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 play

This 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.

[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.