Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7991096" data-attributes="member: 6795602">It's so DM dependent it's hard to do a 1 size fits all.  Being a sorcerer with moderate Con and high AC, I would lean toward +2 Cha.  Why?  With a small constitution bonus you will eventually make DC 10 concentration checks at 100% anyways.  Then consider what +2 Cha does for EB, for landing OA's, for landing Booming Blade's etc, for your social skill checks, etc. The beauty of healing spells (and damage spells) is that they don't require concentration.  I would never expect a spell not requiring concentration to be as impactful as a spell requiring it (except in the most niche of circumstances).  So yes, in terms of resources your concentration spells will always have a higher impact.  However, once you've cast one you're typically best keeping it up and using something non-concentration instead.  Which leads us back to the question (using a specific example in place of the more generalized case) - at level 5 is a twinned inflict wounds or twinned cure light wounds better?  I say the healing because 2 things:1.  there are fewer party members going to be capable of in combat healing2.  quickening eldritch blast is cheaper than twinning inflict wounds.  Twinning firebolt isn't that far behind either and it's very cheap.Of course that's providing that you are playing in a game where there is some risk of a downed PC being targeted and killed.  If that doesn't happen then pop-up healing via healing word tends to be the best option.You are doing a pretty good job at analysis without having played the game.  You also wrote a compelling guide - a very good writeup.  I actually find rogues - provided you can raise their defenses high enough make great defenders because their OA's scale high enough to actually deter.  Something like greater invisibility on a rogue could essentially give the party a great defender that can go out and isolate a strong for and trade blows with it.  I guess what I'm ultimately saying is that your best bet at defending is probably to buff your allies into being great defenders, either by increasing their OA damage or increasing their defense.However, I do want to raise the point that in my idealized party there is a place for a tanky backline character that intercepts enemies running past the front line to ease up pressure on your truly squishy characters.  Your character does make an excellent candidate for that role - and it's a role I would argue is very important.<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/quantifying-aoe-impact.670012/" target="_blank">5E - Quantifying AOE impact</a>Let me know if the link doesn't work.  I can quote the first post from it instead.Totally agree.  All discussions are dependent somewhat on your allies.  That said, the way I view this undisputable fact is that your damage is typically a small percentage of the parties output.  This means that highly optimizing your damage output has relatively little impact on how fast the party can actually defeat foes.  Instead placing more focus on battlefield control / healing / utility may actually be more beneficial.Yep - I think some of the question is whether those AOE spells should be fireball or hypnotic pattern style spells.</blockquote>

Verification