Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6981219" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Out of curiosity, why do you say that Poison Spray is "slightly more likely to do damage"? Most monsters that I can think of are less likely to take damage from Poison Spray than from an attack--you can think of a Con save +0 as mathematically equivalent to AC 14, and every +1 of Con is like +1 to AC. E.g. an Int 18 5th level spellcaster has +7 to attacks and DC (8+7) 15 on his spells; vs. an AC 13 Orc, he has a 25% chance to miss. But the orc has a 45% chance to succeed on his Con save (+3 to Con), which is the same as the miss chance if the Orc were actually AC (14+3) 17.The Orc is a tiny bit of an outlier but not that much. A Goblin is AC 15 and Con save +0 (Poison Spray is slightly better than an attack), a Chuul is AC 16 and Con save +3 (attack is slightly better than Poison Spray), a T-Rex is AC 13 and Con save +4 (attack is much better than Poison Spray), a Displacer Beast is AC 13 with disadvantage and Con save +3 (attack is very slightly better than Poison Spray, about 1%), a Mind Flayer is AC 15 and Con save +1 with advantage (attack is much better than Poison Spray), etc.Overall it seems that attacks are better than Con saves. Do you disagree, and if so, why?</blockquote>