Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9626847" data-attributes="member: 7037866">Well, I was hoping to avoid the maths of it, but IME you are certainly on the right track.Generally, opponent AC by tier averages out to 13, 15, 17, 19. Attack bonuses by PC average (by tier) to +5, +7, +9, +11. So, it holds fairly universally that the chance of a typical PC succeeding in their primary attack is 65%. Now, there are lots of ways to improve attack chances: advantage, class features, bless and other magic, magical items, etc.; so, while 65% is an established baseline, IME it is often higher and closer to 75-80% in practice. Of course there will be the rare outliers, who are AC 18 in tier 1, for instance, but those are offset by the other end with zombies, etc. with lower than 13 ACs. In the long term, it all balances out IMO.Now, for saving throws, the DCs mirror opponent ACs by tier: 13, 15, 17, 19 (if not a bit quicker since these are typically PC-side). Given most creatures have about +0 to +2 in an ability in which they are not proficient in a save, we have to take those into account and I'll assume an average of +1. It is a foolish (or desperate) player who uses a save vs. spell against a creature they know is strong in that ability or has proficiency in a save!Non-proficient saves: at +1, that means the opponent has to roll (by tier) 12, 14, 16, or 18 to succeed. At tier 1, they are more likely to make the save (45%) than be missed by an attack (assuming average AC 13). Attacks have a slight edge. By the time tier 2 rolls around, things even out (65% chance failed save and 65% PC will hit that opponent with an attack). The shift continues in tier 3 to favor saves if attacks have no extra assistance! However, this is rarely the case. At best, the two are roughly still even, but often the favor still lies in attacks due to assistance which saves rarely get. Finally, in tier 4 saves are failed 85% of the time when not proficient. Since most attacks will benefit from assistance, you might have a slight edge in favor of saves at this point.Overall, I think you'll find a slight favor in attack cantrips over save cantrips. However, part of that also depends on if the DM uses the half-cover rule for firing a cantrip into melee, etc. Effectively a -2 penalty to the attack, this makes saves look more appealing. The character build is also an issue, of course. I had a character with three cantrips, one for DEX save, CON save, and WIS save each. Depending on who my foe was, I would target their weakest save and generally use that cantrip. It was very effective.IMO there is no clear "one is better than the other". Too much depends on what your goal is, your character build, how your table plays the game, and so on. As I mentioned upthread I like a lot of the riders save cantrips get, but I have played PCs who focus on attack cantrips instead because it suits them better. Many players do so with feat like elven accuracy, spells like bless, or just having advantage through flanking if your table uses it.I don't know if all that will be much help to you or not, but I hope so.</blockquote>

Verification