Let's talk about spell casting abilities

[The Ship's dog]

Warning, this turned into a slight rant near the end whilst writing this up, so please forgive me.

So in 5e, having a high spell casting ability is, while important, not as important as it is in other editions because of proficiency bonus scaling with level.

I have seen quite a lot of guides for the Cleric saying that having a high Wisdom is the most important thing ever because it is what the Cleric uses for spell casting. Now, initially I agreed, but then I started to wonder what the stat array for Strength or Dex based builds would be because there is so much focus on getting your Wisdom up the highest as quickly as possible.

It was last week that I had an epiphany, and it was when I realised that our level 7 Lore Bard and level 7 War Cleric still had only 16 Cha and 14 Wis respectively, that having a high spell casting ability is not essential. These two players are still really valuable members of the party and they do really great things all of the time, and yet their spell casting abilities are quite low.

Now don't get me wrong, I think that having a decent spell casting ability score is still important, but I feel like guides and such like get a bit hung up on having the spell casting ability score the highest. If you are playing a Nature Cleric, or a War Cleric, or even a Tempest Cleric, you could keep your Wisdom score at even 14 your entire character career and still be really effective.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Azgeroth]

Really it depends on what the character is built/intended for. you are right that in some cases, maxing the 'primary' stat of a support character might not be the optimal choice. but in most cases, it is always going to be a stat you want as high as possible. for clerics its not just your spell attack, and spell DC, but also a healing bonus. for wizards, clerics, druids (and bards?) it decides how many spells you can prepare for a day.

but lets say your going for a pure support caster, where you are not likely to ever use a spell attack, or impose a save against your DC, and using a lot of spells that dont benefit from your Sp Abil.

in that case, yes, dex is almost always going to be a better option (unless your in heavy armour), or CHA/WIS (if it isn't already the primary) for the skills around those stats.

really it all boils down to what the character is going to be, but in principle i agree, maxing the primary stat isn't always the best way to go. but it is the primary stat for a reason and should not be totally ignored either.

[GPS]

Nature, War, maybe even life, you're not really going to need your spell save DC. That said, the title of this thread implies casters in general, so I'm going to comment as such. Clerics are a special case due to their versitility. If you're not playing support or melee, and you've got a cleric, land druid, wizard, sorcerer, or warlock, you need that spell save DC and attack bonus up. Full casters are usually going to need it, as they usually rely on AoE's or ranged spell attacks.

[Tanarii]

You can run fine on a +2 bonus to casting stat (or any attack stat) until level 8. Seen it in play many times. I'm not that up to speed on very high levels, but if +2 works for the first half the game, I'd assume it doesn't suddenly ramp up to needing a +5 by level 12. Everything seems to be working as intended by the Devs to me.

Don't fall for online optimizers trying to sell you the bridge that you must start with a 16 primary stat, or must max it quickly. Not necessary to have an effective character in most cases.

[nickl_2000]

I think it depends on the build. If you are casting spells that are Pass the DC and nothing happens, you should max that spell casting stat. A suggestion that doesn't land wastes a 2nd level spell slot.

On the other hand, if you are casting spells that do half damage on successful save, buff your friends, or don't have a save (sleep, heat metal, goodberry). Than a lower casting stat isn't as important

[RipTide]

Guides are mostly about optimization and the optimum caster is usually one with max casting stat. In a practical sense there isn't that much difference between a DC 16 and DC 17 save but it still makes it that much more likely that your spells are going to effect the target and stick on them.

If you focus on buffs, healing, and other no save/no attack spells then yes your casting mod is basically pointless, but if your playing a caster class why do you want to make weapon attacks when you have cantrips? I mean you can attack with a weapon but cantrips are better at higher levels unless you can keep up with a fighters 4 attacks a round.

Maxing your casting mod is the optimum way to play but it optimum mods aren't the most important thing. play however you want and have fun.

***Edit***

When I say optimum I mean optimum in the sense of power gaming, that doesn't always make it the best build though.

[Tanarii]

Maxing your casting mod is the optimum way to playThis is only true for a very narrow definition of optimum. Which is a common problem with online optimization suggestions.

Edit: I should probably get all wishy-washy instead of strident. Don't get me wrong, putting an ASI into your primary casting stat is a powerful choice in many cases. But there's plenty of value in spending it elsewhere, depending on what your character looks like and what you want to be able to do. Especially if Feats are on the table.

[GPS]

This is only true for a very narrow definition of optimum. Which is a common problem with online optimization suggestions.
It's true for all mainly AoE or spell attack based builds. If you want to play support, melee caster, or some moon druid, sure you can leave your mod down. If you're going AoE or spell attack, your low mod is going to be a detriment to your party. You're being a little high and mighty for someone who's also currently giving online optimization advice.

[Tanarii]

It's true for all mainly AoE or spell attack based builds. If you want to play support, melee caster, or some moon druid, sure you can leave your mod down. If you're going AoE or spell attack, your low mod is going to be a detriment to your party.
No, it is NOT true for AoE or Spell Attack that maxing your casting mod is the optimal way to go, or that you will be a detriment to your party. As I said upthread, a +2 bonus is effective enough until at least level 8, even in that case. There are plenty of other ways a player can, if they choose, spend your ASI instead of maxing your attack stat, even in that case. Or they can spend it on their attack stat. Depends what their goal is for the character.

Stop trying to sell me a bridge.

[GPS]

No, it is NOT true for AoE or Spell Attack that maxing your casting mod is the optimal way to go, or that you will be a detriment to your party. As I said upthread, a +2 bonus is effective enough until at least level 8, even in that case. There are plenty of other ways a player can, if they choose, spend your ASI instead of maxing your attack stat, even in that case. Or they can spend it on their attack stat. Depends what their goal is for the character.

Stop trying to sell me a bridge.

I'm aware you said it upthread, repeating it doesn't make it more true. Fact is, if you're not maxing your attack stat you're going to be scrambling to try to max it at higher ASI levels, and you'll be a detriment to your party in combat. But hey, if you believe you'll be fine with a +2 mod, I have a lovely bridge to sell you.

[Tanarii]

I'm aware you said it upthread, repeating it doesn't make it more true. Fact is, if you're not maxing your attack stat you're going to be scrambling to try to max it at higher ASI levels, and you'll be a detriment to your party in combat.
The irony of your second sentence following immediately on the heels of your first is hilarious.

[GPS]

The irony of your second sentence following immediately on the heels of your first is hilarious.

Hey, at least I'm expanding on my idea instead of just saying their are "other ways" to spend those ASI points. What character goal doesn't involve being able to help the party in combat?

[rooneg]

When you're talking about not putting an ASI into your casting stat you really need to consider what the alternative thing you're doing is. There are cases where it's clearly a reasonable plan, and cases where it's pretty sketchy. Sticking that ASI in Resilient (CON) or War Caster so you can keep your concentration spells up? Ok. Grabbing Elemental Adept so you can deal with Resistance to Fire? Sure. Getting Ritual Caster so you can provide extra flexibility to your team? Awesome. Getting Linguist because you want to play a translator? Well, now we're getting pretty fringe... Not saying you will be useless if you do that, but ASIs for full casters are once every 4 levels, that's a lot of play time, and spending that very limited resource on something that will rarely come up in play instead of on something that will come up pretty regularly is the sort of thing that could reasonably get some raised eyebrows from the other people at the table. Then again, you know the game you're playing in and you know the character you want to play, and fundamentally yes, you can totally get by with a +2 or +3 in your casting stat for huge chunks of the game.

[Tanarii]

What character goal doesn't involve being able to help the party in combat?
The basic problem here is you're presupposing your conclusion. And framing it as an absolute. Basically, you're representing the worst fringe of optimization thinking.

[Gastronomie]

The difference between a character with 14 or 16 in his casting stat will appear in only 1/20 of the rolls he makes with that stat (or the enemies' rolls with saving throws).
That's less than once per session.

The difference between a character with 14 or 18 in his casting stat will appear in only 1/10 of assosiated rolls.
About once, maybe twice per session.

So yeah, as you say, it's honestly not that big of a deal.

But if you're a Wizard and you get to boost either INT or CHA, boosting INT will save you about once per session, whereas boosting CHA will save you about... like, once per campaign chapter (or even less), so yeah, it's nonetheless the better idea to boost your casting stat. Just that it's not a requirement or anything.

And I think that's a good thing. Opens up much more room for originality. Taking a not-very-powerful feat instead will certainly not be an optimized move, but it still wouldn't make your character a futile mess. The unimportance of stats makes it possible for you to create whatever you want without it being a hinderance for your team, and promotes creating "characters" rather than "builds".


What character goal doesn't involve being able to help the party in combat?Uh, like, enjoying role-playing and having fun? I dunno. You're talking about "build goal", which does not necessarily need to be included in character creation.
The fact is that a majority of TRPG players do not care about optimization, and they're doing perfectly fine with it.
Sure, if you want to optimize you can, but it's not that important in 5e.

Personally, I think that when optimizers get to be absolutely almighty and get all the shine in a TRPG, it's not a really good thing.
TRPGs are about playing the character you want and having fun. If it suits your character, choosing weak feats, or even boosting a stat unrelated to your attacks or casting could be fine. Sure, it's weak combat-wise. To be honest, I'm not the type who does that frequently either (I don't necessarily aim to create strong characters, but I do aim to create characters that have synergetic abilities, and it often ends up rather "optimized"). But still, nobody has the right to say no to that decision.
If you just want to build the ultimate strong character or whatever, playing computer/video games like Pokemon will be the better choice.

[Millstone85]

I play a warlock with 18 Cha, 16 Con and proficiency in Con saves through variant humanity.

When my character reaches 8th level, I am still wondering if I should max out Cha for better spell attacks and spell DC, or improve Con for better spell concentration and general health.

It seems to me that either would make the warlock more useful in combat, and fit the story of a slow transformation of the warlock's flesh and mind into something not of this world.

[nickl_2000]

I play a warlock with 18 Cha, 16 Con and proficiency in Con saves through variant humanity.

When my character reaches 8th level, I am still wondering if I should max out Cha for better spell attacks and spell DC, or improve Con for better spell concentration and general health.

It seems to me that either would make the warlock more useful in combat, and fit the story of a slow transformation of the warlock's flesh and mind into something not of this world.

I guess that really depends on your party and your play style. Are you often in combat you are taking a beating and concentration checks are necessary? Or are you in the background while the tanks slug it out in front of you? Watch how encounters go in your sessions and base it on that.

[GPS]

The difference between a character with 14 or 16 in his casting stat will appear in only 1/20 of the rolls he makes with that stat (or the enemies' rolls with saving throws).
That's less than once per session.

The difference between a character with 14 or 18 in his casting stat will appear in only 1/10 of assosiated rolls.
About once, maybe twice per session.

So yeah, as you say, it's honestly not that big of a deal.

But if you're a Wizard and you get to boost either INT or CHA, boosting INT will save you about once per session, whereas boosting CHA will save you about... like, once per campaign chapter (or even less), so yeah, it's nonetheless the better idea to boost your casting stat. Just that it's not a requirement or anything.

And I think that's a good thing. Opens up much more room for originality. Taking a not-very-powerful feat instead will certainly not be an optimized move, but it still wouldn't make your character a futile mess. The unimportance of stats makes it possible for you to create whatever you want without it being a hinderance for your team, and promotes creating "characters" rather than "builds".

Uh, like, enjoying role-playing and having fun? I dunno. You're talking about "build goal", which does not necessarily need to be included in character creation.
The fact is that a majority of TRPG players do not care about optimization, and they're doing perfectly fine with it.
Sure, if you want to optimize you can, but it's not that important in 5e.

Personally, I think that when optimizers get to be absolutely almighty and get all the shine in a TRPG, it's not a really good thing.
TRPGs are about playing the character you want and having fun. If it suits your character, choosing weak feats, or even boosting a stat unrelated to your attacks or casting could be fine. Sure, it's weak combat-wise. To be honest, I'm not the type who does that frequently either (I don't necessarily aim to create strong characters, but I do aim to create characters that have synergetic abilities, and it often ends up rather "optimized"). But still, nobody has the right to say no to that decision.
If you just want to build the ultimate strong character or whatever, playing computer/video games like Pokemon will be the better choice.

Hey, I don't want the "ultimate strong character", I just want a 20 in my casting stat at level 12 so I can do the thing my character does well. Is that really so wrong? I create effective characters, that doesn't prevent roleplay in any way. If you're saying I don't have the right to critisize people for making weak characters, who gave you the right to tell me that I can't tell people to make strong ones?

Edit: Hell, I'm not even good at making strong characters. I don't play some idiotic nova built, or even pick races based on racial ASI's like normal people. I just get my caster stat up as fast as I can, usually from a baseline of 15 based on my weak racial picks. I make builds like yuan-ti druids and drow clerics and shy away from multiclassing due to my fear of missing class abilities, but I make up for the weaknesses of these builds by getting my caster stats up. Making assumptions about me as a person based on a few 1-2 sentence posts is kind of dumb in my eyes. You three seem dead set on doing just that, however. Have fun being holier thou *****, GPS out.

[Gastronomie]

Hey, I don't want the "ultimate strong character", I just want a 20 in my casting stat at level 12 so I can do the thing my character does well. Is that really so wrong? I create effective characters, that doesn't prevent roleplay in any way. If you're saying I don't have the right to critisize people for making weak characters, who gave you the right to tell me that I can't tell people to make strong ones?

Edit: Hell, I'm not even good at making strong characters. I don't play some idiotic nova built, or even pick races based on racial ASI's like normal people. I just get my caster stat up as fast as I can, usually from a baseline of 15 based on my weak racial picks. I make builds like yuan-ti druids and drow clerics and shy away from multiclassing due to my fear of missing class abilities, but I make up for the weaknesses of these builds by getting my caster stats up. Making assumptions about me as a person based on a few 1-2 sentence posts is kind of dumb in my eyes. You three seem dead set on doing just that, however. Have fun being holier thou *****, GPS out.Eh, no, I never said creating effective characters prevents roleplay in any way (I'm not a believer of the Stormwind fallacy).
I even explicitly mentioned that I'm not against optimizing, and that you can feel free to optimize however you want.

However,

1) Claiming that "all character goals should involve being able to help the party in combat" (bold for emphasizing) can very well be interpreted as "I don't care a s*** about roleplaying". Indeed, this may not be your case, and it seems it wasn't; but if this wasn't your case, it's not really my (and Tanarii's) fault who made assumptions about you as a person based on a few 1-2 sentence posts, it's more or less your fault who wrote such a sentence that will be mis-interpreted by many people.
The fact that multiple people have already mis-interpreted your sentence means that... well, you didn't do a very good job of expressing that you actually also value role-playing.

2) As for "If you're saying I don't have the right to critisize people for making weak characters, who gave you the right to tell me that I can't tell people to make strong ones?":
This is sorta like freedom of speech. If someone screams "I'M AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH", chances are, people will tell him to stop saying so, even if those people believe in "freedom of speech", and stopping him from speaking may, in a way, violate "freedom of speech" by definition.
Players do not have the right to say "hey, you're a Wizard, stop taking Weapon Master and instead boost your INT, do you want us to be TPK'd" to a party-mate (assuming that's what you mean by your "right to critisize people for making weak characters).
However, people do have the right to say "stop it, let the Wizard do whatever he wants" to that player.

...Also, based on:

the right to critisize people for making weak characters
^ This quote, it seems you will probably stop a party-mate from making weak decisions because you'll be angry at him for being "detrimental for the party".
If that's not the case, well, that's a good thing (though again, it would mean you've written something very likely to be misinterpreted). And well, if it is the case... I wouldn't want to play with someone like you, who forces optimization upon other people.

[GPS]

Eh, no, I never said creating effective characters prevents roleplay in any way (I'm not a believer of the Stormwind fallacy).
I even explicitly mentioned that I'm not against optimizing, and that you can feel free to optimize however you want.

However,

1) Claiming that "all character goals should involve being able to help the party in combat" (bold for emphasizing) can very well be interpreted as "I don't care a s*** about roleplaying". Indeed, this may not be your case, and it seems it wasn't; but if this wasn't your case, it's not really my (and Tanarii's) fault who made assumptions about you as a person based on a few 1-2 sentence posts, it's more or less your fault who wrote such a sentence that will be mis-interpreted by many people.
The fact that multiple people have already mis-interpreted your sentence means that... well, you didn't do a very good job of expressing that you actually also value role-playing.

2) As for "If you're saying I don't have the right to critisize people for making weak characters, who gave you the right to tell me that I can't tell people to make strong ones?":
This is sorta like freedom of speech. If someone screams "I'M AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH", chances are, people will tell him to stop saying so, even if those people believe in "freedom of speech", and stopping him from speaking may, in a way, violate "freedom of speech" by definition.
Players do not have the right to say "hey, you're a Wizard, stop taking Weapon Master and instead boost your INT, do you want us to be TPK'd" to a party-mate (assuming that's what you mean by your "right to critisize people for making weak characters).
However, people do have the right to say "stop it, let the Wizard do whatever he wants" to that player.

...Also, based on:

^ This quote, it seems you will probably stop a party-mate from making weak decisions because you'll be angry at him for being "detrimental for the party".
If that's not the case, well, that's a good thing (though again, it would mean you've written something very likely to be misinterpreted). And well, if it is the case... I wouldn't want to play with someone like you, who forces optimization upon other people.

1) That's a deliberate missquote. I never said all character goals should be helping the party in combat, I was just asking what kind of character didn't have that as a goal

2) Alright, yeah, I kind of ****ed up and sounded like one of those whinny redsit "freedom of speech" guys. Sorry about that, I was pretty pissed off

3) I'm not the kind of dude who tells my party members how to optimize. Half of them don't do that at all, half of them do it better than me, we have a good mix going. I'm using the argument. on this forum because I believe it is generally true that it's better for casters to have their most useful stat as high as possible. This is a thread specifically about that. If you want a low save DC and spell attack mod in a campaign, do what you want to do. That's a personal choice, and I can't really critisize that. If you try to prop this as the enlightened path on an online forum, then no, I'm going to critisize you.

[Mhl7]

3) I'm not the kind of dude who tells my party members how to optimize. Half of them don't do that at all, half of them do it better than me, we have a good mix going. I'm using the argument. on this forum because I believe it is generally true that it's better for casters to have their most useful stat as high as possible. This is a thread specifically about that. If you want a low save DC and spell attack mod in a campaign, do what you want to do. That's a personal choice, and I can't really critisize that. If you try to prop this as the enlightened path on an online forum, then no, I'm going to critisize you.

said the guy who also said this


If you're going AoE or spell attack, your low mod is going to be a detriment to your party.

It seems very much as you are telling on this forum how to optimize and also trying to prop this to us as the enlightened path (you did not provide any proof whatsoever as opposed to the OP and Tanarii who at least quoted their own experience).

[GPS]

said the guy who also said this



It seems very much as you are telling on this forum how to optimize and also trying to prop this to us as the enlightened path (you did not provide any proof whatsoever as opposed to the OP and Tanarii who at least quoted their own experience).

1)Yep, as that whether or not getting the main caster mod up is importanr kind of the purpose of the thread. Hey, in my opinion, if you're playing an AoE attacker or similar build without a good save DC, you are a detriment. I'm not forcing that on you, do what you want.

2. Noted.

No, it is NOT true for AoE or Spell Attack that maxing your casting mod is the optimal way to go, or that you will be a detriment to your party. As I said upthread, a +2 bonus is effective enough until at least level 8, even in that case.
Aaaaand, there is is. I'm defending an opinion, while Tanarii appears to be stating a fact.

[Luvia]

I play a warlock with 18 Cha, 16 Con and proficiency in Con saves through variant humanity.

When my character reaches 8th level, I am still wondering if I should max out Cha for better spell attacks and spell DC, or improve Con for better spell concentration and general health.

It seems to me that either would make the warlock more useful in combat, and fit the story of a slow transformation of the warlock's flesh and mind into something not of this world.
Assuming you got agonizing blast id max my cha. Though thats cause meez likes more dakka.

[CantigThimble]

It is true that in 5e, character builds can be bent very far without breaking. That doesn't mean that boosting your casting stat isn't worth it most of the time. It's not just 5% more combat effectiveness, it's also a boost the skills you're probably specialized in, more spells prepared (for most classes) and a boost to many class features. (Bardic inspiration, war cleric extra attack etc.) Primary stats are called primary for good reasons.

[GPS]

It is true that in 5e, character builds can be bent very far without breaking. That doesn't mean that boosting your casting stat isn't worth it most of the time. It's not just 5% more combat effectiveness, it's also a boost the skills you're probably specialized in, more spells prepared (for most classes) and a boost to many class features. (Bardic inspiration, war cleric extra attack etc.) Primary stats are called primary for good reasons.

Yeah, that's most often the situation for me. For my current character, I need that potent spellcasting bonus and boni to all of my skills and saves.

[pwykersotz]

I currently play a level 4 Shadow Monk with the following stats:
Str 11 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 8 Wis 10 Cha 8

I got these stats because I rolled 4d6 drop lowest, in order, no rerolls. I thought it would be fun to see what I ended up with and do my best to play it. I'm in a group of 6, so I had plenty of people to cover for me if I fell short.

Playing for four levels has reaffirmed what I initially thought. It's not the stats that make the character, it's the decisions. I have routinely been MVP at my table with regards to effectiveness in dealing with our challenges, even playing with others whose lowest stat is a 14. Stats are nice, but they aren't the be-all-end-all. Don't get me wrong either, I'd like a positive value on my Wisdom to have some extra AC, but again, it hasn't yet caused me any significant problems. I've taken only a few shots that would have been turned to misses by a higher AC, and my character is still alive.

Basically, I agree that a +2 to your attack stat is sufficient for low levels. We'll see how it works at higher levels.

[Tanarii]

Aaaaand, there is is. I'm defending an opinion, while Tanarii appears to be stating a fact.Uh no. You're stating a fact, and I'm saying it is not, in fact, a fact. That there are other options that carry weight other than your one true way.

Edit: Lets add some proof of you doing that shall we?

It's true for all mainly AoE or spell attack based builds. If you want to play support, melee caster, or some moon druid, sure you can leave your mod down. If you're going AoE or spell attack, your low mod is going to be a detriment to your party.


Fact is, if you're not maxing your attack stat you're going to be scrambling to try to max it at higher ASI levels, and you'll be a detriment to your party in combat. But hey, if you believe you'll be fine with a +2 mod, I have a lovely bridge to sell you.

I started off by countering the generic one true way of optimizing 5e, that you must max your attack stat. There are other options. And you, a believer in the one true way of optimizing 5e, jumped right in to state your not-actually-a-fact as a Fact.

[Demonslayer666]

Sounds like some of you should write some guides to optimizing casters that don't use spell attack rolls or spells with DCs. :smallcool:

[Mellack]

The difference between a character with 14 or 16 in his casting stat will appear in only 1/20 of the rolls he makes with that stat (or the enemies' rolls with saving throws).
That's less than once per session.

The difference between a character with 14 or 18 in his casting stat will appear in only 1/10 of assosiated rolls.
About once, maybe twice per session.

So yeah, as you say, it's honestly not that big of a deal.



I think you may be severely under-counting the number of attacks/saves that happen. Using AoE attacks, it would not be unusual to force a large number of saves. Spirit guardians can easily get 5+ a round. Fireball might get 10 in a single casting. High level warlocks are getting 4 blasts a round, plus whatever they choose to quicken. That change of +2 to attack or DC can come up quite often.

[Millstone85]

I guess that really depends on your party and your play style. Are you often in combat you are taking a beating and concentration checks are necessary? Or are you in the background while the tanks slug it out in front of you? Watch how encounters go in your sessions and base it on that.
Assuming you got agonizing blast id max my cha. Though thats cause meez likes more dakka.I did get Agonizing Blast and I suppose that, in a white room sort of deal, my build would benefit the most from a Charisma score of 20. But I will stay attentive to how much of a beating my character takes. Thank you.

[The Ship's dog]

Hello people of this thread!

I have just woken up to seeing quite a lot of anger directed at each other in some ways that aren't very constructive or helpful. I'm just here to give a friendly reminder:
When discussing an opinion, please as much as it is tempting to, refrain from swearing or using language that implies the other person is less than you in some way. It doesn't further your point, it just creates a toxic environment and makes you look a bit childish.
Also, this forum is supposed to be a place where people can have discussions and even debates, but in a way that people can go away from these threads in a good frame of mind.
The point of having a discussion thread is to bring people of differing opinions together to talk about their opinions, each and every one of them knowing that their mind may be changed by a persuasive enough argument. If anyone in this thread does not think that their mind may be changed, then please leave, otherwise it will turn into a contest of who is more stubborn and it will just make the people involved feel more angry.

[JAL_1138]

(The following is just my opinion.)

An 18 in your primary stat is fine--depending on what you get out of the alternative and whether you have ways to mitigate it.

My Fighter 2/Bard 18 build (currently at Fighter 1/ VB 9) is going to cap at 18 Dex and 18 Cha, because I took two feats (Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter) and want to pick up Action Surge instead of the last ASI that would net either a 20 Dex or 20 Cha. My weapon attack bonus (Dex) is fine, particularly with Archery style and access to spells that boost my accuracy (Elemental Weapon, Greater Invisibility). And my spell save DC will be very slightly easier to beat, yes, but on the other hand I can Action Surge. To me those are solid tradeoffs.

But it's only because this particular build has a focus on weapon damage and has ways to mitigate the accuracy penalty from Sharpshooter and picks up some other strong features that I feel it works out. If my damage depended on, say, Eldritch Blast rather than Sharpshooter, or my combat effectiveness depended primarily on enemies failing saves vs. control spells, I'd be trying to get my casting stat to 20 pronto.

[Tanarii]

If anyone in this thread does not think that their mind may be changed, then please leave, otherwise it will turn into a contest of who is more stubborn and it will just make the people involved feel more angry.
Sorry. It's easy to get on my high horse.

My position is that a +2 stat is effective enough through Tier 1 and low-Tier 2. That's based on seeing a fair number of players (but by no means the majority), with multiple characters, that aren't optimizers, choose not to pump their primary stat from a starting 15 before level 8. In a non-feat / non-multi class campaign. Most common level 4 alternative chosen is Con or Dex for hps or AC. I'm not trying to say that it's optimal. Just that these characters are effective enough to do their jobs, based on generally managing to survive as well as characters that do go primary stat bumps at level 4. And it's a pretty lethal campaign too.

To be more reasonable, I can totally understand if someone doesn't think that's the best choice to make. But I don't think they're making a huge mistake either. As far as I can tell, the game math seems, at a rough glance, to assume something like a 16 at by 8th, and an 18 by 16th. With a 20 being optional. If someone wants to show me math (or developer statement on their assumptions) that proves that definitely isn't the case, I'll have to revise my position.

[JAL_1138]

Sorry. It's easy to get on my high horse.
I can totally understand if someone doesn't think that's the best choice to make. But I don't think they're making a huge mistake either. As far as I can tell, the game math seems, at a rough glance, to assume something like a 16 at by 8th, and an 18 by 16th. With a 20 being optional. If someone wants to show me math (or developer statement on their assumptions) that proves that definitely isn't the case, I'll have to revise my position.

Those numbers seem to match my experience. I think I have yet to play a character who had an 18 in a stat at 4th level. I always take a feat or bump a 14 in a secondary stat to a 16. Several of my characters have taken two feats and ended up still having a 16 in their primary stats at 8th level, too.

I haven't played at really high levels so I can't say from experience above level 14-ish, but from what I can tell a 20 does seem to be optional, at least at that point. The to-hit math just seems a heck of a lot looser than 4e's was, where if your attack stat(s) wasn't maxed and you didn't take every +1 feat and keep switching out weapons/implements for the highest bonus you could possibly get at your level, you were nigh-useless for missing constantly.

I do have a character with a 16 Str at level 14, a three-feat build (PAM, Warcaster, Spell Sniper—a Booming Blade cheese build, pretty much). I netted an ASI to Cha via a boon. A +1 weapon gives me the same to-hit and damage bonus as 18 Str. I seem to hit with the polearm just fine, and my spells seem to take effect pretty much fine. I don't feel particularly weaker than characters in the party with 20 Str or 20 Cha; I keep up quite well, and am far from a liability in combat.

Also, in build discussions, people tend to assume no magic items (since it's the default rule, and since there's no "magic mart," that's generally a good idea--you can't truly guarantee one). In practice, though, all of my characters that use weapons as their at-will damage source have gotten at least a +1 something-or-other before level 10. But there have been cases where they couldn't use their +X weapons and they got along ok without them. Spellcasters relying entirely on their casting stat, that's another story--not a lot of +X items for them. Rod of the Pact Keeper for Warlocks is the only one I can think of. There's a little less room, fewer ways to mitigate it.

[skaddix]

Sounds like some of you should write some guides to optimizing casters that don't use spell attack rolls or spells with DCs. :smallcool:

So the good old Eldritch Knight build.

Cause if your not a Gish that be totally pointless

[JAL_1138]

So the good old Eldritch Knight build.

Cause if your not a Gish that be totally pointless

...or a support caster. Bless, Greater Invisibility, Fly, Haste, Polymorph (if used exclusively as a buff on willing allies), and Circle of Power, for example, don't use your save DC.

[dejarnjc]

...or a support caster. Bless, Greater Invisibility, Fly, Haste, Polymorph (if used exclusively as a buff on willing allies), and Circle of Power, for example, don't use your save DC.

Or a conjurer or one whom animates the dead.


EDIT, although to be fair, if you're a druid using conjuration spells then you're probably spamming cantrips or damage spells on your turn and then having a high spell casting stat helps you hit or beat the enemy's save. This also applies to support casters.

[skaddix]

Naturally you need to be doing some damage.


...or a support caster. Bless, Greater Invisibility, Fly, Haste, Polymorph (if used exclusively as a buff on willing allies), and Circle of Power, for example, don't use your save DC.

To be fair the Gish would be running most of that to buff themselves lol.

[pwykersotz]

I think people have got it backwards. Having a +2 at low level to a casting stat doesn't necessitate leaving spell attacks and spells with saves by the wayside. Rather, the +2 is sufficient to have a meaningful effect on the game and make you feel like you're getting a good return on your powers. You're mileage may vary on the feeling, of course, but you do have an objectively meaningful effect on the game.

[rollingForInit]

The main reason that I like to boost the primary stat for Wizards, Clerics and Druids isn't that it makes the DC and spell attack modifiers higher, but because it gets you another spell to prepare. At least at early levels, that feels so huge. Not only is it better for combat, but also for general utility, social and exploration encounters. Just all around makes you more versatile.

Aside from that, there's also a difference between playing a pure dungeon crawl and a generic compaign? If your campaign handles encounters different languages frequently, getting Linguist might be a really good at idea. And if you don't do combat all the time, out of combat feats in general can be really useful.

[JAL_1138]

I think people have got it backwards. Having a +2 at low level to a casting stat doesn't necessitate leaving spell attacks and spells with saves by the wayside. Rather, the +2 is sufficient to have a meaningful effect on the game and make you feel like you're getting a good return on your powers. You're mileage may vary on the feeling, of course, but you do have an objectively meaningful effect on the game.

I rarely see it done, because with point-buy it's generally easy enough to start with a 16 in a primary stat, but every once in a while someone brings in an unusual array, or picks a race without a bump to their primary stat because it either gives other benefits or fits their character concept better, and it functions adequately enough. The to-hit and save math is sufficiently loose that it allows you to be a point or two off maximum and be effective—you absolutely can land spells/cantrips/weapon attacks well enough to contribute meaningfully with a +2

[Dudu]

The main reason that I like to boost the primary stat for Wizards, Clerics and Druids isn't that it makes the DC and spell attack modifiers higher, but because it gets you another spell to prepare. At least at early levels, that feels so huge. Not only is it better for combat, but also for general utility, social and exploration encounters. Just all around makes you more versatile.

I always find that I could prepare one more spell. So I agree with you, the biggest benefit of a highter casting stat is the possibility of preparing an extra spell.

And is that situation spell that sometimes solve the encounter, or save someone's ass. It's that fun and niche spell. So yeah, investing in your casting stat is important.

Of course, if all you intend to do is support spells that don't require saves or atk rolls, a 14 on that stat is fine. But the biggest drawback still remains: you don't have as many options as someone who invested fully on it.

[pwykersotz]

Wait...I'm missing something. Which ability lets you prepare an extra spell with a higher primary casting stat?

[Kane0]

Its usually a good idea to be good at what you do, but it's okay not to be perfect. 5e isn't nearly as punishing as 3.PF or 4e when it comes to maxing out your numbers.
So as long as you have a +1 or better you should do just fine. If you rely on lots of attack rolls and saves you'll generally want to be higher but if you're okay with a slight bit less chance of spell success in return for more AC or HP or something then that aint badwrongfun to me.

[Beelzebubba]

Wait...I'm missing something. Which ability lets you prepare an extra spell with a higher primary casting stat?

Wisdom for Druids and Clerics. Intelligence for Wizards.

This bit is in all their Spellcasting sections in the PHB:
"You prepare the list of (druid) spells that are available for you to cast. To do so. choose a number of (druid) spells equal to your (Wisdom) modifier + your (druid) level"

[pwykersotz]

Wisdom for Druids and Clerics. Intelligence for Wizards.

This bit is in all their Spellcasting sections in the PHB:
"You prepare the list of (druid) spells that are available for you to cast. To do so. choose a number of (druid) spells equal to your (Wisdom) modifier + your (druid) level"

Oh, of course. That was a brain fart. Thank you for clarifying.

[Beelzebubba]

Oh, of course. That was a brain fart. Thank you for clarifying.

Yeah, I assumed all classes got it a first for a while, but was pretty surprised when I looked into Sorcerer and Bard and didn't find it.

Much of my 5E time is spend unlearning previous editions.

[SharkForce]

at low levels, not a huge deal. there is a difference between DC 12 and DC 13, but it isn't something you're going to feel quite as often.

at very high levels, it can be a very big difference if you're using AoE debuffs or attacks, because all of your offensive abilities scale off of your spellcasting attribute and proficiency bonus, while the defenses you can target with your spells frequently need anywhere from 3-6 attributes, and for any given monster they may not scale with proficiency bonus either.

so, for example, when you're casting mass suggestion on a group of 12 hill giants, a DC 19 mass suggestion means they need a 20 to not be suggested, while a DC 17 means they need 18... which means it happens 3 times as often. change that mass suggestion for, say, a confusion spell, you'll probably only see one giant break free in the first 2 turns with DC 19, but 3 saves is much more probable by 2 turns with DC 17, which is going to make for a noticeably harder fight. more importantly, if the hill giants get really lucky 4 or 5 might break free by round 2 with DC 17, while it's going to take some mind-boggling bad luck for that to happen with DC 19.

it won't make as much of a difference if you can't target weak attributes. but if you can, the difference between 17 and 19 can easily be your control spells lasting 3 times as long on average. if you actually manage to get some further DC boosts somehow (say, you find a tome that boosts your spellcasting attribute, making it DC 18 vs DC 20) then the higher stat can actually guarantee that the hill giants will fail their saving throw; no amount of luck will prevent it.

now, obviously, not every spellcaster needs to use AoE debuffs or attack spells. personally, i think ignoring them is going to make for a much less effective character with far fewer options, but i certainly can't say that it's impossible to contribute without using those spells. but at the higher levels, it will make a difference. if you expect to get to level 17, or if you expect to have your pick of magic items such that you will be able to boost your DCs, every single point in your spellcasting attribute is a major boost in effectiveness. if you expect to play until about level 10, well, nobody should be making plans that absolutely require your spells to land whether your spellcasting attribute is 14 or 18, so i wouldn't worry too much. and since most people end well before level 17, i would guess that for most people a couple points lower save DC is not going to be a game-changing difference. it will help, certainly, but it isn't likely to result in enemies making their saves 3 times as often the way it can at high levels.

[Dr. Cliché]

I've often sacrificed my casting stat to put another on equal footing (e.g. I have a rogue warlock with 16 Dex and 16 Cha, as opposed to 14 Dex and 18 Cha). However, I'm not sure I'd want to raise other stats higher than my casting stat. Not on a full caster, anyway.

I don't think it's essential per se to have your casting stat be your highest one, but I'd argue that it's usually going to give more benefit per point (or 2pts, I suppose) than other stats.



2) Alright, yeah, I kind of ****ed up and sounded like one of those whinny redsit "freedom of speech" guys.

Eh?

[Knaight]

I've often sacrificed my casting stat to put another on equal footing (e.g. I have a rogue warlock with 16 Dex and 16 Cha, as opposed to 14 Dex and 18 Cha). However, I'm not sure I'd want to raise other stats higher than my casting stat. Not on a full caster, anyway.

From an optimization perspective there's an argument to be made for a support caster (where spell DCs rarely matter) with about a 14 in their casting stat and 20 Con. +5 HP per level is nothing to scoff at, particularly when the class hit die is lackluster to begin with.

[The Ship's dog]

at low levels, not a huge deal. there is a difference between DC 12 and DC 13, but it isn't something you're going to feel quite as often.
*snip*


Yes, I see your point, but there are very few spells that impose a saving throw that doesn't do anything if the target succeeds. This also helps to smooth out that save DC progression problem you have if you don't max out your casting ability, even if your save DC is mediocre, you can generally still do stuff. Also, a DC 19 means they make the save on a 19 or higher. You need to meet it to beat it, like AC.

I personally think that, whilst it is not generally needed as much on spellcasters that also use weapons and such-like, a 16 in your spell casting modifier at 12 is generally a good idea. However, personally if someone in my group wants to put a +2 in their dump stat to shore up that weakness, that's their choice and I'm not going to say anything.

[Dr. Cliché]

From an optimization perspective there's an argument to be made for a support caster (where spell DCs rarely matter) with about a 14 in their casting stat and 20 Con. +5 HP per level is nothing to scoff at, particularly when the class hit die is lackluster to begin with.

First off, sorry if this is a silly question, but what do you count as a 'support caster'?

I ask because I'd have thought it would include casters who specialise in debuffs, terrain modification (Entangle, Web etc.), buffs etc. And many of those still use the casting stat for their DCs (where applicable).

Anyway, even if you're specialising in buffs or other spells that don't use your casting stat, would you really want to invest so heavily in Con? I mean, I'd have thought most support casters would want to be on the backlines anyway, so most of the time they shouldn't be taking much damage. And, if they're on the front line, surely they'd want to invest in Str or Dex instead, to improve their attack and damage rolls (and AC in the case of Dex).

It seems like the whole healing issue - wherein healing is generally the least efficient thing you can do in combat (aside from 1 or 2 special builds). I'd have thought investing in Con would be similarly wasteful - in that you'd be better off investing in stats that will either enable you to do more damage or else increase the DC of your spells (ending the fight faster).

(Obviously this is from an optimisation perspective - if you're using Con 20 to role play a really fat caster, that's another matter altogether. :smallwink:)

So, am I missing some advantage of having such high Con at the expense of your other stats (including your casting stat)?

[Knaight]

It seems like the whole healing issue - wherein healing is generally the least efficient thing you can do in combat (aside from 1 or 2 special builds). I'd have thought investing in Con would be similarly wasteful - in that you'd be better off investing in stats that will either enable you to do more damage or else increase the DC of your spells (ending the fight faster).

The thing about healing is that the problems are fundamentally action economy related - every round you spend healing is a round you spend not harming your enemies. Having high Con is roughly equivalent to getting a couple of healing spells for free without any actions being involved in most fights, and that's pretty useful. Normally you're right and it is at least somewhat overshadowed by the effect of good attack stats - but if you're specializing in spells that don't need said stats, suddenly it's a viable option.

[JAL_1138]

The thing about healing is that the problems are fundamentally action economy related - every round you spend healing is a round you spend not harming your enemies. Having high Con is roughly equivalent to getting a couple of healing spells for free without any actions being involved in most fights, and that's pretty useful. Normally you're right and it is at least somewhat overshadowed by the effect of good attack stats - but if you're specializing in spells that don't need said stats, suddenly it's a viable option.

+5 Con plus Resilient: Con plus Warcaster would also hugely benefit your ability to maintain those buffs.

[Vogonjeltz]

at low levels, not a huge deal. there is a difference between DC 12 and DC 13, but it isn't something you're going to feel quite as often.

I'm going to disagree a bit.

Every ASI is basically 1 more time out of 20 that a spell with an attack roll or saving throw has its intended effect.

Considering the action economy of spells is such that with few exceptions you are going to get only one attempt per round, failure is a big deal.

Another way to look at it: By level 18 a Wizard has 20 spell slots. If they only have a DC of 14 and cast spells requiring saving throws against creatures with no proficiency or stat bonus, 6 of those attempts are going to fail. That's 6 wasted spell slots, and 6 wasted turns.

Failing to land a spell can be the difference between life and death.

Yeah, Tanarii is right, the system works fine with lower stats for a good portion of it, but there's a very tangible benefit to increasing your attack or defense stats instead of picking up a neat feat.

After all, the ASI only has two options, stats or feat, and if you're picking stats, what good reason is there to pick anything but the primary stat or constitution?

[Dr. Cliché]

The thing about healing is that the problems are fundamentally action economy related - every round you spend healing is a round you spend not harming your enemies. Having high Con is roughly equivalent to getting a couple of healing spells for free without any actions being involved in most fights, and that's pretty useful. Normally you're right and it is at least somewhat overshadowed by the effect of good attack stats - but if you're specializing in spells that don't need said stats, suddenly it's a viable option.

That's a fair point, but isn't there also the resource aspect? When you use healing spells, you're using spell slots that could have been used for other, more effective spells. Likewise, those points in Con could have gone into other abilities (which, whilst not directly part of action economy, may nevertheless improve action economy make some abilities more effective).

I guess it could work if your character plans to not really participate in combat beyond providing buff spells. But then, wouldn't that lack of participation be a waste in and of itself? Granted, many buff spells don't require your casting stat, but how many of those can you have at once? And how many spell slots do you have (it seems like you'd struggle to cast a buff spell each round of combat). Because if the plan is to cast a buff or two and then join combat in some way, surely we're back to needing a stat other than Con?

[Knaight]

I guess it could work if your character plans to not really participate in combat beyond providing buff spells. But then, wouldn't that lack of participation be a waste in and of itself? Granted, many buff spells don't require your casting stat, but how many of those can you have at once? And how many spell slots do you have (it seems like you'd struggle to cast a buff spell each round of combat). Because if the plan is to cast a buff or two and then join combat in some way, surely we're back to needing a stat other than Con?

You'll probably end up doing something else, and yes, you'll be less effective. That just means that it's a trade and not strictly better though; it doesn't make it worse. I'll also point out that the less squishy the back line is the more leeway the front line has to do things other than guard them, so there's an offensive contribution there.

It's definitely a niche and somewhat unorthodox built, but it can work.

[SharkForce]

From an optimization perspective there's an argument to be made for a support caster (where spell DCs rarely matter) with about a 14 in their casting stat and 20 Con. +5 HP per level is nothing to scoff at, particularly when the class hit die is lackluster to begin with.

if you're not a big enough threat to be an important target, your high hit point pool isn't really doing much of anything. so if your spells aren't going to be devastating, you're going to need *something* to make someone think you're a big enough problem that you can't just be killed last, after the real threats have been dealt with.

[Cybren]

if you're not a big enough threat to be an important target, your high hit point pool isn't really doing much of anything. so if your spells aren't going to be devastating, you're going to need *something* to make someone think you're a big enough problem that you can't just be killed last, after the real threats have been dealt with.

Except enemies can't read your character sheet and characters/monsters don't know your ability modifiers

[pwykersotz]

Failing to land a spell can be the difference between life and death.

Yeah, Tanarii is right, the system works fine with lower stats for a good portion of it, but there's a very tangible benefit to increasing your attack or defense stats instead of picking up a neat feat.

I disagree in part. In general, failing to land a spell is not important. Failing to land several in a row is far more important the majority of the time. If your single spell is the difference between life and death, there are probably a lot of other things that have fallen apart first. Unless the BBEG popped out of the ground and one-shot the rest of your team and you're REALLY banking on that Prismatic Spray. And as people are fond of pointing out, the d20 is of much higher weight in 5e than your stats.

And yes, of course there are benefits to higher stats, but the main point (as I have been reading it) is that lower stats are completely viable, not that higher stats aren't better than lower ones.

[SharkForce]

Except enemies can't read your character sheet and characters/monsters don't know your ability modifiers

no, but they can pretty clearly see when your hypnotic pattern only worked on 1/4 of them, or your fireball was easy to dodge, or your banishment didn't work.

if all you have going for you is a giant sack of HP, they can safely ignore you for now and deal with you last. if you want to make that giant sack of HP actually have any value, you're going to need to show people that you are too dangerous to ignore. that doesn't have to come from spells necessarily, but if it doesn't come from somewhere, all you and your huge HP pool are doing is letting you get a front row seat to watch the rest of the party do all the work.

sometimes you can be enough of a threat by using spells even without a high spellcasting mod to make those HP mean something. but you'd better have one heck of a plan for how you're going to do that if all of your class features revolve around using spells.

[Cybren]

no, but they can pretty clearly see when your hypnotic pattern only worked on 1/4 of them, or your fireball was easy to dodge, or your banishment didn't work.

if all you have going for you is a giant sack of HP, they can safely ignore you for now and deal with you last. if you want to make that giant sack of HP actually have any value, you're going to need to show people that you are too dangerous to ignore. that doesn't have to come from spells necessarily, but if it doesn't come from somewhere, all you and your huge HP pool are doing is letting you get a front row seat to watch the rest of the party do all the work.

sometimes you can be enough of a threat by using spells even without a high spellcasting mod to make those HP mean something. but you'd better have one heck of a plan for how you're going to do that if all of your class features revolve around using spells.

they can't really easily figure that out, you're being far too generous for how much information someone can glean in a 6 second interval.

[Knaight]

if you're not a big enough threat to be an important target, your high hit point pool isn't really doing much of anything. so if your spells aren't going to be devastating, you're going to need *something* to make someone think you're a big enough problem that you can't just be killed last, after the real threats have been dealt with.

This assumes that the enemies can just pick targets at will - a lot of the time simple things like terrain obstruction prevent that.

[JAL_1138]

This assumes that the enemies can just pick targets at will - a lot of the time simple things like terrain obstruction prevent that.

It also assumes enemies won't target the caster specifically to try and break the buff spell or prevent their opponents from getting healed.

[SharkForce]

they can't really easily figure that out, you're being far too generous for how much information someone can glean in a 6 second interval.

if you're winning the fight in 6 seconds while you sit there and do nothing much, you may as well just play someone's familiar... clearly the fights you're getting into are so lopsided it doesn't matter what you personally bring, whether that be a pointless sack of HP or anything else. alternately, if the fight lasts more than 6 seconds, they're going to notice that you're not really doing much after a bit. and then they will ignore you.


This assumes that the enemies can just pick targets at will - a lot of the time simple things like terrain obstruction prevent that.

if the terrain is obstructing them from getting where they want to go half the time, it is also preventing you from being a target half the time. doesn't bode well for your pointless sack of HP.


It also assumes enemies won't target the caster specifically to try and break the buff spell or prevent their opponents from getting healed.

why? do they even know the caster is buffing anyone? if they do, is the buff really that inconvenient that it's worth making any sacrifices to go after the caster? there are a few break points (twin polymorph at level 7 & 8, for example) where this is certainly true, but frankly, if a wizard is casting haste instead of hypnotic pattern, i'm disinclined to interfere. if i do, he might decide to do something much more useful with his concentration. likewise, about the best a healer can do is slightly delay the death of the party in most cases. i'd be much more concerned about the guy who looks about as tough to kill (probably same armour given we're assuming a healer, probably also looks pretty resilient), except he's putting a glaive through another one of my buddy's heads every few seconds.

certainly, on occasion a spell that doesn't require a casting attribute can be used in a way that makes someone worth focusing. if you're fighting a caster-heavy enemy, globe of invulnerability is probably annoying enough to warrant special effort, for example. but if you're just kinda being vaguely annoying with weak heals, or making that fighter who can already attack 2-3 times (or more) per round attack one extra time? i'm not convinced that calls for a huge shift in priority.

so, once again, you better have a plan for how you're going to be a big enough problem with no casting stat to warrant special attention. and it should probably not all hinge exclusively on always having level 5+ spells (like wall of force, globe of invulnerability, and animate objects) on call, since those are a pretty limited resource.

now, if you can do something big enough to make yourself a target, then sure that +5 con bonus is working for you. but you gotta become worth targeting before that investment starts paying off.

[CantigThimble]

It seems very strange and counterproductive to build a character built specifically to concentrate on spells and to take as many hits as possible at the same time.

[Cybren]

if you're winning the fight in 6 seconds while you sit there and do nothing much, you may as well just play someone's familiar... clearly the fights you're getting into are so lopsided it doesn't matter what you personally bring, whether that be a pointless sack of HP or anything else. alternately, if the fight lasts more than 6 seconds, they're going to notice that you're not really doing much after a bit. and then they will ignore you.

six seconds is the amount of time after you casting a single spell that an enemy performs your set of calculus to determine how ineffective you are. At any rate, the variance on a d20 is high enough, and the sample size with respect to saving throw/attack rolls is low enough, that unless your enemies have been studying you for week, your only way to have them know you are "less of a threat" (by 5-10 percentage points with a specific subset of spells) is the DMs own metagame knowledge. Besides, EVEN THEN, the enemies don't know your HP total, and it's possible to likely that even with a 20 con your spellcaater would have lower HP than much of the rest of the party, and even with a slightly lower attack bonus or save DC, the potential for a devastating spell is high, that operating with full metagame knowledge should still usually make it correct to attack the caster first

[SharkForce]

six seconds is the amount of time after you casting a single spell that an enemy performs your set of calculus to determine how ineffective you are. At any rate, the variance on a d20 is high enough, and the sample size with respect to saving throw/attack rolls is low enough, that unless your enemies have been studying you for week, your only way to have them know you are "less of a threat" (by 5-10 percentage points with a specific subset of spells) is the DMs own metagame knowledge. Besides, EVEN THEN, the enemies don't know your HP total, and it's possible to likely that even with a 20 con your spellcaater would have lower HP than much of the rest of the party, and even with a slightly lower attack bonus or save DC, the potential for a devastating spell is high, that operating with full metagame knowledge should still usually make it correct to attack the caster first

ever tried playing a game where you upgrade something by a tiny amount and there is a massive noticeable difference? i have. that tiny little difference in the calculation can just completely change your effectiveness. i assure you, it can be a very noticeable difference. +10% more damage, or +1 to AC, or +2 to hit, these can all sound small, but they make big differences. i've played in 4e games where i had an extra +2 or so to hit compared to the other players because i optimized a bit and it was a very visible difference to me and to them.

i've played D&D online as well, and let me tell you, the difference between my DC 39 sorcerer and a DC 41 wizard i grouped with was night and day. it was not small, or unnoticeable. it was me having to work two or three times as hard to use crowd control on mobs that he just locked down without even trying, and that even uses the same resolution method. it was the difference between complete and utter chaos with barbed devils teleporting all over the place killing the damage dealers, and those same barbed devils helplessly paralyzed by a mass hold monster spell that you'd swear didn't even allow a saving throw, let alone giving them a save every 3 seconds.

i've also seen the difference between being a healer in that game for an AC 89 tank, and an AC 92 tank. for the former i had to spam the equivalent of healing spells off cooldown (on a sorcerer, which gets reduced cooldown... the tank was a warforged, so you used repair spells that arcane casters got to heal through a curse that blocked normal healing), plus spamming scrolls on top of that because my cooldown was too long and if i didn't alternate, the tank would die and the whole raid would go to hell (i mean, technically it was already in hell, but you know what i mean). for the latter, it was so easy i got bored. every so often i would use a scroll. i didn't even *have* the spell known as a bard, but i didn't ever even come close to needing that cooldown, because the guy was taking barely any damage.

you could feel it when you reincarnated a character as well... you would have slightly better equipment that would give you a +1 here and there compared to the first time you leveled up, but man did your spells ever stick better as a result. with a simple extra +10% fire damage or something like that, you just watched enemies die so quickly they barely even did anything to you, or your just slightly higher AC stopped so much damage that you didn't need a healer to go questing any more.

night. and. day. it isn't a small insignificant unnoticeable change. it is a very visible difference.

now, you can make a character work in 5e without optimizing every last thing. you can have a spellcaster without an absolutely maxed out spellcasting attribute and still contribute. bounded accuracy is good that way. but don't try and tell me it isn't noticeable, because that is simply not true.

[Cybren]

Ah yes, anecdotes regarding an mmo based on a different edition of dungeons and dragons, very relevant to both the gameplay interactions of 5th edition and the specific claim that it's absurd to claim NPCs can determine a spellcaster as not a threat in the short amount of time that a fight takes place over.

[Dr. Cliché]

You'll probably end up doing something else, and yes, you'll be less effective. That just means that it's a trade and not strictly better though; it doesn't make it worse.

It doesn't make it worse by default, but you do seem to be investing a lot of points into a stat that doesn't really yield much gain.


I'll also point out that the less squishy the back line is the more leeway the front line has to do things other than guard them, so there's an offensive contribution there.

I have a few points regarding this:

1) Aren't the front line guarding the back simply by virtue of being the front line? As in, they've already put themselves forward and so will create a wall between the enemy and the squishier casters at the back.

What I'm trying to say is that much of their guarding the back line would seem to be almost incidental, rather than something that's actually impeding their ability to fight.

2) If an enemy reaches the back lines by some means, surely the main risk isn't that the casters are 'squishy' but that they are incapable of defending themselves at that range. e.g. a wizard could have few hp, but if he can just Hold Person a nearby enemy than it doesn't matter (or use Black Tentacles or the like). A Warlock might not have as many hp as the fellow with 20 Con, but if he can blow away his enemy with Eldritch Blast, then it doesn't matter.

Indeed, it could well be that the 20 Con guy is actually the most vulnerable because, whilst he isn't squishy in terms of hp, he's by far the worst at defending himself. His attacks have less chance to hit and do less damage and the DCs for his spells are significantly worse. Indeed, he may not only need saving but may also need more healing as a result.


The point I'm trying to make is that the faster you can kill or incapacitate your enemies, the less tanky you need to be in terms of hp. If anything, this build seems like something of a self-fulfilling prophecy - in that it'll probably need those extra hp specifically because it invested in high hp instead of other stats. :smalltongue:


It's definitely a niche and somewhat unorthodox built, but it can work.

Fair enough. Maybe it looks better on the tabletop than it does on paper.

[SharkForce]

Ah yes, anecdotes regarding an mmo based on a different edition of dungeons and dragons, very relevant to both the gameplay interactions of 5th edition and the specific claim that it's absurd to claim NPCs can determine a spellcaster as not a threat in the short amount of time that a fight takes place over.

did D&D suddenly stop using d20s for saving throws or attack rolls since then?

because if not, the experience still applies, as those rolls are basically the same in nature, regardless of the specific numbers in question. and unless i've been reading 5e completely wrong, it does in fact still use the d20 for those things. the difference was quite visible, and it was visible within seconds. not after hours or even minutes. within a few seconds, it was extremely obvious that there was a huge difference. there was no mystery to it at all. i was quite shocked when i found out just how small the difference was in numbers as well, but that's all it took to completely change the way those battles went.

my sorcerer was little more than a nuisance to the enemies when compared to the wizard that had a save DC a mere 2 points higher.