[Optimization]Why caster ability score+2 is a horrible choice

[shipiaozi]

Casters gain little benefits from high caster ability score in 5E, without bonus spell slot, all they get is +1 attack roll for SOME spells which isn't even worth 0.5 feat. Basically wizard, cleric, druid and sorcerer should never choose caster ability score+2 unless they have a strong reason to do so, such as a Eldritch Blast build. Intelligence/Wisdom even isn't the most important ability score for wizard/cleric/druid, dexterity and Constitution are.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Casters gain little benefits from high caster ability score in 5E, without bonus spell slot, all they get is +1 attack roll for SOME spells which isn't even worth 0.5 feat. Basically wizard, cleric, druid and sorcerer should never choose caster ability score+2 unless they have a strong reason to do so, such as a Eldritch Blast build. Intelligence/Wisdom even isn't the most important ability score for wizard/cleric/druid, dexterity and Constitution are.

Well, increasing your spell save DC is fairly important. You are correct for casters who decide to focus entirely on supportive spells that don't actually involve saves or their casting stat. For most though, I disagree heavily, you want a high casting stat.

[Asisreo1]

Casters gain little benefits from high caster ability score in 5E, without bonus spell slot, all they get is +1 attack roll for SOME spells which isn't even worth 0.5 feat. Basically wizard, cleric, druid and sorcerer should never choose caster ability score+2 unless they have a strong reason to do so, such as a Eldritch Blast build. Intelligence/Wisdom even isn't the most important ability score for wizard/cleric/druid, dexterity and Constitution are.
It all depends on your build.

Wizards, Clerics, Paladins, and Druids depend on their spellcasting modifier for how many spells they're able to prepare. An extra spell prepared can be helpful to some classes, especially in lower levels where that could be a 20% increase in amount of preparable spells.

However, the one important thing you're missing is Save DC's which can be extremely important dor certain classes. Paladins? Not really. Clerics? Maybe.

If you plan on casting harmful spells, it usually depends on your Spell Save DC on whether the spell is successful.

[zinycor]

I disagree completely.

A high caster ability score is incredibly useful since it increases save DCs, bonus to hit, number of spells known, bonus to the abilities related to it.

[CheddarChampion]

Clerics, Druids, and Wizards all can prepare more spells if they increase their casting stat.
At level 1 you prepare more spells thanks to your stat bonus than your level.

Otherwise I agree with ProsecutorGodot.
Save DC is a big measure of a caster's output.
An enemy saving against your <do nothing if the save is passed> spell, especially if they get it exactly, feels pretty bad.
Besides, there aren't a lot of other ways for a caster to increase their offensive output.

Furthermore, if you're the type that RPs your ability scores (like me) having a 12 or a 14 is talented but not exceptional.
If you want to play as a super-smart wizard 12 or 14 doesn't cut it. If you want to play as a cleric/druid that is really in tune with their god(s)/nature, 12 or 14 doesn't cut it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree completely.

A high caster ability score is incredibly useful since it increases save DCs, bonus to hit, number of spells known, bonus to the abilities related to it.

I agree. I've seen much bigger issues with casters and low primary stat than with weapon-types and low primary stat. There are ways to boost accuracy (including magical weapons). There are very few ways to boost save DC...which is a darn good thing IMO.

[shipiaozi]

Well, increasing your spell save DC is fairly important. You are correct for casters who decide to focus entirely on supportive spells that don't actually involve saves or their casting stat. For most though, I disagree heavily, you want a high casting stat.

Spell save DC is "attack roll" for these spells...
A non-caster get +1 attack roll and +1 damage for most of her attack, but a caster usually can not always cast spells that benefits from high ability score.

[CheddarChampion]

Spell save DC is "attack roll" for these spells...
A non-caster get +1 attack roll and +1 damage for most of her attack, but a caster usually can not always cast spells that benefits from high ability score.

Are you saying accuracy doesn't matter because it is situational?
A wizard with 5 Int is just as good as a wizard with 20 Int because they both have firebolt, minor illusion, and prestidigitation?

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Mental scores also provide good boosts to useful skills, like Knowledge/Investigation for Int, Perception for Wis, and ALL social skills for Cha.

I guess it's true that casters do have a slightly higher opportunity cost when boosting their casting stat, when compared to martials who just boost their Str/Dex, but that cost is negligible.

Compare a cleric who boosts Wis to one who boosts Con. One gets +1 more spells, more reliable spells/cantrips, +1 to their healing magic, etc., while the other gets a few more hp? slightly better short rest regen? slightly better concentration saves?

Outside of specific builds, it's generally better to pump the casting stat.


Otherwise I agree with ProsecutorGodot.
Save DC is a big measure of a caster's output.
An enemy saving against your <do nothing if the save is passed> spell, especially if they get it exactly, feels pretty bad.
As an aside, this is one of the worst parts of playing a caster. Nothing is more frustrating than getting a perfectly positioned faerie fire or whatever on four bandit goons and then having three make their save and you're just stuck spending your concentration on a slightly better Help action.

[Contrast]

Spell save DC is "attack roll" for these spells...
A non-caster get +1 attack roll and +1 damage for most of her attack, but a caster usually can not always cast spells that benefits from high ability score.

Casters also have a far higher opportunity cost for 'missing' with a spell than a martial does from missing with an attack (and usually a higher upside from 'hitting' as well). Losing a spell slot for no effect is a huge deal so its important your casting stat is as high as possible.

As a caster you probably want one of con save prof or Warcaster by level 8 but if your central premise is that casters should max Con and leave their casting stat at its base value, I strongly disagree.

I'm not quite sure how to take the 'caster usually can not always cast spells that benefits from high ability score'. They can occasionally cast buff spells which don't require a roll and a number of those spells are good. Focusing solely on those spells will leave you with a hugely restricted spell selection however and once you've cast that spell you are likely to want to cast attack cantrips or spells while maintaining concentration which will use your casting stat.

[JNAProductions]

So, if the casting stat is unimportant, what stats SHOULD you be buffing instead?

[shipiaozi]

Are you saying accuracy doesn't matter because it is situational?
A wizard with 5 Int is just as good as a wizard with 20 Int because they both have firebolt, minor illusion, and prestidigitation?

Attack roll+2 for some action totally not worth 2 feats, even not worth 1.
Int+4 for wizard is like a +1 weapon for warrior, if not worse.
A wizard with 5 int is worse than a wizard with 20 int, but not very far from the latter one. Meanwhile, a archer with 5 dex is unplayable compare with archer with 20 dex. If you give the 5 Int wizard 8 feats, he would be much better(about 5 feats better) than the 20 int wizard.

[Telwar]

Sure, you can focus on buffing your team, but that's one turn, and takes your Concentration. What else do you do the rest of the fight?

I mean, you can do that, and be the Dispel/Counterspell//Help/Healbot for the team, and if that floats your boat you're fine. But yeah, if you're going to cast offensively at all, and want more spells ready to cast, you generally will want to have a higher casting stat.

[zinycor]

Spell save DC is "attack roll" for these spells...
A non-caster get +1 attack roll and +1 damage for most of her attack, but a caster usually can not always cast spells that benefits from high ability score.

What about spells like hold person or similar?

I believe that one could build a prrfectly good caster with a 14 in the casting stat and improving dex and con as long as you pick buffing and utility spells.

But from there to say thay improving the casting stat is suboptimal for caster is a long way to go.

[MoiMagnus]

Are you saying accuracy doesn't matter because it is situational?
A wizard with 5 Int is just as good as a wizard with 20 Int because they both have firebolt, minor illusion, and prestidigitation?

No, he is not saying it is useless, he is saying that the difference between a 16 Int and a 20 Int is marginal, and not worth as much as +4 Con (HP + Concentration) or +4 Dex (Initiative + Stealth + AC).

This is certainly true for some gameplay styles, but I'd disagree on it being universally true.

[Eldariel]

Save DC, spell attacks, cantrip attacks, spell preparation and miscellaneous benefits (easier time scribing scrolls for Wizards for instance; nobody needs to be extolled the virtues of high Perception and Insight on Wis-casters either nor the benefits of high Cha on social characters or Bards getting extra uses of their Bardic Inspiration or any such) generally do add up. There might be cases where that's not optimal but those are fairly rare.

[Frozenstep]

This is a pretty hot take, OP. What do you expect a wizard/sorcerer to be doing each turn? Hasting someone and then dodging for the rest of the fight?

[Boci]

This is a pretty hot take, OP. What do you expect a wizard/sorcerer to be doing each turn? Hasting someone and then dodging for the rest of the fight?

Dodgeing is unnecessary is you're not casting any more spells, no one will attack you. At that point you can get out your deck chair and foot stool and starts eating grapes, whilst criticizing the fighters blade technique and noisily spitting out the seeds.

[zinycor]

Dodgeing is unnecessary is you're not casting any more spells, no one will attack you. At that point you can get out your deck chair and foot stool and starts eating grapes, whilst criticizing the fighters blade technique and noisily spitting out the seeds.

Now... have you been spying on my games?

[JackPhoenix]

Dodgeing is unnecessary is you're not casting any more spells, no one will attack you. At that point you can get out your deck chair and foot stool and starts eating grapes, whilst criticizing the fighters blade technique and noisily spitting out the seeds.

Attacking you until you lose concentration, to remove the fighter's benefits and to disable him for a turn, is still a good idea. And just because the spellcaster doesn't do anything obvious NOW doesn't mean you should ignore him.

[Pex]

A +1 to hit matters. Saving throw DC matters. For prepared casters it gives you one more spell to prepare. For various class abilities it gives you one more use per long rest. What is important is when you have the 18. My game math theory puts it by level 8 the latest, so you can have a 16 at first level and afford a feat.

[Boci]

A +1 to hit matters. Saving throw DC matters. For prepared casters it gives you one more spell to prepare. For various class abilities it gives you one more use per long rest. What is important is when you have the 18. My game math theory puts it by level 8 the latest, so you can have a 16 at first level and afford a feat.

Why 18 and not 20? Is an even ability modifier more important than an odd one, or is that just how the maths work out?


Now... have you been spying on my games?

What can I say? You're an inspiration to me.

[Asisreo1]

So, if the casting stat is unimportant, what stats SHOULD you be buffing instead?
Assuming you're going the route of "no save spells." You'll want to boost your Con first (better concentration and HP) then Dex (higher initiative and AC and Dex saves).

[cutlery]

As others have mentioned, increasing spell save DC is a pretty big deal, from cantrips to disintegrate.

The rare exception might be a multiclass character or 1/2 or 1/3 caster that rarely makes a spell attack roll or uses spells with a saving throw; but even then if you can add some spell attacks into the mix, that's nice, and if you're - say - building a strength eldritch knight, an int of 12 or 14 and firebolt will give you a better ranged option than a dex of 8 or 10 will outside the terribly short range of something like a javelin.

[Asisreo1]

Dodgeing is unnecessary is you're not casting any more spells, no one will attack you. At that point you can get out your deck chair and foot stool and starts eating grapes, whilst criticizing the fighters blade technique and noisily spitting out the seeds.
You always want to kill the weakest link. Not casting spells? Great. Easy to knock you out.

Don't even have to kill you, just wound you enough to knock you unconcious and you're enough of a distraction on their side.

[zinycor]

You always want to kill the weakest link. Not casting spells? Great. Easy to knock you out.

Don't even have to kill you, just wound you enough to knock you unconcious and you're enough of a distraction on their side.

Then don't forget to bring your parasol, so the enemies don't have line of sight of you.

[Asisreo1]

Then don't forget to bring your parasol, so the enemies don't have line of sight of you.
Break the parasol.

Or simply get into melee of the wizard because you don't need sight to attack them.

[Frogreaver]

Casters gain little benefits from high caster ability score in 5E, without bonus spell slot, all they get is +1 attack roll for SOME spells which isn't even worth 0.5 feat. Basically wizard, cleric, druid and sorcerer should never choose caster ability score+2 unless they have a strong reason to do so, such as a Eldritch Blast build. Intelligence/Wisdom even isn't the most important ability score for wizard/cleric/druid, dexterity and Constitution are.

I'm going to talk Wizard because that's the most recent character I just built. The list of highly regarded Wizard spells is long:

Level 1: Shield, Absorb Elements, Sleep, Magic Missile, Find Familiar, Silent Image, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Mage Armor
Level 2: Flaming Sphere, Hold Person, Invisibility, Levitate, Mirror Image, Misty Step, Rope Trick, Suggestion, Web
Level 3: Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fear, Fireball, Fly, Haste, Hypnotic Pattern, Major Image, Tongues

That's a total of 27 spells I would love to have prepared on most any Wizard I make. By level 5 a 14 int wizard would only be able to prepare 7 of them. An 18 int wizard could prepare 9. For most of the game the number of spells you can prepare with a wizard is a huge deal! Druids and Clerics also fall into the same category of having more highly regarded spells than they can possibly prepare - though not to the same extent that the wizard does.

So just from a spells prepared viewpoint I'd say the extra casting stat is very important and that's before even considering what it does for save DC's.

[OvisCaedo]

I'm now wondering what eight feats a theoretical 5 int wizard would even take. Never mind where they got the extra three from, this is a very theoretical wizard.

[zinycor]

Break the parasol.

Or simply get into melee of the wizard because you don't need sight to attack them.

Well, if the party is so bad that they allow the enemy to get in melee with the wizard. Then the wizard was right to criticize the Fighter's technique xD.

[KorvinStarmast]

Casters gain little benefits from high caster ability score in 5E That is not what my experience shows.

... can get out your deck chair and foot stool and starts eating grapes, whilst criticizing the fighters blade technique and noisily spitting out the seeds. Good idea, unless the enemy has archers. Then, dodge.

A +1 to hit matters. Saving throw DC matters. For prepared casters it gives you one more spell to prepare. For various class abilities it gives you one more use per long rest. +1.

[Composer99]

Casters gain little benefits from high caster ability score in 5E, without bonus spell slot, all they get is +1 attack roll for SOME spells which isn't even worth 0.5 feat. Basically wizard, cleric, druid and sorcerer should never choose caster ability score+2 unless they have a strong reason to do so, such as a Eldritch Blast build. Intelligence/Wisdom even isn't the most important ability score for wizard/cleric/druid, dexterity and Constitution are.

If you were going with "some spell loadouts fitting certain concepts for 'fullcasters' don't need higher spellcasting abilties", then... sure, yeah, I suppose.

If you're trying to argue this as a general or universal point, then no. Can't agree. Especially not if this thread is ostensibly about char-op.

You might prioritise some combination of boosting Dexterity or Constitution or picking up a feat you really want before topping up your spellcasting ability, and that's fine if it works for you.

But saying a spellcaster whose offence and spell loadout depends on their spellcasting ability modifier should "never" increase their spellcasting ability without a strong reason is preposterous - the dependence on the spellcasting ability modifier is the strong reason.

[Lille]

I'm now wondering what eight feats a theoretical 5 int wizard would even take. Never mind where they got the extra three from, this is a very theoretical wizard.

Weapon Master, Savage Attacker, Grappler, and all five flavours of Elemental Adept?

[Pex]

Why 18 and not 20? Is an even ability modifier more important than an odd one, or is that just how the maths work out?





Game math. Only BBEGs have high AC and saves. It's supposed to be harder, so it won't make a difference. You need teamwork, so buffing someone else or someone buffing you is key plus combat tactics. In general play bad guys aren't having 20s either. You keep up against their good saves. The feat you take is important enough to you to make a difference else you wouldn't have taken it, even if it's not Resilient CON or Warcaster. Healer makes a difference. Inspiring Leader makes a difference. Maybe you diversified with Magic Initiate. Spellsniper could have been important to ignore cover and increase range. That flexibility gives you strength over the length of play. If there's no particular feat you really want or need for a particular character having a 20 at level 8 is of course very good in its own right. Not every spellcaster needs Resilient CON or War Caster even if casting Concentration spells. They're helpful feats, not must haves.

[Witty Username]

Important to point out, almost no spells require spell attack rolls beyond cantrips.

Depending on the caster, the casting stat can under optimized with little issue.
I would say the strongest in this regard are bard and wizard, as both have combat relevant spells that to not allow saves or use spell attack rolls. Sleep, fog cloud, wall of force, polymorph, grease(if uses for difficult terrain) are all effective spells at making the parties job easier. Even minor illusion requires opponents to spend an action for it to have any stat relation.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Hmm, my Draconic Sorcerer gets a benefit to damage as well with his Chr, and a bump to his social proficiencies, which are relevant. My Cleric gets benefits to turning and a better Wiz save.
I take the point that there are good feats, and something like resilient Con is pretty good for a lot of characters. However I'll agree with most of the responses that the OP way overstates their case, and bumping your primary casting stat is in no way "horrible." It's at least a fair to good option, if not excellent.

[dragoeniex]

Spell save DC is "attack roll" for these spells...
A non-caster get +1 attack roll and +1 damage for most of her attack, but a caster usually can not always cast spells that benefits from high ability score.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. From that perspective, I would counter that a non-caster gets 1 - 3 "attack rolls" on an average turn, spiking higher on occasion. A caster, however, can use area of effect spells that can match or exceed that number of targets.

Let's say you cast Slow on an area with 4 enemies. Since your DC is what determines whether the effect lands, I would equate this to four "attack rolls." Two fail? You've landed 2 "hits." If, over the next couple rounds, Target 1 fails one more save and Target 2 fails twice more, you've landed 5 "hits" total.

We're using the term "hit" pretty loosely here, but the riding inconvenience on our opponents is definitely a strike against them.

A caster needs to land their offense every bit as much as a martial does. Which group is making or forcing more rolls is going to vary per round, but most casters are going to keep a save spell in their pocket for when they can hit as many foes as possible.

This all assumes you're building to have some control elements in your set. You could skip them, but they're popular (and fun!) for a reason.

[AvalancheSpring]

Keep in mind that a lot of the best spells are not "save or suck" but "MASS save or suck". Fairy Fire, Web, Hypnotic Pattern are arguably the best all around combat spells at level 1, 2, 3. They are trigger a ton of saves. So do Slow, Fireball, Mass Suggestion, Eyebite, Grease, Spirit Guardians to name a few spells that are very effective for their level.

OP calls out Clerics in the original post. But, the mainstay combo for mid level clerics - Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon + (Weapon *or* attack cantrip) - is severely nerfed with a low Wis.

Treatmonk had a couple of builds for summoning heavy casters, like a conjuration wizard, that triggered very few saves. Those are mechanically effective with 14 casting stats, and could probably survive with 12 (though lack of preparations would be a huge pain at low levels). So are "pure buffing" builds (either self or team buffing), so yeah, your Arcane Knight is fine with a 10 or 12. But nearly all casters are going to rely on AOE saving throws for much of the game. Do you have to get to 20 asap. Of course not. And if playing a 10 wis Cleric is fun for you, go for it. But that's your preference, it is not "optimization".

[Eldariel]

Keep in mind that a lot of the best spells are not "save or suck" but "MASS save or suck". Fairy Fire, Web, Hypnotic Pattern are arguably the best all around combat spells at level 1, 2, 3. They are trigger a ton of saves. So do Slow, Fireball, Mass Suggestion, Eyebite, Grease, Spirit Guardians to name a few spells that are very effective for their level.

OP calls out Clerics in the original post. But, the mainstay combo for mid level clerics - Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon + (Weapon *or* attack cantrip) - is severely nerfed with a low Wis.

Let's not forget that Clerics need to prepare whatever Rituals they want to use so they need spell prep even more than Wizards (Druids likewise).


Treatmonk had a couple of builds for summoning heavy casters, like a conjuration wizard, that triggered very few saves. Those are mechanically effective with 14 casting stats, and could probably survive with 12 (though lack of preparations would be a huge pain at low levels).

Of course, the best Wizard summoning spell, Summon Greater Demon, goes right back to using your casting stat as the creature gets saves to break free. Then there are spells like Counterspell and Dispel Magic where you need it for the stat check, and spells like Illusions where it's the opposed check base. There are just too many good spells that need casting stat to completely ignore it; such a Wizard will be much weaker than an all-rounder Wizard especially early on (on higher levels there are more spells like Animate Objects, Wall of Force and company that don't care).

That said, I do agree with the OP to a degree. Last Wizard I played I picked:
VH: Alert
4: Res: Con
8: Lucky

This was on a Diviner so I had a measure of control over the most important few saves and the rest was with AOE spells where I didn't mind someone succeeding the save all that much. I did really, really want 20 Int (it was a rolled character so I had 18 Int all throughout) on 8, but I felt I needed Lucky more since I kept failing Counterspell checks on unlucky rolls and that's just incredibly wasteful; I felt I'd get more out of the blanket protection against individual poor rolls (the chances of two poor rolls is much lower than one) on both Initiative (Alert character hates rolling 1 for Init) and Counterspell/such. The bonus of helping against SoX and making enemies roll crits is just icing on the cake. Diviner takes care of making enemies fail saves; this way I don't have to care about that.

I don't think any of my choices were wrong. I would've gone with Int on 12 (and if it were a point buy character, on 16 as well) but I simply felt like those feats did more for my efficiency than any amount of save DCs and spells prepared. The spell prepared was actually the biggest sticking point for me with having suboptimal Int but given it was a small party (3 characters: Swords Bard, Knowledge Cleric and my Diviner Wizard), high risk campaign (we fought plenty of CR Stupid encounters and indeed had already had two previous near-TPKs - my character was the only survivor of the initial party) and a significant number of opposing casters (three of our previous bigger enemies had all been spellcasters) I came to the conclusion that I needed for my spells to succeed and me being able to act first and not drop my spells more than anything (we lost one important hostage earlier in the campaign due to me failing my Concentration on Suggestion to a barrage of her allies' arrows).

[Chugger]

The OP gives bad advice so be careful - but it's not bad advice in all cases - the OP's probable is that he's being too general. I don't want to disrespect the OP or hurt their feelings - don't mean to do that - but let's talk about when this opinion is right and when it's wrong.

The famous "optimancer" Treantmonk almost always says to take Warcaster for a level four ASI for many cleric builds and some wizard builds (or resilient Con). Not Wis or Int. You need warcaster to function maybe and to maintain concentration on spells more than you need to up the casting stat _at this point_. But later on he almost always says to up the casting stat.

A moon druid that is going to wildshape often could possibly use feats that work in wildshape, like Lucky or others, more than they need any stat boost. Though some conc spells they might cast before going into wildshape might benefit from higher wis.

Many times you want the casting stat up - higher to hit - more spells for many classes - and harder to make STs.

[sithlordnergal]

So...maybe this is from me playing AL, and AL modules using creatures that have a CR closer to your current party level, but I find not boosting your casting stat is the number 1 way to make your spells useless. Case in point, I tried out a Half-Orc Cleric once while going through Out of the Abyss. I had to start with a 14 Wisdom and boosted it to 16 as soon as I could, and it worked out fine for levels 1 to 4. But as soon as I reached level 5, I found that my spells were no longer reliable, at all. Enemies succeeded on their saving throws as often as they failed, and a majority of the time the enemies only just barely succeeded. My spell DC was a 14, and usually they'd roll a 14, or I'd make a spell attack and miss by 1.

I eventually trashed the character at level 7 simply because I hated that my spells had such a high failure rate, and brought in a properly built caster, this time a Druid with an 18 Wisdom at level 6, and lo and behold, my spells suddenly became effective again. It was no longer a coin flip to determine if a target was going to make the save or not. It was at that point that I realized that, while the DMG did claim that things are balanced around Casters having a 14 in Tier 1 and 16 in Tier 2, the reality was that published books/adventures, as well as every homebrew I have ever played, was actually balanced around Casters have a 14 in Tier 1 and 18 in Tier 2. Enemies in Tier 1 games had about the same failure rate with a 14 in your casting stat as enemies did in Tier 2 when you have an 18 in your casting stat.

Meanwhile martial characters have it a bit easier. I find a 16 can serve a Martial character pretty well all the way to level 16, though you're kind of pushing it by level 12. Which kind of makes sense, NPC AC scales pretty slowly on average, and it scales a lot slower than NPC ability scores. Consider your standard CR 5 Elementals. Their AC ranges from 13 at the lowest, the Fire Elemental, to 17 at the highest, the Earth Elemental. Even if you only have a 16 in your attack stat and no magical by level 5, you still have a +6 to hit, meaning you only need to roll an 11 to hit an Earth Elemental.

But ability score wise, all of those elementals have a +3 or higher, usually higher, to at least two ability scores, with the exception of the Air Elemental that has a +5 to Dex and a pair of +2's. At level 5 a caster with a 16 in their casting stat will have a 14 DC, meaning those Elementals only need to roll an 11 minimum. Even if you target them with a Dex save, the only Elemental that needs a really high roll to beat a DC 14 is the Earth Elemental. Everything else needs to roll between 10-12.

[shipiaozi]

So...maybe this is from me playing AL, and AL modules using creatures that have a CR closer to your current party level, but I find not boosting your casting stat is the number 1 way to make your spells useless. Case in point, I tried out a Half-Orc Cleric once while going through Out of the Abyss. I had to start with a 14 Wisdom and boosted it to 16 as soon as I could, and it worked out fine for levels 1 to 4. But as soon as I reached level 5, I found that my spells were no longer reliable, at all. Enemies succeeded on their saving throws as often as they failed, and a majority of the time the enemies only just barely succeeded. My spell DC was a 14, and usually they'd roll a 14, or I'd make a spell attack and miss by 1.

I eventually trashed the character at level 7 simply because I hated that my spells had such a high failure rate, and brought in a properly built caster, this time a Druid with an 18 Wisdom at level 6, and lo and behold, my spells suddenly became effective again. It was no longer a coin flip to determine if a target was going to make the save or not. It was at that point that I realized that, while the DMG did claim that things are balanced around Casters having a 14 in Tier 1 and 16 in Tier 2, the reality was that published books/adventures, as well as every homebrew I have ever played, was actually balanced around Casters have a 14 in Tier 1 and 18 in Tier 2. Enemies in Tier 1 games had about the same failure rate with a 14 in your casting stat as enemies did in Tier 2 when you have an 18 in your casting stat.

Meanwhile martial characters have it a bit easier. I find a 16 can serve a Martial character pretty well all the way to level 16, though you're kind of pushing it by level 12. Which kind of makes sense, NPC AC scales pretty slowly on average, and it scales a lot slower than NPC ability scores. Consider your standard CR 5 Elementals. Their AC ranges from 13 at the lowest, the Fire Elemental, to 17 at the highest, the Earth Elemental. Even if you only have a 16 in your attack stat and no magical by level 5, you still have a +6 to hit, meaning you only need to roll an 11 to hit an Earth Elemental.

But ability score wise, all of those elementals have a +3 or higher, usually higher, to at least two ability scores, with the exception of the Air Elemental that has a +5 to Dex and a pair of +2's. At level 5 a caster with a 16 in their casting stat will have a 14 DC, meaning those Elementals only need to roll an 11 minimum. Even if you target them with a Dex save, the only Elemental that needs a really high roll to beat a DC 14 is the Earth Elemental. Everything else needs to roll between 10-12.

My theory and practice both show ability score does little for casters, even +4 int/wis don't worth a feat. Remember +4 caster ability score only equals +2 attack roll for some spells. Do you think replace a +1 weapon with two feats would "make your martial attack" useless? No, they would boost your characters. Caster ability score are extremely useless for Druid because most of times you should cast summon and heal spells, I even want to replace 8 wisdom with one extra feat if I have chance lol

[sophontteks]

My theory and practice both show ability score does little for casters, even +4 int/wis don't worth a feat. Remember +4 caster ability score only equals +2 attack roll for some spells. Do you think replace a +1 weapon with two feats would "make your martial attack" useless? No, they would boost your characters. Caster ability score are extremely useless for Druid because most of times you should cast summon and heal spells, I even want to replace 8 wisdom with one extra feat if I have chance lol

Apples to oranges.

Few spells use spell attack. Spellcasters use DC saves mostly. There are far fewer ways to modify these rolls outside of increasing an ability score, there are very few ways to cast more then one of these spells per turn, very few ways to get advantage/disadvantage, and the caster only has a limited pool of these spells.

The DC directly determines whether the caster will be making a game-changing round, or spending their round being completely useless.

You begin this by claiming +4 ability score is not worth a feat?!?

[zinycor]

My theory and practice both show ability score does little for casters, even +4 int/wis don't worth a feat. Remember +4 caster ability score only equals +2 attack roll for some spells. Do you think replace a +1 weapon with two feats would "make your martial attack" useless? No, they would boost your characters. Caster ability score are extremely useless for Druid because most of times you should cast summon and heal spells, I even want to replace 8 wisdom with one extra feat if I have chance lol

What if as a druid you cast polymorph or hold monster? I get that there are builds that might not need a high casting stat, which is fine. But that is still far from saying that it is useless.

[MoiMagnus]

this time a Druid with an 18 Wisdom at level 6, and lo and behold, my spells suddenly became effective again.

I'm assuming 70% of this feeling was placebo and luck. You only get 10 spells per LR. So assuming all your spells are used for single-target offensive spells (you might use some of them on multiple targets at once, or multiple saves on the same monster, but you will use others on none, so it compensates), and that you use all your spell slots every day, then it makes a difference once every two LR. If you rarely run out of spells, that's even less frequent.

[At the contrary, martial get damage boost from the ability score, so they have some direct benefit on every strike]

I'm much more convinced by arguments saying that more of the spellcasting ability also gives you more spells prepared, so more chances to have the adequate spell in the adequate circumstance. Since at low level you don't have that many spells prepared, that can be huge.

[RSP]

Questioning whether (essentially a 5% increase in success) is worth a Feat is fine. However, the general statement that “a Feat is always better for a caster” is not along the lines of being optimized, for reasons already stated.

[Valmark]

My theory and practice both show ability score does little for casters, even +4 int/wis don't worth a feat. Remember +4 caster ability score only equals +2 attack roll for some spells. Do you think replace a +1 weapon with two feats would "make your martial attack" useless? No, they would boost your characters. Caster ability score are extremely useless for Druid because most of times you should cast summon and heal spells, I even want to replace 8 wisdom with one extra feat if I have chance lol

The problem here is that you aren't considering everything else:

- Higher DCs, which is not equivalent to better attack rolls. DCs have a lower base when compared to AC and are harder to increase, so your stat is a bigger deal;
- Spells prepared. This isn't an issue for all casters, but those who do have spells prepared benefit a lot from those few more spells;
- Higher damage or healing (for example a cleric's Spiritual Weapon);
- Various features that are more or less dependant on your casting stat;
- if your class has it, Counterspell/Dispel Magic benefits a LOT from the stat since proficiency score isn't applied. Or even when you're into a Forcecage (that seems to be far less rare then it looks in my experience).

In your example, druids use their casting stat for healing. Given the randomness of healing, flat bonuses are extremely useful- this without considering that Healing Spirit heals more times with an higher wisdom, which is way more then a simple +1/+2.

Can you tell us about your practice? Because both theory and practice of nearly everybody here says the opposite.

You can play a caster without save/attack/check spells but you'll surely be a worst caster unless you have a strong alternative option for encounters. And most of the best spells do need your casting stat.

[Nhorianscum]

So, purely for combat optimization in tier 1 the OP's argument does hold true. The strongest options here have no connection whatsoever to our casting stat.

It falls apart completely in any other situation.

[zinycor]

So, purely for combat optimization in tier 1 the OP's argument does hold true.

It falls apart completely in any other situation.

On tier 1, you get less spells prepared. So if you are a level 4 druid with 8 wis you get a grand total of 3 spells prepared. Which is very, very few.

[Valmark]

So, purely for combat optimization in tier 1 the OP's argument does hold true. The strongest options here have no connection whatsoever to our casting stat.

It falls apart completely in any other situation.

You are missing the spells prepared matter- and strongest options vary from group to group. Plus you can't really fling spells willy-nilly at early levels, and cantrips do rely on casting stat.

A Faerie Fire with a DC of 9 won't get you very far, for example. Or when the magic healing in your group goes from 0 to 7, or when the wizard needs to hit with the Firebolt, etc.

EDIT: The OP's example went as low as a 5 in the casting stat. A wizard would need at least 5 levels before being able to prepare any spell at all beyond the minimum of 1.

[JackPhoenix]

- Higher DCs, which is not equivalent to better attack rolls. DCs have a lower base when compared to AC and are harder to increase, so your stat is a bigger deal;


In addition to that, you CAN (through high ability modifier and the few magic items that do increase the save DC) get your save DC high enough that the enemy can't make the save at all. Unlike attack rolls, there's no automatic failure or success on saves (beyond the fact there's no point in rolling if you can't fail on a 1 or succeed on a 20).

For example, no elemental can make the save against Planar Binding if you can get your save DC to 18-20 (depending on the elemental).

[Nhorianscum]

You are missing the spells prepared matter- and strongest options vary from group to group. Plus you can't really fling spells willy-nilly at early levels, and cantrips do rely on casting stat.

A Faerie Fire with a DC of 9 won't get you very far, for example. Or when the magic healing in your group goes from 0 to 7, or when the wizard needs to hit with the Firebolt, etc.

EDIT: The OP's example went as low as a 5 in the casting stat. A wizard would need at least 5 levels before being able to prepare any spell at all beyond the minimum of 1.

The best cantrip in tier 1 is the "crossbow" spell.

Healing in tier 1 is like... grave cleric >>>>>>infinite void>>>>> everything else. At no mod these suckers can 0->full a downed player barb. It's fine. If you want to optimize tier 1 "practical" healing, take grave 1, otherwise you are not optimized for the job.

Faerie fire indeed would be awful. Good thing it's not in the running.

Being restricted to "only" Sleep in tier 1 on a class with minor illusion and "crossbow" is just removing bad options for combat tbh.

[JNAProductions]

The best cantrip in tier 1 is the "crossbow" spell.

Healing in tier 1 is like... grave cleric >>>>>>infinite void>>>>> everything else. At no mod these suckers can 0->full a downed player. It's fine.

Faerie fire indeed would be awful. Good thing it's not in the running.

Being restricted to "only" Sleep in tier 1 on a class with minor illusion and "crossbow" is just removing bad options for combat tbh.

No?

What if you're up against an Ogre at level, say, 3? At 59 HP, he's completely immune to even a 2nd level Sleep, and said Sleep won't impact him on average until he's taken close to 20 points of damage.

Whereas Faerie Fire will increase your martial's DPR by (assuming +5 to-hit) a full 25%, not even accounting for increased crit chance. And when you have only a singular spell prepared... Well, better hope you don't run up against elves. Or literally any type of undead.

[Nhorianscum]

No?

What if you're up against an Ogre at level, say, 3? At 59 HP, he's completely immune to even a 2nd level Sleep, and said Sleep won't impact him on average until he's taken close to 20 points of damage.

Whereas Faerie Fire will increase your martial's DPR by (assuming +5 to-hit) a full 25%, not even accounting for increased crit chance. And when you have only a singular spell prepared... Well, better hope you don't run up against elves. Or literally any type of undead.

Or, hold action sleep till after the barb or rouge shmacks ogre with a reckless/sneaky shlap. Fairy fire on the suuuper low AC ogre is just silly and a wasted slot.

Weird how elves has stupid high saves and use ranged weapons in this range and undead are mindless undead. We're using minor illusion here regardless.

The combination really does just mess with everything in tier 1 really hard. (Edit: There are outliers but those are just dirty encounters that we reaaaally should be using the "dash" spell on regardless of build. Looking at you LMoP flameskull, looking at you.)

(Hi, tier 1 sorc player here. Litterally all we do is spam sleep, crossbow, and minor illusion because that's the only feature that class has before level friggin 7. It's dumb that it works but... it does.)

[JackPhoenix]

At no mod these suckers can 0->full a downed player barb. It's fine.

Unlike Life cleric with positive mod, no, they can't. Ever. Wizard or sorcerer, sure, if they want to spend their action instead of BA, d8 classes, maaaaybe, in the unlikely case they run with no Con bonus, but never anything with d10 or d12 HD.

In fact, your theoretical Grave cleric with Wis 10 can heal for 4 or 8 HP when someone drops to 7. A proper Life cleric with Wis 16 heals for 7-10 or 7-14. Grave cleric is better if he gets better Wis mod AND if the character is at 0. Combat healing is suboptimal use of resources, but there are situations where you can't risk having someone drop to 0.

[Valmark]

The best cantrip in tier 1 is the "crossbow" spell.

Healing in tier 1 is like... grave cleric >>>>>>infinite void>>>>> everything else. At no mod these suckers can 0->full a downed player barb. It's fine. If you want to optimize tier 1 "practical" healing, take grave 1, otherwise you are not optimized for the job.

Faerie fire indeed would be awful. Good thing it's not in the running.

Being restricted to "only" Sleep in tier 1 on a class with minor illusion and "crossbow" is just removing bad options for combat tbh.

It really depends on the cantrip and situation.

Dunno what you mean by 'infinite void' but comparing a single subclass to everything else validates my point- if only that specific subclass doesn't care (and let's remember that even if you take the highest result with a negative modifier you are healing less then you need) then for 95% of the healing classes it is important.

Sleep has the problem that it only really works reliably at low tier 1 with enemies having low enough hp- assuming you don't fight anything immune, like your average zombie.

Faerie Fire makes the party miss far less often, instead. That's bad?

Also, an higher stat will mean you can do both, or take utility spells, etc.

If the OP argued only about known spells casters it would be more reasonable- but universally? No (and even then I'd still disagree).

[Boci]

Or, hold action sleep till after the barb or rouge shmacks ogre with a reckless/sneaky shlap. Fairy fire on the suuuper low AC ogre is just silly and a wasted slot.

Ogres have AC 11. At level 3, assuming point buy non-archery fighters and rogues will have +5 to hit. They have a 25% chance to miss. With fairy fire, that miss chance halves, and they have double the chance to crit. I can see an argument for bless being a better spell against an ogre, since then you won't have to worry about the ogres 35% to pass the save, but bless is a cleric spell.

[Nhorianscum]

Unlike Life cleric with positive mod, no, they can't. Ever. Wizard or sorcerer, sure, if they want to spend their action instead of BA, d8 classes, maaaaybe, in the unlikely case they run with no Con bonus, but never anything with d10 or d12 HD.

In fact, your theoretical Grave cleric with Wis 10 can heal for 4 or 8 HP when someone drops to 7. A proper Life cleric with Wis 16 heals for 7-10 or 7-14. Grave cleric is better if he gets better Wis mod AND if the character is at 0. Combat healing is suboptimal use of resources, but there are situations where you can't risk having someone drop to 0.

Woops, it's genuinely been forever since I cast heal wounds in tier 1 so I thought it was 2d8 base for some reason.

Appologies.

I do stand by grave as the healing baws of early 5e.

--------------

As for the ogre thing. It's just a really bad example for fairy fire. There are a ton of ways to gain natural advantage vs this thing at 3rd level and it's just... not very threatening by default. (My default FR goblinorcanoid "dangerzone" mele baddie for CR 2 are Orog's. Who make a very good comparison point at 3rd level.)

Worth noting that the most dangerous tier 1 encounters are just... lots of low HP dudes. A level appropriate "deadly" encounter with a swarm of advantage granting ankle biters is just... horrifyingly efficent at outright murdering PC's. This may have shaped my outlook on tier 1.

-------------

I guess the argument would be, in tier 1, only considering combat, that we could max out Dex or Str alongside Con (this still leaves room for some invest in casting up to +3 if fully minmaxed so we'll assume it's a weird class/race combo or trash rolls as well, where our mod must be neutral or +1).

This would optimize our "no slot" spells like melemancy and "crossbow" along with HP and AC while keeping our "best" combat spells and cantrips.

Is it bad the moment we hit level 5 and in almost all out of combat situations? Yes. Is it significantly better in combat? Probably.

[Chronos]

Against an ogre, I'm going to want Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Sure, there's a chance it'll fail and I'll waste my spell slot, but it's a small chance, and if I succeed, I've pretty much won the encounter.

Which isn't to say that there aren't a lot of encounters in that level range where Sleep is good. There are. And in one of those encounters, I'm going to use Sleep.

And there are also encounters (usually non-combat ones, but still encounters) where Disguise Self would be just the thing. And likewise for a number of other spells.

But my wizard doesn't know which of those she's going to face, and so she has to be ready for all of them. So she wants to prepare all three (or more) of those spells. Which means that she needs to have at least 14 Int.

[Willie the Duck]

OP is not selling this well, but there is something to think about with the point.

First off, the obvious exception -- it is entirely possible to choose not to focus on your casting stat, and still make most casting classes work. Clerics have all sorts of buffs and heals and such that don't use attack rolls or saves. Wizards can focus on the sleeps/shields/misty steps/magic missiles and so forth. It's easier for them to do that than it is for a (ex.) fighter to forgo str/dex. You can choose to do that, and it (relatively) works out. Just getting that out of the way.

Now, more generally -- while I think the OP is overselling it, there is overselling in the other direction. I have heard people repeat the mantra '<class-specific primary stat> is the thing that influences the roll you make every round, nothing is more important.' That too, is a simplification. If another use of your ASI could radically alter the basic framework with which your character approaches the game, it absolutely can have a greater effect than a +1 to a roll, even if said roll might happen every round. Example: a lore bard (or wizard who chooses hobgoblin) who picks up Moderately Armored does not have to run like a madperson if the opponents overrun the front line. Likewise, War Caster can make the decision to use an concentration-based spell worthwhile, knowing you have a strong likelihood to keep the spell effect up (even at the expense of the save versus that concentration spell being 1 lower). Clerics picking up a SCAGtrip with Magic Initiate might mean that they bother attacking in the upper tiers, where they might otherwise just dodge and let their 'Spirit/ual' spells be their contribution to the fight. Opening up new frontiers can override a +1 per round. It is, however, going to be a niche application.

That said, I wonder if the OP is used to 3e, where casting stats give out other extras (extra spells per day, with each +2 to a stat getting one extra on another spell level higher) and a +1 to the save-vs. has less relative weight (because 3e does not have bounded accuracy, although even in that one a +1 on the save can be a big deal).

[AvalancheSpring]

OP is not selling this well, but there is something to think about with the point.

You are saying "it's not always best to max your casting stat ASAP". That's true and not very controversial. Most caster builds shared online take a feat at L4 or L8 - ancedotally, L4 seems more common. There are also perfectly good builds which never take the casting stat over 14 - such as the summoning conjurer.

It's not that OP is "selling" this point badly. OP's point is different. They are asserting that in most cases it is "horrible" to increase casting stats. That's not true.

Willie, you take the example of a Lore bard. Yes Moderately Armored is a great choice to take at L4. That's hardly a secret. It's also a pretty strong choice to take +2 Charisma [+1 to your DCs; +1 to your social skills (you are probably the party face); +1 inspiration or cutting words per short rest]. In many parties/campaigns Moderately Armored is the *better* choice. But neither one is anywhere near "horrrible". Also not horrible: Warcaster, Reslient (Con), Lucky. Depending on campaign, you might even take Ritual Caster or +2 Dex, though these are more specialized choices.

Personally, if I am going to lean into the Bard's strength of AOE debuff / control spells, I will get to CHR 18 no later than level 8. But none of these are terrible choices.

[Willie the Duck]

It's not that OP is "selling" this point badly. OP's point is different. They are asserting that in most cases it is "horrible" to increase casting stats. That's not true.
Look, I'm trying to be nice. I am looking for a kernel of truth behind a position we all know is pretty off base. I framed it as 'something to think about' but perhaps I could have framed it as, 'OP is incorrect, but leading off from that ... <my point, which as you say, isn't that controversial>.'

They did mention (with regards to druids), "I even want to replace 8 wisdom with one extra feat if I have chance lol", so they clearly were thinking in terms of opportunity cost. I am going with that base point and running with a more reasonable version.


Willie, you take the example of a Lore bard. Yes Moderately Armored is a great choice to take at L4. That's hardly a secret. It's also a pretty strong choice to take +2 Charisma [+1 to your DCs; +1 to your social skills (you are probably the party face); +1 inspiration or cutting words per short rest]. In many parties/campaigns Moderately Armored is the *better* choice. But neither one is anywhere near "horrrible". Also not horrible: Warcaster, Reslient (Con), Lucky. Depending on campaign, you might even take Ritual Caster or +2 Dex, though these are more specialized choices.
I'm unclear, the framing of the initial segment suggests you think I would disagreeing here, is that correct? I would not.


Personally, if I am going to lean into the Bard's strength of AOE debuff / control spells, I will get to CHR 18 no later than level 8. But none of these are terrible choices.
Depending on the party playstyle, and assuming I get a 16-17 to begin with, I could see waiting until 12 for the cha boost. In groups with thin front lines, Moderately Armored and War Caster (so that the hypnotic patterns or stinking clouds actually stay up) might take precedence. I'd like to get a swords bard working one of these days, and I have no idea how to prioritize things with them.

[AvalancheSpring]

I'm unclear, the framing of the initial segment suggests you think I would disagreeing here, is that correct? I would not.

This was intended to be agreeing with you. You and I agree on the substance as far as I can see, but you are nicer :)

[Eldariel]

Depending on the party playstyle, and assuming I get a 16-17 to begin with, I could see waiting until 12 for the cha boost. In groups with thin front lines, Moderately Armored and War Caster (so that the hypnotic patterns or stinking clouds actually stay up) might take precedence. I'd like to get a swords bard working one of these days, and I have no idea how to prioritize things with them.

Swords Bard is an interesting case in that it already has medium armor but lacks shields (much like Mountain Dwarf) so Moderately Armored loses some of its luster. That said, it can certainly still benefit greatly of a shield as it lacks the ability to use any useful weapons two-handed and two-weapon style isn't much better than one-weapon style with dueling. It's pretty tight on feats though and lacks native access to SCAGtrips which generally makes me prefer Res: Con (just a better feat defensively; Con-saves are common enough and Con-boost is great and it also makes it possible to reach the autosuccess levels with the basic DC10 Concentration check).

[Willie the Duck]

Swords Bard is an interesting case in that it already has medium armor but lacks shields (much like Mountain Dwarf) so Moderately Armored loses some of its luster. That said, it can certainly still benefit greatly of a shield as it lacks the ability to use any useful weapons two-handed and two-weapon style isn't much better than one-weapon style with dueling. It's pretty tight on feats though and lacks native access to SCAGtrips which generally makes me prefer Res: Con (just a better feat defensively; Con-saves are common enough and Con-boost is great and it also makes it possible to reach the autosuccess levels with the basic DC10 Concentration check).

Oh, sorry, that was me switching gears. I doubt I would go with Moderately Armored (or the UA shield feat) with a Swords Bard, the question is what would I go with -- War Caster/Resilient Con, improving Cha, Improving Dex, heck improving Con (given that you are a lower-AC, lower-hp melee class), mobility, and so on. It feels like a subclass one might take if in a rolling-stats campaign when you happened to roll well or something like that.

[shipiaozi]

Apples to oranges.

Few spells use spell attack. Spellcasters use DC saves mostly. There are far fewer ways to modify these rolls outside of increasing an ability score, there are very few ways to cast more then one of these spells per turn, very few ways to get advantage/disadvantage, and the caster only has a limited pool of these spells.

The DC directly determines whether the caster will be making a game-changing round, or spending their round being completely useless.

You begin this by claiming +4 ability score is not worth a feat?!?

Because DC spells are limited, you can't cast them every turn, so DC are not very important.

For bard and some warlock, +2 ability score is a reasonable feat.
For most wizard and Sorcerer, +4 ability score worth less than a feat, but very close.
For Cleric and Druid, even +6 ability does not worth a feat.

[shipiaozi]

The problem here is that you aren't considering everything else:

- Higher DCs, which is not equivalent to better attack rolls. DCs have a lower base when compared to AC and are harder to increase, so your stat is a bigger deal;
- Spells prepared. This isn't an issue for all casters, but those who do have spells prepared benefit a lot from those few more spells;
- Higher damage or healing (for example a cleric's Spiritual Weapon);
- Various features that are more or less dependant on your casting stat;
- if your class has it, Counterspell/Dispel Magic benefits a LOT from the stat since proficiency score isn't applied. Or even when you're into a Forcecage (that seems to be far less rare then it looks in my experience).

In your example, druids use their casting stat for healing. Given the randomness of healing, flat bonuses are extremely useful- this without considering that Healing Spirit heals more times with an higher wisdom, which is way more then a simple +1/+2.

Can you tell us about your practice? Because both theory and practice of nearly everybody here says the opposite.

You can play a caster without save/attack/check spells but you'll surely be a worst caster unless you have a strong alternative option for encounters. And most of the best spells do need your casting stat.

I am not saying caster should play without attack(including DC) spells, casters could choose them without waste two feats on caster score, -2DC is not a big deal.

[Valmark]

For bard and some warlock, +2 ability score is a reasonable feat.
For most wizard and Sorcerer, +4 ability score worth less than a feat, but very close.
For Cleric and Druid, even +6 ability does not worth a feat.

If you could actual explain why you think this, it would be great. Saying that prepared spellcasters don't really benefit from a high casting stat when compared to known spellcasters is blatantly wrong since prepared spellcasters need an higher stat to... Prepare more spells.

In fact, Clerics and Druids need it even more then Wizards since the latter can cast rituals from every spell they wrote down in their books while the former can only cast from those they prepare.

In addition, could you offer some spell selections for the spellcasters you say don't need their casting stat?


I am not saying caster should play without attack(including DC) spells, casters could choose them without waste two feats on caster score, -2DC is not a big deal.

Except that you said that not even negative casting stats are a big deal. That from 5 to 20 not a lot changes.

-2 DC is actually a pretty big deal, and in that example that is a LOT more then just a difference of two points.

[zinycor]

I am not saying caster should play without attack(including DC) spells, casters could choose them without waste two feats on caster score, -2DC is not a big deal.

That's different fron what you were saying before, speaking of a 8 wis druid and all.

[shipiaozi]

That's different fron what you were saying before, speaking of a 8 wis druid and all.

Druid is kind of special...If you play Druid "normally", most of your spell slots should be on summon spells and they benefits nothing from caster ability score.

[zinycor]

Druid is kind of special...If you play Druid "normally", most of your spell slots should be on summon spells and they benefits nothing from caster ability score.

I am playong a druid, and I prepare all kindsnof spells. Speaking of which, a high wisdom allows me to prepare am even bigger number, which is awesome since after each long rest I cam change the entire spell selection.

If I were to have a low wisdom I would be less flexible, therefore, less efective.

[shipiaozi]

If you could actual explain why you think this, it would be great. Saying that prepared spellcasters don't really benefit from a high casting stat when compared to known spellcasters is blatantly wrong since prepared spellcasters need an higher stat to... Prepare more spells.

In fact, Clerics and Druids need it even more then Wizards since the latter can cast rituals from every spell they wrote down in their books while the former can only cast from those they prepare.

In addition, could you offer some spell selections for the spellcasters you say don't need their casting stat?



Except that you said that not even negative casting stats are a big deal. That from 5 to 20 not a lot changes.

-2 DC is actually a pretty big deal, and in that example that is a LOT more then just a difference of two points.

Non-casters gets full benefits from the "main score": +1 attack roll and +1 damage roll
Casters get very few benefits from the "main score"(which isn't the real main score): +1 or +0.5 attack roll for SOME spells, less than 1/3 of non-casters get, even if you consider some other benefits, caster score still worth less than half feat. For example, do you think Cleric/Druid need extra prepared slot for rituals? Yes, but most values of rituals comes from familar, and even familiar+other 20 rituals prepared don't worth a feat, so extra prepared slot worth less than 0.025 feat.

Yes, casters could totally give up DC/attack spells, not a very big deal, for Cleric and Druid 5 to 20 worth about 2 feats because they should give up DC spells most of the time, for wizard it worths about 3 feats, at the same time a wizard with 14 or 16 should not change his spells much.

[Valmark]

Druid is kind of special...If you play Druid "normally", most of your spell slots should be on summon spells and they benefits nothing from caster ability score.

I've played several druids now and I use like... One summon spell for each fight maybe. Conjure Animals is indeed strong, but there's lot more to be done. To say a few: Entangle, Spike Growth, Erupting Earth, Tidal Wave, Polymorph, Maelstrom... And I'm one who dislikes using AoEs spells that hit allies.

And nearly all of those use your casting stat. Ignoring the fact that you need Wisdom to prepare them in the first place without sacrificing versatility- even a single more prepared spell is worth a lot. I mentioned only combat spells (aside from Polymorph, that's pretty versatile) but the Druid like all full casters has way more them just combat spells.

[shipiaozi]

That's different fron what you were saying before, speaking of a 8 wis druid and all.

Two things:
1. DC is not very important, 16int is not far from 20int(does anyone think Fighting style-Archery has huge impact?), 16 Int wizard could prepare DC spells even if they don't waste two feats on intelligence.
2. DC spells are not very important, even if you put -10 penalty on all my DC, they don't worth a lot of feats.

[zinycor]

Non-casters gets full benefits from the "main score": +1 attack roll and +1 damage roll
Casters get very few benefits from the "main score"(which isn't the real main score): +1 or +0.5 attack roll for SOME spells, less than 1/3 of non-casters get, even if you consider some other benefits, caster score still worth less than half feat. For example, do you think Cleric/Druid need extra prepared slot for rituals? Yes, but most values of rituals comes from familar, and even familiar+other 20 rituals prepared don't worth a feat, so extra prepared slot worth less than 0.025 feat.

Yes, casters could totally give up DC/attack spells, not a very big deal, for Cleric and Druid 5 to 20 worth about 2 feats because they should give up DC spells most of the time, for wizard it worths about 3 feats, at the same time a wizard with 14 or 16 should not change his spells much.

I mean... look, I love martials.... but what is more unique?

A) Hey! I damaged the giant for 28 points of damage!!
B) Hey! I turned the Giant into a sloth!

Comparing casters to martials is a flawed exercise because of how game changing a spell can be. And many of those game changing spells benefit from the caster having a greater DC.

Also, there are situational spells, if you have lower stats, you will never cast those spells. So you will not solve that problem.

Are some feats of great benefit? Yeah. Do you need to rush to 20 in your main stat? No. Does that make taking +2 to wis as a druid sub optimal? Not at all.

[Rara1212]

Two things:
1. DC is not very important, 16int is not far from 20int(does anyone think Fighting style-Archery has huge impact?), 16 Int wizard could prepare DC spells even if they don't waste two feats on intelligence.
2. DC spells are not very important, even if you put -10 penalty on all my DC, they don't worth a lot of feats.

1. Yes, archery style is huge. All archers love it, and melee is envious they can't get a free +2 to hit.
2. So you'd skip all the good spells? No disabling spells, no damage spells, nothing except some summoning spells?
Wow...

[Waazraath]

OP is not selling this well, but there is something to think about with the point.

First off, the obvious exception -- it is entirely possible to choose not to focus on your casting stat, and still make most casting classes work. Clerics have all sorts of buffs and heals and such that don't use attack rolls or saves. Wizards can focus on the sleeps/shields/misty steps/magic missiles and so forth. It's easier for them to do that than it is for a (ex.) fighter to forgo str/dex. You can choose to do that, and it (relatively) works out. Just getting that out of the way.


This. I mean, the OP phrased it in the most radical (click baity) way possible. On the other hand, others sometimes frame 'first raising casting stat' as a must, which it isn't either. In the end it depends on class, subclass, spell selection, party make-up, build, etc. You can perfectly play a caster with first maximizing the casting stat, and you can perfectly do without it. *shrug*

[Valmark]

Non-casters gets full benefits from the "main score": +1 attack roll and +1 damage roll
Casters get very few benefits from the "main score"(which isn't the real main score): +1 or +0.5 attack roll for SOME spells, less than 1/3 of non-casters get, even if you consider some other benefits, caster score still worth less than half feat. For example, do you think Cleric/Druid need extra prepared slot for rituals? Yes, but most values of rituals comes from familar, and even familiar+other 20 rituals prepared don't worth a feat, so extra prepared slot worth less than 0.025 feat.

Yes, casters could totally give up DC/attack spells, not a very big deal, for Cleric and Druid 5 to 20 worth about 2 feats because they should give up DC spells most of the time, for wizard it worths about 3 feats, at the same time a wizard with 14 or 16 should not change his spells much.

The typical cleric combo uses the casting stat in both spells (Spiritual Weapon+Spirit Guardians) for istance. Is that +0.5 meant to rapresent DCs? Because the relative benefit is bigger for them, since they can't be boosted quite as easily.

And- if you say that being locked into 1 spell until level 5th and that a difference of 8 spells prepared doesn't matter, please back that up with what spells you'd prepare.

I understand that you don't value versatility at all, but make examples of what spells you'd keep prepared.

EDIT: Yes, Archery style is a huge deal given how 5e works. Anything that boosts attack rolls/DCs/AC/Saves is worth a lot more then what "+1" or "+2" could suggest.

[shipiaozi]

I mean... look, I love martials.... but what is more unique?

A) Hey! I damaged the giant for 28 points of damage!!
B) Hey! I turned the Giant into a sloth!

Comparing casters to martials is a flawed exercise because of how game changing a spell can be. And many of those game changing spells benefit from the caster having a greater DC.

Also, there are situational spells, if you have lower stats, you will never cast those spells. So you will not solve that problem.

Are some feats of great benefit? Yeah. Do you need to rush to 20 in your main stat? No. Does that make taking +2 to wis as a druid sub optimal? Not at all.

No matter how good or bad DC spells are, +2 attack roll is still +2 attack roll(5~10% boost for some spells), and the versatility nature of casters means the real loss is much lower than the former calculation. A non-caster really need +2 ability score because he almost can't do anything other than attack, while a caster might choose to use another spell to deal with the loss.

[Kireban]

The only thing you need to check about spells is if they have attack rolls or saves. If they have such things (and most of them do), you wont try to cast them if your caster ability is low. That is all.
Feats give you nothing if your spells are useless.

[Eldariel]

The only thing you need to check about spells is if they have attack rolls or saves. If they have such things (and most of them do), you wont try to cast them if your caster ability is low. That is all.
Feats give you nothing if your spells are useless.

Obviously you will lose a massive amount of versatility and the option of easily solving various encounters if you lack the ability to target enemy saves meaningfully though. So a Wizard with 8 Int will likely just be stupidly much worse than a Wizard with 20 Int in a vast variety of encounters simply because a 20 Int Wizard can easily solve enemies that have a weak save and lack Legendary Resistance.

[Valmark]

No matter how good or bad DC spells are, +2 attack roll is still +2 attack roll(5~10% boost for some spells), and the versatility nature of casters means the real loss is much lower than the former calculation. A non-caster really need +2 ability score because he almost can't do anything other than attack, while a caster might choose to use another spell to deal with the loss.

But... A caster lacks versatility with a low casting stat. At least those with prepared spells.

[zinycor]

No matter how good or bad DC spells are, +2 attack roll is still +2 attack roll(5~10% boost for some spells), and the versatility nature of casters means the real loss is much lower than the former calculation. A non-caster really need +2 ability score because he almost can't do anything other than attack, while a caster might choose to use another spell to deal with the loss.

I don't follow... What is the point you are going for? Are you just saying that ability scores are les important for casters thanthey are for martials? Sure, still, that doesn't mean that getting your main stat up is a horrible choice.

[J-H]

The OP has a key phrase in blue, which means sarcasm. I'm surprised this thread has reached 3 pages without someone pointing that out.

[MoiMagnus]

The OP has a key phrase in blue, which means sarcasm. I'm surprised this thread has reached 3 pages without someone pointing that out.

I though blue meant "highly subjective opinion I have, and I know most peoples will disagree with", so like sarcasm, except you actually think it is true to some extend.

[shipiaozi]

I don't follow... What is the point you are going for? Are you just saying that ability scores are les important for casters thanthey are for martials? Sure, still, that doesn't mean that getting your main stat up is a horrible choice.

Spell attack and DC aren't worth that much, ability score worth very little for casters that caster ability score+2 usually worth less than 0.5 feat. Everytime a caster pick int+2/wis+2 over feat, he lost about 0.5 feat, which is the most common mistake a caster player make.

[JNAProductions]

Spell attack and DC aren't worth that much, ability score worth very little for casters that caster ability score+2 usually worth less than 0.5 feat. Everytime a caster pick int+2/wis+2 over feat, he lost about 0.5 feat, which is the most common mistake a caster player make.

So show us a build. Give us a PC at, say, levels 5, 11, and 17 that's better built than a PC who improved their casting stat.

[Willie the Duck]

Because DC spells are limited, you can't cast them every turn, so DC are not very important.
Point A does not actually support point B. Not having to make the roll every turn does not imply that the roll isn't important. Non-cantrip spells are limited resource abilities with commensurate effect. Failing a save vs a spell is likely to have more consequence than your AC failing to exceed a martial's to-hit.

Non-casters gets full benefits from the "main score": +1 attack roll and +1 damage roll
Casters get very few benefits from the "main score"(which isn't the real main score): +1 or +0.5 attack roll for SOME spells, less than 1/3 of non-casters get, even if you consider some other benefits, caster score still worth less than half feat.
You keep restating these opinions. That's fine. Opinions are great. However, you really aren't enhancing your argument in any meaningful way.

Two things:
1. DC is not very important, 16int is not far from 20int
You keep saying the first part, without really backing it up in any way.



For example, do you think Cleric/Druid need extra prepared slot for rituals? Yes, but most values of rituals comes from familar, and even familiar+other 20 rituals prepared don't worth a feat, so extra prepared slot worth less than 0.025 feat.
Clerics/Druids don't get Find Familiar as a ritual spell. If you don't think ritual spells other than Find Familiar are worthwhile, I think you are playing a very different game from most of the rest of us. Comprehend Languages and Speak with Animals, by themselves, have allowed my players to avoid multiple encounters, have others on their own terms, and come to negotiations with information that their opposition desperately would have wanted them not to have. As to 'familiar+other 20 rituals prepared don't[sic] worth a feat,' I've seen more than a few people select Ritual Caster, Magic Initiate, or Arcane Trickster as their Rogue archetype specifically for Find Familiar, so again I think we are playing the game in different manners.


Yes, casters could totally give up DC/attack spells, not a very big deal, for Cleric and Druid 5 to 20 worth about 2 feats because they should give up DC spells most of the time, for wizard it worths about 3 feats, at the same time a wizard with 14 or 16 should not change his spells much.
A cleric could make do without save DC/attacking spells, but those include Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians, mainstays of many a cleric repertoire. A Druid who, as you alluded to earlier, chooses to cast mostly summons and heals (and maybe contributes much by being a Moon Druid damage sponge), could get by with a low Wisdom. That is leaving some really effective spells off the table. If you happened to find yourself with a (ex.) Wisdom 8 Druid, I'm sure you could get it to work (and I'd even say that if you started at that point, you'd be better served to lean into that situation and pick everything except +2 Wis as your ASI choices, as it'd take forever to really get good at save/attack spells). That druid, however, would be significantly limited in comparison to a Wis-focused druid in ways I can't imagine the opportunity cost making up. The Wizard I just find flat out mistaken -- they don't do much except casting spells, with significantly more of theirs 'saves vs.' or attacks than other classes might have.


No matter how good or bad DC spells are, +2 attack roll is still +2 attack roll(5~10% boost for some spells), and the versatility nature of casters means the real loss is much lower than the former calculation. A non-caster really need +2 ability score because he almost can't do anything other than attack, while a caster might choose to use another spell to deal with the loss.
Again, this is the actual thought-out part of your argument, and there are parts to which I agree. A caster does have the option to do something other than an attack/invoke a save. I do not think it follows that a casting stat is not important, nor is it clear that casters or martials should consider doing things other than boosting their primary stat moreso than the other. At (as an example) 4th level, I think a fighter is faced with a tough decision whether to pick up +2 Str/Dex, or pick up a highly useful feat like PAM/XBE/GWM/SS, or a non-traditional feat that defines how they are played (such as mobility, Inspiring Leadership, and so on). I think a Wizard is in the exact same boat -- hard choices between +2 Int, highly useful feats like War Caster/Resilient:Con, and non-traditional feats. Then, of course, are monks, where the decision is which of these three vitally important stats do I boost this time? :smalltongue:

[Amechra]

To bring up something that I mentioned in another thread:

Save DCs are secretly nerfed in comparison to attack rolls. If your level 1 Barbarian with Str 16 attacks some random commoner, you'll hit that AC 10 on a 5+, giving you an 80% chance of success. If your level 1 Wizard with Int 16 casts Frostbite at that same commoner, that commoner passes their save on a 13+, giving you a 60% chance of success. The commoner effectively has +4 "AC" vs. spells that call for a saving throw. That's why a lot of leveled spells that call for saving throws have partial effects on successful saves - otherwise, they'd be way worse than a spell that called for an attack roll.

So I'd argue that if you want to cast spells that call for saving throws, you'd better pump your casting stat.

[Eldariel]

To bring up something that I mentioned in another thread:

Save DCs are secretly nerfed in comparison to attack rolls. If your level 1 Barbarian with Str 16 attacks some random commoner, you'll hit that AC 10 on a 5+, giving you an 80% chance of success. If your level 1 Wizard with Int 16 casts Frostbite at that same commoner, that commoner passes their save on a 13+, giving you a 60% chance of success. The commoner effectively has +4 "AC" vs. spells that call for a saving throw. That's why a lot of leveled spells that call for saving throws have partial effects on successful saves - otherwise, they'd be way worse than a spell that called for an attack roll.

OTOH bad saves scale horribly if at all with level. If you look at the weakest save of each creature and contrast it with the AC, the difference just grows with level. I'll produce a graph when I get around to fixing my monster Excel so that I can do it effortlessly but it's pretty apparent even on a cursory glance. AC scales pretty reliably while the bad save, in most cases, scales poorly if at all (the obvious exceptions are Outsiders [Fiends, Celestials] and Dragons though Dragons do actually have weak saves at times). So if you're a caster who can target weak saves (Wizard has access to strong spells to target 5/6 saves [Cha is the exception] on level 3 though without forewarning you probably won't be able to prepare more than ~three of them and there are of course condition immunities) with knowledge of enemy [type] common weak saves, you'll be rolling against far lower numbers than that.

Case in point, CR 1/4 Goblin has 15 AC but -1 to +0 on all saves except Dex. Same with Kobold (okay, it only has 12 AC but it also has -2 to many saves and -1 to all but Dex - so the roll needed is equivalent for the bad saves and there is one point advantage for attacking AC over the other three saves), Orc (13 AC, -2 to a save so +1 advantage to save over AC though in this case you're pretty much forced to use Phantasmal Force as your save-or-lose if you wanna benefit of that), etc. In short, the Commoner comparison is pretty irrelevant since basically no things you actually fight have 10 AC while many have even penalties to some saves.

[Joe the Rat]

Two things:
1. DC is not very important, 16int is not far from 20int(does anyone think Fighting style-Archery has huge impact?), 16 Int wizard could prepare DC spells even if they don't waste two feats on intelligence.
2. DC spells are not very important, even if you put -10 penalty on all my DC, they don't worth a lot of feats.

1. Uh, yeah, Archery fighting style does have a substantial impact. boosting your attack rolls by 2 is at least a 10% damage boost, depending on target AC. Fighters can capitalize on that multiple times a round. For casters, that means needing to hit multiple targets: Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, or Save based spells.

2. DC spells are generally more effective and more versatile than attack roll spells: You can hit multiple targets with a single effect. You can hit targets with effects that can impede or outright stop enemies from acting. Or send them to another different dimension. Or make them allies. The DC is what makes it stick. If you have bad luck with save based spells, you may be targeting the wrong things at the wrong times.

Do you need to max your casting stat ASAP? No. Bumping every other ASI keeps you up nicely with the math of the game's expectations. But there's a lot of difference between "+1 to attack rolls, saving throw DCs, damage healed per target, and/or number of spells prepared is nice but not necessary at a given level" and "you shouldn't invest in your casting stat at all."

And that's ignoring all of the non-spell uses of the attributes.

[Amechra]

OTOH bad saves scale horribly if at all with level. If you look at the weakest save of each creature and contrast it with the AC, the difference just grows with level. I'll produce a graph when I get around to fixing my monster Excel so that I can do it effortlessly but it's pretty apparent even on a cursory glance. AC scales pretty reliably while the bad save, in most cases, scales poorly if at all (the obvious exceptions are Outsiders [Fiends, Celestials] and Dragons though Dragons do actually have weak saves at times). So if you're a caster who can target weak saves (Wizard has access to strong spells to target 5/6 saves [Cha is the exception] on level 3 though without forewarning you probably won't be able to prepare more than ~three of them and there are of course condition immunities) with knowledge of enemy [type] common weak saves, you'll be rolling against far lower numbers than that.

Case in point, CR 1/4 Goblin has 15 AC but -1 to +0 on all saves except Dex. Same with Kobold (okay, it only has 12 AC but it also has -2 to many saves and -1 to all but Dex - so the roll needed is equivalent for the bad saves and there is one point advantage for attacking AC over the other three saves), Orc (13 AC, -2 to a save so +1 advantage to save over AC though in this case you're pretty much forced to use Phantasmal Force as your save-or-lose if you wanna benefit of that), etc. In short, the Commoner comparison is pretty irrelevant since basically no things you actually fight have 10 AC while many have even penalties to some saves.

Yeah, that's fair - the game was designed around saves having this "hidden" penalty, so it isn't actually that big of a difference in play.

At the same time, though, I'd estimate that increasing your Save DC outside of the "normal" progression is roughly as difficult as increasing AC, while it's not too hard to pump up attack rolls or saving throws with stuff like Bless or a Knight's Leadership ability.

It's almost like the math behind 5e is surprisingly intricate, and that the developers considered this stuff when designing monsters. What a shock! :smallbiggrin:

[zinycor]

Spell attack and DC aren't worth that much, ability score worth very little for casters that caster ability score+2 usually worth less than 0.5 feat. Everytime a caster pick int+2/wis+2 over feat, he lost about 0.5 feat, which is the most common mistake a caster player make.

I absolutely disagree. Sure, some feat might be more important for a particular build at a certain moment, but upping your casting stat will always be a solid choice.

For me is the ground that all the feats must compare to.

[JackPhoenix]

At the same time, though, I'd estimate that increasing your Save DC outside of the "normal" progression is roughly as difficult as increasing AC, while it's not too hard to pump up attack rolls or saving throws with stuff like Bless or a Knight's Leadership ability.

Not really. There's a lot of ways to increase your AC, especially if temporary increase is all you need.... equipment both mundane and magical, ability scores (if going with <heavy armor), race, class, subclass, feats, spells, then there's the disadvantage to attackers... Besides few, generally high-rarity magic items, the only way to improve your save DC is ability score and proficiency bonus. What you *can* do is to apply disadvantage, or more rarely, penalty to enemy save, but then, a lot of enemies tend to have advantage or outright immunity to certain effects....

[Nhorianscum]

Not really. There's a lot of ways to increase your AC, especially if temporary increase is all you need.... equipment both mundane and magical, ability scores (if going with <heavy armor), race, class, subclass, feats, spells, then there's the disadvantage to attackers... Besides few, generally high-rarity magic items, the only way to improve your save DC is ability score and proficiency bonus. What you *can* do is to apply disadvantage, or more rarely, penalty to enemy save, but then, a lot of enemies tend to have advantage or outright immunity to certain effects....

There are a decent number of ways to lower enemy saves outside of disadvantage.

[JackPhoenix]

There are a decent number of ways to lower enemy saves outside of disadvantage.

There's Bane and.... that's about it. There are roll replacements in Portent and... whatever the chronoturgist's version is.

[J-H]

There's the new cantrip, and Synaptic Static, and the Poisoned condition.

[Nhorianscum]

There's Bane and.... that's about it. There are roll replacements in Portent and... whatever the chronoturgist's version is.

*cries in bend luck*

There's a few more but names slip the mind.

[Bardon]

And Heightened metamagic for Sorcerers.

Edit: D'oh, missed the "aside from disadvantage" part. Mea culpa

[Boci]

*cries in bend luck*

There's a few more but names slip the mind.

There's Synaptic Static, but that's only for concentration saves (and all attack rolls and ability checks).

[Asisreo1]

There's the new cantrip, and Synaptic Static, and the Poisoned condition.
Poisoned does not impose any penalty to saving throws.

[Eldariel]

Eloquence Bard's Unsettling Words too, of course.

[Aimeryan]

The thread title and a lot of the OP's statements are hyperbole or plain wrong, that said, how difficult would it be to build a Divine Soul Sorcerer with 5 Charisma and still be effective?

Divine Soul Sorcerers benefit in only these ways from Cha, far as I can tell:

Spell DC/Attack
Careful and Empowered Metamagic

That is... it. Well, social stat and save aside, naturally. Careful and Empowered Metamagics modify offensive spells relying on Spell DC/Attack, so the goal basically boils down to avoiding those. Here is a list of spells on the Sorcerer and Cleric list that fulfil those requirements, best as I can tell:




No Concentration

Requires Concentration



Absorb Elements
Alter Self


Aid
Animate Objects


Animate Dead
Antimagic Field


Astral Projection
Arcane Gate


Augury
Beacon of Hope


Blade Ward
Bless


Blink
Blur


Catnap
Clairvoyance


Ceremony
Cloud of Daggers


Color Spray
Conjure Celestial


Commune
Control Weather


Comprehend Languages
Dancing Lights


Continual Flame
Darkness


Control Flames
Detect Evil and Good


Counterspell
Detect Magic


Create Food and Water
Detect Poison and Disease


Create or Destroy Water
Enhance Ability


Create Undead
Expeditious Retreat


Creation
Far Step


Cure Wounds
Find the Path


Darkvision
Flame Arrows


Daylight
Fly


Death Ward
Fog Cloud


Dimension Door
Friends


Disguise Self
Gaseous Form


Dispel Magic
Gate


Distort Value
Globe of Invulnerability


Divination
Greater Invisibility


Etherealness
Guidance


False Life
Haste


Feather Fall
Invisibility


Feign Death
Locate Creature


Find Traps
Locate Object


Forbiddance
Major Image


Freedom of Movement
Move Earth


Gentle Repose
Protection from Energy


Greater Restoration
Protection from Evil and Good


Heal
Resistance


Healing Word
Shadow Blade


Heroes' Feast
Shield of Faith


Jump
Silence


Knock
Silent Image


Legend Lore
Skill Empowerment


Lesser Restoration
Spider Climb


Life Transference
Stoneskin


Mage Armor
Telekinesis


Mage Hand
True Strike


Magic Missile
Wall of Water


Mass Cure Wounds
Warding Wind


Mass Heal



Mass Healing Word



Meld into Stone



Mending



Message



Minor Illusion



Mirror Image



Misty Step



Mold Earth



Motivational Speech



Planar Ally



Power Word Kill



Prayer of Healing



Prestidigitation



Protection from Poison



Purify Food and Drink



Raise Dead



Regenerate



Remove Curse



Resurrection



Revivify



See Invisibility



Sending



Shape Water



Shield



Sleep



Spare the Dying



Speak with Dead



Stone Shape



Teleport



Teleportation Circle



Thaumaturgy



Time Stop



Tongues



True Resurrection



True Seeing



Warding Bond



Water Breathing



Water Walk



Wish



Word of Recall





Quite a substantial list. Note that offensive spells are on this list - it is not devoid of those, just they don't require a save/attack roll. They even include damage spells (which technically mean Empowered could be used there, however, there are other Metamagic options available). Versatility in being offensive lacks, of course, but versatility isn't really a Sorcerer's strong point anyway...

There is also something to be said for putting out a powerful Concentration spell and then simply hiding until you need to do something supportive. Twin Haste on your Rogue (SA twice per round) and Paladin (more Smite!) is a powerful act, while if you get attacked and lose Concentration it can be deadly - if you are playing it safe, though...

Of course, even if a DS can potentially avoid their primary ability stat it doesn't really do anything for the OP's statement; ASI in primary ability stat for vast arrays of caster builds is very strong - far from horrible.

[Zuras]

If you think casting stats don’t matter for full casters, I have to wonder how much 5e you’ve played. Sure, it’s possible to build a caster with a bad casting stat—I’ve seen some Punch Wizards and buffing focused builds that work just fine. That takes a LOT of system mastery to do, though.

A mediocre save DC basically shuts you out of at least half your offensive options as a caster. High DCs are particularly important once you start facing enemies with Magic Resistance but mediocre saves in at least one stat, like Slaad or the dumber Demons/Devils. For prepared casters, the extra spells are also important to squeeze in a spell that hits the right save. This season (with all the Devils in Descent into Avernus) that sort of thing has been particularly pronounced.

[da newt]

Yeah - I can get behind the idea that for some builds ASIs to increase your casting stat aren't as useful as other Feats, but the OP's blanket statement is weak and he hasn't provided anything substantial to support his claim.

For a support only buffer, summoner, defensive specialist, or some other builds, sure - a low to mid casting stat is no big deal, but for every attack spell and saving throw spell the stat matters (even if you can target weak saves, it still increases effectiveness), it influences # of spells known, and decreases your ability checks too.

[Willie the Duck]

The thread title and a lot of the OP's statements are hyperbole or plain wrong, that said, how difficult would it be to build a Divine Soul Sorcerer with 5 Charisma and still be effective?

Yeah, I circled around a similar concept. It is imminently possible to create an X (easiest for moon druid and paladin; cleric, bard, and DS sorc somewhere in the middle; wizard would be highly constrained but could work) where you avoid needing your casting stat. It becomes a build using a smaller, but still useful, list of options. That's a far cry from boosting casting stats being non- or nominally- useful, and certainly doesn't mean that someone with a 16 in the stat (and thus presumably is taking save/spell-attack spells) shouldn't shoot for 18 or 20.

[shipiaozi]

Point A does not actually support point B. Not having to make the roll every turn does not imply that the roll isn't important. Non-cantrip spells are limited resource abilities with commensurate effect. Failing a save vs a spell is likely to have more consequence than your AC failing to exceed a martial's to-hit.

You keep restating these opinions. That's fine. Opinions are great. However, you really aren't enhancing your argument in any meaningful way.

You keep saying the first part, without really backing it up in any way.



Clerics/Druids don't get Find Familiar as a ritual spell. If you don't think ritual spells other than Find Familiar are worthwhile, I think you are playing a very different game from most of the rest of us. Comprehend Languages and Speak with Animals, by themselves, have allowed my players to avoid multiple encounters, have others on their own terms, and come to negotiations with information that their opposition desperately would have wanted them not to have. As to 'familiar+other 20 rituals prepared don't[sic] worth a feat,' I've seen more than a few people select Ritual Caster, Magic Initiate, or Arcane Trickster as their Rogue archetype specifically for Find Familiar, so again I think we are playing the game in different manners.


A cleric could make do without save DC/attacking spells, but those include Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians, mainstays of many a cleric repertoire. A Druid who, as you alluded to earlier, chooses to cast mostly summons and heals (and maybe contributes much by being a Moon Druid damage sponge), could get by with a low Wisdom. That is leaving some really effective spells off the table. If you happened to find yourself with a (ex.) Wisdom 8 Druid, I'm sure you could get it to work (and I'd even say that if you started at that point, you'd be better served to lean into that situation and pick everything except +2 Wis as your ASI choices, as it'd take forever to really get good at save/attack spells). That druid, however, would be significantly limited in comparison to a Wis-focused druid in ways I can't imagine the opportunity cost making up. The Wizard I just find flat out mistaken -- they don't do much except casting spells, with significantly more of theirs 'saves vs.' or attacks than other classes might have.


Again, this is the actual thought-out part of your argument, and there are parts to which I agree. A caster does have the option to do something other than an attack/invoke a save. I do not think it follows that a casting stat is not important, nor is it clear that casters or martials should consider doing things other than boosting their primary stat moreso than the other. At (as an example) 4th level, I think a fighter is faced with a tough decision whether to pick up +2 Str/Dex, or pick up a highly useful feat like PAM/XBE/GWM/SS, or a non-traditional feat that defines how they are played (such as mobility, Inspiring Leadership, and so on). I think a Wizard is in the exact same boat -- hard choices between +2 Int, highly useful feats like War Caster/Resilient:Con, and non-traditional feats. Then, of course, are monks, where the decision is which of these three vitally important stats do I boost this time? :smalltongue:

1. Non-casters use their str/dex buff almost every turn, while casters can't use attack/DC spells everyturn. As a result, DC for casters is far less important than attack for non-casters.
2. +1 attack & +1 damage VS +1 or fewer attack is the most important reason caster ability+2 is a horrible choice: casters gain very little benefits for high caster score, only +1 attack roll for some spells.
3. I repeated it again, +2 attack roll for some spells don't worth 2 feats, even not worth 1. Never pick intelligence+2 for wizard is not "a hard choice" but a no-brainer unless you are playing sth extremely weird.
4. Even if you could prepare and cast all rituals, it not worth a feat. There is a feat that could give you find familar + other wizard rituals, but it's massively underpowered. Cleric/Druid have no find familar, limit the value of their ritual ability to less than 0.3 feat.

[ProsecutorGodot]

1. Non-casters use their str/dex buff almost every turn, while casters can't use attack/DC spells everyturn. As a result, DC for casters is far less important than attack for non-casters.
Why not? A spell caster is very likely to cast a spell on their turn in combat, even cantrips which can be cast indefinitely scale off their casting stat for hit bonus and save dc.

They absolutely can cast a spell every turn, barring extremely situational exceptions like an anti magic zone.

2. +1 attack & +1 damage VS +1 or fewer attack is the most important reason caster ability+2 is a horrible choice: casters gain very little benefits for high caster score, only +1 attack roll for some spells.
Or, as it's been repeated, more prepared spells and an increased spell dc.

3. I repeated it again, +2 attack roll for some spells don't worth 2 feats, even not worth 1. Never pick intelligence+2 for wizard is not "a hard choice" but a no-brainer unless you are playing sth extremely weird.
You still haven't explained your reasoning for this all that well. Which feats are we supposed to see as so much more powerful? Which spells do we take that require nothing from our intelligence stat?

4. Even if you could prepare and cast all rituals, it not worth a feat. There is a feat that could give you find familar + other wizard rituals, but it's massively underpowered. Cleric/Druid have no find familar, limit the value of their ritual ability to less than 0.3 feat.
Ritual caster is not an underpowered feat, it's quite good for non casters, it's even worth considering for casters who want wizard rituals.

Point of order as well, wizards don't have to prepare their rituals.

I don't follow this .5 and .3 math you're valuing these feats and ASI at, you clearly don't mean half feats so could you explain that a bit?

[Yakk]

So if you're a caster who can target weak saves (Wizard has access to strong spells to target 5/6 saves [Cha is the exception] on level 3 though without forewarning you probably won't be able to prepare more than ~three of them and there are of course condition immunities) with knowledge of enemy [type] common weak saves, you'll be rolling against far lower numbers than that.

Case in point, CR 1/4 Goblin has 15 AC but -1 to +0 on all saves except Dex. Same with Kobold (okay, it only has 12 AC but it also has -2 to many saves and -1 to all but Dex - so the roll needed is equivalent for the bad saves and there is one point advantage for attacking AC over the other three saves), Orc (13 AC, -2 to a save so +1 advantage to save over AC though in this case you're pretty much forced to use Phantasmal Force as your save-or-lose if you wanna benefit of that), etc. In short, the Commoner comparison is pretty irrelevant since basically no things you actually fight have 10 AC while many have even penalties to some saves.
A +0 save corresponds to a 14 AC.

Bob the caster has +3 spellcasting attribute and +3 proficiency. Her DC is 8+3+3=14. Her attack modifier is +6.

She blasts a Kobold. +6 vs 12 AC means she needs a 6+, or a 75% chance to hit.
She makes the Kobold do a Strength save (-2). The Kobold needs a 14+2 = 16, so a 25% chance to save; or a 75% chance the spell lands.

12 AC is =14-2. The 12 AC and the -2 save modifier have the same defense.

---

Let's look at an https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Adult%20Red%20Dragon

AC 19
Save AC equivalents (save bonus+14)
Str: 23
Dex: 20
Con: 27
Int: 17
Wis: 21
Cha: 25

If you target int, you get a +2 accuracy over targeting AC. Everything else is worse. (Then, you need to land 3 hits on Int before your spell can actually hurt it)

[Valmark]

A +0 save corresponds to a 14 AC.

Bob the caster has +3 spellcasting attribute and +3 proficiency. Her DC is 8+3+3=14. Her attack modifier is +6.

She blasts a Kobold. +6 vs 12 AC means she needs a 6+, or a 75% chance to hit.
She makes the Kobold do a Strength save (-2). The Kobold needs a 14+2 = 16, so a 25% chance to save; or a 75% chance the spell lands.

12 AC is =14-2. The 12 AC and the -2 save modifier have the same defense.

---

Let's look at an https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Adult%20Red%20Dragon

AC 19
Save AC equivalents (save bonus+14)
Str: 23
Dex: 20
Con: 27
Int: 17
Wis: 21
Cha: 25

If you target int, you get a +2 accuracy over targeting AC. Everything else is worse. (Then, you need to land 3 hits on Int before your spell can actually hurt it)

...not following. Why is the 'save AC' +14? Shouldn't it be +12? Since spell DCs start from 8 while the average roll is 10 (well, 10.5)?

[Eldariel]

A +0 save corresponds to a 14 AC.

Bob the caster has +3 spellcasting attribute and +3 proficiency. Her DC is 8+3+3=14. Her attack modifier is +6.

She blasts a Kobold. +6 vs 12 AC means she needs a 6+, or a 75% chance to hit.
She makes the Kobold do a Strength save (-2). The Kobold needs a 14+2 = 16, so a 25% chance to save; or a 75% chance the spell lands.

12 AC is =14-2. The 12 AC and the -2 save modifier have the same defense.

---

Let's look at an https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Adult%20Red%20Dragon

AC 19
Save AC equivalents (save bonus+14)
Str: 23
Dex: 20
Con: 27
Int: 17
Wis: 21
Cha: 25

If you target int, you get a +2 accuracy over targeting AC. Everything else is worse. (Then, you need to land 3 hits on Int before your spell can actually hurt it)

Like I said, Dragons, Fiends and Celestials are exceptions. That's where targeting saves is generally worse than hitting AC (especially with Legendary Resistance). However, most creatures tend to have crippling weaknesses lacking key proficiencies and not having high scores across the board. That's where the bulk of the save advantage comes in (but as you prove, even in the worst case scenario you tend to have an avenue of attack vs. saves though hitting an enemy with Legendary Resistance or Magic Resistance is generally worse).

[Willie the Duck]

1. Non-casters use their str/dex buff almost every turn, while casters can't use attack/DC spells everyturn. As a result, DC for casters is far less important than attack for non-casters.

Once again, your proposition quite literally does not prove the case you are suggesting it does. It is supporting evidence to it, but insufficient. The percentage of rounds that the stat modifier is used is not the only factor in measuring whether the stat modifier is important. The weight of how powerful the actions which do utilize the attribute towards encounter/challenge resolution is also a factor. A wizard who spends one round casting Misty Step and Mage Hand, another casting Shield and Prestidigitation, and the third round casting Banishment (the only of those spells that utilizes their attribute) may need their casting stat just as much as the fighter who has been attacking all three of those rounds, if that Banishment spell is the action the wizard takes which is their primary contribution towards resolving the encounter.


2. +1 attack & +1 damage VS +1 or fewer attack is the most important reason caster ability+2 is a horrible choice: casters gain very little benefits for high caster score, only +1 attack roll for some spells.
I am trying to be sympathetic, since there clearly is a language gap. However, once again, this isn't actually enhancing or refining your argument at all. We've been over this. Yes, martials get +1 to-hit and +1 to damage per ASI in their supposed main stat, and casters get +1 to their spell-attack/spell save, which they do not use every round. If you want to convinces us, show us how that equates to the the casting stat not being important.


3. I repeated it again, +2 attack roll for some spells don't worth 2 feats, even not worth 1. Never pick intelligence+2 for wizard is not "a hard choice" but a no-brainer unless you are playing sth extremely weird.
Yes, you've repeated the same thing again, without any clear comparison to show that this is the case. You are just reasserting an unsupported opinion. Opinions are great. They are not the same thing as supporting your position with a clear and supporting case.


4. Even if you could prepare and cast all rituals, it not worth a feat. There is a feat that could give you find familar + other wizard rituals, but it's massively underpowered. Cleric/Druid have no find familar, limit the value of their ritual ability to less than 0.3 feat.
Again, this seems to be arbitrary numbers assigned to things. To offer a argument to the contrary: -- Pact of Tome Warlocks get access to a pact-exclusive invocation: Book of Ancient Secrets. It allows the warlock to collect ritual spells from all classes, and have prepared at all times when they have said book (not unlike a wizard with access to their spellbook). Other than 3 any-class cantrips, it is the primary reason to take the Pact of Tome variant of the class. Obviously that's just the designer's indication of how valuable they think ritual spells to be, however it is a piece of supporting evidence. Using this an an example of supporting one's point, do you have a counter-example that you think showcases how ritual spells aren't worth a feat?

[LudicSavant]

...not following. Why is the 'save AC' +14? Shouldn't it be +12? Since spell DCs start from 8 while the average roll is 10 (well, 10.5)?

Yakk is correct on the 'save AC' point. The reason it's not +12 is because for saves, defender wins ties, and for attacks, attacker wins ties. And because whoever's 'rolling' has a minimum roll of 1. So for example if you have +11 prof+stat, you hit AC 14 on all but a 1 or 2 (e.g. 2 results on the d20), and you "hit" a +0 save bonus with your DC19 save if they roll anything other than a 19 or 20 (e.g. 2 results on the d20). It is the same.

That said, if you average up the 'weakest save' for all the monsters and compare it to AC, well... if you can target the monster's weakest save, then you tend to have an advantage over targeting AC. Often a significant one. So Yakk's point does not invalidate Eldariel's.

[Yakk]

Like I said, Dragons, Fiends and Celestials are exceptions. That's where targeting saves is generally worse than hitting AC (especially with Legendary Resistance). However, most creatures tend to have crippling weaknesses lacking key proficiencies and not having high scores across the board. That's where the bulk of the save advantage comes in (but as you prove, even in the worst case scenario you tend to have an avenue of attack vs. saves though hitting an enemy with Legendary Resistance or Magic Resistance is generally worse).
And despite that, the Kobold's worst save is on-par with its AC. It is neither a Dragon, Fiend or Celestial.

Ok, it is time to check random monsters! These are a mixture of iconic D&D monsters, monsters I've recently fought in games, and monsters I have a soft spot for (the champion/diviner, for example, comes from me thinking about using true polymorph on rocks to set up a round table of knights and a court wizard).

Griffon: AC 12 (equivalent to a -2 save modifier). Only stat with a worse defense is Int (-4), but most vs-int spells don't work on int 2 creatures.

Ogre: AC 11 (equivalent to a -3 save modifier). All saves are at least as good.

Hill Giant: AC 13 (-1). Int (-3) is worse.

Medusa: AC 15 (+1). Str (+0) is worse.

Kraken: AC 18 (+4). Nothing is worse.

Ghoul: AC 12 (-2). No save is easier to hit.

Death Knight: AC 20 (+6) and Parry (+6). Has magic resistance; Dex (+0), Int (+1) are probably still easier to hit.

Tarrasque: AC 25 (+9). Int (+5), Dex (+0) are easier to hit.

Fire Elemental: AC 13 (-1). Cha, Int (-2) are easier to hit.

Treant: AC 16 (+2). Dex (-1), Int (+1), Cha (+1) are easier to hit.

Orc: AC 13 (-1). Int (-2) is easier to hit.

Knight: AC 18 (+4). Every save except Con easier to hit.

Champion: AC 18 (+4). Every save except Strength easier to hit, but has 2 save rerolls.

Diviner: AC 12(15) (+1). Str/Con/Cha easier to hit with mage armor up.

Lizardfolk: AC 15 (+1). Dex/Int easier to hit (-2)

TRex: AC 13(-1). Cha/Int easier to hit (but Int is 2, so immune to most int-targetting spells).

There are a few "heavily armored" creatures for whom saves penetrate really well; in the fiction, they are made of rock/bark/covered in platemail or similar.

Everything else from this sample of me literally thinking of "iconic monster that isn't a celestial/dragon/etc", the edge you get from knowing the perfect save is on the order of +1 to hit (sometimes worse, sometimes +2), barring things like Int 2 animals (who are usually immune to vs-int spells).

most of these don't have crippling weaknesses. The worst out of the entire list was a Treant and the Lizardfolk.

[LudicSavant]

And despite that, the Kobold's worst save is on-par with its AC. It is neither a Dragon, Fiend or Celestial.

Griffon: AC 12 (equivalent to a -2 save modifier). Only stat with a worse defense is Int (-4), but most vs-int spells don't work on int 2 creatures.

Ogre: AC 11 (equivalent to a -3 save modifier). All saves are at least as good.

Hill Giant: AC 13 (-1). Int (-3) is worse.

Medusa: AC 15 (+1). Str (+0) is worse.

Kraken: AC 18 (+4). Nothing is worse.

Ghoul: AC 12 (-2). No save is easier to hit.

Death Knight: AC 20 (+6) and Parry (+6). Has magic resistance; Dex (+0), Int (+1) are probably still easier to hit.

Tarrasque: AC 25 (+9). Int (+5), Dex (+0) are easier to hit.

Fire Elemental: AC 13 (-1). Cha, Int (-2) are easier to hit.

Treant: AC 16 (+2). Dex (-1), Int (+1), Cha (+1) are easier to hit.

Orc: AC 13 (-1). Int (-2) is easier to hit.

Knight: AC 18 (+4). Every save except Con easier to hit.

Champion: AC 18 (+4). Every save except Strength easier to hit, but has 2 save rerolls.

Diviner: AC 12(15) (+1). Str/Con/Cha easier to hit with mage armor up.

Lizardfolk: AC 15 (+1). Dex/Int easier to hit.

TRex: AC 13(-1). Cha/Int easier to hit (but Int is 2, so immune to most int-targetting spells).

There are a few "heavily armored" creatures for whom saves penetrate really well; in the fiction, they are made of rock/bark/covered in platemail or similar.

Everything else from this sample of me literally thinking of "iconic monster that isn't a celestial/dragon/etc", the edge you get from knowing the perfect save is on the order of +1 to hit (sometimes worse, sometimes +2), barring things like Int 2 animals (who are usually immune to vs-int spells).

I went through a spreadsheet dataset of 693 monsters, and had it compare 'low saves' to AC, accounting for the "14 save AC" factor and saves were winning out overall.

How much they win out by depends on what CR range we're talking about. But if I set the CR range for a full '0-30' targeting saves had an average advantage of +1.936231884 'to hit.'

[Yakk]

I went through a spreadsheet dataset of 693 monsters, and had it compare 'low saves' to AC, accounting for the "14 save AC" factor and saves were winning out overall.
Now, lets assume the PC doesn't have the monster manual open (or a spreadsheet). Can you compare the 2nd lowest save (the player makes a good guess, but not the best guess), and give a mean/standard deviation of the difference?

You have claimed that most have a crippling weakness. I'm seeing 1 point edge after picking the best save, and ignoring animals with -4 int (who have closer to "no int" than a penalty).

Ideally you'd want to eliminate monsters with magic resistance.

(A problem with average is that every monster with 2 int contributes a lot to the average, and really should be eliminated and the next lowest stat used instead).

...

Actually, a graph would be as useful as a average/SD. Of lowest and 2nd lowest delta with AC.

[LudicSavant]

Can you compare the 2nd lowest save (the player makes a good guess, but not the best guess), and give a mean/standard deviation of the difference?

Hmmm, I'd have to make some alterations to my spreadsheet to measure that. It has a "min save" and "max save" function right now but not a "second worst save" function.

[Yakk]

Hmmm, I'd have to make some alterations to my spreadsheet to measure that. It has a "min save" and "max save" function right now but not a "second worst save" function.
Fair enough!

Then a graph counting how many have a +/-X edge would be interesting and should be easy-ish, no? If a whole pile of the average comes from huge differences, that is a sign that those are worth investigating.

OTOH, if the clump is in the +1-3 edge for Saves, that says something else. (Anomolies, like monsters with 2 int, won't show up there).

A neat statement would be "X% of monsters give a +1 to 3 accuracy advantage using their lowest save compared to vs AC", and that pops right out if you have a histogram graph (either cumulative or not).

[LudicSavant]

I'm going through Google Spreadsheet's function library right now to try and figure out how to do it.

This should probably work: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094050?hl=en

Give me a bit.

[zinycor]

1. Non-casters use their str/dex buff almost every turn, while casters can't use attack/DC spells everyturn. As a result, DC for casters is far less important than attack for non-casters.
2. +1 attack & +1 damage VS +1 or fewer attack is the most important reason caster ability+2 is a horrible choice: casters gain very little benefits for high caster score, only +1 attack roll for some spells.
3. I repeated it again, +2 attack roll for some spells don't worth 2 feats, even not worth 1. Never pick intelligence+2 for wizard is not "a hard choice" but a no-brainer unless you are playing sth extremely weird.
4. Even if you could prepare and cast all rituals, it not worth a feat. There is a feat that could give you find familar + other wizard rituals, but it's massively underpowered. Cleric/Druid have no find familar, limit the value of their ritual ability to less than 0.3 feat.

Well, at this point it seems obvious there is no more point arguing with you. Good luck I wish you the best.

[LudicSavant]

Now, lets assume the PC doesn't have the monster manual open (or a spreadsheet). Can you compare the 2nd lowest save (the player makes a good guess, but not the best guess), and give a mean/standard deviation of the difference?

Okay, just set up the sheet to do that. It seems this makes the difference narrower, but still gives the edge to saving throws.

For example, if I measure all CR 5 monsters in the dataset, the mean difference (after factoring the "14 AC = +0 save" thing) between AC and worst save is 2.37037037, and the mean difference between AC and second worst save is 1.425925926.

If I measure all monster CR 1-20 in the dataset, worst save is at +2.129032258, second worst is at +0.8266129032. Assuming the spreadsheet data I got was correct (I didn't input all the monster stats for this sheet, I just wrote functions to analyze the stats in the dataset I found online).