I have some basic rules for what types of spells I try to use.
Against obviously Weak/sneaky/magical creatures (including all Artificers, Wiz, Sor, and Warlock): To hit / Grapple effects. Earthen Grasp/Watery Sphere/Bigby's Hand
Against Strong/Big creatures - including Fighters, Barbarians and Bards: I try to use a Wisdom save
Paladin and Heavy Armored Clerics = Dexterity Saves
All others (Medium Armored Clerics, Druids, Monks, Rogues, and Rangers) = Constitution saves
Yeah, Int and Charisma saves are great, but they are hard to get. I try to have at least one of each Wis, Dex, Con, and a Grapple effect, available, in addition to a to-hit cantrip.
Do other players disagree? Do you just ignore what you are attacking and go with your favorite spell?
I tend to play classes where I don’t have enough spells to be able to pick and choose like that, so I can’t do what you’re suggesting. I try to have a spell that requires an attack roll, and two that have different saving throws that also do different types of damage so that I usually have a combat spell that’s useful. But I’ve never had enough known spells to be able to pick and choose as much as you do.
As for too 'meta' - Wizards are supposed to be SMART and Clerics/Druids are supposed to be WISE. I could see a claim of 'meta' for a Charisma based caster.
Are you seriously going to suggest a Wizard sees a bunch of Rogues (High Dex + Evasion to negate damage), he would seriously cast a fireball rather than a Stinking Cloud, merely because he likes fire?
You do that in my game and I might have you roll a free Int check to see if your high int character would do something that unintelligent.
There is a difference between a player min-maxing and a character trying to survive the fight.
It's not meta to know what kind of spells work better on certain creatures. That's just smart roleplaying. You'll tend to know that larger creatures are dumber, so Intelligence saves are better on Hill Giants and Rocs.
It also makes sense that you're not going to try to use Thunderous Smite or another STR save spell on an Adult Red Dragon or Tarrasque, it just won't work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It sounds like you're talking about a medium to high level wizard. A lot of casters don't have enough spells known and spells available to get all of these options, especially if they're taking more than just attack spells. Wizards know about twice as many spells as the Charisma casters do. The Wisdom casters know their entire spell book.
Some classes have their go-to spells that are so good that they'll almost always use them, such as Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians for a Cleric.
Your question is best directed at each of the classes, rather than being a more general question.
Obviously, you don't want to do Dex saves against a Monk or a Rogue, so you're not going to see anyone on here saying "when I see a Rogue, I cast Fireball."
But not everyone is playing a Wizard that is completely focused on combat spells. Charisma classes might devote a significant portion of their spells known to spells that help in social situations, for example.
As for me, my Warlock casts Shadow Blade in almost every combat situation. Huge amounts of psychic damage with an attack roll is always a good option. My Warlock doesn't know that many spells because he is a Charisma caster, and social spells and utility spells have taken up most of his known spells.
My Cleric is a Tempest Cleric. She still uses Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians even though those aren't tempest like spells, but the rest of the attack spells she uses are thunder, lightning, and cold damage type spells. A lot of her spells prepared are buffs and cleansing/healing type spells, plus the go-to Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians spells, so the spells she gets from her domain make up much of her possible attack arsenal. She doesn't have access to grapple type spells or strength save type spells or have room in her prepared spells fit those types of spells. She does have gust of wind, which is a strength save, but she's not going to use that against a caster. She's smart enough to care more about the effect of a spell than to care what type of saving throw the enemy would have to do.
She lets the effect of the spell determine what spell she uses more than she cares about what type of saving throw the enemy would have to make. For example, she uses Sleet Storm instead of Gust of Wind when facing enemy casters. Because the effect matters more than what saving throw the enemy has to do.
Neither of my characters is completely focused on attack spells the way an evocation wizard would be. Because neither of my characters is anything like an evocation wizard.
As for too 'meta' - Wizards are supposed to be SMART and Clerics/Druids are supposed to be WISE. I could see a claim of 'meta' for a Charisma based caster.
Are you seriously going to suggest a Wizard sees a bunch of Rogues (High Dex + Evasion to negate damage), he would seriously cast a fireball rather than a Stinking Cloud, merely because he likes fire?
You do that in my game and I might have you roll a free Int check to see if your high int character would do something that unintelligent.
There is a difference between a player min-maxing and a character trying to survive the fight.
Your scenario implies I tried fireball, it didn’t work, I adjusted.
Your original scenario had no such trial and error. Hence, too meta. Thank you for proving my point.
or are you suggesting my outlander/hermit wizard who has never seen a rogue before in his life would just inherently know they have high dex and evasion?
As for too 'meta' - Wizards are supposed to be SMART and Clerics/Druids are supposed to be WISE. I could see a claim of 'meta' for a Charisma based caster.
Are you seriously going to suggest a Wizard sees a bunch of Rogues (High Dex + Evasion to negate damage), he would seriously cast a fireball rather than a Stinking Cloud, merely because he likes fire?
You do that in my game and I might have you roll a free Int check to see if your high int character would do something that unintelligent.
There is a difference between a player min-maxing and a character trying to survive the fight.
Your scenario implies I tried fireball, it didn’t work, I adjusted.
Your original scenario had no such trial and error. Hence, too meta. Thank you for proving my point.
or are you suggesting my outlander/hermit wizard who has never seen a rogue before in his life would just inherently know they have high dex and evasion?
How does a spell caster know that the person in front of him who isn’t wearing any armor and wielding a spear is a rogue, a barbarian, or a monk? Or even another spell caster? And how does a spell caster know in the morning when they’re preparing their spells exactly what they’re going to face that day? Sure, some times they know. But most of the time characters don’t know in advance what they’re going to face that day so they tend to prepare a mix of spells that have some utility, some combat, and some social uses.
I mean, usually it's pretty obvious what kind of things to use. If you're facing some big monster, or some guy in armor or swinging a weapon, they probably have high STR and CON. If you're facing somebody fast or lithe, they've probably got high DEX. If you're facing someone who's humanoid but doesn't look to be in a martial stance, they're probably a spellcaster, take a guess at INT or WIS depending on whether you think they're book-smart or just connected to the world around them. It's usually not rocket science.
So yes, I think a hermit/wizard who sees a guy who is wearing a cloak, wielding a dagger, and is light on their feet, to figure "HMM, the guy's probably pretty agile, but possibly not too strong or strong-willed" (Translated to player-speak, probably high DEX so don't use DEX saves.)
It's not metagaming for your character to look at an enemy and to recognize whether the weapon in the enemy's hands is a strength based weapon, a finesse weapon, or a spellcasting focus. Even a character with a 6 in Intelligence recognizes the difference between a Longsword and a dagger and a druid's staff.
It's incredibly easy to recognize the difference between a strength based character and a character that isn't strength based. It's a bit harder recognizing the difference between a dexterity based player and a caster. But once an enemy does an attack in combat, it should be clear what type of enemy you're facing. If the enemy casts Firebolt, or shoots an arrow, or stabs with a rapier, or swings an axe, there's no mystery anymore.
You do that in my game and I might have you roll a free Int check to see if your high int character would do something that unintelligent.
It doesn't really matter if its the 'smart' choice or not, DMs should never impose this kind of railroading on a character's choice. Do you also pick which melee weapon your players swing with? Which enemy is the best target for them to attack? Etc.
To answer your original question, those are all great calls. To add, if I see a spellcaster concentrating on a dangerous effect then I tend to cast multi-hit spells like Eldritch Blast.
I don't prevent him from doing it. Instead I give him bull about it. "For a second you think 'man, this rogue is going to take no damage from this'."
😑 in my opinion, from a player standpoint, this feels like DM interference in telling a player how to play their character. I would then wonder when next something would come along like that... do I now have to use shape water and ray of frost to break a lock on a door instead of find and subdued the guard with the key, and hide his unconscious/dead body without raising an alarm? Or vice versa?
it feels like the choices I’d have as a player are more limited if my DM did that. I wouldn’t stay in that group personally.
additionally, it might have been a possibility, that I wanted to intentionally throw a spell slot, that would be ineffective at the rogue, along the lines of a “warning shot” to let them know, if they continue what they are doing they will die, and they can still run if they choose. But by the DM interfering in such a manner, it seems that’s not even an option to have my player do either. —- however by the dm giving me bull about my players choices and such... everything gets second guessed.
Though in general response to your question.
I go for damage type versatility more so than save type versatility. And I prefer attack rolls to saving throws.
Mind Spike is a spell I like to throw around a lot too because of its tracking properties
I don't prevent him from doing it. Instead I give him bull about it. "For a second you think 'man, this rogue is going to take no damage from this'."
I did not realize how effective Eldritch Blast was at taking down concentration spells. I will keep that in mind.
It sounds like you're interested in single player D&D rather than multiplayer D&D - especially with your focus on trying to optimize strategies and to always have the right tool for attacking your opponent, even when it isn't thematic. I'm guessing that you're not the type of player that would react well to his teammates intentionally doing a suboptimal strategy just because it is in character or thematic for them.
Wow, everyone seems to have a LOT of assumptions here. A high int Character is going to try to optimize strategies and that should be a major part of his theme. I fully expect other characters to do stupid things, they are not playing someone with an Int of 18 or higher. And when your PCs do anything that is not in character I give them bull on it. Paladin of Vengance letting someone get away with something? You are making a Wisdom check. LG character killing prisoners? Yeah, you get shit for that.
This happens very rarely, most of the people I DM actually Role play their character. Frankly you guys seem a lot more judgemental than I would ever be. Some called me Meta with little reason, others made a bunch of assumptions without warrant. If you did refuse to play with me because I HINTED that the DM thought you were not roleplaying well, well I would be very happy when you left my game.
As for not having enough spells, that is not a problem for Druids, or Clerics at all. They get the same number of spells prepared as a Wizard. Sorcerers can easily get 4 attack spells by 3rd level (2 cantrips, 1 1st and 1 2nd level attack spell). It is true that a Warlocks is very limited, they have a good excuse to avoid this thread.
This is not a question for just wizards, it is a question for people that like to role play characters with an intelligence above 9.
Every single guy AND gal I know criticizes when they watch sports (including e-sports). Man, he should have gone for the field goal. Why didn't you put your Queen down on that King? If this wasn't a movie that cop would NOT have given his gun to the bad guy, he would have shot him. Real people optimize everything. Characters in the game should be trying to do it too for the things they can easily change. Not race or class, but weapons and spells chosen definitely.
P.S. My real problem is with the people that only take race based on class. You never see a Hill Dwarf Wizard. If you do that kind of role playing, I give people bonuses. It might be something as small as an empty Enduring Spellbook handed down by the only other Hill Dwarf Wizard in your home town to his apprentice, but you get something for going against type.
I'll back you up, dude. I firmly believe it's as much within the DM's purview to call out a player for being blatantly inconsistent as it's within his purview to ask, "Are you sure you wanna do that?" to the druid about to Pocahontas-dive off a thousand-foot cliff for the lolz.
Alignment checks are in the PHB for a reason, and it's to help the DM and the players tell a more congruent, immersive story. I don't think an INT check for a stupid spell idea is too different, especially if the DM handles it like "I'm pointing this out because it's for your benefit. You're welcome to act out of character, but for the narrative's sake, you gotta legitimize it with RP or a bad dice roll." I mean, heck, if my DM can make me roll an INT check to see if I'm smart enough to figure something out, it stands to reason he can ask me for an INT check to see if I'm dumb enough not to. It's just the other side of the coin.
When you don't have these character consistency checks, you wind up with Luke Skywalker randomly turning into some angry hermit in The Last Jedi, and now the fandom is convinced you ruined his character AND the story. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
P.S. I'm a tiefling ranger! Probably the most useless race-class combo there is, and my stats are almost complete trash from bad rolls, but she's the best character I've ever played.
Every single guy AND gal I know criticizes when they watch sports (including e-sports). Man, he should have gone for the field goal. Why didn't you put your Queen down on that King? If this wasn't a movie that cop would NOT have given his gun to the bad guy, he would have shot him. Real people optimize everything. Characters in the game should be trying to do it too for the things they can easily change. Not race or class, but weapons and spells chosen definitely.
Actually, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. Real people do almost everything suboptimally. It's why other people criticize their decisions. Why did the Seahawks throw the football at the 1 yard line in the super bowl? Because a human made the decision. Not a clueless unintelligent human. But a human that is an expert at making decisions like that one. If all of the experts made the optimal decisions, we wouldn't have anything to second guess. But it's the fact that people (even experts) do things suboptimally that lets us question their decisions.
Clerics and Druids usually focus more on restoration magic than Wizards do. It's part of the "role playing your character" that you're so interested in people doing. But for somebody to role play their character in a way that doesn't fit your min-maxing power gamer view of how they should play THEIR character, you mock their intelligence. You're clearly a power hungry DM that tries to control how his players play. If your players are still playing for you, that style apparently works for your group where they like a dictator DM that needs people to sit at his table while he does his single player D&D game with them as spectators.
You need to relax and let your players play suboptimally. If the atmosphere of your game is one of a min-maxing competition where the main goal is strategy and trying to do everything optimally, it's no surprise that your players aren't trying out more unorthodox strategies. If you want a Hill Dwarf Wizard in your gaming group, then you need to create an atmosphere where somebody can play in a way that you think is suboptimal. If you're obsessed with optimizing everything, no wonder no one wants to play a Hill Dwarf Wizard.
I like having Silence in my arsenal for use against enemy mages. It's also handy if you need to do a little B&E and you don't want to have to worry about the guards waking up when your barbarian has to knock down the door after the rogue's lockpick tools break.
I personally hate spells that require saving throws for the purely irrational reason that I'm not in control of the outcome because I'm not the person rolling the die. Unfortunately, I play a Wisdom caster...so attack roll spells are hard to come by. I take them when I can.
Wow, everyone seems to have a LOT of assumptions here. A high int Character is going to try to optimize strategies and that should be a major part of his theme. I fully expect other characters to do stupid things, they are not playing someone with an Int of 18 or higher. And when your PCs do anything that is not in character I give them bull on it. Paladin of Vengance letting someone get away with something? You are making a Wisdom check. LG character killing prisoners? Yeah, you get shit for that.
This happens very rarely, most of the people I DM actually Role play their character. Frankly you guys seem a lot more judgemental than I would ever be. Some called me Meta with little reason, others made a bunch of assumptions without warrant. If you did refuse to play with me because I HINTED that the DM thought you were not roleplaying well, well I would be very happy when you left my game.
As for not having enough spells, that is not a problem for Druids, or Clerics at all. They get the same number of spells prepared as a Wizard. Sorcerers can easily get 4 attack spells by 3rd level (2 cantrips, 1 1st and 1 2nd level attack spell). It is true that a Warlocks is very limited, they have a good excuse to avoid this thread.
This is not a question for just wizards, it is a question for people that like to role play characters with an intelligence above 9.
Every single guy AND gal I know criticizes when they watch sports (including e-sports). Man, he should have gone for the field goal. Why didn't you put your Queen down on that King? If this wasn't a movie that cop would NOT have given his gun to the bad guy, he would have shot him. Real people optimize everything. Characters in the game should be trying to do it too for the things they can easily change. Not race or class, but weapons and spells chosen definitely.
P.S. My real problem is with the people that only take race based on class. You never see a Hill Dwarf Wizard. If you do that kind of role playing, I give people bonuses. It might be something as small as an empty Enduring Spellbook handed down by the only other Hill Dwarf Wizard in your home town to his apprentice, but you get something for going against type.
what would you consider an 18 int equivalent? A 10 int?
what int is it to eat tide pods? To think putting bleach in your bloodstream will cure Covid 19?
a character with an 18 int, doesn’t mean the person who rolled the 18 int char, isn’t a real life Forrest Gump.
the pot is calling the kettle black saying everyone is making a lot of assumptions, when I see your entire argument is based off the assumption that smart characters with a high int are incapable of doing dumb things.
i will say maybe you are not a power gamer single player D&D style dm like the one guy is calling you. But it may well be that you think you are smarter than everyone else at your table, and therefore you cannot possibly be wrong.
i dunno. I don’t know you, I haven’t played with you.
i said “for me personally” the scenario described in your original post which contained no mention of backgrounds, levels, having seen the enemy types before, etc. BUT where it looked like a “pre-session planning out for any possible scenario ahead of time to prepare and do an action no matter what” (which is not role playing) way of setting up the spells, felt “too meta” for me. I still stand by my comment. You then jumped down my throat for saying it was too meta. Then went on how you would do something, that’s akin to telling a player how to play their character, for a character doing something that was “sub-optimal” from your point of view.
the paladin of vengeance scenario. Maybe they found that the campaign and role play and direction they wanted to take their paladin is different from vengeance, and as a result they aren’t so vengeance based and are on their way to becoming an Oathbreaker before swearing a new and different paladin oath.
Lawful good player killing prisoners. Okay. Are the prisoners completely innocent people? Does killing them save more lives? Is there a specific reason the LG character is killing them? Or is the LG char just role playing their character In Such a way that their character evolves and the alignment changes once-twice-several times over the course of the campaign?
again, both of these scenarios you provided are vague, don’t give much information, and you seem to have a very clear assumption of what should and should not happen in those situations, and how the player should player their characters there. That does seem like railroading the players choices to me.
I have some basic rules for what types of spells I try to use.
Yeah, Int and Charisma saves are great, but they are hard to get. I try to have at least one of each Wis, Dex, Con, and a Grapple effect, available, in addition to a to-hit cantrip.
Do other players disagree? Do you just ignore what you are attacking and go with your favorite spell?
I tend to play classes where I don’t have enough spells to be able to pick and choose like that, so I can’t do what you’re suggesting. I try to have a spell that requires an attack roll, and two that have different saving throws that also do different types of damage so that I usually have a combat spell that’s useful. But I’ve never had enough known spells to be able to pick and choose as much as you do.
Professional computer geek
I disagree. But only because that feels too “meta” to me.
i just use the spells that I pick to fit the theme of my character of who he is and how he would act.
Watch me on twitch
That's a vote for Favorite spell.
As for too 'meta' - Wizards are supposed to be SMART and Clerics/Druids are supposed to be WISE. I could see a claim of 'meta' for a Charisma based caster.
Are you seriously going to suggest a Wizard sees a bunch of Rogues (High Dex + Evasion to negate damage), he would seriously cast a fireball rather than a Stinking Cloud, merely because he likes fire?
You do that in my game and I might have you roll a free Int check to see if your high int character would do something that unintelligent.
There is a difference between a player min-maxing and a character trying to survive the fight.
It's not meta to know what kind of spells work better on certain creatures. That's just smart roleplaying. You'll tend to know that larger creatures are dumber, so Intelligence saves are better on Hill Giants and Rocs.
It also makes sense that you're not going to try to use Thunderous Smite or another STR save spell on an Adult Red Dragon or Tarrasque, it just won't work.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It sounds like you're talking about a medium to high level wizard. A lot of casters don't have enough spells known and spells available to get all of these options, especially if they're taking more than just attack spells. Wizards know about twice as many spells as the Charisma casters do. The Wisdom casters know their entire spell book.
Some classes have their go-to spells that are so good that they'll almost always use them, such as Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians for a Cleric.
Your question is best directed at each of the classes, rather than being a more general question.
Obviously, you don't want to do Dex saves against a Monk or a Rogue, so you're not going to see anyone on here saying "when I see a Rogue, I cast Fireball."
But not everyone is playing a Wizard that is completely focused on combat spells. Charisma classes might devote a significant portion of their spells known to spells that help in social situations, for example.
As for me, my Warlock casts Shadow Blade in almost every combat situation. Huge amounts of psychic damage with an attack roll is always a good option. My Warlock doesn't know that many spells because he is a Charisma caster, and social spells and utility spells have taken up most of his known spells.
My Cleric is a Tempest Cleric. She still uses Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians even though those aren't tempest like spells, but the rest of the attack spells she uses are thunder, lightning, and cold damage type spells. A lot of her spells prepared are buffs and cleansing/healing type spells, plus the go-to Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians spells, so the spells she gets from her domain make up much of her possible attack arsenal. She doesn't have access to grapple type spells or strength save type spells or have room in her prepared spells fit those types of spells. She does have gust of wind, which is a strength save, but she's not going to use that against a caster. She's smart enough to care more about the effect of a spell than to care what type of saving throw the enemy would have to do.
She lets the effect of the spell determine what spell she uses more than she cares about what type of saving throw the enemy would have to make. For example, she uses Sleet Storm instead of Gust of Wind when facing enemy casters. Because the effect matters more than what saving throw the enemy has to do.
Neither of my characters is completely focused on attack spells the way an evocation wizard would be. Because neither of my characters is anything like an evocation wizard.
Your scenario implies I tried fireball, it didn’t work, I adjusted.
Your original scenario had no such trial and error. Hence, too meta. Thank you for proving my point.
or are you suggesting my outlander/hermit wizard who has never seen a rogue before in his life would just inherently know they have high dex and evasion?
Watch me on twitch
How does a spell caster know that the person in front of him who isn’t wearing any armor and wielding a spear is a rogue, a barbarian, or a monk? Or even another spell caster? And how does a spell caster know in the morning when they’re preparing their spells exactly what they’re going to face that day? Sure, some times they know. But most of the time characters don’t know in advance what they’re going to face that day so they tend to prepare a mix of spells that have some utility, some combat, and some social uses.
Professional computer geek
I mean, usually it's pretty obvious what kind of things to use. If you're facing some big monster, or some guy in armor or swinging a weapon, they probably have high STR and CON. If you're facing somebody fast or lithe, they've probably got high DEX. If you're facing someone who's humanoid but doesn't look to be in a martial stance, they're probably a spellcaster, take a guess at INT or WIS depending on whether you think they're book-smart or just connected to the world around them. It's usually not rocket science.
So yes, I think a hermit/wizard who sees a guy who is wearing a cloak, wielding a dagger, and is light on their feet, to figure "HMM, the guy's probably pretty agile, but possibly not too strong or strong-willed" (Translated to player-speak, probably high DEX so don't use DEX saves.)
It's not metagaming for your character to look at an enemy and to recognize whether the weapon in the enemy's hands is a strength based weapon, a finesse weapon, or a spellcasting focus. Even a character with a 6 in Intelligence recognizes the difference between a Longsword and a dagger and a druid's staff.
It's incredibly easy to recognize the difference between a strength based character and a character that isn't strength based. It's a bit harder recognizing the difference between a dexterity based player and a caster. But once an enemy does an attack in combat, it should be clear what type of enemy you're facing. If the enemy casts Firebolt, or shoots an arrow, or stabs with a rapier, or swings an axe, there's no mystery anymore.
It doesn't really matter if its the 'smart' choice or not, DMs should never impose this kind of railroading on a character's choice. Do you also pick which melee weapon your players swing with? Which enemy is the best target for them to attack? Etc.
To answer your original question, those are all great calls. To add, if I see a spellcaster concentrating on a dangerous effect then I tend to cast multi-hit spells like Eldritch Blast.
I don't prevent him from doing it. Instead I give him bull about it. "For a second you think 'man, this rogue is going to take no damage from this'."
I did not realize how effective Eldritch Blast was at taking down concentration spells. I will keep that in mind.
😑 in my opinion, from a player standpoint, this feels like DM interference in telling a player how to play their character. I would then wonder when next something would come along like that... do I now have to use shape water and ray of frost to break a lock on a door instead of find and subdued the guard with the key, and hide his unconscious/dead body without raising an alarm? Or vice versa?
it feels like the choices I’d have as a player are more limited if my DM did that. I wouldn’t stay in that group personally.
additionally, it might have been a possibility, that I wanted to intentionally throw a spell slot, that would be ineffective at the rogue, along the lines of a “warning shot” to let them know, if they continue what they are doing they will die, and they can still run if they choose. But by the DM interfering in such a manner, it seems that’s not even an option to have my player do either. —- however by the dm giving me bull about my players choices and such... everything gets second guessed.
Though in general response to your question.
I go for damage type versatility more so than save type versatility. And I prefer attack rolls to saving throws.
Mind Spike is a spell I like to throw around a lot too because of its tracking properties
Watch me on twitch
It sounds like you're interested in single player D&D rather than multiplayer D&D - especially with your focus on trying to optimize strategies and to always have the right tool for attacking your opponent, even when it isn't thematic. I'm guessing that you're not the type of player that would react well to his teammates intentionally doing a suboptimal strategy just because it is in character or thematic for them.
Wow, everyone seems to have a LOT of assumptions here. A high int Character is going to try to optimize strategies and that should be a major part of his theme. I fully expect other characters to do stupid things, they are not playing someone with an Int of 18 or higher. And when your PCs do anything that is not in character I give them bull on it. Paladin of Vengance letting someone get away with something? You are making a Wisdom check. LG character killing prisoners? Yeah, you get shit for that.
This happens very rarely, most of the people I DM actually Role play their character. Frankly you guys seem a lot more judgemental than I would ever be. Some called me Meta with little reason, others made a bunch of assumptions without warrant. If you did refuse to play with me because I HINTED that the DM thought you were not roleplaying well, well I would be very happy when you left my game.
As for not having enough spells, that is not a problem for Druids, or Clerics at all. They get the same number of spells prepared as a Wizard. Sorcerers can easily get 4 attack spells by 3rd level (2 cantrips, 1 1st and 1 2nd level attack spell). It is true that a Warlocks is very limited, they have a good excuse to avoid this thread.
This is not a question for just wizards, it is a question for people that like to role play characters with an intelligence above 9.
Every single guy AND gal I know criticizes when they watch sports (including e-sports). Man, he should have gone for the field goal. Why didn't you put your Queen down on that King? If this wasn't a movie that cop would NOT have given his gun to the bad guy, he would have shot him. Real people optimize everything. Characters in the game should be trying to do it too for the things they can easily change. Not race or class, but weapons and spells chosen definitely.
P.S. My real problem is with the people that only take race based on class. You never see a Hill Dwarf Wizard. If you do that kind of role playing, I give people bonuses. It might be something as small as an empty Enduring Spellbook handed down by the only other Hill Dwarf Wizard in your home town to his apprentice, but you get something for going against type.
@Mog_Dracov
I'll back you up, dude. I firmly believe it's as much within the DM's purview to call out a player for being blatantly inconsistent as it's within his purview to ask, "Are you sure you wanna do that?" to the druid about to Pocahontas-dive off a thousand-foot cliff for the lolz.
Alignment checks are in the PHB for a reason, and it's to help the DM and the players tell a more congruent, immersive story. I don't think an INT check for a stupid spell idea is too different, especially if the DM handles it like "I'm pointing this out because it's for your benefit. You're welcome to act out of character, but for the narrative's sake, you gotta legitimize it with RP or a bad dice roll." I mean, heck, if my DM can make me roll an INT check to see if I'm smart enough to figure something out, it stands to reason he can ask me for an INT check to see if I'm dumb enough not to. It's just the other side of the coin.
When you don't have these character consistency checks, you wind up with Luke Skywalker randomly turning into some angry hermit in The Last Jedi, and now the fandom is convinced you ruined his character AND the story. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
P.S. I'm a tiefling ranger! Probably the most useless race-class combo there is, and my stats are almost complete trash from bad rolls, but she's the best character I've ever played.
Actually, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. Real people do almost everything suboptimally. It's why other people criticize their decisions. Why did the Seahawks throw the football at the 1 yard line in the super bowl? Because a human made the decision. Not a clueless unintelligent human. But a human that is an expert at making decisions like that one. If all of the experts made the optimal decisions, we wouldn't have anything to second guess. But it's the fact that people (even experts) do things suboptimally that lets us question their decisions.
Clerics and Druids usually focus more on restoration magic than Wizards do. It's part of the "role playing your character" that you're so interested in people doing. But for somebody to role play their character in a way that doesn't fit your min-maxing power gamer view of how they should play THEIR character, you mock their intelligence. You're clearly a power hungry DM that tries to control how his players play. If your players are still playing for you, that style apparently works for your group where they like a dictator DM that needs people to sit at his table while he does his single player D&D game with them as spectators.
You need to relax and let your players play suboptimally. If the atmosphere of your game is one of a min-maxing competition where the main goal is strategy and trying to do everything optimally, it's no surprise that your players aren't trying out more unorthodox strategies. If you want a Hill Dwarf Wizard in your gaming group, then you need to create an atmosphere where somebody can play in a way that you think is suboptimal. If you're obsessed with optimizing everything, no wonder no one wants to play a Hill Dwarf Wizard.
Anyway, to get back to the OP's question:
I like having Silence in my arsenal for use against enemy mages. It's also handy if you need to do a little B&E and you don't want to have to worry about the guards waking up when your barbarian has to knock down the door after the rogue's lockpick tools break.
I personally hate spells that require saving throws for the purely irrational reason that I'm not in control of the outcome because I'm not the person rolling the die. Unfortunately, I play a Wisdom caster...so attack roll spells are hard to come by. I take them when I can.
what would you consider an 18 int equivalent? A 10 int?
what int is it to eat tide pods? To think putting bleach in your bloodstream will cure Covid 19?
a character with an 18 int, doesn’t mean the person who rolled the 18 int char, isn’t a real life Forrest Gump.
the pot is calling the kettle black saying everyone is making a lot of assumptions, when I see your entire argument is based off the assumption that smart characters with a high int are incapable of doing dumb things.
i will say maybe you are not a power gamer single player D&D style dm like the one guy is calling you. But it may well be that you think you are smarter than everyone else at your table, and therefore you cannot possibly be wrong.
i dunno. I don’t know you, I haven’t played with you.
i said “for me personally” the scenario described in your original post which contained no mention of backgrounds, levels, having seen the enemy types before, etc. BUT where it looked like a “pre-session planning out for any possible scenario ahead of time to prepare and do an action no matter what” (which is not role playing) way of setting up the spells, felt “too meta” for me. I still stand by my comment. You then jumped down my throat for saying it was too meta. Then went on how you would do something, that’s akin to telling a player how to play their character, for a character doing something that was “sub-optimal” from your point of view.
the paladin of vengeance scenario. Maybe they found that the campaign and role play and direction they wanted to take their paladin is different from vengeance, and as a result they aren’t so vengeance based and are on their way to becoming an Oathbreaker before swearing a new and different paladin oath.
Lawful good player killing prisoners. Okay. Are the prisoners completely innocent people? Does killing them save more lives? Is there a specific reason the LG character is killing them? Or is the LG char just role playing their character In Such a way that their character evolves and the alignment changes once-twice-several times over the course of the campaign?
again, both of these scenarios you provided are vague, don’t give much information, and you seem to have a very clear assumption of what should and should not happen in those situations, and how the player should player their characters there. That does seem like railroading the players choices to me.
Watch me on twitch