Feats War caster or resilience or both

[Whit]

As far as concentration goes are having both feats redundant and if so resilience is better since it gives +1 to con Choice. And war caster is more for the weapon and shield caster type character who can cast with both items in hand and get a spell off if an enemy breaks melee combat ?

[DivisibleByZero]

Advantage is better than proficiency in all but the higher levels, but WC comes with the downside that it only applies to concentration.
So in some cases WC is better, and in some cases Res:Con is better.
In the low and mid levels, WC is usually better *unless* you want to have all Con saves covered.
In the higher levels, Res:Con is usually better *unless* you want the other benefits that WC provides, *or* you want to take Res in another stat (like Wis or Dex).

edit:
If you're playing a caster and want to have all three major saves covered, the best you can do is Wis from class (unless you're a Sorc), Dex from Res:Dex, and Con for concentration from WC.
If you're playing a Sorc oyu can only have two of them.
If you're playing an AT and get high enough in levels Wis comes free.

[Twizzly513]

For a wizard/sorcerer kind of play style, resilient is better since proficiency can be applied to more things, and the bonus to Con can give you a bit more health if you have an odd score.

Like you said, if you plan on playing a blade pact warlock, or a melee-focused cleric or druid, WC is better since you can hold weapons or a shield and still pop off spells.

So I think it's solely based on the play style of the class you take.

[Vaz]

If you have an Odd Con score, then Resilient is a net +3 to Con Saves if you're not already proficient, and only gets better at 5th and onwards. Advantage is often math'd out as being around +3 (and disadvantage to -3), but Proficiency doesn't have the ability to turn a 1 or 2 on a dice roll to a potential pass; even with Proficiency, you're "only" looking at a +11 MAXIMUM to your roll. Awesome when facing DC19, but that doesn't account for the 40% chance of failure. Advantage without proficiency.

I mean, the ideal is to have both - getting Advantage on Con Saves is nigh impossible to get otherwise, while Con save Proficiency can be gained by taking a level in another class like Fighter or Sorcerer, each of which can add quite well to many different builds; Fighter for the Action Surge @2, and Sorcerer for the Shadow Sorcerer's don't die at 0 ability. War Caster has the benefit of being able to use something like Hold Person also.

[DKing9114]

If you have an Odd Con score, then Resilient is a net +3 to Con Saves if you're not already proficient, and only gets better at 5th and onwards. Advantage is often math'd out as being around +3 (and disadvantage to -3), but Proficiency doesn't have the ability to turn a 1 or 2 on a dice roll to a potential pass; even with Proficiency, you're "only" looking at a +11 MAXIMUM to your roll. Awesome when facing DC19, but that doesn't account for the 40% chance of failure. Advantage without proficiency.

I mean, the ideal is to have both - getting Advantage on Con Saves is nigh impossible to get otherwise, while Con save Proficiency can be gained by taking a level in another class like Fighter or Sorcerer, each of which can add quite well to many different builds; Fighter for the Action Surge @2, and Sorcerer for the Shadow Sorcerer's don't die at 0 ability. War Caster has the benefit of being able to use something like Hold Person also.

multiclassing does not give you proficiency in saves.

[PhantomSoul]

multiclassing does not give you proficiency in saves.

I think they just meant starting as Sorcerer or Fighter (Barbarian would work too if just going for the Con ST).

[Vaz]

I think they just meant starting as Sorcerer or Fighter (Barbarian would work too if just going for the Con ST).

Bingo.

/washisnameo

[hymer]

I'm with DivisibleByZero on this.

To expand a little on that, I don't consider having both redundant. I haven't played at higher levels yet, but from the experiments I've run and the numbercrunching I've done, you will sometimes get hit by some spiky damage that will seriously test your ability to make those concentration saves. And, of course, these spikes will come more often when you're in a climactic or at least difficult fight, because stronger monsters generally do more damage and hit better.

In the end, there can be no harm in having both feats. The question will rather be: What is it you're missing out on for having both? And just how important are those concentration saves? Not all casters are equally prone to using concentration spells. If you're a conjurer wizard or miniomancer druid, missing that save sucks. More often for the wizard, because Conjure (Minor) Elementals probably can't be recast in battle with that 1 minute casting time. But at any rate, you're prematurely losing the use of one of your highest (and quite possibly the highest) spell slot you have.
But if you're a warlock or sorcerer and mostly do blasting, losing your concentration is likely little more than an annoyance.

[SharkForce]

I'm with DivisibleByZero on this.

To expand a little on that, I don't consider having both redundant. I haven't played at higher levels yet, but from the experiments I've run and the numbercrunching I've done, you will sometimes get hit by some spiky damage that will seriously test your ability to make those concentration saves. And, of course, these spikes will come more often when you're in a climactic or at least difficult fight, because stronger monsters generally do more damage and hit better.

In the end, there can be no harm in having both feats. The question will rather be: What is it you're missing out on for having both? And just how important are those concentration saves? Not all casters are equally prone to using concentration spells. If you're a conjurer wizard or miniomancer druid, missing that save sucks. More often for the wizard, because Conjure (Minor) Elementals probably can't be recast in battle with that 1 minute casting time. But at any rate, you're prematurely losing the use of one of your highest (and quite possibly the highest) spell slot you have.
But if you're a warlock or sorcerer and mostly do blasting, losing your concentration is likely little more than an annoyance.

conjurer wizards can't lose concentration on conjured elementals from damage anyways ;)

but yeah, it's worth having both if you rely a lot on concentration, imo.

(edit: spelling)

[hymer]

conjurer wizards can't lose concentration on conjured elementals from damage anyways ;)

Oh, right, from level 10. Completely forgot that.

[Beelzebubba]

conjurer wizards can't lose concentration on conjured elementals from damage anyways ;)

Druids can. :smalleek:

[Beelzebubba]

My current Land Druid will probably take both, even if it means not having something more flavorful and fun like Magic Initiate (so I can get a Fey Falcon Familiar!). Way too many concentration, conjuration, and 'if this goes down we have to fight double the opponents' spells I have to worry about.