Do casters need their casting stat?

[Necroticplague]

A thought occurred to me recently: I've heard it bandied about that casters are SAD (Single Attribute Dependent) because they only strictly need their casting stat to be high, and everything else is basically just bonus. However, This doesn't strike me as something that seems especially true. The bonuses to spellcasting for having a high casting stat are twofold: more spell slots, and higher DCs. However, in my experience, HP is usually a more scarce rescource than spell slots, and you can still be a very dangerous spellcaster if the enemies pass every save you force them to make (buffing allies, manipulating the battelfield, and out of combat utility are all usually no save). So, beyond the basic 10+spell level to cast, it seems like they don't really need to pump up their casting stat to stay relevant the way a fighter needs to pump up their STR to keep up with AC and HP increases. And considering that items can be used to increase your stats to meet the 10+ needed, it seems like increasing your casting stat as high as possible using your starting points is just excessive. It seems like it'd be more effective to start with a 13 in a casting stat, then use items to increase your casting stat as you start to unlock new spell levels. You save 11 points you can use to shore up your weak points (low-level squishiness, crap saves).

[haplot]

Just a thought, but wouldnt having a lowish casting stat mean that in later levels you wouldnt be able to cast the higher level spells or have I got my maths wrong?

Say start at stat 13, stat 14 at lvl 4, 15 at lvl 8, 16 at 12, 17 at 16, and 18 at 20.

You would need an item boost to get lvl 9 spells etc at the approprate time. I'd personally prefer to have the stat there in first place to take advantage of higher DCs and extra spell (slots). This surely should mean that you get to lvl 20 more readily?

[Nifft]

- Better spells. Would you like to fill your level 8 spell slot with a level 1 spell, or with a level 8 spell?

- Bonus spells. Would you like one level 8 spell per day, or 2 level 8 spells per day?

- Save DCs, as noted. Many BFC effects also demand a save. You can restrict yourself to only using spells that don't require a save, but you've reduced your options. Options = power. More options = more power.


That last one is the least important IMHO. If you can get around the better spells & bonus spells issue, you can probably build a highly competent caster who ignores save DCs.

[CharonsHelper]

Except that the spells with DCs are generally the best spells in the game if you can get those DCs high enough that your enemies usually fail them.

So - you can cast the second tier spells with a mediocre casting stat, but your wizard will be just that (second tier) relative to a wizard with a higher INT.

Now - I do think that secondary casters can get away with a lower casting stat. My bard started with only a 14 CHA since his DCs were always going to be sub-par past the first few levels and the bard spell list is best for buffing anyway. It gave me that stat points to be a secondary melee combatant.

[ryu]

Oh goodness no. You want more HP? Faerie mysteries initiate or necropolitan. Or both. Getting HP is not hard if you even care about it. Much more valuable are the tools to simply not get hit and higher INT means more of them. Now you CAN make a caster with crap in every stat work. That doesn't mean their casting stat isn't their most valuable stat by huge obvious margins.

[Grod_The_Giant]

- Better spells. Would you like to fill your level 8 spell slot with a level 1 spell, or with a level 8 spell?
I'm not sure what you mean by this?


- Bonus spells. Would you like one level 8 spell per day, or 2 level 8 spells per day?
This is a good note for prepared casters, at least-- more spell slots for them offer not just more staying power, but more versatility (since they can prepare different spells in the slots)

[Malimar]

I'm not sure what you mean by this?
I assumed they meant that a character with an 11 in their casting stat has to fill all their slots with level 1 (or 0) spells, whereas a person with 18 in their casting stat can fill their 8th-level slots with 8th-level spells.

[Nifft]

I assumed they meant that a character with an 11 in their casting stat has to fill all their slots with level 1 (or 0) spells, whereas a person with 18 in their casting stat can fill their 8th-level slots with 8th-level spells.

Exactly right.

IIRC you can use metamagic to get some benefit from lower-level spells in high-level slots, but I'd rather have the option of casting actual higher-level spells too.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Oh. Well,

beyond the basic 10+spell level to cast...It seems like it'd be more effective to start with a 13 in a casting stat, then use items to increase your casting stat as you start to unlock new spell levels
Good thing that wasn't the real question?

[Nifft]

Good thing that wasn't the real question?

It is if you're too low-level to buy the item you'd need, or if Magi-K-Mart doesn't exist in your setting, or if you're high level and the item gets disjoin'd, or if your DM rolls for items and you don't get exactly what you want, or if the item you do get isn't the top-of-the-line for its category. I think at least one of those is relevant to the real question, and perhaps several of those are.

You get 3 extra stat points by level 15. If you spend all your level-up stat points optimally, and you don't find the right item, you're stuck at level 6 spells. (That's part of why I picked level 8 spells as the example.)

Let's say you do get the optimal item. You're going to max out at a +6 item. With a +6 item at level 15, you get up to an ability score of 22, so you can cast level 8 spells (yay), but you're losing out on bonus spells at spell level 7 and 8 -- those are good spell slots you're losing.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It is if you're too low-level to buy the item you'd need, or if Magi-K-Mart doesn't exist in your setting, or if you're high level and the item gets disjoin'd, or if your DM rolls for items and you don't get exactly what you want, or if the item you do get isn't the top-of-the-line for its category. I think at least one of those is relevant to the real question, and perhaps several of those are.

You get 3 extra stat points by level 15. If you spend all your level-up stat points optimally, and you don't find the right item, you're stuck at level 6 spells. (That's part of why I picked level 8 spells as the example.)

Let's say you do get the optimal item. You're going to max out at a +6 item. With a +6 item at level 15, you get up to an ability score of 22, so you can cast level 8 spells (yay), but you're losing out on bonus spells at spell level 7 and 8 -- those are good spell slots you're losing.
Eh, fair point. "Because you might not be sure you'll get your +2/4/6 items on time" is certainly a reason to natively invest. (I guess you could cast an Animal's ____ type spell, but you wouldn't want to rely on that)

[Psyren]

OP - You're right, starting with a 13 and a 18 gives you the same bonus spells to start with. But for the latter, it's not long after that that the bonus spells begin really helping out. The DC boosts are helpful too.

[death390]

if a 9's caster only had a 19 in their casting stat and never boosted past that you do gimp a 9's caster badly. the extra spells per day enables you to depending on class be more versatile, have more resources, and increase surviveability, and DC based spells require a higher casting stat or lose efficiency.

for partial casters they are usually MAD due to casting not being their primary focus, see bard, ranger, paladin, deuskblade, spelltheif ect. these classes dont need their casting stat as much due to losing the back end of their extra spells per day. if you dont get 7-9 spell levels then a +6 (22) is all they really need. because they lose out on spells per day per modifier since they don't have all the spell levels that they would get spell slots for. but barring that they all have other attributes that they need as well, thus focusing on casting stat in a bad idea.

[ayvango]

Warlock is a caster and charisma 3 (caster stat) is sufficient for him. All other caster really require high caster stat

[ericgrau]

No, not really, but I wouldn't totally dump it except for special concepts. I just wouldn't put much resources into it.

I've been neglecting my casting stat on nearly every caster I make since roughly my 2nd caster. I focus on spells that don't need saves and/or do well even on a passed save, as these spells tend to be better anyway.

On most casters I get a medium-high casting stat but don't try hard to pump it. I delay the magic items, getting no casting stat magic items for a long time then finally a +2. And my casting stat might not be what gets bumped every 4th level. I don't totally dump it because there are still a small number of great spells that have a save that I want to keep alongside the no-save stuff. Or for stuff that is good on a passed save it's still nice to get a failed save too. On 1 or 2 casters I dumped the casting stat as low as I could. I've likewise had 2 or 3 where con was my high stat.


if a 9's caster only had a 19 in their casting stat and never boosted past that you do gimp a 9's caster badly. the extra spells per day enables you to depending on class be more versatile, have more resources, and increase surviveability, and DC based spells require a higher casting stat or lose efficiency.
Not really, you spend a ton of resources just to get a couple more powerful options out of a dozen. Usually better to spend those resources to get options other ways like staffs and scrolls.

It takes 1/10th of your level 17 WBL and an expensive 18 from your point buy just to get a 28 caster stat for a bonus 9th level spell. Or if you can't manage an 18, you're SOOL without an insanely expensive tome. Not worth the price for a couple lower level bonus spells. Even if you do have a super generous point buy and an 18 is no biggy, you get 3 9s instead of 2 for one level. Then it's 4 instead of 3, etc. Plus all your superb level 6 through 8 spells don't change much either way. Meh. Borderline in best case scenario. Get more spells per day via ways besides caster stat.

I'd go for a 16 caster stat to start, or a 15 boosted to 16 at level 4. Unless I got a string of 18s, I'd get at most a 16 to start, boosted to 20 from 16 levels, plus a +4 item for 24 by level 17. More than that and there are probably better items to buy for the gold. But if you have a 14 early on and later a 19 or 20 it's really no big loss.

[Mike Miller]

Warlock is a caster and charisma 3 (caster stat) is sufficient for him. All other caster really require high caster stat

Warlocks are not casters. I don't think they enter this discussion.

[zlefin]

yes they do need their casting stat, and they're still SAD.
that you say 13 rather than 14 makes me think you're using pathfinder?
at any rate; casters can do fine even if their casting stat isn't that high, as long as it's high enough to cast their top level spells. They don't need any stats all that much.
casters (at least the ones usually referred to) are OP; most of your arguments simply amount to casters being able to do fine without so much of htier casting stat; that's simpyl because casters aren't that dependent on anything at all cuz they're strong.

[Kobold Esq]

Warlocks are not casters. I don't think they enter this discussion.

Though not really related, I always wanted to play a Paladin 2/Favored Soul X (+PrCs) with 10 Wisdom and just no spells that gave saves. Only thing it loses would be Turn Undead. Not sure whether it would be better off grabbing two more Paladin levels, or if there is a better way to snag turning without losing FS casting levels.

[Eldariel]

It really depends on level too. Low level caster are much more stat dependent than high level. Higher up, spell options and levels of slots can make up for poor save DCs and fewer options, but on level 1? The difference between 3 and 4 level 1 spells from 18-20 stat is MASSIVE and your highest impact spells are all save-or-dies (Color Spray, Sleep). Especially on endurance rally playdays.

Once you get to like ECL 5-9, this ceases to be such a big deal though but more options is always better and what else do you really care abaout? Might as well, really.

[Endarire]

Remember, your casting stat applies to skills and perhaps other things too.

@OP: This was a matter our group considered for someone who was getting the Phrenic template (due to an arragement with the GM) who started with 10 CHA and was concerned about the viability of his DC-dependent abilities.

While +2 to a stat is only +1 to a DC (and a 5% difference at most), I've been in games where 1 more AC or DC would have meant something hit or missed.

My perspective has been that casting is fun and higher casting statting means I can have more fun. I get more spells per day AND more spells that are likely to have full effect! (It's kinda like how melee attacks are normally STR-dependent for accuracy - greater chance to hit - and damage - greater chance to have the full effect of killing or KOing the target.) Starting with a base 18+ is only sometimes wise, but if I'm playing a primary caster, I'm playing it primarily to cast!

[CharonsHelper]

While +2 to a stat is only +1 to a DC (and a 5% difference at most), I've been in games where 1 more AC or DC would have meant something hit or missed.


+1 DC is more than 5%.

If your foe has a 50% chance of passing their save (11+) then a +1 to the DC increases their fail chance by 10%. etc.

[Mordaedil]

+1 DC is more than 5%.

If your foe has a 50% chance of passing their save (11+) then a +1 to the DC increases their fail chance by 10%. etc.

No, it's 5% because you roll a d20. If you divide 100 (as percentage) by 20 (the number of sides on a dice) you get 5 remaining. A +2 bonus is 10%. If your foe has 50% chance to save, a +1 to the DC is a 5% decrease, to 45% chance to succeed.

[CharonsHelper]

No, it's 5% because you roll a d20. If you divide 100 (as percentage) by 20 (the number of sides on a dice) you get 5 remaining. A +2 bonus is 10%. If your foe has 50% chance to save, a +1 to the DC is a 5% decrease, to 45% chance to succeed.

That's not how math works.

% is all relative and based upon the current rate.

If they have a 50% chance of failure, increasing that to 55% is a 10% increase.

If they have a 25% chance of failure, increasing that to 30% is a 20% increase.

If they have an 80% chance of failure, increasing that to 85% is only a 6.25% increase.

etc.

[Mordaedil]

That's... Really not relevant to D&D, because you don't roll a d10 when you have a 10 modifier. The only relevant modifier is on the 1-20 scale, not reduced scale.

[CharonsHelper]

That's... Really not relevant to D&D, because you don't roll a d10 when you have a 10 modifier. The only relevant modifier is on the 1-20 scale, not reduced scale.

It's entirely relevant if you're trying to figure out the value of various stat increases. It's more obvious with martials when they figure out how much DPR they can get out of each point of accuracy (directly comparing damage & accuracy changes - such as with Power Attack) but it's just as relevant for a caster's DCs.

[Rerednaw]

Eh, fair point. "Because you might not be sure you'll get your +2/4/6 items on time" is certainly a reason to natively invest. (I guess you could cast an Animal's ____ type spell, but you wouldn't want to rely on that)

OMG yes. My 6th level wizard has total net worth of 600 gp. No item crafting. No magic mart. So I kind of need the spell slots not to mention the ability to actually cast the higher level spells.

[Boggartbae]

That's... Really not relevant to D&D, because you don't roll a d10 when you have a 10 modifier. The only relevant modifier is on the 1-20 scale, not reduced scale.


It's entirely relevant if you're trying to figure out the value of various stat increases. It's more obvious with martials when they figure out how much DPR they can get out of each point of accuracy (directly comparing damage & accuracy changes - such as with Power Attack) but it's just as relevant for a caster's DCs.

You're both right, it's just the difference between "Percentage Points" and "Percentage". I personally use percentage points (+1=5%) when thinking about d20 rolls, but there's nothing wrong with using the percent change of what was already there, either.

As to the OP, I once made a cleric with a 14 wisdom, because that was all I needed to cast animate dead. I took a bunch of Corpsecrafter feats, bought a bunch of onyx, and my character was really strong. Granted it was mostly because animate dead is broken, but spells like giant growth, wall of stone, and summon monster don't get better with a stat higher than what was needed to cast them in the first place.

[Grod_The_Giant]

OMG yes. My 6th level wizard has total net worth of 600 gp. No item crafting. No magic mart. So I kind of need the spell slots not to mention the ability to actually cast the higher level spells.
Though to be fair, that's well outside the bounds of how the game is "supposed" to work-- it's balanced around having a certain amount of magical doodads, which-- most critically-- serve to steadily upgrade your stats and defenses.

[Elder_Basilisk]

You can make a primary caster work with a low casting stat. If you really needed to make it work, you could still get your highest level spells with a 13 starting stat, no ability increases and stat boosting item. For practical purposes I probably wouldn't go below 14 on a point buy system since 14s are relatively cheap and having some bonus spells is nice. A 15 is nice because with the 4th level stat bumps, it lets you have a bonus 3rd level spell at 5th level whether or not you get a stat item and if you can get a stat boost item by 7th level, you get a bonus 4th level spell. But a 13 or 14 can he made to work.

But here's the thing.
1. You need to really limit your spell selection. If it has a meaningful saving throw, you probably won't cast it. (Glitterdust is one of the few exceptions since it has anti-invisibility utility, targets a weak save for a lot of brute type creatures who like to bunch up and who are generally neutered by a failed save). This means that you are going to play with a limited selection of spell strategies. Buffing, healing (for clerics), summoning, battlefield control, single target and or no save effects (magic missile, 3.5 ray of enfeeblement, curse of impending blades, whirling blade, scorching ray, enervation, etc)

2. You generally need to have a focus other than spellcasting. This may well involve multiclassing. Your SAD wisdom 20 cleric is casting command, etc. He has more spell slots and higher DCs than the cleric with 14 wisdom. So maybe the 14 wisdom cleric has greatsword proficiency and an 18 strength. He can slice through the bad guys himself rather than enabling someone else to do that. Maybe he even has a barbarian level. He's not as good at traditional cleric things but he can do a lot with that sword and he can still cast heal if he needs to. Maybe the wizard turns into an Eldritch Knight(or abjurant champion or hellknght or whatever the prestige class combos du jour is).

This second focus/ability set is what is going to make the cleric with a 13 or 14 wisdom something other than a poor man's version of the 20 wisdom cleric. Depending upon the specific challenge, the party makeup, and player skill, the SAD caster may (or may not) be a more useful character, but the second ability set is what can gives the low casting attribute any edge he has.

3. There is a range of how low casting stat 9 level casters can play out. At one extreme, you have starting 15, with all increases going to the casting stat. (The iconics fall into this category). Those guys will play like a SAD caster but have to be really careful about using spells with saves-target weak saves, set up the spell, etc. They probably have a secondary role but it is likely to grow less significant as they increase in level since their spellcasting stat is getting priority for stat increases and items.

At the other extreme, you have the starting 13 casting stat with stat increases going somewhere else. This guy might as well not have spells with saves on his spell list (he may cast them occasionally especially if he's stuck with one as a domain spell but he's counting on the effect that happens on a save and failed saves are a bonus). And this guy has probably sold out everything to max his "secondary" strategy. A battle cleric whose stat bumps all go to strength and who counts on his wisdom booster to be able to cast high level spells is probably the simplest version of this.

I've played all of these as well as the SAD caster and they can all be effective but they will all play very differently and the rest of the party needs to adjust their strategies and expectations to take advantage of what you bring to the table (thats true whether you are SAD or a low casting stat character).

[Zanos]

For a archetype that largely focuses on situational versatility, not having a large part of your arsenal(every spell with a DC) be effective severely limits your potential options.

You can do stuff without having enemies makes saves, but you will find yourself constantly working around it unless you're a gish of some stripe.

[denthor]

Do all games go 20th level?

How many times do you start at level 1 and stop before 15th level?

There NPC wizards and other classes that just decide I good I will just live mg life set up shop and make?

I can become a member of a school and just train.

I had a 6th level fighter that would anouce 2 blow around fighter before stepping into a dueling ring. The line got short to fight her. The DM even said that she was one of the few from her classical school that got there.

How about advancing an age category to make up the difference. Who needs to be a teenager?

[Eldariel]

Though to be fair, that's well outside the bounds of how the game is "supposed" to work-- it's balanced around having a certain amount of magical doodads, which-- most critically-- serve to steadily upgrade your stats and defenses.

However, the game certainly works that way too. All it means is that CR (which didn't work anyways) doesn't work and non-caster/caster imbalance gets even worse (but it was already bad enough that there's no reason to play non-casters power-wise) but if you make a party of casters or non-casters and just pay attention to actual enemy difficulty to this group rather than eyeballing CR and throwing Shadows at level 3 martials armed with sticks because "numbers said so", it's really not that big of a deal.

[Elder_Basilisk]

However, the game certainly works that way too. All it means is that CR (which didn't work anyways) doesn't work and non-caster/caster imbalance gets even worse (but it was already bad enough that there's no reason to play non-casters power-wise) but if you make a party of casters or non-casters and just pay attention to actual enemy difficulty to this group rather than eyeballing CR and throwing Shadows at level 3 martials armed with sticks because "numbers said so", it's really not that big of a deal.

Actually reduced wealth has some pretty big implications for game balance between various martials as well--not just caster/martial balance. For example, a truly radical reduction in wealth by level like the one discussed here (600 gp at level 6) will disadvantage heavy armor wearers vis a vis light armor wearers. The chain shirt plus dex gives the same armor class at starting gold as it does at sixth level with only 450 gp gained. The chain shirt wearer is out whatever enhancement bonus, deflection bonus, and natural armor bonus he might expect to normally get and that's a big deal, on the other hand, the guy who would normally be wearing full plate is down all of that and the difference between banded armor and fullplate. So the light armor guy is probably down 3 points of AC is a vis a standard wealth game. The heavy armor wearers is down 5 (or 6 in Pathfinder) points of AC.

The shift in balance between offense and defense is even more pronounced. A sword and board character can, using a moderate portion of his wealth by level reach a point where most bad guys need an 11 or better to hit with their primary attacks and probably won't hit with their secondary attacks and moon level bad guys need serious buffing to avoid fishing for 20s. And said character can make up for limited damage potential with things like armbands of might, flaming/frost weapons, etc. By level 9, the character in a standard game may be wielding a holy weapon which goes a long way to making 1d8+1x str + bonuses viable. On the other hand, in a reduced wealth game, characters often do not have enough wealth to make the bad guys actually have trouble hitting, and they don't have wealth to boost their damage much beyond base weapon plus strength plus power attack either. As a consequence, more defensive builds tend to be pushed to the side in favor of builds that go to great lengths to maximize offense in a desperate attempt to maintain level appropriate offense when it is not possible to maintain level appropriate defense at all. This was certainly the case in early Living Greyhawk which was a wealth poor campaign in year 1 and year 2 scenarios. The game was full of barbarian 2/fighter 1/rogue 2 type builds in light armor with two handed weapons. Later in the campaign, when wealth began to be closer to standard, there was a much wider range of characters as characters A. Had the resources to achieve meaningful defense and B. Had the resources to boost offense to acceptable levels without relying on two handed weapons all the time.

[Mordaedil]

It's entirely relevant if you're trying to figure out the value of various stat increases. It's more obvious with martials when they figure out how much DPR they can get out of each point of accuracy (directly comparing damage & accuracy changes - such as with Power Attack) but it's just as relevant for a caster's DCs.

Using that system, going from 19 to 20, you've made a gain of 100% though. That just doesn't make sense.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Using that system, going from 19 to 20, you've made a gain of 100% though. That just doesn't make sense.

It most certainly does make sense. If you go from needing a 20 to hit to hitting on a 19, you have increased your hit rate by 100%. You hit twice as often as you did before. (Due to crits, you probably more than doubled your dpr). On the other hand, if you go from hitting on a 3 to hitting on a 2, you only increase your hit rate by 5.55%. This accurately reflect a the diminishing returns that you get for improving your attack bonus. That +1 to hit is a much bigger deal when you are having trouble hitting than when you only miss occasionally.

On defense, that analysis shows another important fact that you will miss if you restrict your analysis to the difference in the percentage of attacks that hit vs those that miss. If the enemy needs a 19 to hit and you make them roll a 20, that cuts down the rate you get hit by 50%. Until you reach that "fishing for 20s" point, each additional point of AC yields increasing returns. Defense is more valuable, the more of it you have.

[CharonsHelper]

Using that system, going from 19 to 20, you've made a gain of 100% though. That just doesn't make sense.

Sorry that it's confusing. Math is hard?

[Nifft]

It most certainly does make sense. If you go from needing a 20 to hit to hitting on a 19, you have increased your hit rate by 100%. You hit twice as often as you did before. (Due to crits, you probably more than doubled your dpr). On the other hand, if you go from hitting on a 3 to hitting on a 2, you only increase your hit rate by 5.55%. This accurately reflect a the diminishing returns that you get for improving your attack bonus. That +1 to hit is a much bigger deal when you are having trouble hitting than when you only miss occasionally.

Mmm, this is not necessarily accurate.

The returns only diminish if you calculate them as a proportion of the preceding expected damage total.

If you calculate maximum potential damage (i.e. as if you'd never miss), and then look at the difference in (expected / maximum), you'll see that each +1 is worth about the same expected damage in proportion to maximum potential damage.

I find the proportion-of-a-proportion way that you've described to be technically equivalent, but it's rather misleading to my intuition.

[Psyren]

Another thought that occurs to me is ability damage and penalties. Having a borderline score in your casting stat makes it easier to turn off your high-level spells, and lots of monsters can affect your scores at higher levels.

At lower levels this is less of an issue, but you're also using skills more, and mental skills are one of the main roles for the casters in the party.


Using that system, going from 19 to 20, you've made a gain of 100% though. That just doesn't make sense.

It does make sense (see Elder Basilisk's post).

It's slightly less important for spellcasting because there are lots of spells with no save that you can rely on instead, but having high scores gives you more options on what you can feasibly put in your slots (in addition to more slots in general.)

[CharonsHelper]

I find the proportion-of-a-proportion way that you've described to be technically equivalent, but it's rather misleading to my intuition.

I find the opposite. With considering each point of accuracy (or boost to DC in this context) people often make poor character building decisions because they are looking at things from the wrong perspective.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Mmm, this is not necessarily accurate.

The returns only diminish if you calculate them as a proportion of the preceding expected damage total.

If you calculate maximum potential damage (i.e. as if you'd never miss), and then look at the difference in (expected / maximum), you'll see that each +1 is worth about the same expected damage in proportion to maximum potential damage.

I find the proportion-of-a-proportion way that you've described to be technically equivalent, but it's rather misleading to my intuition.

The question in this case is not which is mathematically accurate but rather what is the most useful way to look examine the scenarios. That was why I emphasized the diminishing returns on marginal increases in attack bonus and the increasing returns on marginal increases in armor class in my previous post. Those are two important features of the d20 system that can be missed if you look at things the way you are suggesting. This can be tactically important if, for example, your cleric is deciding whether to cast bless or just wade into battle with his mace or if the arcane Archer is thinking, "should I cast protection from chaos on myself or should I full attack the ogre barbarians?" The percentage increase and decrease in the expected damage dealt or taken is revealing in a way that the absolute change in % to hit is not.

In tactical situations, thinking in terms of discreet probabilities is usually an even better way to analyze things, but that's very situation dependent so it is harder to do for character build analysis and generally takes a lot more space than it's worth to communicate. That said, it is important if you want to explain why, in play, Power Attack often seems to function better than an average damage per round analysis would indicate. (The short version being that maximizing average damage per round against a set AC is not always the same as maximizing the number of orcs killed per round and due to things like cleave and less wasted damage, a higher power attack often results in more dead orcs per round than a power attack calibrated to produce maximum average damage per round against a given AC without considering the the number of monsters faced and their hit points). Once again, getting the math right is only a small portion of the puzzle. Understanding what math to use in the first place is important too.

[Nifft]

I find the opposite. With considering each point of accuracy (or boost to DC in this context) people often make poor character building decisions because they are looking at things from the wrong perspective. You mean how "assume that a +1 would mean you hit on a 19" is incorrect for 98% of the situation in which a character will find herself?

If that's what you mean, I could agree.


The question in this case is not which is mathematically accurate but rather what is the most useful way to look examine the scenarios. That was why I emphasized the diminishing returns on marginal increases in attack bonus and the increasing returns on marginal increases in armor class in my previous post. Those are two important features of the d20 system that can be missed if you look at things the way you are suggesting. This can be tactically important if, for example, your cleric is deciding whether to cast bless or just wade into battle with his mace or if the arcane Archer is thinking, "should I cast protection from chaos on myself or should I full attack the ogre barbarians?" The percentage increase and decrease in the expected damage dealt or taken is revealing in a way that the absolute change in % to hit is not.

In tactical situations, thinking in terms of discreet probabilities is usually an even better way to analyze things, but that's very situation dependent so it is harder to do for character build analysis and generally takes a lot more space than it's worth to communicate. That said, it is important if you want to explain why, in play, Power Attack often seems to function better than an average damage per round analysis would indicate. (The short version being that maximizing average damage per round against a set AC is not always the same as maximizing the number of orcs killed per round and due to things like cleave and less wasted damage, a higher power attack often results in more dead orcs per round than a power attack calibrated to produce maximum average damage per round against a given AC without considering the the number of monsters faced and their hit points). Once again, getting the math right is only a small portion of the puzzle. Understanding what math to use in the first place is important too. To me, it's a matter of the variability of target numbers.

It's not trivial to take an argument about how going from "hit on a 20" to "hit on a 19" changes your damage, and then apply it to a situation when you actually hit on a 13.

But if you start from the wholistic way -- if you start with: here's the proportion of my maximum damage that I can expect to impose upon a target with this AC -- then it's relatively much easier to figure out if you want to put more effort into raising your maximum damage, or raising your attack roll, or doing neither because you're fine, or doing something completely different because that tactic is not going to win.

[Mordaedil]

Sorry that it's confusing. Math is hard?

It's not confusing, it's just really pointless in a system that has no upper boundry. You can end up with characters having saving throws up in their 30's, at which point determining remaining success rate is utterly arbitrary and really pointless as you never really know what your target number is. It makes more sense for 2nd edition with THAC0, except not really because negative AC is a thing.

Without a consistant target number, using the math in this way is pointless, because nothing is consistantly going to be as hard to hit. Calculating in 5% because the range is between 0 and 20 makes more sense than targetting the remainder of the chance of success you have. Because it is going to change every fight.

Sometimes you have a target with AC 13 and sometimes you have a target with AC 22 and with your math you have to make separate value judgements depending on each of them. Against the AC 13 orc, that +1 to hit sure would lower that chance to miss by that much more, but you'd make the assumption that it's virtually pointless against the AC 22 character because you'd need so much more to hit a significant percentage chance to hit.

[Yogibear41]

Though not really related, I always wanted to play a Paladin 2/Favored Soul X (+PrCs) with 10 Wisdom and just no spells that gave saves. Only thing it loses would be Turn Undead. Not sure whether it would be better off grabbing two more Paladin levels, or if there is a better way to snag turning without losing FS casting levels.

Never did this in an actual 3.5 game but did do it on DDO the MMO based on 3.5, basically just buffed and healed myself and ran around whacking things with a greatsword, simple yet effective.


But to get back on topic, I would say the answer is: "it depends"

On something like a cleric or a gish that wants to get into melee and/or do other stuff the casting stat is less important, but someone wanting to play the pure wizard, or spell focus'd cleric/priest who doesn't even want to wear armor, much less hit something with a mace, then the casting stat becomes much more important.

One might even argue that the casting stat is more important on prepared casters than on spontaneous casters, because spontaneous casters get more spells per day and have a limited number of spells known anyway so they don't need as many "extra slots" to cover more potential situations, they can cover certain "potential situations" with the proper selection of spells known.

[ayvango]

There is variant rule in the UA that eliminates autohit on 20 and automiss on 1. If you rolled 20 and still has not hit the target, you could reroll hit with +20 bonus, and could do so multiple times in row if you get multiple 20 which are still insufficient to broke past targets armor. The same goes for 1. If you rolled 1 and still able to hit target then reroll with -20 bonus. Very elegant way to extended benefits of high stat/modifiers beyond d20 range.

[Mordaedil]

It's a +10 and -10, not -20 and -20.

[death390]

i'm with basilisk on the fishing for 20's scenario. the problems i saw you guys had with it was that there is no consistent variable for the number. here is where i see a discrepancy.

attack VS AC.
boosted attack means that withing a general upper bound for your CR level AC's if your to hit number is above 16 then each point increased is very powerful, 11-15 is still very useful, 6-10 not bad, and <5 is negligible.

unless your AC is already causing a need of 20's (damn unlikely) or is so low that you are going to get hit on a 5 then every point of AC is really important.

Saves vs DC
Saves and DC are EXTREMELY difficult to boost, HOWEVER DC's are harder to boost. Saves can be boosted through Feats, magical items, attribute bonus's, multiclassing, and other special abilities. DC's are so much more limited, base 10 + spell level + attribute mod, and a handful of feats that it pretty much. remember avg on d20 is 10.5 so we can remove the base 10 DC for a comparison. attributes tend to favor casters due to SAD compared to saves which is MAD

for class vs class fight; saves bonus of +1/3 on your bad save this means that its only slightly behind a 9's caster overall. wiz is spell level every 2 levels (1,3,5,7). sorc is the same but 1 level delayed. and for the partial level casters (bard, trickster spellthief, duskblade, ect) get spells slower than the Saves increase. and its even worse for delayed half casters.

a straight lvl 20 character gets +5 to their bad save and +12 to their good ones. so for a 9's caster they are mixed at -3/ +3 respectively. but for ALL partial casters, delayed or otherwise DCs get shafted +6 is their absolute highest level spells (often less). this means that partial casters are behind by 6 if they target the good save and usually still behind on the bad save (avg spell level max is 5 for partial casters).

don't forget that these number are for the HIGHEST level spells the caster has. lower level spells that rely on DC's get further boned, for level 6 spells you par the worst save, and are 6 under for the good saves. lvl 3 spells are -9 for good saves and -3 for bad ones.

feats are disproportionately weighted for the saves, 1 feat for a +2 to a specific save (usually your worst), compared to spell focus +1 to a SINGLE school of spells (+1 for greater), or +1 to a specific set of spells with oddball feats. technically there are more feats to get DC but it literally costs you more of your most valuable resource a feat slot.

when it comes to the attributes it is supposed to favor the caster to make up for those deficits. this is why most caster are SAD and saves are MAD. CON DEX and WIS are at least secondary attributes for several classes. Look at these one of them is a casting stat for most divine casters, dex is a primary attribute for 2 martial types (archers TWF), and is so stacked for other uses, and con is at the very least never dumped due to HP.

this is why casting stat is needed by casters, you are literally fighting a deficit, unless you are using DC-less spells or partial save (and don't care if they make it) spells. look at creatures around the CR your going to play their Saves are going to be better than your DC without that +10. and usually by a decent margin. so instead of a 50/50 shot from a straight roll vs 10. its usually roll vs DC 4/5 or lower.




lets take a CR 20 pit fiend vs lvl 20 wizard casting a lvl 9 spell. its saves are 19/19/21 -9 for lvl 9 spell 10/10/11. -5 for Int 20, (5/5/6)+roll vs DC10. wow they save on a 4/5 roll. WTF. this is a standard CR monster for this group.now lets make it a -10 for attribute with INT 30. (0/0/1)+Roll Vs DC10. this a a 50/50 shot. the ONLY WAY to get that quantity of INT is to boost the stat.

lvl 5 wizard vs CR 5, taking a sample i saw as low as +0 fort (pixie) to as high as +9s (several) and average of +6. wizard gets lvl 3 spells at this point (spont and 1/2 casters lvl2, lvl 1 for delayed 1/2 casters). so 6/6/6 -3 for spell level, attribute lets go with a good but not great 16 (enough to stay ahead of casting requirements) so thats another -3, which leads to 0/0/0 meaning its a straight roll vs DC 10. even with a great 19 (18+1lvl4) and a +2 item you only get another +2. meaning roll vs DC 12. still 40% success. this is why picking the bad save to target is important.

[CharonsHelper]

It's not confusing, it's just really pointless in a system that has no upper boundry. You can end up with characters having saving throws up in their 30's, at which point determining remaining success rate is utterly arbitrary and really pointless as you never really know what your target number is. .

The chance of that happening often is very slim.



Sometimes you have a target with AC 13 and sometimes you have a target with AC 22 and with your math you have to make separate value judgements depending on each of them. Against the AC 13 orc, that +1 to hit sure would lower that chance to miss by that much more, but you'd make the assumption that it's virtually pointless against the AC 22 character because you'd need so much more to hit a significant percentage chance to hit.

Yes. Exactly. It's what adds depth to play rather than there being answers which are 100% right or wrong. If every target was the same % then it would be boring.

As a simple example, it's the reason that whether or not you use Power Attack varies by target. Against an ooze it's awesome while against a will o' wisp it's terrible.

Edit: I have a pet theory about how the Monster Manual is the secret to D&D's success due to the inherent depth of play even with a sub-par DM.

[Eldariel]

It's not confusing, it's just really pointless in a system that has no upper boundry. You can end up with characters having saving throws up in their 30's, at which point determining remaining success rate is utterly arbitrary and really pointless as you never really know what your target number is. It makes more sense for 2nd edition with THAC0, except not really because negative AC is a thing.

Without a consistant target number, using the math in this way is pointless, because nothing is consistantly going to be as hard to hit. Calculating in 5% because the range is between 0 and 20 makes more sense than targetting the remainder of the chance of success you have. Because it is going to change every fight.

Sometimes you have a target with AC 13 and sometimes you have a target with AC 22 and with your math you have to make separate value judgements depending on each of them. Against the AC 13 orc, that +1 to hit sure would lower that chance to miss by that much more, but you'd make the assumption that it's virtually pointless against the AC 22 character because you'd need so much more to hit a significant percentage chance to hit.

That's just how math works though - there's no point in discussing what is preferable. Percents (%) and percent points (pp) are very different things that get confused all the time even in many humanities causing wrong analyses of data (sadly for academia).

Basically, you can compare numbers to averages to do the math of probability but that's really not representative of the reality of the game since it's a very rare campaign indeed that has an equal spread of creatures. Indeed, such a campaign world makes no sense. WLD is basically the only module with an equal spread and its virtues are questionable at best.

D&D is an unsolvable system because everything is contextual and theoretically every opponent can have any value at any point between 0 and infinity (see Punpun at CR1/2). More practically the amount of options available at every point and the cognitive biases that do the lion's share of the selection work mean that the target numbers can be so all over the place to just as well be random in actual campaigns run by real people rather than marginal algorithms. Same goes for the PC side of things; the value of any given bonus or penalty only exists in context. So absolute math in D&D really does not exist outside infinities, which don't concern most practical games.

[Mordaedil]

The chance of that happening often is very slim.
What? It happens all of the time though? D&D isn't a set system of predictable parables.



Yes. Exactly. It's what adds depth to play rather than there being answers which are 100% right or wrong. If every target was the same % then it would be boring.

As a simple example, it's the reason that whether or not you use Power Attack varies by target. Against an ooze it's awesome while against a will o' wisp it's terrible.
Yeah, okay, I can see the usefulness in this with regards to power attack, but for things like bless or weapon focus, it really doesn't say much. The chance of rolling low doesn't change and every modifier applies equally across the board. You might figure you are dealing with diminishing returns as you go up the estimation, but those diminishing returns are actually really important because you always have that range and it isn't a matter of statistic as much as a matter of chance. And as you start needing to perform those rolls over and over, the performance of the same statistical probability actually contributes more to the final state than where it matters less.

But well, if you feel that isn't quite true, feel free to post the math and I'll consider myself convinced.

[ericgrau]

A casting who is pumping his save DC will make foes fail their save on roughly a roll of 14. So a +1 to the DC from a higher stat is roughly 1 in 14 or about 7% more failed saves. But just like it's not a 5% increase in effectiveness because it's not 1 out of 20, it's not a 7% increase in effectiveness either because it's not all about failed saves. Most good spells don't have a save, or have some effect even if the save is passed. So when this applies to less than half of what you're casting, the actual increase in effectiveness from a +1 save DC is less than 3%.

I did the math on power attack a long time ago. Auto hit foes with single digit ACs like oozes are pretty much the only time it's a useful feat. Against the majority of foes which aren't auto hit, it's nearly useless. I calculated the damage per hit that would give the same increase to DPR. It was between negative to, in the very most ideal situation, +2 damage per hit. And usually nothing or negative. Even if you do bla bla bla normal thing like buff, you're better off using that to do something else other than power attack. The feat is only useful in the Campaign of Ooze/Mook/etc. super-low-AC-things extermination. Or with tricks like shock trooper to get rid of the attack penalty. Which is why it's actually a useful feat for optimizers but a trap for rookies.

[CharonsHelper]

A casting who is pumping his save DC will make foes fail their save on roughly a roll of 14. So a +1 to the DC from a higher stat is roughly 1 in 14 or about 7% more failed saves. But just like it's not a 5% increase in effectiveness because it's not 1 out of 20, it's not a 7% increase in effectiveness either because it's not all about failed saves. Most good spells don't have a save, or have some effect even if the save is passed. So when this applies to less than half of what you're casting, the actual increase in effectiveness from a +1 save DC is less than 3%.

For DCs I actually like to look at it from the saving throw perspective.

That +1 DC (changing the required roll from 14+ to 15+) reduces their chance of passing their save from 35% to 30%. That's more than a 14% drop in their chances of passing the save.

[ericgrau]

That has even less to do with foes handled per round.

[Eldariel]

I did the math on power attack a long time ago. Auto hit foes with single digit ACs like oozes are pretty much the only time it's a useful feat. Against the majority of foes which aren't auto hit, it's nearly useless. I calculated the damage per hit that would give the same increase to DPR. It was between negative to, in the very most ideal situation, +2 damage per hit. And usually nothing or negative. Even if you do bla bla bla normal thing like buff, you're better off using that to do something else other than power attack. The feat is only useful in the Campaign of Ooze/Mook/etc. super-low-AC-things extermination. Or with tricks like shock trooper to get rid of the attack penalty. Which is why it's actually a useful feat for optimizers but a trap for rookies.

I do recall you never accounted for circumstance modifiers and your math didn't involve party buffs; it's a great sink vs. average AC when you account for even just getting GMW, let alone Haste or Inspire Courage, and all the more powerful when you get to flank, trip, high ground, attack blinded enemies, etc. The game is full of modifiers and if your enemies have the negative ones, you're rarely dealing with the stock AC. Thus your math is useful for a solo character (though even there, core Tripper gets to add +4 on top of all it a fair amount of the time) but really low for a party.

[CharonsHelper]

The game is full of modifiers and if your enemies have the negative ones, you're rarely dealing with the stock AC. Thus your math is useful for a solo character (though even there, core Tripper gets to add +4 on top of all it a fair amount of the time) but really low for a party.

This is assuming that your foes never have magic gear and/or buffs to compensate for your positive buffs and/or the negative buffs you apply. Heck - a dragon should at least be casting Mage Armor and Shield on himself pretty regularly. (and that's if he goes into battle naked instead of using a fraction of his hoard for decent gear)

The average AC isn't going to be perfect - but it's reasonably useful as well.

[Eldariel]

This is assuming that your foes never have magic gear and/or buffs to compensate for your positive buffs and/or the negative buffs you apply. Heck - a dragon should at least be casting Mage Armor and Shield on himself pretty regularly. (and that's if he goes into battle naked instead of using a fraction of his hoard for decent gear)

The average AC isn't going to be perfect - but it's reasonably useful as well.

Of course monsters are like to have higher AC than printed but from the value you face you should expect that team variables drop chunks of it away.

[Lazymancer]

Do casters need their casting stat?
Depends on the context - primarily, the definition of "need". Casters are playable with low casting stat, even if they get better if the casting stat is high.

If the question is the "in comparison to other stats", then I'd say squishy casters should get ~14 Constitution before 14 in their casting stat. Only then should they consider raising their casting stat (up to ~16, before switching to Dexterity).



Just a thought, but wouldnt having a lowish casting stat mean that in later levels you wouldnt be able to cast the higher level spells or have I got my maths wrong?

Say start at stat 13, stat 14 at lvl 4, 15 at lvl 8, 16 at 12, 17 at 16, and 18 at 20.
You can start with 10 or 11 in casting stat and unlock access to all spell levels before you can cast them.

Level 1 - start middle-aged/old and get +1/+2 (=> 12)
Level 4 - get +1 from levels (=> 13)
Level 6 - get/craft the standard issue +2 to stat (=> 15)
Level 8 - +1 from levels (=> 16)
Level 12 - another +1 from levels (=> 17)

The only thing that remains is to upgrade the item to +4 to stat, before hitting level 15. +6 item is not mandatory.



I find the proportion-of-a-proportion way that you've described to be technically equivalent, but it's rather misleading to my intuition.
What is misleading is the assumption that all probability changes are equivalent.

Imagine Russian roulette-style d20 roll (win - get 10 million dollars; lose - die) where you can get +1 to roll in exchange for reducing money won tenfold: to one million.

If your chance to win is 25% (16-20 rolled), you have no reason to accept this +1 bonus. Either it is 75% or 70% - the risk did not change sufficiently, the chance of death is still too high. And if you are sufficiently desperate to go for it anyway, there is no compelling reason to reduce reward that much.

But if your chance to win is 95% - you'd be a fool to refuse. You go from "low risk-high reward" to "no risk-low reward".

[Necroticplague]

But if your chance to win is 95% - you'd be a fool to refuse. You go from "low risk-high reward" to "no risk-low reward".

Depends on how risk averse you are. Statistically, you'd expect higher average winnings without the +1 (9.5 mill) than with it (1 mill). So by saying you'd be a fool to refuse, all you show is that you are incredibly risk averse, willing to accept an 8.5 million average loss to avoid 5% chance of failure.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Risk aversion makes a lot more sense on saving throws than attack rolls. A single failed save can kill or incapacitate a character. A single failed attack roll is not terribly likely to result in your character being killed. Thus the primary reason for a high level character to strap a luck blade to his belt whether or not he intends to use it as a weapon is to have a means to re-roll failed saves. Occasionally it will be wise to use it to reroll a failed attack roll but in the grand scheme of things, you expect to fail a few attack rolls and that's not the end of the world. Failed saves are a much better candidate for risk aversion.

[ryu]

Risk aversion makes a lot more sense on saving throws than attack rolls. A single failed save can kill or incapacitate a character. A single failed attack roll is not terribly likely to result in your character being killed. Thus the primary reason for a high level character to strap a luck blade to his belt whether or not he intends to use it as a weapon is to have a means to re-roll failed saves. Occasionally it will be wise to use it to reroll a failed attack roll but in the grand scheme of things, you expect to fail a few attack rolls and that's not the end of the world. Failed saves are a much better candidate for risk aversion.

Except failing your attack option means the enemy is still alive to hurt you any number of ways many of which care not one bit about whatever defenses you're likely to have. Short of ''everyone is invulnerable'' levels of optimization, the ability to prevent your enemy from being a threat is directly more valuable to optimize than the ability to live with threats. Even at that high level of optimization it's still making your enemies cease to be threats. It's just done without harming or hindering them in an environment where that's no longer meaningfully possible.

[Lazymancer]

Depends on how risk averse you are. Statistically, you'd expect higher average winnings without the +1 (9.5 mill) than with it (1 mill). So by saying you'd be a fool to refuse, all you show is that you are incredibly risk averse, willing to accept an 8.5 million average loss to avoid 5% chance of failure.
Even if you are perfect perfect homo economicus who thinks "statistically", it does not depend on risk aversion alone.

Even "statistically" (which is not relevant to the point I was making) this implies that you literally put a $0 price tag on your life. If you value your own life higher than the $170 million (i.e. not willing to commit suicide for 170 million), you'd be clearly at a loss, if you accept the 5% chance of dying in exchange for 8.5 million won on average.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Except failing your attack option means the enemy is still alive to hurt you any number of ways many of which care not one bit about whatever defenses you're likely to have. Short of ''everyone is invulnerable'' levels of optimization, the ability to prevent your enemy from being a threat is directly more valuable to optimize than the ability to live with threats. Even at that high level of optimization it's still making your enemies cease to be threats. It's just done without harming or hindering them in an environment where that's no longer meaningfully possible.

Nonsense. Failing a single attack roll definitely does not mean that an enemy is alive who would otherwise be dead. It does so sometimes. And sometimes the enemy is then able to hurt you. And sometimes those ways they hurt you ignore defenses. However, a lot of times, a single missed attack roll means either the enemy failed to take a bit more damage that round, but not enough to kill him before his actions, B your allies need to devote a little attention (maybe one of the Archer's attacks or the wizard making sure to include the target in a chain lightning) to finishing the target off before it acts, the net result of which may be that some other monster that would otherwise have been injured but not killed is not actually injured, or C you roll the rest of your attacks and finish the monster off. Maybe that means you had to full attack rather than attack then move.

Even in the times that a single missed attack means that a monster who would otherwise be dead survives to attack, it is generally not the monster with the scariest attacks that gets to attack. The rest of your party can prioritize their attacks so that even if you rolled a 1 and missed the bad guy you're all worried about, they can try to take him down anyway. In that situation, the BBEG still goes down, it's just that minion 3 is still standing rather than being dead too.

What is much more common is that a series of missed attack rolls results in the highest priority target surviving. The paladin hit 2 of four attacks, the Archer missed 3 of his four attempts and then the wizard failed to beat SR and couldn't land his control spell to keep the bad guy from acting. That is less than optimal of course, but it's D&D so the dice always get their say. And more relevantly to the discussion, it demonstrates my point quite aptly: bad results generally depend upon a series of attack rolls but can result from a single saving throw. That is why risk aversion in saving throws makes more sense than risk aversion in attack rolls.

[Zanos]

Depends on how risk averse you are. Statistically, you'd expect higher average winnings without the +1 (9.5 mill) than with it (1 mill). So by saying you'd be a fool to refuse, all you show is that you are incredibly risk averse, willing to accept an 8.5 million average loss to avoid 5% chance of failure.
>economics
TRIGGERED

Analysis like this are often incorrect because they fail to account that each dollar does not have the same amount of utility. 1 million lump sum has large utility to most people because it allows them to clear all immediate debt and have enough left over to comfortably invest, from which point additional wealth provides reduced marginal utility. So taking 100% for a million dollars versus 95% for 10 million does not mean in general that someone values a 5% more than 8.5 million dollars. Try asking for a 95% chance for 100$ vs a 100% chance for 10$ and you'll see very different results.

It's also a bad example to draw because spell saves are going to suffer from iterative probability. Generally when you cast a spell you want it to work quite quite a lot, and the spell not working could very well lead to a [bad thing]. So you need to consider how often the spell would be cast. If you cast the spell 10 times to avoid bad thing at 95%, there's a 40% chance that you will fail at least once, and [bad thing] will happen. If [bad thing] has permanent consequences this is obviously undesirable. So that extra 5% here is actually worth quite a lot, because we're interested in avoiding [bad thing] altogether and it brings the chance of failure to the point that iteration no longer matters. The nature of iteration makes it such that percentages that are small amounts in individual trials become significantly more valuable because their effects are compounded.

[ryu]

Nonsense. Failing a single attack roll definitely does not mean that an enemy is alive who would otherwise be dead. It does so sometimes. And sometimes the enemy is then able to hurt you. And sometimes those ways they hurt you ignore defenses. However, a lot of times, a single missed attack roll means either the enemy failed to take a bit more damage that round, but not enough to kill him before his actions, B your allies need to devote a little attention (maybe one of the Archer's attacks or the wizard making sure to include the target in a chain lightning) to finishing the target off before it acts, the net result of which may be that some other monster that would otherwise have been injured but not killed is not actually injured, or C you roll the rest of your attacks and finish the monster off. Maybe that means you had to full attack rather than attack then move.

Even in the times that a single missed attack means that a monster who would otherwise be dead survives to attack, it is generally not the monster with the scariest attacks that gets to attack. The rest of your party can prioritize their attacks so that even if you rolled a 1 and missed the bad guy you're all worried about, they can try to take him down anyway. In that situation, the BBEG still goes down, it's just that minion 3 is still standing rather than being dead too.

What is much more common is that a series of missed attack rolls results in the highest priority target surviving. The paladin hit 2 of four attacks, the Archer missed 3 of his four attempts and then the wizard failed to beat SR and couldn't land his control spell to keep the bad guy from acting. That is less than optimal of course, but it's D&D so the dice always get their say. And more relevantly to the discussion, it demonstrates my point quite aptly: bad results generally depend upon a series of attack rolls but can result from a single saving throw. That is why risk aversion in saving throws makes more sense than risk aversion in attack rolls.

Clearly you don't play in nearly as lethal a game as I do, or even one with the recommended status that encounters with even chances of killing off the party in a straight fight should occur now and again.

[death390]

another differing factor of risk aversion in DND is that it is possible to come back to life in DND. again this depends on the game and DM. if your group straight loots people and doesn't want to pay for revival then hell no im getting that +1 save and using up my shoulder slot for cloak of resistance. i ain't playing around with dying. i am invested in all my character. on the other side if your group enjoys 1 shots and thowaway character phtt, if i die i die ill be back next game bitches.

there are too many variables to consider for risk to be even remotely non-personal.

if you want ot use almost ANY AoE spells, major debuffs, SoL, SoD, almost anything from Enchantment or Illusion then you need high DC's.

if your just Party buffing or single target Blasting then screw the DC's get just enough casting stat to cast your spells. hell look at the Beguiler's spell list, he NEEDS high DC's for his spells to work half the time, the other half is immune to it. he often better as a utility caster using stuff like invisibility detect thoughts, and mirror image most of the time.

[CharonsHelper]

Analysis like this are often incorrect because they fail to account that each dollar does not have the same amount of utility. 1 million lump sum has large utility to most people because it allows them to clear all immediate debt and have enough left over to comfortably invest, from which point additional wealth provides reduced marginal utility. So taking 100% for a million dollars versus 95% for 10 million does not mean in general that someone values a 5% more than 8.5 million dollars. Try asking for a 95% chance for 100$ vs a 100% chance for 10$ and you'll see very different results.


+1

And if someone has $5m they would almost certainly take that bet.

[ryu]

+1

And if someone has $5m they would almost certainly take that bet.

Excuse me WHAAAAAAAAAAT?! The context of the bet was that part of failure state was dying. Who the hell accepts a five percent chance of dying for a mere 90$ gain on success? Or if the other bet isn't on the table to compare who accepts a five percent chance to die for a mere 100$? Is anyone's life worth that little? Not even gonna try to look for a better deal?

[CharonsHelper]

Excuse me WHAAAAAAAAAAT?! The context of the bet was that part of failure state was dying.

I think I misread something then. :smalleek: I thought it was just losing the $1m.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Clearly you don't play in nearly as lethal a game as I do, or even one with the recommended status that encounters with even chances of killing off the party in a straight fight should occur now and again.

No. I just know what I'm talking about.

In my games, being able to kill all the enemies before they act is not the norm. (If it is, then the game is either easy mode or rocket tag and neither are very fun). The bad guys will get some shots in. Character deaths and tpks happen but if they happen due to missed attacks, it they happen when the odds suggest that the PCs will get 3 hits in 4 attacks, they need 2 hits to get the job done, but they only end up getting one hit and at the same time the odds suggest the bad guys are going to get two hits out of four and instead they get three hits including a crit. (Well that and player stupidity but we're not talking about the gimmees here). And in that kind of situation, blaming the last miss for the final result is silly. The party had 3 chances to get the job done and if any one of them succeeded, the situation would not have happened. On the other hand, character deaths can happen due to a single failed save and tpks can happen due to a few failed saves (or a single failed save combined with bad decisions from players or a combination of poor rolls from players and hot rolls for monsters).

Either way, risk aversion in saves is wiser than in attack rolls. A way to succeed on an attack roll of a 1 would not be a really big deal. On the other hand, a way to succeed on a save even when rolling a 1 is worth some effort to get.

[Lazymancer]

Excuse me WHAAAAAAAAAAT?! The context of the bet was that part of failure state was dying.
There are two bets: mine (10 million, 1 million, with a chance of dying) and the one presented by Zanos (which is about the same thing, but from different angle).

The one Zanos provided is about $100 / $10 - and no dying.

EDIT: Ah, no. He was referring to mine.

[ryu]

No. I just know what I'm talking about.

In my games, being able to kill all the enemies before they act is not the norm. (If it is, then the game is either easy mode or rocket tag and neither are very fun). The bad guys will get some shots in. Character deaths and tpks happen but if they happen due to missed attacks, it they happen when the odds suggest that the PCs will get 3 hits in 4 attacks, they need 2 hits to get the job done, but they only end up getting one hit and at the same time the odds suggest the bad guys are going to get two hits out of four and instead they get three hits including a crit. (Well that and player stupidity but we're not talking about the gimmees here). And in that kind of situation, blaming the last miss for the final result is silly. The party had 3 chances to get the job done and if any one of them succeeded, the situation would not have happened. On the other hand, character deaths can happen due to a single failed save and tpks can happen due to a few failed saves (or a single failed save combined with bad decisions from players or a combination of poor rolls from players and hot rolls for monsters).

Either way, risk aversion in saves is wiser than in attack rolls. A way to succeed on an attack roll of a 1 would not be a really big deal. On the other hand, a way to succeed on a save even when rolling a 1 is worth some effort to get.

On the contrary. The game is boring if in the middle of supposedly life threatening combat I foresee no real chance of failure. Failure in this case meaning me or one of my teammates getting horribly murdered. This is as opposed to situations wherein entering into combat implies both parties formally agreeing to slap each other on the wrists for about half a minute or so before one side gets sick of getting poked submits and leaves.

[Elder_Basilisk]

On the contrary. The game is boring if in the middle of supposedly life threatening combat I foresee no real chance of failure. Failure in this case meaning me or one of my teammates getting horribly murdered. This is as opposed to situations wherein entering into combat implies both parties formally agreeing to slap each other on the wrists for about half a minute or so before one side gets sick of getting poked submits and leaves.

I'm confused. Are you saying that you expect to be able to kill every monster before they can act in every battle you face? Or are you saying that you like rocket tag: whoever goes first wins? Or that you think the game is more fun when there is a risk of failing saving throws, so you don't think that building towards making saves as often as possible (including on a 1 if possible through rerolls or steadfast determination etc in 3.5) is desirable? Or that your preferred mode of playing the game is that unless you hit with every attack, someone on your team ends up getting murdered?

That's not even a list of attitudes that are compatible with each other (killing every monster before it acts on a regular basis is not really compatible with the possibility of failure). It's certainly not support for the idea that attack rolls should never miss or you're playing the game wrong.

My position in case its not clear yet is that while you don't want to miss attack rolls, it does happen from time to time and in general a certain (low) amount of failed attack rolls is to be expected and no single failed attack roll is likely to lead to character death or a tpk under normal circumstances (though a string of failed rolls might). Furthermore attack rolls are not really pass/fail. They deal hit point damage and good rolls on damage or crits can make up for missing from time to time. The point is getting the monster below 0 how so one miss and one hit for 18 damage is as good as two hits for 9 damage each. Attack rolls are not a game that goes on until you roll a 1 and if you do, you die.

On the other hand a single failed save can and frequently does lead directly to a dead character. In some situations, the game actually is a game of "keep going till you roll poorly on a saving throws, then you die." Therefore, risk aversion is a more appropriate approach to saving throws than to attack rolls (where higher damage on a hit can make up for a higher chance of missing and sometimes leave you ahead) and if you are buying a re-roll or way to succeed on a roll of a 1 that is more likely to be valuable for saving throws than attack rolls.

[ryu]

More akin to fully expecting someone to die if an enemy is given a chance to act unimpeded, and all the paranoia and extreme prejudice fast encounters that implies. It's not that there are never turns where an enemy gets to move and someone doesn't die. It's more that those are the exception rather than the rule to the point where everyone in the party acknowledges having gotten lucky when it happens. In an ideal situation, combats with threatening opponents are essentially battles of information where the loser's death is certain long before direct combat is even a thing.

[Lans]

A caster only needs to start with an 9 in its casting stat, from there you can be old, and take a race that boosts its casting stat. From there as an arcane caster you can metamagic scorching rays, and the orb spells, use polymorph, cloud spells, debuffs, summons, minions, a number of buffs. A higher stat would be better, but not necessary.

If you rolled your stats in order and winded up with an 18 in each physical stat, and a 9 in each mental stat, going caster would very well be the proper optimization choice.

[Quertus]

One of my favorite parties, my caster didn't reach an 18 casting stat until the mid teens. And, playing my classic Arcane Spellcaster into Tainted Sorcerer, my casting stat usually starts at 14, and kinda stays there until I prestige into a different casting stat.

My observation is, no, you don't need a maximized twinned empowered casting stat. But it sure is handy.


As to the OP, I once made a cleric with a 14 wisdom, because that was all I needed to cast animate dead. I took a bunch of Corpsecrafter feats, bought a bunch of onyx, and my character was really strong. Granted it was mostly because animate dead is broken, but spells like giant growth, wall of stone, and summon monster don't get better with a stat higher than what was needed to cast them in the first place.

That's the spirit! Or the body, at least.


Another thought that occurs to me is ability damage and penalties. Having a borderline score in your casting stat makes it easier to turn off your high-level spells, and lots of monsters can affect your scores at higher levels.

That's true. I'd feel kinda dumb if my Wizard ever got taken out by a simple Ray of Stupidity.

[death390]

A caster only needs to start with an 9 in its casting stat, from there you can be old, and take a race that boosts its casting stat. From there as an arcane caster you can metamagic scorching rays, and the orb spells, use polymorph, cloud spells, debuffs, summons, minions, a number of buffs. A higher stat would be better, but not necessary.

If you rolled your stats in order and winded up with an 18 in each physical stat, and a 9 in each mental stat, going caster would very well be the proper optimization choice.

Polymorph and most (not all) debuffs have a save, now if you target their worst save then your more likely to succeed. that said your still facing an uphill battle for that. Saves scale in general faster than spell level (not to mention using lower than highest level spell). the only exception is a 9s caster the bad save is barely behind spell level. DC 10 base is offset by the d20 roll for the save. the last major part is attribute vs attribute. this is the only spot that you have a chance to make up your missing DC.

[Psyren]

That's true. I'd feel kinda dumb if my Wizard ever got taken out by a simple Ray of Stupidity.

Your wizard would too :smallbiggrin:

[VisitingDaGulag]

OP plays interesting games of D&D where casters are nerfed by monsters with saves that gaurantee they won't be affected by spells. This is fine, casters can stomach such a nerf.

But then OP also plays a game where the 5 minute work day is in such full force that an extra spell slot doesn't matter. Hmm. D&D was built to assume balance between all day mundanes and casters that would become useless after running out of slots, so instead they save their spell slots. Whether or not this is viable or even a good idea, going from a 4 (and often far more) encounter work day to a 1 encounter work day will wildly skew play.

Ironically since casters' slots grow with levels, in order to stave off the 5 minute work day trend higher level characters have to have even more encounters per day to stay at exactly the same "I don't want to run out of spells" baseline.

[Lans]

Polymorph and most (not all) debuffs have a save, now if you target their worst save then your more likely to succeed. that said your still facing an uphill battle for that. Saves scale in general faster than spell level (not to mention using lower than highest level spell). the only exception is a 9s caster the bad save is barely behind spell level. DC 10 base is offset by the d20 roll for the save. the last major part is attribute vs attribute. this is the only spot that you have a chance to make up your missing DC.

Polymorph would be for your allies, and there are a number of debuffs that don't give saves, or are save partial. Like Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Enervation, or Dispel magic.

[lbuttitta]

However, in my experience, HP is usually a more scarce rescource than spell slots, and you can still be a very dangerous spellcaster if the enemies pass every save you force them to make (buffing allies, manipulating the battelfield, and out of combat utility are all usually no save).
About HP: one feat gets you Intelligence to HP. Given that, if you're a wizard (or beguiler, death master, etc.), you can get your casting stat to HP, your casting stat would seem all the more viable for maxing.

And considering that items can be used to increase your stats to meet the 10+ needed, it seems like increasing your casting stat as high as possible using your starting points is just excessive. It seems like it'd be more effective to start with a 13 in a casting stat, then use items to increase your casting stat as you start to unlock new spell levels. You save 11 points you can use to shore up your weak points (low-level squishiness, crap saves).
And why would you not use magic (i.e. resistance, greater resistance (SC), superior resistance (SC), false life, etc.) and/or ability-swap feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?125732-3-x-X-stat-to-Y-bonus) to strengthen those weak points, while still maintaining single-attribute dependency?

[Fizban]

D&D was built to assume balance between all day mundanes and casters that would become useless after running out of slots, so instead they save their spell slots. Whether or not this is viable or even a good idea, going from a 4 (and often far more) encounter work day to a 1 encounter work day will wildly skew play.

Ironically since casters' slots grow with levels, in order to stave off the 5 minute work day trend higher level characters have to have even more encounters per day to stay at exactly the same "I don't want to run out of spells" baseline.
The part people forget is how many spells the casters are supposed to be putting out for the party to even be allowed on the ride. There are lots of monsters that practically require certain buffs to fight, and the party is supposed to be swimming in those buffs, and that costs a lot of spell slots. Or it would if they did. One of the bigger feedback loops of 3.5 is the "oh I don't need to cast this because the fighter should just buy an item," to "hey the fighter can't afford all the items they need to survive," to "hey look at all these cheap items I can combine with my buffs to make myself invincible." Combine that with all-aggro "one-round everything offense=defense" and "only casters are balanced everyone must play casters" and you've got 2-8 times as many offensive spells flying.

Meanwhile I find it suspicious how you've got a usual base of 4 slots per level, and 4 party members who all need to survive dragonbreath/ survive shadow mobs/fly somewhere/etc.


As for extra high casting stats: yeah, I really hate the assumption that people should have ridiculously high casting stats. Every time someone tries to tell me the "standard" int for a given level is something that obviously started with an 18+grey elf, I sigh. The main problem is the whiplash: if you're not maxing but you also don't commit to undershooting with the minimum stat, you're going to start out having those bonus slots at your highest level of spells (starting with even a +2 means you'll have the bonus 1st and 2nd slot), and then eventually reach a level where you stop having bonus slots at your highest level of spells. Right when the zomg caster stuff really takes off you'll be getting fewer slots than you were before, and any bonus you can find to keep those slots coming is gonna look real attractive.

[ericgrau]

I do recall you never accounted for circumstance modifiers and your math didn't involve party buffs
I touched on that in my post. Attack bonus buffs are usually better left in attack bonus rather than converting to damage and that doesn't really affect anything. Or better spent on different actions/buffs. Everything else is just impractical corner cases, and if you can't negate the attack penalty with shock trooper or some such it's usually just a trap feat. The original math actually touched on the same, mentioning that in most games people usually aren't auto hitting regardless of everything in the universe, especially not on secondary attacks.

This thread seems to be splitting off into multiple different topics...
Saving throws vs attack rolls: Both can be useful, so it's hard to make a straight up comparison. It depends on circumstances. But for your caster stat you're looking at a 19 or 20 un-pumped, a 24 pumped, and 26+ pumped so much it costs you a bunch of super expensive resources. That +2 to spell save DC isn't all that special when most good spells don't even have saves, and most that do still do something when the save is passed. And blowing super expensive resources for slightly more save DC and a couple mid level bonus spells is quite a waste when you could do more with those resources in other ways. Even going minimum you aren't losing much.

Optimization in general: Yeah, there are a lot of special circumstances and cases. And special counters and defenses. As for avoiding risks: Prep for what you can without spending too much. You might say such and such has an 0.5% chance of outright killing me, I most blow a good chunk of my WBL/feats/class features/point buy on it! But then you have to deal with worse threats too with your limited resources. Back to casting stat... I wouldn't minimize it nor maximize it, I'd get a moderate stat. But if you do minimize it you'll probable be fine anyway, and things like int ability damage are rare enough that chances are you'll still do well. Especially rare for it to happen at the worst time in a way that kills you and/or allies. Yeah it might screw you, but it probably won't, and 1,000 other things might be worse.

[Lans]

I think one thing to look at is how low can a caster go in their casting stat and still be viable, I'm thinking 12 for wizards and sorcerers.