PDA

View Full Version : Save vs. Attack; which is better for spells?



Marcloure
2017-09-17, 12:53 PM
Basically what the title says. If I had to choose between two equivalent spells, but one is a spell attack and the other requires a saving throw, which should I choose?
An attack roll can be a critical hit, the avarage roll is 10.5 + bonuses (5-13) against AC (12-18).
Saves will be more or less worthy depending on what save the spell forces, but not considering that, it can't land a critical hit and I think it is easier to hit at early levels but becomes harder at higher levels (enemies AC don't scale as their saves do). The avarage check is 8 + bonuses (5-11) versus 10.5 + saving throw (1-3/3-6/6-9 range for each "tier").
So, attack spells are better (considering two equally good spells), I think? Is Fire bolt better than Toll the Dead, for instance? If yes, then why does Sacred Bolt deal only 1d8 damage?

Strangways
2017-09-17, 01:23 PM
You tailor your attacks to your opponents. If your opponent is some sort of priest in robes casting cleric spells, you don't generally want to cast something that requires him to make a Wisdom save because he will likely succeed. Similarly, if you're fighting something wearing full plate armor and a shield, that target will likely have a very high AC and be hard to hit with an attack roll, so a saving throw may be a better option. The prudent spell caster will ensure that he is prepared with a range of attack options that will enable him to cope with a wide variety of situations.

smcmike
2017-09-17, 01:24 PM
The math varies wildly between different monsters and different saving throws, so it's hard to do a general comparison.

Comparing Sacred Flame with Fire Bolt, each has its advantages.

Firebolt has a bigger damage die and twice the range. Targeting AC is sometimes better than Dex.

Sacred Flame deals radiant damage, which far fewer monsters are resistant or immune to. You can cast it in melee without any disadvantage, unlike attack spells, and cover doesn't cause any penalty either. Targeting Dex is sometimes better than AC.

Marcloure
2017-09-17, 01:28 PM
The math varies wildly between different monsters and different saving throws, so it's hard to do a general comparison.

Comparing Sacred Flame with Fire Bolt, each has its advantages.

Firebolt has a bigger damage die and twice the range. Targeting AC is sometimes better than Dex.

Sacred Flame deals radiant damage, which far fewer monsters are resistant or immune to. You can cast it in melee without any disadvantage, unlike attack spells, and cover doesn't cause any penalty either. Targeting Dex is sometimes better than AC.

Saves not having disadvantage from cover and/or close quarters is something I forgot to list, but think it really make a difference and is a strong point of save spells.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-09-17, 01:31 PM
Saves not having disadvantage from cover and/or close quarters is something I forgot to list, but think it really make a difference and is a strong point of save spells.

Note that DEX saves (which most direct damage save-based spells are) do suffer from cover. Half cover adds +2 to the save (except for sacred flame which specifically ignores this). Not that many DMs actually play with this effect, but...

SharkForce
2017-09-17, 04:10 PM
i would add that there's a fairly large difference depending on level. in the event that your game actually reaches level 17+ you can have a save DC of 19 (better with certain magic items, but we'll ignore those for a moment).

that is *way* more interesting than +11 to hit... +11 to hit is probably somewhere between 50% and 75% (usually more towards the middle of that) chance to hit most of the time at level 17+ while DC 19 against a well-selected saving throw can potentially be as high as 100% (yes, 100% in 5e; 20 on a saving throw isn't guaranteed to succeed), but more reasonably will be 90-95% against groups of weaker monsters while still being in the same 50% or better region that attack roll spells will probably have even against stronger creatures... *if* you can target the right save.

if you don't think you'll be able to pull off consistently targeting the right save, then saving throw spells are a lot less valuable.

in contrast, at lower levels, most everything will be more or less in the same neighbourhood no matter what you do... there's still definitely a difference, but it isn't as big as it is when your DC can literally become impossible to beat for some enemies.

Aaron Underhand
2017-09-17, 05:04 PM
i would add that there's a fairly large difference depending on level. in the event that your game actually reaches level 17+ you can have a save DC of 19 (better with certain magic items, but we'll ignore those for a moment).

that is *way* more interesting than +11 to hit... +11 to hit is probably somewhere between 50% and 75% (usually more towards the middle of that) chance to hit most of the time at level 17+ while DC 19 against a well-selected saving throw can potentially be as high as 100% (yes, 100% in 5e; 20 on a saving throw isn't guaranteed to succeed), but more reasonably will be 90-95% against groups of weaker monsters while still being in the same 50% or better region that attack roll spells will probably have even against stronger creatures... *if* you can target the right save.

if you don't think you'll be able to pull off consistently targeting the right save, then saving throw spells are a lot less valuable.

in contrast, at lower levels, most everything will be more or less in the same neighbourhood no matter what you do... there's still definitely a difference, but it isn't as big as it is when your DC can literally become impossible to beat for some enemies.

Don't forget though - lots of higher CR monsters have advantage on saves versus magic, and legendary saves

Rerem115
2017-09-17, 05:10 PM
In my experience, attack spells (and save for half) tend to be the most successful. However, this is highly campaign dependant; the ones I've been in heavily featured epic battles, where the foes had very good saves and condition resstances relative to their AC.

SharkForce
2017-09-17, 05:16 PM
Don't forget though - lots of higher CR monsters have advantage on saves versus magic, and legendary saves

advantage on saves is factored in, for the most part... again, *if* you are able to target the correct save. most monsters will still have something where they're only ~+3 or so in it, which means you'll have about a 56% chance for your spell to work.

legendary saves do change things, but it mostly depends who else is in your group. if you've got 3 people with nasty save effects, you can run a monster out of legendary saves in a round or two. if it's just you, you'd be looking at probably round 4 before you can even realistically *try* to start making anything useful happen, and only after blowing 4 spell slots of sufficient power to draw out the legendary saves in the first place.

that said, anything with legendary saves *should* be special. it has legendary saves because it's legendary... if it's just a completely mundane everyday experience, you shouldn't be giving it legendary anything.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-09-17, 05:31 PM
legendary saves do change things, but it mostly depends who else is in your group. if you've got 3 people with nasty save effects, you can run a monster out of legendary saves in a round or two. if it's just you, you'd be looking at probably round 4 before you can even realistically *try* to start making anything useful happen, and only after blowing 4 spell slots of sufficient power to draw out the legendary saves in the first place.


And that's why it's a legendary creature. From what I can tell, the average presumed length of a fight in 5e is approximately 3-4 rounds. In a standard 4-person party (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric), with one offensive spell-slinger (while the cleric counts, he's not nearly as good at it as the wizard), it can use one legendary resistance per turn and stay in the game until the HP damagers take it out. I think that's a reaction to 3.5e's save-or-die spells, where higher-power spellcasters could completely eliminate anything that wasn't immune real easy.

On topic--not that many leveled spells (not cantrips) have attack rolls, and very few past 1st level. So most of the higher-level combat spells you'll pick up will target saves. Having a diversity of saves targeted does certainly help. Lots of big bruisers have low DEX, but they tend to have lots of HP (which is what DEX saves mostly do). Nimble ones are gonna make those DEX saves, but may have trouble with WIS or CON saves (targeting decision making and physical debuffs, mostly). INT saves are rare, but potent. CHA is mostly banishment type effects. STR is movement debuffs.

All of these are the general case. There are exceptions for most of them.

rbstr
2017-09-17, 05:57 PM
If you know what save to target and you can target that save it's the way to go.

But in general it's easier to hit something with an attack roll. On ties the enemy saves but the attack roll would hit. Save DC's are lower while the rolls modifiers are potentially as large as large as any attack roll modifier.
Of course damage spells will usually save for half while attacks are typically all or nothing.

Kane0
2017-09-17, 06:03 PM
Each has their pros and cons.

Attacks can crit, are subject to cover and always target the same defense.
Saves target a multitude of possible defenses and often has a secondary effect that occurs regardless of success.

Attacks are better for consistency, saves are better if you can target the correct save type.

Edit: Generally speaking I also find it easier to manipulate attack rolls in your favor than saving throws via cover, concealment, conditions like prone, etc.

ShikomeKidoMi
2017-09-17, 08:33 PM
The answer is that it depends on what you're fighting, so the best bet is to have a couple spells that are resisted by different things.

However, just saying 'save' is a little too general. Some types of saves are much less frequently resisted than others. Int save, for example, is one of the better ones to snag if you can get it.

MarkVIIIMarc
2017-09-17, 09:41 PM
Have both, heck all 3 types really.

I like the satisfaction of spells which still do 1/2 damage if the bad guy saves.

Potato_Priest
2017-09-17, 09:55 PM
In my experience attack rolls on spells are better than saving throws, especially at the normal levels of play (1-10) where even an enemy with no training in the saving throw has a significant chance of success. The number of features that can buff an attack roll are much larger. Bardic inspiration, war cleric's channel divinity, any feature that grants advantage and more can help the attack roll, while there are precious few ways to hurt an enemy's saving throw (only that one metamagic, a few conditions (which usually only work on dex saves), and portent come to mind).

AttilatheYeon
2017-09-17, 10:02 PM
All the best spells are saves.

90sMusic
2017-09-17, 10:07 PM
Save DCs are better because 9 times out of 10 they still do half damage.
But ultimately, it's all the same, it is basically just psychology.

WIth an attack roll, you roll 1d20 + proficiency bonus + ability score vs a set AC value
With a spell they roll 1d20 + proficiency bonus + ability score vs a set DC, assuming they have proficiency in that save

I always see spell DCs as just the magical equivalent to AC because it's calculated the exact same way, the only difference is the person rolling for it.

But with that in mind, treating DC as if it is AC, compare those two values. A DC of 13 is common for level 1 adventuerers, monsters with 13 AC are pretty common. So your spells should have a slightly higher probability to land since the enemy isn't always proficient in the save, and even if it fails, half damage.

With 16 casting stat at level 1, and always using IAS on your casting stat, your DC will progress like this...

13 at level 1
14 at level 4
15 at level 5
16 at level 8
17 at level 9
18 at level 13
19 at level 17

Now, most saves use wisdom except for the more hardcore save-or-dieish sort of spells that use constitution. There are very few that use anything else. Most enemies don't have proficiency in wisdom saves and likewise most creatures don't have very high wisdom.

Now lets compare the big badasses that DO have wisdom proficiency.
Lets start with a Solar, that has very high wisdom and prof in wisdom saves.
They have +14 to wisdom saves in total and they have 21 armor.
So against your (presumably) 19 DC, it only needs a 5 to save. WIth an attack roll, (with +11 to hit) you'd need to roll a 10.
So against that kind of enemy, you have a 50% chance to hit with a ranged attack or 25% chance it'll take your full spell and 75% chance it'll do half damage. Mathematically, over a long enough period of time your ranged spell attack is only doing about half damage anyway since it misses half the time, so your still better off just always doing half damage reliably with a 25% chance to do full damage.

Anyway, that is how I look at this sort of thing. I use big, beefy monsters as examples and being higher level because those are usually the only ones that have wisdom proficiency or high wisdom.

A beholder (CR 13) has a +7 to wisdom saves.
It only needs to roll a 10 to save assuming your DC is around 17 when you fight it. It has 18 AC though, so in order for you to hit it, you have to roll a 9 or higher (assuming same stats as you need to have 17 DC).

So again, you have a 55% chance to hit it and do full damage with a ranged spell attack. But it only has a 50% chance to resist your spell meaning you'll do half damage half the time and full damage half the time.

The only time ranged attacks will outperform spells that use saves are in EXTREME edge cases with a creature that has an absurdly high saving throw modifier while simultaneously having absurdly low AC.

Marcloure
2017-09-17, 10:22 PM
i would add that there's a fairly large difference depending on level. in the event that your game actually reaches level 17+ you can have a save DC of 19 (better with certain magic items, but we'll ignore those for a moment).

that is *way* more interesting than +11 to hit... +11 to hit is probably somewhere between 50% and 75% (usually more towards the middle of that) chance to hit most of the time at level 17+ while DC 19 against a well-selected saving throw can potentially be as high as 100% (yes, 100% in 5e; 20 on a saving throw isn't guaranteed to succeed), but more reasonably will be 90-95% against groups of weaker monsters while still being in the same 50% or better region that attack roll spells will probably have even against stronger creatures... *if* you can target the right save.

if you don't think you'll be able to pull off consistently targeting the right save, then saving throw spells are a lot less valuable.

in contrast, at lower levels, most everything will be more or less in the same neighbourhood no matter what you do... there's still definitely a difference, but it isn't as big as it is when your DC can literally become impossible to beat for some enemies.

I was looking through MM, and most of the high level creatures have a +6 as minimum save. Some of them have even a +8 as minimum and +11 as maximum. Save spells will have a higher probability to hit than an attack if you are targeting a lower level foe, but not if you are dealing with comparable CR. Enemies AC at level 20 can be as low or high as at level 5, but that doesn't happen with saves.

Arkhios
2017-09-17, 10:24 PM
Spells with saves don't suffer from being in melee range so there's that rather huge benefit.

Spells with attack roll can be critical hits, which isn't small thing either, especially when that attack spell deals direct damage (most/all of them do).

bid
2017-09-17, 10:51 PM
Basically what the title says. If I had to choose between two equivalent spells, but one is a spell attack and the other requires a saving throw, which should I choose?
Save has a +4 penalty compared to attacks.

Wizard (Int16, level 1) has +5 attack rolls and DC 13 spells.
- against AC16, needs to roll 11+ to hit (50%)
- against Dex14, target saves on 11+ (50%)
Now, if that Dex14 wears no armor that's AC12, a full 4 points behind. Same as a breastplate medium armor.


What makes saves better is you can pick a Wis save instead of Dex, and you might do half-damage on save. But if it's the exact same spell and you have a choice of making it attack roll or save? Choose attack roll.

SharkForce
2017-09-17, 11:04 PM
I was looking through MM, and most of the high level creatures have a +6 as minimum save. Some of them have even a +8 as minimum and +11 as maximum. Save spells will have a higher probability to hit than an attack if you are targeting a lower level foe, but not if you are dealing with comparable CR. Enemies AC at level 20 can be as low or high as at level 5, but that doesn't happen with saves.

which ones are you looking at in particular? just going through CR 16 and up, i've found a -5, three at +0, a couple of +1s, a +2, and a ton of +3s (mostly int saving throws)

there are certainly a few enemies that have at least good saves everywhere (androsphinx, pit fiend, solar, some of the ancient dragons, really most of the stuff above CR 21 or so). and of those, the dragons and androsphinx do have legendary saves, but no magic resistance, which still leaves them with at least one save in the 75% or better range. and only the androsphinx is below CR 20, and none of those are really something you should be expecting to run into routinely. meanwhile, they don't exactly have terrible AC either.

do enemies that are at least pretty good at all saving throws exist? sure. but they're not exactly something you just run into in a random dungeon. there really shouldn't be any such thing as "an ancient black dragon", that dragon should have a name and a history, and pretty much anyone within at least a hundred miles of its lair should know about it (and quite possibly further away even). they're not cannon fodder, they're rare and >>>>legendary<<<< opponents. if you put them in as a random encounter, you're just cheapening the entire experience; they should never be common enemies, they should as a bare minimum be important NPCs that play a major role in the world.

now, you can certainly argue that some saving throws are much more difficult to exploit, and i would not disagree. but that isn't the same thing as saying those poor saving throws don't exist.

90sMusic
2017-09-17, 11:07 PM
This is the easiest way to look at it from a math perspective:

For every point the target's AC is higher than your Spell Attack Modifier, you lose 5% average damage, this loss stops at 10% total because a natural 20 always hits and crits.

For every point your DC is lower than the target's Saving Throw Modifier, you lose 2.5% average damage, and this loss stops at 50%.

The fact ranged spell attacks can crit is completely irrelevant to the average damage you will deal because a natural 1 always fails so on average they 100% cancel each other out.

Potato_Priest
2017-09-17, 11:24 PM
The fact ranged spell attacks can crit is completely irrelevant to the average damage you will deal because a natural 1 always fails so on average they 100% cancel each other out.

If a 2 would miss, then the fact that a 1 auto-fails matters not at all, while the fact that a 20 can crit is still a consideration.