So I know math can be used to inform this discussion, unfortunately, I not so good at the maths.
When the spellcasting attribute is raised the dc for all spell saving throws go up, rising from 13 for most characters to 15 before shenanigans involving tomes and such get involved.
While knowing whether there are any other methods to increase the saving throws would be helpful, what I'm looking for is how imperative it is to raise the spellcasting attribute to the maximum. Monster's ability to save will vary a bit, especially across particular saving throws, but many monsters will have a "strong" and a "weak" saving throw. Using these parameters as the low and high bands, we might be able to parse out something like a "average" saving throw mod by tier (Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, etc.)
What I'm looking for is whether taking a feat at 4th level puts my spellcasting character so far behind on saving throws that I should always take the attribute bump first or not.
Simply - taking an ASI to increase main stat will increase your save DC by 1. This means every enemy you use a saving throw spell against will need to roll 1 higher on their dice than they would have if you didn't take the ASI. That's really all there is to it.
It essentially will drop their chance to succeed by 5%.
It is usually best to use spells that still do something on save anyway. Or choose a spell with a save you think the target might be bad at.
But if you are concerned with your DCs, based on looking at monster stats, 1 skip won't hurt your averages too much, but you will want to max out your Spellcasting ability by level 12 to stay even with stronger monsters.
I think somewhere on the wider internet I saw a statistical analysis of monsters, but I didn’t really find it all that helpful for anything — including the question you asked (I think all CR’s were lumped together). If I recall, every stat had and average plus that ranged from ~1.6 to ~3.3. The real takeaway from the analysis that I got was a note that the authors made that monsters tended to sort of have “tells:” big strong monsters tend to be slow (low dex) and dumb (low int).
The problem is, missing a spell save punishes a caster far more than missing an attack punishes a martial character, since the spell (1) usually involves burning a spell slot (most of which are long rest resources), and (2) often represents a casters full round in combat, unlike a martial who may have multiple attacks per attack action or even a bonus action attack to still try again. “Hitting” on 11 or above feels pretty good as a martial, but “beating saves” on a 10 or below feels risky and frustrating for a caster.
Im on my phone and can’t do tier math at the moment or sample monsters, but my feel is... yes, casters should almost ALWAYS max their spellcasting modifier before considering any cool tricks from feats, not because the math of +1=+5% is different but because the cost of a missed spell is so high, while martial characters are much freer to spread out into stupid party tricks.
This is why a caster should diversify their selections. You should choose spells that are likely to work on some creatures or have effects no matter what. Some of the best spells in the game have no saves. But you are right, increasing the casting bonus has a dramatic effect on casting.
Here is how I think of improvements to hit (or fail) chance: Do you care about the percent of the total that you hit or do you care about the misses that are now hits? Each point of spell save DC improvement reduces your chance to miss by more and more. If you go from "fail on 10 or lower" to "fail on 11 or lower" that means the spell is 10% improved, as you have 10% less "misses." If we are in the situation where a creature "fails on 10 or lower" then 10% of the time that he saves, it will be because that creature rolled an 11. If we eliminate 11 from being a save, then 10% of the times that he used to save, he will now fail. With each bonus (or DC) improvement that you make, this gets better and better for you. If we go from "save on 11 or lower" to "save on 12 or lower" then we just took the creature's 9 opportunities to save and reduced them to 8 - an 11% improvement for us. As we continue, we go to 12.5%, 14.3%, 16.7%, etc.
If you only care about the d20 rolls that net you a positive outcome, then yes +1 = 5%.
It essentially will drop their chance to succeed by 5%.
Another way to look at it: If a monster needed to roll a 10 or higher, they'll now need to roll an 11 or higher - so they go from having 10/20 to a 11/20 chance of failing (and you succeeding). That means they'll fail their saving throw 55%/50% = 10% more often than they otherwise would. The exact number differs based on what the monster needed to roll originally (ie the difference between your DC and their bonus), but the basic idea is sound.
The higher the enemy's saving throw bonus, the more a +1 is worth it from an 'alter their chance to succeed' stance - until the enemy's saving throw bonus is high enough that it beats your DC without adding the die to it at all, at which point a +1 is worthless. When it's not worthless it always makes you more than 5% more likely to succeed on your spell/5% more likely for them to fail to succeed against the DC.
If a monster needed to roll a 10 or higher, they'll now need to roll an 11 or higher - so they go from having 10/20 to a 11/20 chance of failing (and you succeeding).
Just a small point. A roll requiring 11 or higher is 50% chance of success. 1-10 (failing) = 10 numbers. 11-20 (succeeding) = 10 numbers.
There's always saving throw bonuses to account for. Even if they roll a 3, and the caster has a DC of 11, they can have a +10 bonus. Although that may make statistics impossible for this question, since bonuses are varying.
There's always saving throw bonuses to account for. Even if they roll a 3, and the caster has a DC of 11, they can have a +10 bonus. Although that may make statistics impossible for this question, since bonuses are varying.
Sure. In my discussion, “fail on a 10 or lower” assumes all bonuses and penalties accounted for (and unchanging).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I know math can be used to inform this discussion, unfortunately, I not so good at the maths.
When the spellcasting attribute is raised the dc for all spell saving throws go up, rising from 13 for most characters to 15 before shenanigans involving tomes and such get involved.
While knowing whether there are any other methods to increase the saving throws would be helpful, what I'm looking for is how imperative it is to raise the spellcasting attribute to the maximum. Monster's ability to save will vary a bit, especially across particular saving throws, but many monsters will have a "strong" and a "weak" saving throw. Using these parameters as the low and high bands, we might be able to parse out something like a "average" saving throw mod by tier (Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, etc.)
What I'm looking for is whether taking a feat at 4th level puts my spellcasting character so far behind on saving throws that I should always take the attribute bump first or not.
Simply - taking an ASI to increase main stat will increase your save DC by 1. This means every enemy you use a saving throw spell against will need to roll 1 higher on their dice than they would have if you didn't take the ASI. That's really all there is to it.
It essentially will drop their chance to succeed by 5%.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
It is usually best to use spells that still do something on save anyway. Or choose a spell with a save you think the target might be bad at.
But if you are concerned with your DCs, based on looking at monster stats, 1 skip won't hurt your averages too much, but you will want to max out your Spellcasting ability by level 12 to stay even with stronger monsters.
I think somewhere on the wider internet I saw a statistical analysis of monsters, but I didn’t really find it all that helpful for anything — including the question you asked (I think all CR’s were lumped together). If I recall, every stat had and average plus that ranged from ~1.6 to ~3.3. The real takeaway from the analysis that I got was a note that the authors made that monsters tended to sort of have “tells:” big strong monsters tend to be slow (low dex) and dumb (low int).
The problem is, missing a spell save punishes a caster far more than missing an attack punishes a martial character, since the spell (1) usually involves burning a spell slot (most of which are long rest resources), and (2) often represents a casters full round in combat, unlike a martial who may have multiple attacks per attack action or even a bonus action attack to still try again. “Hitting” on 11 or above feels pretty good as a martial, but “beating saves” on a 10 or below feels risky and frustrating for a caster.
Im on my phone and can’t do tier math at the moment or sample monsters, but my feel is... yes, casters should almost ALWAYS max their spellcasting modifier before considering any cool tricks from feats, not because the math of +1=+5% is different but because the cost of a missed spell is so high, while martial characters are much freer to spread out into stupid party tricks.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This is why a caster should diversify their selections. You should choose spells that are likely to work on some creatures or have effects no matter what. Some of the best spells in the game have no saves. But you are right, increasing the casting bonus has a dramatic effect on casting.
Here is how I think of improvements to hit (or fail) chance: Do you care about the percent of the total that you hit or do you care about the misses that are now hits? Each point of spell save DC improvement reduces your chance to miss by more and more. If you go from "fail on 10 or lower" to "fail on 11 or lower" that means the spell is 10% improved, as you have 10% less "misses." If we are in the situation where a creature "fails on 10 or lower" then 10% of the time that he saves, it will be because that creature rolled an 11. If we eliminate 11 from being a save, then 10% of the times that he used to save, he will now fail. With each bonus (or DC) improvement that you make, this gets better and better for you. If we go from "save on 11 or lower" to "save on 12 or lower" then we just took the creature's 9 opportunities to save and reduced them to 8 - an 11% improvement for us. As we continue, we go to 12.5%, 14.3%, 16.7%, etc.
If you only care about the d20 rolls that net you a positive outcome, then yes +1 = 5%.
Another way to look at it: If a monster needed to roll a 10 or higher, they'll now need to roll an 11 or higher - so they go from having 10/20 to a 11/20 chance of failing (and you succeeding). That means they'll fail their saving throw 55%/50% = 10% more often than they otherwise would. The exact number differs based on what the monster needed to roll originally (ie the difference between your DC and their bonus), but the basic idea is sound.
The higher the enemy's saving throw bonus, the more a +1 is worth it from an 'alter their chance to succeed' stance - until the enemy's saving throw bonus is high enough that it beats your DC without adding the die to it at all, at which point a +1 is worthless. When it's not worthless it always makes you more than 5% more likely to succeed on your spell/5% more likely for them to fail to succeed against the DC.
Just a small point. A roll requiring 11 or higher is 50% chance of success. 1-10 (failing) = 10 numbers. 11-20 (succeeding) = 10 numbers.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
There's always saving throw bonuses to account for. Even if they roll a 3, and the caster has a DC of 11, they can have a +10 bonus. Although that may make statistics impossible for this question, since bonuses are varying.
Also known as CrafterB and DankMemer.
Here, have some homebrew classes! Subclasses to? Why not races. Feats, feats as well. I have a lot of magic items. Lastly I got monsters, fun, fun times.
Sure. In my discussion, “fail on a 10 or lower” assumes all bonuses and penalties accounted for (and unchanging).