D&D 5E Spells with attack rolls, do you avoid them?

[Zaran]

Play in character, earn inspiration, use attack roll spells with advantage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Play in character, earn inspiration, use attack roll spells with advantage.

that really doesn't solve or address the issue. Firstly, you have to be playing in a group that even uses inspiration. Secondly, then you're dependent on whether or not the DM feels like granting you inspiration. And thirdly, you can only ever have 1 inspiration point at a time. So when you're dealing with the potential concern of having half your spells miss (and be wasted) because you need an attack roll, one very highly situational factor that also happens to be out of your control that only impacts one of your spells isn't going to resolve that concern.

 

[rjfTrebor]

i never gave much thought to it and i've been having fun with casters for quite a while. it does suck to miss with a ray of sickness, but it doesn't really seem like the disparity is enough to notice during a regular campaign.

 

[Zaran]

That's just one way of gaining advantage though. Familiars can use the Help action to grant advantage . The best use of Attack rolls spells is to wait until you have advantage. Yes, you can still miss. But a hold person spell can fail to work too. Also, if you don't have a great spellcasting stat or tend to Stork your rolls then don't get those type of spells.

 

[Pickles JG]

I avoid them like I avoid no effect on a save spells, or I would if I played not DMed. Too swingy for my taste. I find something like level 4 hold person with 3 targets I more palatable.


Or buffs etc

 

[Croesus]

One of the things I'm noticing with 5E is that very few spells are automatic.
- Attack roll. Might miss the target (or I might crit )
- Saving throw. Target might make the save.
- Concentration. Might be hit and blow the Con save.

That's the nature of the beast with this edition and is probably a big reason why encounters seem to be so swingy. Most of the time, characters don't have an option that's automatic, or if they do, it's a sub-par option. So managing the odds becomes important - gaining advantage, denying it to others, knowing when to take a risk and when to hold back.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's just one way of gaining advantage though. Familiars can use the Help action to grant advantage . The best use of Attack rolls spells is to wait until you have advantage. Yes, you can still miss. But a hold person spell can fail to work too. Also, if you don't have a great spellcasting stat or tend to Stork your rolls then don't get those type of spells.

I don't think familiars are meant to be used to grant advantage on all spell attack rolls via the help action. Seeing as how they can't attack themselves, they can't really help in that action either. And advantage on spell attacks doesn't happen very often at all unless you use something like true strike every other round.

 

[EroGaki]

Other than cantrips, I avoid attck rolls like the plague; this edition grants too few spells to waste them. I've also avoided most spells that don't have an effect on a failed save. My group has started calling me the Scrooge of Spellcasters because I rarely "spend" any spell energy anymore unless I'm sure it will succeed/have some sort of effect.

Playing a diviner, I'll use my portent to have someone autofail, or to have an attack spell auto hit. But outside that, nope, nope, nope. I'd prefer for my magic to actually be useful.

 

[77IM]

Our group does not avoid attack roll spells. But I would see that someone who is a D&D numbers geek would realize that the odds of hitting are typically slightly worse than the odds of failing a save at low levels for foes that spell slots are worth using on.

For example, most saves are in the +0 to +2 range, even for bosses and lieutenants. So, a DC 14 low level save will often be missed 55% to 65% of the time. That same +4 to hit against AC 12 to 16 will hit 45% to 65% of the time (less if the foe is real tough with an AC of 18). Except for a few brutes with low AC, the save spells tend to work better than the to hit spells.

Playing the odds means using save spells instead of to hit spells, but not by a lot.

The opposite is true if the caster uses his damage spells mostly against mooks. In that case, real low AC means that the odds of hitting are higher than the odds of failing a save.

This is a good analysis, except that your spell attack modifier is generally 2 points higher than your save DC since save DC is 8+ability+proficiency. E.g. if your save DC is 14 then your attack modifier is a respectable +6.

I think the real issue is that saving throw spells are frequently save-for-half-damage while attack roll spells just miss. The attack roll spells should pack about 50% extra oomph to compensate for being wasted on a miss, but it feels like they don't. Maybe they do on paper but it's not clear just from reading the descriptions.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is a good analysis, except that your spell attack modifier is generally 2 points higher than your save DC since save DC is 8+ability+proficiency. E.g. if your save DC is 14 then your attack modifier is a respectable +6.

Yeah, I hate getting old.

Looking at the math, to hit is slightly better than failed saves (50% to 80% vs. 50% to 60%) with the exception that saves often allow for half damage.