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

[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?

[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.