussed much. Has anyone tried this in play yet? I wonder if this would mean spells level ranges might get rearranged.

Was anyone doing this as a house rule?

edit to add a link to the point in the video where they say it's something they are experimenting with.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

darjr said:


> Was anyone doing this as a house rule?



I never actually tried it out, but I played around with the idea for quite a while.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 1, 2022)

It was one of those things I thought about, though I think spells like fireball would have needed a bit of adjustment. Some spells I lowered to a lower level because the horrid wilting at level 8 felt like wasted potential so I downgraded it to level 4 (could probably be level 3) by reducing it by 1 die per level


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> fireball would have needed a bit of adjustment



If I were to "downlevel" Fireball, I would have it be something like this:


> *At Lower Levels.* When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or lower, the damage decreases by 3d6 and the radius shrinks by 5 feet for each slot level below 3rd.



That would make it so 1st level fireball would be a 10-foot radius sphere that deals 2d6 damage and 2nd level fireball has a radius of 15 feet and deals 5d6. That's still pretty powerful for those levels, but not _super _game-breaking.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 1, 2022)

It seems like bad design. Better to build a lower-level version and upcast it.


----------



## darjr (Oct 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If I were to "downlevel" Fireball, I would have it be something like this:
> 
> That would make it so 1st level fireball would be a 10-foot radius sphere that deals 2d6 damage and 2nd level fireball has a radius of 15 feet and deals 5d6. That's still pretty powerful for those levels, but not _super _game-breaking.



I really like this!


----------



## darjr (Oct 1, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It seems like bad design. Better to build a lower-level version and upcast it.



It’s part of the playtest, make sure you note it on the survey then.

I think the idea was to gatekeep spells out of lower level but let casters soak up lower level slots.

Note I’m not yet disagreeing.

I dunno what to think yet.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 1, 2022)

darjr said:


> I haven’t seen this discussed much. Has anyone tried this in play yet? I wonder if this would mean spells level ranges might get rearranged.
> 
> Was anyone doing this as a house rule?



It's a good idea but it bumps into a couple of problems:

1) The simple thing to do is just lower the damage dice or the like, but some spells gain their main benefits and reasons for being higher level from stuff like vast AOEs, and it's not always clear now to reduce those.

2) A few spells in 5E are intentionally "favoured" and overpowered. This is not an accident and WotC devs have discussed this. Fireball is the most obvious example - a downlevelled Fireball would be even more overpowered than Fireball already is!

So I think they'd need to get rid of OP spells (which they really should anyway, it's a very 3E kind of approach), and also really very carefully consider the level-based elements of spells in a way they haven't previously in 5E.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Oct 1, 2022)

wait, what? where was this???


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> wait, what? where was this???



The Hunter Ranger Subclass. Its level 10 ability lets them cast Conjure Barrage with 1st and 2nd level spell slots.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Oct 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The Hunter Ranger Subclass. Its level 10 ability lets them cast Conjure Barrage with 1st and 2nd level spell slots.



oh, wow. that's cursed. i hate that.


----------



## darjr (Oct 1, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> oh, wow. that's cursed. i hate that.



Wait? Why?


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 1, 2022)

Upcasting is rarely worth it.
Downcasting will never be.

5e has HP bloat, you need more damage not less.


----------



## darjr (Oct 1, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Upcasting is rarely worth it.
> Downcasting will never be.
> 
> 5e has HP bloat, you need more damage not less.



I just had players upcast spells.


----------



## James Gasik (Oct 1, 2022)

Upcasting isn't always the best thing to do, but there are times when it can be.  Like say you're playing a PHB Sorcerer, and you can't afford to put a damage spell in every spell known.

Or you have one of those rare spells that scales pretty well with an upcast.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Oct 1, 2022)

darjr said:


> Wait? Why?



a few reasons have already been said - spells should be designed from one level and then have upcasting make them better, downcasting will never be worth it, etc. - but what gets me the most is that it gives off the impression that a spell's level doesn't actually mean anything within the context of the world. like, i'd _assume_ conjure barrage is 3rd level in the context of the world because it's particularly complicated or difficult to cast. but then rangers can just downcast it...but it's still a 3rd level spell. like...why is it a 3rd level spell, then? why not 1st level?

in other words, at least to me, it makes the spell* feel even more arbitrary then it already is. hence, it's cursed, and i hate it.

*edit: i meant spell levels, but i think you guys already knew that


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It seems like bad design. Better to build a lower-level version and upcast it.




Not necessarily, if you take multiclassing into consideration.

Possibly:
When you have reached wizard (evoker) 5, you can downcast fireball reducing damage by 2d6 for each slot below level 3.

With this rule, a single class evoker always has a very good level 1 spell at their disposal.

A wizard (evoker) level 3/fighter 2 has not.
If it was a level 1 spells, he had.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2022)

darjr said:


> I just had players upcast spells.




Thunderwave and burning hands upcast to level 2 are solid. Especially multiclass characters have to.

My character often upcasts colour spray. Level 3 does blind a 10d10 (55) hp foe for a round. That often makes the last round a lot less dangerous.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Upcasting is rarely worth it.
> Downcasting will never be.
> 
> 5e has HP bloat, you need more damage not less.




Low level foes can be very annoying in a fight against a strong enemy.
So clearing them out woth fewer ressources can be good.

But: conjure barrage is too bad a spell, as it barley does not do enough damage against very low level foes when cast at level 3...

Numbers are bad. I like the concept though.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 1, 2022)

If it's about being able to do something with your lower level slots, why not just allow 2 slots at a given level to be used as 1 slot at the level above? So if you had 2x 1st level slots, you could use them to cast a 2nd level spell (that you have prepared). And if you have 2x 1st level slots, 1x 2nd level slot and 1x 3rd level slot, you could use them all to cast a single 4th level spell (that you have prepared)...


----------



## Krachek (Oct 1, 2022)

Conjure barrage, for now, is not a good spell,
a fireball dealing 6d6 with a first level slot, that is the real case to discuss for down casting on a wide basis.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Oct 1, 2022)

Krachek said:


> Conjure barrage, for now, is not a good spell,
> a fireball dealing 6d6 with a first level slot, that is the real case to discuss for down casting on a wide basis.



6d6 (especially aoe) from a first level slot is INSANE, WHAT?


----------



## Krachek (Oct 1, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> 6d6 (especially aoe) from a first level slot is INSANE, WHAT?



Indeed it is insane.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> 6d6 (especially aoe) from a first level slot is INSANE, WHAT?





Krachek said:


> Indeed it is insane.



But that's not how Downleveling for Fireball works. We don't know if there will a feature that allows you to downlevel fireball, but if there is one, it surely will not be a simple "reduced die of damage every level below 3rd" and will probably be more like the possible version I provided earlier in the thread.


----------



## Krachek (Oct 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But that's not how Downleveling for Fireball works. We don't know if there will a feature that allows you to downlevel fireball, but if there is one, it surely will not be a simple "reduced die of damage every level below 3rd" and will probably be more like the possible version I provided earlier in the thread.



Indeed you are right, we make speculation based on the conjure barrage and the Ranger UA.
on some specific case it might be interesting, as a standard mechanics OMG there is a lot a work to do!


----------



## DeviousQuail (Oct 1, 2022)

I could see it becoming a recurring subclass feature to be able to downcast certain spells. That way there is a level requirement and you can specifically design the downcasting for the spell in question. Animate Dead for necromancers, Vampiric Touch for a new version of a blackguard or long death monk, and Heal for a life cleric jump out to me as potential candidates. 

Including general downcasting for all spells seems like way more work than it is worth though.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 1, 2022)

darjr said:


> From the playtest.
> 
> I haven’t seen this discussed much. Has anyone tried this in play yet? I wonder if this would mean spells level ranges might get rearranged.
> 
> Was anyone doing this as a house rule?



There is _one spell _that the playtest lets you down level. It's an awful spell as a third level spell to the point that if you literally doubled the damage it still probably wouldn't be as good as fireball and by the time you get it it's arguably _worse_ when down levelled because by the time you get it 1d8 damage (save for half) even over a wide area is basically pointless and you need a _ludicrous_ number of targets or a collection of targets made of glass for it to do more damage than two hunter's mark backed arrows (thanks to Extra Attack) and with the Hunter damage boost, never mind focus fire being more valuable.

(Another good reason to upcast is single target spells becoming multi-target)


----------



## darjr (Oct 1, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> There is _one spell _that the playtest lets you down level. It's an awful spell as a third level spell to the point that if you literally doubled the damage it still probably wouldn't be as good as fireball and by the time you get it it's arguably _worse_ when down levelled because by the time you get it 1d8 damage (save for half) even over a wide area is basically pointless and you need a _ludicrous_ number of targets or a collection of targets made of glass for it to do more damage than two hunter's mark backed arrows (thanks to Extra Attack) and with the Hunter damage boost, never mind focus fire being more valuable.
> 
> (Another good reason to upcast is single target spells becoming multi-target)



In the video they said that spell is a test for the whole idea and we may see more.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 1, 2022)

darjr said:


> In the video they said that spell is a test for the whole idea and we may see more.



I hope we see more - but the base spell is a terrible one to the point it might sabotage the test.


----------



## Blue (Oct 2, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> a few reasons have already been said - spells should be designed from one level and then have upcasting make them better, downcasting will never be worth it, etc. - but what gets me the most is that it gives off the impression that a spell's level doesn't actually mean anything within the context of the world. like, i'd _assume_ conjure barrage is 3rd level in the context of the world because it's particularly complicated or difficult to cast. but then rangers can just downcast it...but it's still a 3rd level spell. like...why is it a 3rd level spell, then? why not 1st level?
> 
> in other words, at least to me, it makes the spell* feel even more arbitrary then it already is. hence, it's cursed, and i hate it.



This basically says: "this one subclass is a prodigy at this one spell, and can do things others can't".  And for a half-caster, there aren't a whole lot of 3rd level slots to use it with.

As long as they keep on making things spells instead of features, we need the flexibility to give a spell normally above level to a (sub)class.  And that seems to be their direction, so this is a needed tool.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 2, 2022)

rules.mechanic said:


> If it's about being able to do something with your lower level slots, why not just allow 2 slots at a given level to be used as 1 slot at the level above? So if you had 2x 1st level slots, you could use them to cast a 2nd level spell (that you have prepared). And if you have 2x 1st level slots, 1x 2nd level slot and 1x 3rd level slot, you could use them all to cast a single 4th level spell (that you have prepared)...



I’d love to have that be how a class works, but I think it’s a lot more complex for all Spellcasting to work that way. 

Sorcerers, or Warlocks. The ones that break the rules of how magic works. Maybe Artificer, but IMO artificer needs a higher spell progression more than it needs even more versatility.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 2, 2022)

I really hope they add more upcasting to various spells, especially in the “more targets” style.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Oct 2, 2022)

Blue said:


> This basically says: "this one subclass is a prodigy at this one spell, and can do things others can't".  And for a half-caster, there aren't a whole lot of 3rd level slots to use it with.
> 
> As long as they keep on making things spells instead of features, we need the flexibility to give a spell normally above level to a (sub)class.  And that seems to be their direction, so this is a needed tool.



i don't see how this makes it any less cursed. in fact, it just makes me hate it more.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2022)

darjr said:


> It’s part of the playtest, make sure you note it on the survey then.
> 
> I think the idea was to gatekeep spells out of lower level but let casters soak up lower level slots.
> 
> ...



Where is that rule in the packet?


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Oct 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Where is that rule in the packet?



10th level hunter ranger feature


----------



## NotAYakk (Oct 2, 2022)

Please, if you are going to introduce a thread like this, be less vague?

Half of the people in the thread seem to think that downleveling spells is some kind of ability any spellcaster will have.

The Hunter subclass at level 10 has the unique ability to cast a specific 3rd level spell using 1st or 2nd level slots.

Really, it is a subclass ability that lets them convert spell slots into AOE attacks, rather than invent a new mechanic for it.

They can use a 1st level slot to do a 1d8 damage aoe, a 2nd level slot to do a 2d8 damage aoe, a 3rd level slot to do a 3d8 damage aoe, a 4th level slot to do a 4d8 damage aoe, and a 5th level slot to do a 5d8 damage aoe (assuming the spell itself isn't modified).

If you modify the spell so the baseline spell doesn't suck (say, 5d8 (22) damage), then it would be 3d8 for 1st level + 1d8 per slot level for the Hunter.  For anyone else with the spell, it is a 3rd level spell that does 5d8 damage.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> 10th level hunter ranger feature



Aha!  I looked for it in the glossary.  Looking at the feature, I don't think it was intended for general use, but specifically for that one spell.  As fireball shows, it doesn't really translate well to all spells.  2d6 to everything in a 20 foot diameter sphere is far more powerful than any other 1st level spell.


----------



## darjr (Oct 2, 2022)

NotAYakk said:


> Please, if you are going to introduce a thread like this, be less vague?
> 
> Half of the people in the thread seem to think that downleveling spells is some kind of ability any spellcaster will have.
> 
> ...



Please take a look at the video where I think they say they are experimenting with down-leveling spells and that this one spell is just an example.

Edit: I updated the op to contain the info.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2022)

darjr said:


> Please take a look at the video where I think they say they are experimenting with down-leveling spells and that this one spell is just an example.
> 
> View attachment 262954



I can't tell from that whether they are talking about a general multiattack feature or specialized multiattack features of that sort in certain classes, subclasses and perhaps monsters.


----------



## darjr (Oct 2, 2022)

@Maxperson @NotAYakk 

I've updated the OP and added a link to the video at the point where they say it is a test of the feature in general.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 2, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If I were to "downlevel" Fireball, I would have it be something like this:
> 
> That would make it so 1st level fireball would be a 10-foot radius sphere that deals 2d6 damage and 2nd level fireball has a radius of 15 feet and deals 5d6. That's still pretty powerful for those levels, but not _super _game-breaking.



Your suggestion for an "At Lower Levels" mechanic is excellent.

I can see uses for this, where it is appropriate to get a spell at a higher tier, but once having it, can use less resources for it.



For the Fireball spell specifically, I would rather correct its damage to balance alongside other spells at slot 3. Having weird damage for Fireball makes it more difficult to balance the other spells, because Fireball warps the comparisons when deciding how much damage each slot should deal.

Then if designers want the Wizard to be iconic with Fireball, then it needs to be a Wizard class feature (or subclass feature), to add damage to the spell.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 2, 2022)

One of the things that this downcasting makes me think, is that if a spell can be cast with a lower slot, why not just make the spell a 1st level spell? Like make fireball a 1st level spell with a 10 ft radius doing 2d6 fire damage and upcasting it increased it's power by 2d6 and 5ft radius per level.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 2, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If I were to "downlevel" Fireball, I would have it be something like this:
> 
> That would make it so 1st level fireball would be a 10-foot radius sphere that deals 2d6 damage and 2nd level fireball has a radius of 15 feet and deals 5d6. That's still pretty powerful for those levels, but not _super _game-breaking.



the fact that I would still cast those and think them GREAT shows how OP the spell is


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 2, 2022)

The spells themselves in the Player Handbook ignore the advice in the DMs Guide (page 284) for spells that deal multi-target save-for-half damage.

Supposedly the expected damage is:

*Slot: Damage*
1: 2d6
2: 4d6
3: 6d6
4: 7d6
5: 8d6
6: 11d6
7: 12d6
8: 13d6
9: 14d6

However, the Players Handbook spells explode the above guideline.

3: 8d6 (!) Fireball
9: 20d6 + 20d6 (!) Meteor Swarm



The gaming engine is more like 2d6 x Slot Level damage.

[0: 1d6]
1: 2d6
2: 4d6
3: 6d6
4: 8d6
5: 10d6
6: 12d6
7: 14d6
8: 16d6
9: 18d6
[10: 20d6]

Note, some spells swap damage for other effects, or else boost damage if a save-for-no-damage.


In any case, Fireball either needs to become a slot 4 spell, or its damage needs to reduce to 6d6 as appropriate for the other slot 3 spells.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 2, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I really hope they add more upcasting to various spells, especially in the “more targets” style.



If I had it my way, I would cut a big chunk of the spells in 5e by combing all of the ones that have very similar effects but become more powerful at higher levels. For example, if I were in charge of changing 5e's spell system, I would combine Dominate Beast, Dominate Person, and Dominate Monster into a single spell that dominates a target but only certain creature types depending on what level you cast it at (beasts with level 4 spell slots, humanoids with 5th level, continuing on with higher level slots until all monster types are included).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 2, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If I had it my way, I would cut a big chunk of the spells in 5e by combing all of the ones that have very similar effects but become more powerful at higher levels. For example, if I were in charge of changing 5e's spell system, I would combine Dominate Beast, Dominate Person, and Dominate Monster into a single spell that dominates a target but only certain creature types depending on what level you cast it at (beasts with level 4 spell slots, humanoids with 5th level, continuing on with higher level slots until all monster types are included).



I did this at the beginning, I made a WAY condensed spell list and put what my players called 'minor spell lists' that were thematic groups and casting at different levels. HOWEVER doing so gave a major boost as casters were able to prep/know more spells that way


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 2, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I did this at the beginning, I made a WAY condensed spell list and put what my players called 'minor spell lists' that were thematic groups and casting at different levels. HOWEVER doing so gave a major boost as casters were able to prep/know more spells that way



Then reduce the number of spells that mages can prepare. Or, ignore the minor boost, because the mages don't have any more spell slots than before and are just given a slight increase in versatility with casting.


----------



## NotAYakk (Oct 2, 2022)

darjr said:


> Please take a look at the video where I think they say they are experimenting with down-leveling spells and that this one spell is just an example.
> 
> Edit: I updated the op to contain the info.



Nm, misread.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2022)

darjr said:


> @Maxperson @NotAYakk
> 
> I've updated the OP and added a link to the video at the point where they say it is a test of the feature in general.



I listened to it and I don't think it's a general feature.  He says they are experimenting with the new feature and he was excited to put it into the ranger.  He was saying that it's about down leveling A spell, which can be read as a single specific spell or more generally, but then he goes on to say the following.  The reason that it's so important is because classes like the ranger and paladin have so few slots that it's good for them to be able to do this.  

You could be right, but I don't think what Crawford said in THIS video supports a general version being the goal.  We will see!


----------



## Staffan (Oct 3, 2022)

Yeah, I don't think downleveling spells will be a general thing spells do. It could easily be a common class/sub-class ability to downlevel specific spells, when the situation calls for it.

But as others have pointed out, _conjure barrage_ is a horrible example, because the damage is ridiculously low. For my money, an appropriate level 11 ability would be to cast _conjure barrage_ at will. 3d8 at level 11, even in a huge area, is nothing.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 3, 2022)

Down casting won't be a general feature.

It's too weak for half casters.
It's too strong for full casters.

If there were 2/3 casters like the 3e bard, this might have worked.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Down casting won't be a general feature.
> 
> It's too weak for half casters.
> It's too strong for full casters.
> ...




I don't think you are right. It is good enough for half casters and not too good for full casters.
Especially with the new preparation rules (that allows you to only have very few spells per level prepared), the option to downlevel some spells could be huge.

Even if fireball really goes down 3d6 damage per level, which leaves a low damage (2d6) huge area blast, that might be worthwhile once in a while, but in no way overpowered for a full caster.

A 5d6 level 2 blast would be quite huge, but is still not game breaking.

I mean, if you are able to downcast, you only do it in dire circumstances, as normally holding back in the first few rounds often costs you more ressources in the long run.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't think you are right. It is good enough for half casters and not too good for full casters.
> Especially with the new preparation rules (that allows you to only have very few spells per level prepared), the option to downlevel some spells could be huge.
> 
> Even if fireball really goes down 3d6 damage per level, which leaves a low damage (2d6) huge area blast, that might be worthwhile once in a while, but in no way overpowered for a full caster.
> ...



Almost every damage spell that could be downcasted is already too weak for half casters. They get slots way too slow.

5e is designed that you don't use under leveled slots. Spells aren't buffed by caster level. So 1st and 2nd level spells are too weak for damage at level 11. Casting magic missle at level 10 is weak in 90% of cases.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Almost every damage spell that could be downcasted is already too weak for half casters. They get slots way too slow.
> 
> 5e is designed that you don't use under leveled slots. Spells aren't buffed by caster level. So 1st and 2nd level spells are too weak for damage at level 11. Casting magic missle at level 10 is weak in 90% of cases.




Really depends on your playstyle.
In our ganes, even 1/3 casters got good use out of their low level spells.

If you only have "deadly" encounters with "level appropriate" foes, low level spells have no use.
In our game we have a wide spread of all kinds of encounters and even low level minions have their place in a high level encounter. And a low level spell to clear the out really makes life less miserable for the fighters.

I don't think 5e is designed wrong in that regard. I think you misinterpret it.


----------



## NotAYakk (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Really depends on your playstyle.
> In our ganes, even 1/3 casters got good use out of their low level spells.
> 
> If you only have "deadly" encounters with "level appropriate" foes, low level spells have no use.
> ...



The claim isn't low level spells are useless. It is that the damage isn't worth the action.

A 1st level spell like burning hands does 10 damage; it takes a lucky cast to drop even a cr 1/8 guard, and it is a 15' cone, so getting more than 2 requires a tight packing.

The same action as an attack would drop 2-3 of the guards at T3.  So a spell known and a spell slot used for at best marginally better killing of low threat foes.

I mean it'll be flashy and fun.  And as a DM, I could imagine having foes pack super tight to give the player some fun.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Really depends on your playstyle.
> In our ganes, even 1/3 casters got good use out of their low level spells.
> 
> If you only have "deadly" encounters with "level appropriate" foes, low level spells have no use.
> In our game we have a wide spread of all kinds of encounters and even low level minions have their place in a high level encounter. And a low level spell to clear the out really makes life less miserable for the fighters.



You missing my point.

The spells that you can upcast are damage spells.
The spell that you will likely be ones you could upcast.
Damage spells of under level don't deal much damage to high level challenges unless you DM runs 1HD gobbos at PC level 11.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

NotAYakk said:


> The claim isn't low level spells are useless. It is that the damage isn't worth the action.
> 
> A 1st level spell like burning hands does 10 damage; it takes a lucky cast to drop even a cr 1/8 guard, and it is a 15' cone, so getting more than 2 requires a tight packing.
> 
> ...




And this is why we are not speaking of burning hands at the moment, but downleveleing fireball... which would have a huge area, maybe annihilating a whole military unit.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> You missing my point.
> 
> The spells that you can upcast are damage spells.
> The spell that you will likely be ones you could upcast.
> Damage spells of under level don't deal much damage to high level challenges unless you DM runs 1HD gobbos at PC level 11.




Which we do sometimes. Does not have to be a regular use, but nice at some times. So why not add the option, so you don't have to memorize a low level area damage spell just for the rare case? Noone forces you to downcast. Upcasting also is often not worth it for a fireball, but also nice to have.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Which we do sometimes. Does not have to be a regular use, but nice at some times. So why not add the option, so you don't have to memorize a low level area damage spell just for the rare case? Noone forces you to downcast. Upcasting also is often not worth it for a fireball, but also nice to have.



It's not worth the class feature.

If old Favored enemy and terrain was too niche, Downcasting is too.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> It's not worth the class feature.
> 
> If old Favored enemy and terrain was too niche, Downcasting is too.




Not for this spell, I agree. Does not mean the concept is bad.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Not for this spell, I agree. Does not mean the concept is bad.



It's bad for most spells.

5e spells were not designed for Downcasting.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> It's bad for most spells.
> 
> 5e spells were not designed for Downcasting.




I disagree. You can easily balance the numbers so they align with lower level spells, or better, are slightly better than those. Also, having the option is better than not having the option. Upcasting is also bad in the case of most damage spells, but it is still nice to have the option.


----------



## NotAYakk (Oct 3, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> It's not worth the class feature.
> 
> If old Favored enemy and terrain was too niche, Downcasting is too.



Suppose Conjure Barrage read:
5d8 damage, 60' cone
And you got -1d8 per level under 3.

5d8 makes it a solid spell (22.5).  Not fireball good (smaller area, way less range, 20% less damage).

And maybe add 1 use/long rest for free.

Now that feature is "get a good spell automatically known" and get a way to spend L 1/2 slots on it (4d8/3d8).

Even at 4d8 (18) it isn't bad, and 3d8/2d8 for 1st/2nd level slots isn't a total waste of an action.

But right now, it is a bad spell you get to downlevel, and the downleveling is inefficient.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If I were to "downlevel" Fireball, I would have it be something like this:
> 
> That would make it so 1st level fireball would be a 10-foot radius sphere that deals 2d6 damage and 2nd level fireball has a radius of 15 feet and deals 5d6. That's still pretty powerful for those levels, but not _super _game-breaking.



Now if only fireball scales UP like that so it is not a complete waste of a slot at spell levels 4+
maybe only +2d6 damage and +5ft radius per spell level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Now if only fireball scales UP like that so it is not a complete waste of a slot at spell levels 4+
> maybe only +2d6 damage and +5ft radius per spell level.




Good idea!


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 4, 2022)

I actually really like the idea of downcasting because it's basically just saying - this spell has a level entry requirement, but that requirement is unrelated to which spell slot it's cast with. This supports a bunch of fictional concepts (I'll shoot my fireball, but not at full power so I can conserve my magic for later in the fight, etc). 

I don't think it's going to pan out; I think it's something you'd need to build the system from the ground up around, and the 5e return to Vancian spell slots and spell levels makes this just too convoluted or possible to cause too much confusion between spell level, spell slot level, and character level (already confusing enough for the latter two). 

I think it's worth considering for a theoretical 6E rebuild or an alternate D&D-based fantasy RPG. But it's too much effort and confusion for too little gain to graft onto 5E at this stage.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> I actually really like the idea of downcasting because it's basically just saying - this spell has a level entry requirement, but that requirement is unrelated to which spell slot it's cast with. This supports a bunch of fictional concepts (I'll shoot my fireball, but not at full power so I can conserve my magic for later in the fight, etc).
> 
> I don't think it's going to pan out; I think it's something you'd need to build the system from the ground up around, and the 5e return to Vancian spell slots and spell levels makes this just too convoluted or possible to cause too much confusion between spell level, spell slot level, and character level (already confusing enough for the latter two).
> 
> I think it's worth considering for a theoretical 6E rebuild or an alternate D&D-based fantasy RPG. But it's too much effort and confusion for too little gain to graft onto 5E at this stage.




I liked your first paragraph. I don't agree with others though.
I really can't see a reason why you can't balance it.
It does not have to be a general rule. But an evoker being able to downcast fireball will be great.
Also, if the sorcerer really stays a known caster, what I expect, being able to forget burning hands and learn fireball instead and then still being able to cast a 1st level fire spell would be a great addition to the game. I might keep it, even if it is not official in 1D&D.

Remember: downscaling might cost you more dice than you gain by upscaling.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I liked your first paragraph. I don't agree with others though.
> I really can't see a reason why you can't balance it.
> It does not have to be a general rule. But an evoker being able to downcast fireball will be great.
> Also, if the sorcerer really stays a known caster, what I expect, being able to forget burning hands and learn fireball instead and then still being able to cast a 1st level fire spell would be a great addition to the game. I might keep it, even if it is not official in 1D&D.
> ...




Sorry for any confusion, my concern was not about balance, it was about communication. I think you can balance it quite well. But introducing this to the game at this point has a major cost associated with it: lack of clarity regarding what level means. Remember that allegedly Kate Welch departure had a bit to do with the game being extraordinarily confusing on this very issue, and WotC being unwilling to slaughter the sacred cow for the sake of clarity. I'm not saying we should get rid of spell levels, just that the idea of spells that slide up and down depending on the slot you cast them with only introduces more confusion into what a spell level actually means. 

"So you're telling me I'm a 9th level wizard, but I can only cast up to 5th level spells, but I can cast my 3rd level spell fireball as a 2nd level spell, but I couldn't cast fireball as a 2nd level spell when I was 3rd level and thus had access to 2nd level spells like my downcasted fireball?"

You see the confusion here?

I do think that spell levels are important to the 5e system, since they allow the spells to be a uniform resource, and allow different access progressions for different classes (for example, so that Rangers get higher level spells at half the rate of Druids, and Eldritch Knights at 1/3 the rate of Wizards), But now we're introducing questions about what level that spell even is, inherently. Upcasting makes more intuitive sense, since you're gatekept from learning the spell until its lowest slot it can be cast with is something that you have. But once you have spells that can be cast with a lower slot than they actually are, then players are going to ask why they couldn't cast it at that lower level. And this only adds to the confusion regarding class vs spell level. 

4e solved the problem by doing away with unified levels for spells and tailoring each special spell-like class feature that could be learned or prepared to the specific class. But this meant a lot of wasted space for barely different powers that have just be slightly spiced with a hint of that class' secret sauce. 

Another system might solve it by having "Fire" be a basic spell idea that can be shaped into a fireball by 5th level wizards, but could be used to light torches or campfires or lightly burn close by enemies at lower levels. Thus the spell itself doesn't have a level, but you shape it by the level the slot you cast it with (sort of like how big you make your kamehameha wave - whether you pull a Roshi and get all muscular and giant to put off a max power 100% and put out a burning castle, or whether it's just a small poof of energy you use because you don't want to waste your most powerful slots). This is actually kinda what Psionics did in 4e too, with all the powers being at-will (essentially cantrips), but you being able to spend power points of various degrees to turn them into your higher leveled features akin to another class' 1/short rest or 1/long rest powers, respectively. But such a system has to be built from the ground up and communicated in such a way that clears up the level issue, and grafting it on here would only serve to further confuse players.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Sorry for any confusion, my concern was not about balance, it was about communication. I think you can balance it quite well. But introducing this to the game at this point has a major cost associated with it: lack of clarity regarding what level means. Remember that allegedly Kate Welch departure had a bit to do with the game being extraordinarily confusing on this very issue, and WotC being unwilling to slaughter the sacred cow for the sake of clarity. I'm not saying we should get rid of spell levels, just that the idea of spells that slide up and down depending on the slot you cast them with only introduces more confusion into what a spell level actually means.
> 
> "So you're telling me I'm a 9th level wizard, but I can only cast up to 5th level spells, but I can cast my 3rd level spell fireball as a 2nd level spell, but I couldn't cast fireball as a 2nd level spell when I was 3rd level and thus had access to 2nd level spells like my downcasted fireball?"
> 
> You see the confusion here?



Actually... not really... but maybe my imagination is limited.

and even if back then it was not time to slay the sacred cow, now is the time to try it out.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually... not really... but maybe my imagination is limited.
> 
> and even if back then it was not time to slay the sacred cow, now is the time to try it out.




I'd argue that trying to make that change in an iterative edition morph is futile - the time to make that change would have been 2012-2013, when we were helping curate the direction of 5e at a whole. One D&D is built upon the body of 5e, unlike 4e which wasn't shackled to 3e or 5e that wasn't shackled to 4e. This is more like 3.5e or 4Essentials or 2e Player's Option, so trying to make major changes to how spellcasting works in its entirety is probably off the table.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> I'd argue that trying to make that change in an iterative edition morph is futile - the time to make that change would have been 2012-2013, when we were helping curate the direction of 5e at a whole. One D&D is built upon the body of 5e, unlike 4e which wasn't shackled to 3e or 5e that wasn't shackled to 4e. This is more like 3.5e or 4Essentials or 2e Player's Option, so trying to make major changes to how spellcasting works in its entirety is probably off the table.



I don´t see the major change here. The difference between upleveling and downleveling is not that big. But as I said, maybe my assessment her is wrong... maybe we should ask our professional confused customer.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don´t see the major change here. The difference between upleveling and downleveling is not that big. But as I said, maybe my assessment her is wrong... maybe we should ask our professional confused customer.




Sorry, again I may have stated that confusingly.

The major change is not downcasting - it would be re-writing the game's magic system in a way that isn't confusing. 

The issue I have is that grafting downleveling onto an already confusing system has a real cost that could drive players away from the fiction at large rather than draw them in with the benefits this offers (letting you weaken your magic to spend fewer resources on it). 

I think that issue would be avoided by building the magic system from the group up to avoid the traditional vancian spell slot tables but THAT would be too much for this stage in the game. Adding downcasting isn't too much for this stage - after all, WotC proposed it themselves - but I fear it would be too confusing to be a worthwhile dial on the game's systems.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 5, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Sorry, again I may have stated that confusingly.
> 
> The major change is not downcasting - it would be re-writing the game's magic system in a way that isn't confusing.
> 
> ...




I really don't see where the system is confusing. Sorry. But as I said, maybe my imagination is limited.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 5, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don´t see the major change here. The difference between upleveling and downleveling is not that big. But as I said, maybe my assessment her is wrong... maybe we should ask our professional confused customer.



I feel like that might be me...

My main point of confusion with downcasting is something people have brought up, if my wizard at level 5 I can learn fireball and cast it as a 1st level spell, why couldn't I cast it at level 1? Though I did see @Marandahir post that gaining access to 3rd level spells is a way to say that the spell has that entry level requirement, but it is unrelated to the spell slot used which I thought was a great way of explaining it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 5, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> I feel like that might be me...
> 
> My main point of confusion with downcasting is something people have brought up, if my wizard at level 5 I can learn fireball and cast it as a 1st level spell, why couldn't I cast it at level 1? Though I did see @Marandahir post that gaining access to 3rd level spells is a way to say that the spell has that entry level requirement, but it is unrelated to the spell slot used which I thought was a great way of explaining it.




I don't see how this is rebuilding the system. It is just clarifying that level 3 spells are accessed by wizards level 5.
I am still of the opinion to rename spell level to spell grade, as it was in German books long ago.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 5, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't see how this is rebuilding the system. It is just clarifying that level 3 spells are accessed by wizards level 5.
> I am still of the opinion to rename spell level to spell grade, as it was in German books long ago.



I actually quite like circle. A wizard saying that they're a master of the 6th circle sounds like someone you'd think twice about before attacking them.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Oct 5, 2022)

Now hear me out...

*No spell levels.* Every spell can be taken at 1st level. Because they are appropriate at 1st level. And then many (all?) spells can be up-leveled.

For example Wish at 1st level might not be permanent (duration 10 minutes), might only effect self or willing targets, etc etc.

Remove the concept of "Spell Level" entirely - it's freaking confusing any way and adds no value in my opinion. It's just an artifact of older editions of D&D.

Keep Spell Slot levels - although I wouldn't call them levels, I'd call them "power" or something that is not the word level. Spell Power slots.

This might (ok, will) make spell descriptions larger. But at the same time might make some Magic cooler...?

that all said - may not be "backwards compatible"....


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 5, 2022)

Eyes of Nine said:


> Now hear me out...
> 
> *No spell levels.* Every spell can be taken at 1st level. Because they are appropriate at 1st level. And then many (all?) spells can be up-leveled.
> 
> ...



Does not work. Why would you chose to stay single classed then?
Also it might be overwhelming at first level.
Also: what is a first level wish? 
I wish you would please let me through?


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 5, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The Hunter Ranger Subclass. Its level 10 ability lets them cast Conjure Barrage with 1st and 2nd level spell slots.



As an ability of a specific (sub)class with a specific spell, it's ok.

I'd be very wary of turning this into a general idea however.


----------



## Laurefindel (Oct 5, 2022)

upcasting and now downcasting are difficult concepts to implement:

If lower-level spells are just as powerful as higher-level spells when upcasted, then there's nothing to look forward when gaining higher-level spells. But the higher the difference, the more quadratic casters become.

If higher-level spells are not as powerful as lower-level spells when downcast, then the whole concept becomes mostly irrelevant. But if downcast spells are still as powerful or more, casters become more quadratic.

I guess damage spells could be reworked to make a perfectly linear progression with slot levels, leaving distinct spells only affecting the spell's rider(s). I _think_ it could still be made into a system with enough variety and enough D&D-ness. I'd have to give it more thoughts.


----------



## darjr (Oct 5, 2022)

One think I’d like to experiment with us upcasting cantrips.

Like mage hand to say, level 9 and you have that giant Start Trek hand crushing the Enterprise


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 5, 2022)

darjr said:


> One think I’d like to experiment with us upcasting cantrips.
> 
> Like mage hand to say, level 9 and you have that giant Start Trek hand crushing the Enterprise




Actually, they might already have paved the way:
Cantrips are now officially level 0 spells and are prepared as other spells.

So lets see what is coming.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 5, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually, they might already have paved the way:
> Cantrips are now officially level 0 spells and are prepared as other spells.
> 
> So lets see what is coming.




Might be related to how Clerics can either get bonuses to their cantrips or bonuses to their weapon attacks at a higher level. They might change that to "you can cast your cantrips as higher-level spells." I don't love that since it's got a cost associated with it that it didn't have before, but it might be an intentional cost to bring quadratic priests and mages more into parity with linear warriors and experts.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 5, 2022)

Eyes of Nine said:


> Now hear me out...
> 
> *No spell levels.* Every spell can be taken at 1st level. Because they are appropriate at 1st level. And then many (all?) spells can be up-leveled.
> 
> ...






UngeheuerLich said:


> Does not work. Why would you chose to stay single classed then?
> Also it might be overwhelming at first level.
> Also: what is a first level wish?
> I wish you would please let me through?




I wouldn't necessarily rule this out as does not work. I just don't think it would be backwards compatible at all if it was implemented. 

I think a lower level Wish would actually be interesting and get around the issues related to Genie Pact Warlocks providing a Limited version of Wish at lower levels. But I'm not sure I'd take it all the way to 1st level. That certainly would enable some elements of the fiction, but usually the fiction of Wish is that you're making it to some being that can grant them within its power, so having Wish from 1st to wish from your own power is odd, to say the least.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 5, 2022)

There is another thing.

You don't want Upcasting and Downcasting to be that good.

If it is, it allows casts to prepare fewer spells of similar effects and have more effects available to be prepared. It would be a massive boost in versatility.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 6, 2022)

darjr said:


> One think I’d like to experiment with us upcasting cantrips.
> 
> Like mage hand to say, level 9 and you have that giant Start Trek hand crushing the Enterprise



You're kinda reinventing the Mystic class. They had "cantrips" that they could activate and they'd have greater affects based on the amount of "Psi Points" they expend. 

Don't get me wrong, I think that design is great and that 5e Spellcasting would benefit from being more similar to that, but I think that's too big of a change for OneD&D.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 7, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You're kinda reinventing the Mystic class. They had "cantrips" that they could activate and they'd have greater affects based on the amount of "Psi Points" they expend.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think that design is great and that 5e Spellcasting would benefit from being more similar to that, but I think that's too big of a change for OneD&D.



I mean, that was what the 4e Psionic classes (minus the Monk) could do, too.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Oct 7, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Does not work. Why would you chose to stay single classed then?
> Also it might be overwhelming at first level.
> Also: what is a first level wish?
> I wish you would please let me through?



Not sure what multi-classing has to do with spell levels. You can still if you want have limited spell lists - ie Wizards can only cast these spells, Clerics these spells etc.

Sure  - you can limit wish in many different dimensions. Time, space, quantity etc etc. Seems pretty clear to me. And yes, "I wish you would please let me through" could be a 1st level wish (or maybe 2nd level, or 3rd - since it affects someone else - if that's one of the dimensions decided to limit).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 7, 2022)

Eyes of Nine said:


> Not sure what multi-classing has to do with spell levels. You can still if you want have limited spell lists - ie Wizards can only cast these spells, Clerics these spells etc.




Because of this. If you get all spells at level 1, be cleric 1, wizard 1 and then level anything up and cast every wizard an cleric spell as you wish. If there is no entry level like level 5 wizard for fireball, be wizard 1 and cleric 4 and happily throw 1 fireball after the other at spell level 3 potency.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 7, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> There is another thing.
> 
> You don't want Upcasting and Downcasting to be that good.
> 
> If it is, it allows casts to prepare fewer spells of similar effects and have more effects available to be prepared. It would be a massive boost in versatility.




With the new preperation rules I think the versality boost is not that great. But yes, you need to find the right balance. If fireball does as much damage at level 1 as burning hands, I'd say it is OK. If it does  a little more at level 2, it is ok.

If it stays a special for some classes, you can be a bit more creative. I think for the sorcerer it could be quite cool if the penalty to damage dice would be lower than for wizards. Could be a metamagic option.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Oct 8, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Because of this. If you get all spells at level 1, be cleric 1, wizard 1 and then level anything up and cast every wizard an cleric spell as you wish. If there is no entry level like level 5 wizard for fireball, be wizard 1 and cleric 4 and happily throw 1 fireball after the other at spell level 3 potency.




I am not proposing to get rid of Spell Slot levels. I am only proposing to get rid of Spell Levels.

According the PHB for Wizards and Clerics, it doesn't matter how many *wizard *or *cleric* levels you have to have access to X level spells. It's whether you have the X-level spell slots. So yes, you can be a Bard 1 Sorcerer 1 Warlock 1 Cleric 1 Wizard 1 in the rules today because you will have 4 L1, 3 L2, and 2 L3 slots. Thus you will have access to Fireball if you either a) learn it at 5th level or b) get a spell book with it.

My proposal is you can be Wizard 1 and get Fireball. But since you only have a 1st level spell slot, you cast at 1st level and it is limited in comparison to the 3rd level slot.

If what I'm proposing isn't clear, I apologize. Maybe it would be easier to explain in person, maybe not. But I'm not super invested in an idea WotC won't ever adopt. And also, as someone noted, it would be SUPER Not-backwards-compatible. So it's off the table anyway. I don't think I'll spend more cycles discussing this idea. 

I've got a different idea anyway that I'll throw out in another post


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Oct 8, 2022)

I would love if in the new DMG, for damage dealing spells, the template was provided. It's tantalizingly close to transparent in the cantrips and 1st level spells: ie, psychic damage is 1d4, fire damage is 1d8, cold damage is 1d6 and apply slow condition on failed save, necrotic is 1d8 but 1d12 if already damaged; etc etc. Things scale as either the spellcaster levels or the slot level is increased. While the bones of the system can be seen - I'd love it if they made it explicit in the DMG so DMs can build their own spells that match their campaigns.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 8, 2022)

Eyes of Nine said:


> I am not proposing to get rid of Spell Slot levels. I am only proposing to get rid of Spell Levels.
> 
> According the PHB for Wizards and Clerics, it doesn't matter how many *wizard *or *cleric* levels you have to have access to X level spells. It's whether you have the X-level spell slots. So yes, you can be a Bard 1 Sorcerer 1 Warlock 1 Cleric 1 Wizard 1 in the rules today because you will have 4 L1, 3 L2, and 2 L3 slots. Thus you will have access to Fireball if you either a) learn it at 5th level or b) get a spell book with it.
> 
> My proposal is you can be Wizard 1 and get Fireball. But since you only have a 1st level spell slot, you cast at 1st level and it is limited in comparison to the 3rd level slot.




You should not get Fireball if your wizard level is only level 1.

In today's rules you won't get it, as you prepare spells as a wizard level 1, so only burning hands which you cam upcast to level 3, if you also have 4 levels of cleric (and thus level 3 slots).


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 8, 2022)

Not read the whole tread just budding in based on the first few posts.

Downcasting can be interesting


darjr said:


> One think I’d like to experiment with us upcasting cantrips.
> 
> Like mage hand to say, level 9 and you have that giant Start Trek hand crushing the Enterprise



If you do that you probably should combine the Mage hand and the Bigby hand spells into one.
What you can make the hand do depends on spell slot used.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Oct 9, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You should not get Fireball if your wizard level is only level 1.



Ok we'll just have to agree to disagree. My entire post was about the idea that you _can_ get all spells (allowed to your class) at First class level - but the spells themselves get more powerful the higher level slot you spend on them. 
And I believe that would be a cool way to do spells/magic in D&D.

If your position is that some spells just shouldn't be allowed until certain class levels - well then we don't seem to have common ground to move this conversation forward constructively.


----------

