Dual Casting Feat

[Galithar]

So this is an idea I've been playing around with and would like to get some feedback. It is probably not balanced with vanilla 5e (the edition I play and that this is written for) but I'm open to suggestions to bring it into balance.

Dual Casting
Pre-requisite: You must have at least two slots of level 2 or higher.

When you cast a spell that you may use your bonus action to cast a second spell that targets a single creature, if you do so expend spell slots for each spell that are one level higher than the level at which the spells are cast. The second spell may have a different target then the first.



Example of this is action. I expend a level 3 and level 4 slot to cast the following:
A level 2 Magic Missle (level three slot)
A level 3 Fireball (Level four slot)

[Marcloure]

This feat is really powerful. Burning two 4th level slots to cast two fireballs and deal almost 60 AOE damage in a single turn is overly too strong. It's way more powerful than casting two 4th level fireballs in two rounds, since in the end you will be trading 2d6 damage for a whole action (which a cantrip can more than cover).

[Galithar]

This feat is really powerful. Burning two 4th level slots to cast two fireballs and deal almost 60 AOE damage in a single turn is overly too strong. It's way more powerful than casting two 4th level fireballs in two rounds, since in the end you will be trading 2d6 damage for a whole action (which a cantrip can more than cover).

I modified it to use your bonus action and prevent AoE spells with the extra cast.

Also I find Fireball to be slightly overpowered for it's level so it's not a spell I often use to compare. Yes it is available for use and can be accounted for in creating things, but since I find it inherently unbalanced I never use it as a metric for balance.
(It is this way because it's THE iconic spell of D&D)

Do you think my modifications at least improve the balance though? It should definitely require the bonus action, I should have had that in from the start, but your point about AoE damage I hadn't caught.

The intention is for it to be a better choice situationally then casting higher level spells over two turns. I just want to make sure it's not ALWAYS better, which I suppose would mostly have to come down to resource management. Do you NEED those higher level spell slots later or not?

[JNAProductions]

Generally, this will be better than two singular casts. Action Economy is king.

There might be some niche situations where actions don't matter... But this feat will nearly ALWAYS be better.

[Galithar]

Generally, this will be better than two singular casts. Action Economy is king.

There might be some niche situations where actions don't matter... But this feat will nearly ALWAYS be better.

True that it's almost always better for this turn. But unless you run the (unfortunately near standard) 5 minute adventuring day [which I do not ] there is a point where resource management is more important then killing that there guy THIS turn instead of next.

So while I understand that this feat would be a power imbalance in many games it won't always be. I also think that there are lots of cases where a Greater Invisibility and a Wall of Fire are going to do more (cast on separate turns) then a Fireball and Haste on the same turn, which under this rule would both take 2 level 4 slots.


It's ALWAYS better to kill things this turn instead of next, right? So it's ALWAYS better for the PAM Paladin to burn 3 slots per turn in Smites, right?

But, my disagreement aside, what would you change about it? (Not allow dual casting of spells would not be a helpful response here)
The entire intention of the feat is to increase the power and versatility of casters by increasing their resource costs. This is something feats don't usually do. Most feats are an increase in power and the only cost is the opportunity cost of selecting the feat.

[nonsi]

.

Suggestion to consider: expend spell slots for each spell that are two levels higher than the level at which the spells are cast.

[Vaern]

Rather than allowing you to cast two separate spells, I'd make it comparable to Skyrim's dual casting in which you combine two castings of one spell into a more powerful version of the same spell.

When you cast a spell, you may expend an additional spell slot of the same level as a bonus action. If you do, treat that spell as though it was cast from a spell slot one level higher.
For example, if you cast Magic Missile from a 2nd level spell slot you may expend an additional 2nd level spell slot to cast Magic Missile as a 3rd level spell.

This version is kind of underwhelming since it's really only useful if you let the players cast spells at a level that would normally exceed their highest spell level, or when they've burned all their high level slots and are desperate for a bit of extra damage. It might be an interesting perk for a class feature rather than a feat, though.

[Zhorn]

Rather than allowing you to cast two separate spells, I'd make it comparable to Skyrim's dual casting in which you combine two castings of one spell into a more powerful version of the same spell.

When you cast a spell, you may expend an additional spell slot of the same level as a bonus action. If you do, treat that spell as though it was cast from a spell slot one level higher.
For example, if you cast Magic Missile from a 2nd level spell slot you may expend an additional 2nd level spell slot to cast Magic Missile as a 3rd level spell.

This version is kind of underwhelming since it's really only useful if you let the players cast spells at a level that would normally exceed their highest spell level, or when they've burned all their high level slots and are desperate for a bit of extra damage. It might be an interesting perk for a class feature rather than a feat, though.

While an interesting idea for a custom feat, probably too far removed from Galithar's original design intent, which from my understanding is about following the standard rules for casting multiple spells per round, and having a feat to overcome the spellslot restriction (see PHB p202: Bonus Action).

As for Galithar's question

But, my disagreement aside, what would you change about it? (Not allow dual casting of spells would not be a helpful response here)
The entire intention of the feat is to increase the power and versatility of casters by increasing their resource costs. This is something feats don't usually do. Most feats are an increase in power and the only cost is the opportunity cost of selecting the feat.

As long as it doesn't change the required action types of the spells, the best balance suggestion I can image would be a limited usage per rest like the case is with Lucky. As written, that feat is ridiculously powerful and versatile, so its 'balance' comes from the 3/long rest limit, making it have less overall value compared to other feats as the number of encounters per day increases.

[Potato_Priest]

True that it's almost always better for this turn. But unless you run the (unfortunately near standard) 5 minute adventuring day [which I do not ] there is a point where resource management is more important then killing that there guy THIS turn instead of next.

If you have a large (or heavens above, perhaps even reccomended) number of encounters per day, I think the feat is fine as is. The one instance where I can see it really being used all the time without worrying about the higher cost is by clerics with level 4 and 5 spell slots, since there's not a lot of good stuff on their list at that point, so resources can be better spent on casting the lower levels faster. Even that though is more a case of character resources (asi) sacrificed to make better use of spellcasting rather than blatant break-the-game level munchkinry. I also don't think that reducing it's uses per long rest to two or three would be a terrible idea, since nobody's going to want to use it that much anyway unless they have some rules shenanigan we haven't foreseen.

Edit: there are quite possibly going to be a lot of cases where it's worth using this feature to cast a cantrip and a higher level spell simultaneously, since cantrips eventually get better than 1st level spells, making dual casting cantrips with this an efficient way to use up first level spell slots if there's nothing else good on your list at that point. Maybe not make it work with cantrips?

If I was a sorceror, you might see me do the following.
Dual cast firebolt(two useless first level spell slots), quickened spell bonus action to cast fireball for a lot more damage.