Resilient (CON) or War Caster?

[MrUberGr]

So, I'm playing a bard, and I'm thinking of getting one of these two feats to improve my concentration check, since most of my spells require concentration. Now, it's important to keep in mind that our dm has ruled that you can hold your two-hander on one hand or transfer your sword to your shield hand etc. Given that, what should I get?

On one hand proficiency in con against "save-or-die" effects and concentration, on the other, proficiency only for concentration and oa with spells, probably vicious mockery.

off-topic: I read somewhere that you can do an OA during your turn. Is that possible?

[Perseus]

So, I'm playing a bard, and I'm thinking of getting one of these two feats to improve my concentration check, since most of my spells require concentration. Now, it's important to keep in mind that our dm has ruled that you can hold your two-hander on one hand or transfer your sword to your shield hand etc. Given that, what should I get?

On one hand proficiency in con against "save-or-die" effects and concentration, on the other, proficiency only for concentration and oa with spells, probably vicious mockery.

off-topic: I read somewhere that you can do an OA during your turn. Is that possible?

I don't know of any way to pull off an Opportunity Attack on your turn... It has to be someone else's turn and they have to provoke.

[Regulas]

Well basically take Resilience if your not going into melee much, but war caster if you are.

War caster benefits basically require that you be in melee combat using a two weapons or a shield a lot. Otherwise you'll rarely be a situation to make use of it's additional affects.

Otherwise Resilience gives the same concentration benefit but also provides it to any other Con based save which makes it a much more broadly applicable feat. It also gives 1 ASI.


I don't know of any way to pull off an Opportunity Attack on your turn... It has to be someone else's turn and they have to provoke.

Only way I can think of is if you were to charm them and have them take the ready action to take an action that can be reacted to on your turn (like enchantment spell: " Wait till I start acting then walk away from me").

[Giant2005]

You should be wanting both eventually but if you could only take one (Or are deciding which to take first), my vote would be for War Caster.
Being able to use a spell as an Opportunity Attack is absolutely fantastic and something my Wizard couldn't go without now that he has experienced the joys that brings. It alone is worth the deficit that you would otherwise experience by having War Caster instead of Resilient.
Of course my Wizard couldn't swing a sword to save his life and didn't even bother carrying one so I was getting no use at all from my OAs pre-War-Caster. If you are using a sword and doing okay with it already, you could probably continue using that thing for your OAs quite happily and in that case, Resilient would be better.

[Perseus]

Well basically take Resilience if your not going into melee much, but war caster if you are.

War caster benefits basically require that you be in melee combat using a two weapons or a shield a lot. Otherwise you'll rarely be a situation to make use of it's additional affects.

Otherwise Resilience gives the same concentration benefit but also provides it to any other Con based save which makes it a much more broadly applicable feat. It also gives 1 ASI.



Only way I can think of is if you were to charm them and have them take the ready action to take an action that can be reacted to on your turn (like enchantment spell: " Wait till I start acting then walk away from me").

I don't think charm would work like that, at least not low level stuff.

Besides to take an OA the creature has to be hostile to you, there is a thread about using OA on your allies and it doesn't work because of the wording.

So I'm not sure if there is a way to take a OA on your turn. Held actions would still be the other creature's turn and not yours, they are just interrupting your turn with theirs.

[Shadow]

On a bard? That's easy.
First of all, Resilient (Con) doesn't give you proficiency in concentration checks, it gives proficiency in Con saves, and concentration checks are an ability check rather than a save.
Warcaster grants you advantage on the concentration check.
Combine that with jack of all trades, and now you get half of your proficiency bonus and advantage on it.
Warcaster wins, hands down.

[Justin Sane]

concentration checks are an ability check rather than a save.
Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throwThat's just one of the things wrong with that post.

[MaxWilson]

On a bard? That's easy.
First of all, Resilient (Con) doesn't give you proficiency in concentration checks, it gives proficiency in Con saves, and concentration checks are an ability check rather than a save.
Warcaster grants you advantage on the concentration check.
Combine that with jack of all trades, and now you get half of your proficiency bonus and advantage on it.
Warcaster wins, hands down.

No, Concentration is a save. PHB 203:


Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.

To the OP: it's hard to say which is better without knowing what your Con score is and what level you expect to play to. Warcaster is somewhat like a flat +3.3 to +5 bonus (advantage) depending on your current Con, whereas Resilient is a +prof. To compare them we need to know what your Con is. Also whether you have bards or paladins in the party. Note further that Resilient (Con) can boost your HP (if Con is odd) and also helps against poisons/etc., while Warcaster has applications for a gish. My general advice to you is "run the numbers and take whichever feat gives you the better chance of making a DC 10 Con check," but ties would go to Resilient (Con).

[Shadow]

No, Concentration is a save.

Ah, so I was misremembering. Need more coffee. Still, advantage, no hands needed, and OA spells are better than proficiency IMO. Warcaster still wins.

[Perseus]

Ah, so I was misremembering. Need more coffee. Still, advantage, no hands needed, and OA spells are better than proficiency IMO. Warcaster still wins.

I think it's a wash.

Monster and PC tactics can reduce OA's to 0.

So its down to prof versus advantage. Which is mostly preference.

Though, there are ways to get disadvantage on saves right? You can't take away +prof....

Slight edge resilience (con)

[silveralen]

The thing is, res (con) is good enough for anyone to take, caster or not, who has a spare feat and didn't start with prof on con saves.

Given that, it's a no brainer. Warcaster is pretty crap in comparison. OA aren't that big a deal (who is going to run from the bard?) and the other part seems pointless for your character, while prof gives the same or a bigger advantage on concentration checks, depending on level.

[MrUberGr]

To the OP: it's hard to say which is better without knowing what your Con score is and what level you expect to play to. Warcaster is somewhat like a flat +3.3 to +5 bonus (advantage) depending on your current Con, whereas Resilient is a +prof. To compare them we need to know what your Con is. Also whether you have bards or paladins in the party. Note further that Resilient (Con) can boost your HP (if Con is odd) and also helps against poisons/etc., while Warcaster has applications for a gish. My general advice to you is "run the numbers and take whichever feat gives you the better chance of making a DC 10 Con check," but ties would go to Resilient (Con).

We are currently level 12. I'm a half elf valor bard, and yes we do have a vengeance paladin, but currently he is fried by a blue dragon and we're tugging him to the nearest large city looking for diamonds for a Raise Dead. My stats atm are 8, 16, 14, 12, 10, 20 but I believe the dm will allow me to fudge with them, since I never really considered what feats I'd get before. I'm playing with a rapier and a shield, however, I spend more time casting and less time fighting up front. However it just so happens that when I've polymorphed an enemy into a chicken or having animated objects etc, I get hit and often loose it, cause my +2 isn't that great and my d20 doesn't like me :smalltongue: .

[silveralen]

How much do you typically get hit for? That'll change things potentially.

Assuming 20 damage or less: Okay, at level 12 prof is +4, so resilient gives you a next of +6. That's an 85% chance of beating the DC.

Warcaster with +2 is a 65% chance of success per role, which is an 88% chance of success total.

30 damage: a DC 15 with a +6 is a 60% chance of success for res.

With warcaster, you only have a 40% chance of success per role, which comes out to about a 64% chance of success total.

40 damage: 35% chance of success vs DC 20 for a +6 with res.

15% chance of success with each, for a net chance of 28% to succeed.

So not much difference, warcaster has a slight lead now, but if resilient increases your con score it wins. It'll also be better when you hit next level and get a +5 prof bonus, though not by a significant amount. So it's really a choice between other types of con saves and casting spells as AoO. I'm going with the con saves myself.

[MrUberGr]

Do you keep in mind that you roll against 50% of the damage received? 40 dc mean 80 damage received, which is a bit hard to get hit for so much on a single attack. Yeah, dragon breath does that much, but you don't fight dragons every day :P even for 15 (30) dmg I have some trouble saving.

[silveralen]

Do you keep in mind that you roll against 50% of the damage received? 40 dc mean 80 damage received, which is a bit hard to get hit for so much on a single attack. Yeah, dragon breath does that much, but you don't fight dragons every day :P even for 15 (30) dmg I have some trouble saving.

I'm aware, I calculated for a DC 10, 15, and 20.

If you aren't taking more than 30 damage, the difference between the two feats is minimal in terms of concentration success. Warcaster barely has an advantage now, next level it will be at a tiny disadvantage.

[MrUberGr]

Cool, thanks for all the work you put in this. I'm thinking resilient as well atm.

Edit, how does the paladin affect my choice of feats?

[Daishain]

Cool, thanks for all the work you put in this. I'm thinking resilient as well atm.

Edit, how does the paladin affect my choice of feats?
Paladin L6 aura, adds their Cha score to the saves of everyone nearby. If said Cha score is high enough, it may fully justify passing on Resilient in favor of War Caster and just sticking to the pally's back when the going gets tough. Depending on how they're set up, that might be a good position to be in anyways.

As for my two cents, the difference when it comes to your concentration check is not too large between the feats. In such a scenario, I would personally prefer to go with the feat that gave me more options. How much is an extra point or two compared to the other features of war caster worth to you?

[silveralen]

How much is an extra point or two compared to the other features of war caster worth to you?

I mean... war caster doesn't give any real options besides better AoO, which may not even be better for a bard. AoO spells aren't that great with bard's limited offensive spell list, not unless you really work for it. The other bit is a non issue for this table.

Whereas, constitution saves of all kinds come up commonly. The save or dies are especially annoying.

War caster is honestly a pretty lame feat at this point, it's mainly a low level choice instead of prof for con or to get around DMs who screwing with gishes. Or for sorcerers/people who have con saves but what more protection for their concentration saves.

[MrUberGr]

As I mentioned above I, we can cast with both hands full by temporarily moving the main hand to the shield hand, holding 2-hander with one hand etc. Also, I'm pretty confident that in the two months we've been playing, I haven't done more that 3-4 AoO. On the other hand I've had to save against poisons a few times and once I had to hold my breath for quite a long time!

[RedMage125]

Well, for a Valor Bard, Warcaster gives you the added benefit of being able to cast without needing a free hand. You can have your shield in one hand, weapon in the other.

Other than that, the points brought up by other posters are pretty well spot-on, and I think the actual benefit during concentration checks is pretty similar.

I'd go Warcaster.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

As I mentioned above I, we can cast with both hands full by temporarily moving the main hand to the shield hand, holding 2-hander with one hand etc. Also, I'm pretty confident that in the two months we've been playing, I haven't done more that 3-4 AoO. On the other hand I've had to save against poisons a few times and once I had to hold my breath for quite a long time!

You might ask your DM that since an important part of Warcaster is meaningless at your table, casting with your hands full, that it be replaced with a +1 to CON or +1 to your casting stat.

[oncnawan]

Take a level of sorcerer at first level to get proficiency with con saves.

[Scirocco]

You might ask your DM that since an important part of Warcaster is meaningless at your table, casting with your hands full, that it be replaced with a +1 to CON or +1 to your casting stat.

Ours replaced that part of Warcaster with the ability to ignore one component (Verbal, Somatic, Inexpensive Material) of a spell.