Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.
4 added 1 character in body
source | link

At all levels of play, the answer depends on how much damage is being dealt in a single blow. But there are general rules that can be followed:

  • Warcaster is better when the damage is near an extreme, i.e. really high or really low.
  • The Higher Level that the caster is, the better Resilient is.
  • These two feats don't conflict with each other, so if you have the option of getting both, you should get both.

Let's take a few case studies.

Level 1 Wizard, 14CON, taking 4 damage

In this scenario, they would naturally have a +2 to their Constitution Saving Throw. Since 4 damage is below the Concentration Check minimum of 10, the check is set to 10. As a result,

  • Normally, they have a 65% chance to succeed on the roll (8 or better)
  • With Resilient, they have a 75% chance to succeed (6 or better)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 88.75% chance to succeed (8 or better on at least one roll)

So we see quite clearly that in this scenario, Warcaster is better. You go from failing 1/4 of your rolls with Resilient to failing < 1/8 of your rolls with Warcaster.

Level 7 Wizard, 14CON, taking 30 damage

That's a lot of damage, but pretty plausible for getting hit by a nuke spell. The DC for the concentration check is now 15, so...

  • Normally, they have a 40% chance to succeed (13 or better)
  • With Resilient, they still have a 55% chance to succeed (10 or better)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 64% chance to succeed (13 or better on at least one roll)

Once again, Warcaster is better, though the difference is less pronounced: Warcaster is only about 20% better than Resilient.

Level 16 Wizard, 18CON, taking 22 damage

Things have changed a bit. They're way stronger, but they're still getting hit by a pretty mild attack (for their level). DC is 11, here's how the stats shake out:

  • Normally, they have a 70% chance to succeed (7 or better)
  • With Resilient, they have a 95% chance to succeed (only fails on a NAT1)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 91% chance to succeed (7 or better on at least one roll)

The odds have flipped in Resilient's favor, and by a significant margin: Resilient causes you to fail about half as frequently as Warcaster does.

Level 19 Wizard, 20CON, taking 34 damage

This is a pretty decent for this level. DC is 17, here's the stats:

  • Normally, they have a 45% chance of success (12 or higher)
  • Resilient gives a 75% chance of success (6 or higher)
  • Warcaster gives a 69.75% chance of success (12 or higher on at least one roll)

Resilient once again wins out, though they're both very close to each other in this situation. The raw percentage point difference is greater than in the previous example, but Resilient is only about 20% better than Warcaster in terms of overall failure prevention.

At all levels of play, the answer depends on how much damage is being dealt in a single blow. But there are general rules that can be followed:

  • Warcaster is better when the damage is near an extreme, i.e. really high or really low.
  • The Higher Level that the caster is, the better Resilient is.
  • These two feats don't conflict with each other, so if you have the option of getting both, you should get both

Let's take a few case studies.

Level 1 Wizard, 14CON, taking 4 damage

In this scenario, they would naturally have a +2 to their Constitution Saving Throw. Since 4 damage is below the Concentration Check minimum of 10, the check is set to 10. As a result,

  • Normally, they have a 65% chance to succeed on the roll (8 or better)
  • With Resilient, they have a 75% chance to succeed (6 or better)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 88.75% chance to succeed (8 or better on at least one roll)

So we see quite clearly that in this scenario, Warcaster is better. You go from failing 1/4 of your rolls with Resilient to failing < 1/8 of your rolls with Warcaster.

Level 7 Wizard, 14CON, taking 30 damage

That's a lot of damage, but pretty plausible for getting hit by a nuke spell. The DC for the concentration check is now 15, so...

  • Normally, they have a 40% chance to succeed (13 or better)
  • With Resilient, they still have a 55% chance to succeed (10 or better)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 64% chance to succeed (13 or better on at least one roll)

Once again, Warcaster is better, though the difference is less pronounced: Warcaster is only about 20% better than Resilient.

Level 16 Wizard, 18CON, taking 22 damage

Things have changed a bit. They're way stronger, but they're still getting hit by a pretty mild attack (for their level). DC is 11, here's how the stats shake out:

  • Normally, they have a 70% chance to succeed (7 or better)
  • With Resilient, they have a 95% chance to succeed (only fails on a NAT1)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 91% chance to succeed (7 or better on at least one roll)

The odds have flipped in Resilient's favor, and by a significant margin: Resilient causes you to fail about half as frequently as Warcaster does.

Level 19 Wizard, 20CON, taking 34 damage

This is a pretty decent for this level. DC is 17, here's the stats:

  • Normally, they have a 45% chance of success (12 or higher)
  • Resilient gives a 75% chance of success (6 or higher)
  • Warcaster gives a 69.75% chance of success (12 or higher on at least one roll)

Resilient once again wins out, though they're both very close to each other in this situation. The raw percentage point difference is greater than in the previous example, but Resilient is only about 20% better than Warcaster in terms of overall failure prevention.

At all levels of play, the answer depends on how much damage is being dealt in a single blow. But there are general rules that can be followed:

  • Warcaster is better when the damage is near an extreme, i.e. really high or really low.
  • The Higher Level that the caster is, the better Resilient is.
  • These two feats don't conflict with each other, so if you have the option of getting both, you should get both.

Let's take a few case studies.

Level 1 Wizard, 14CON, taking 4 damage

In this scenario, they would naturally have a +2 to their Constitution Saving Throw. Since 4 damage is below the Concentration Check minimum of 10, the check is set to 10. As a result,

  • Normally, they have a 65% chance to succeed on the roll (8 or better)
  • With Resilient, they have a 75% chance to succeed (6 or better)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 88.75% chance to succeed (8 or better on at least one roll)

So we see quite clearly that in this scenario, Warcaster is better. You go from failing 1/4 of your rolls with Resilient to failing < 1/8 of your rolls with Warcaster.

Level 7 Wizard, 14CON, taking 30 damage

That's a lot of damage, but pretty plausible for getting hit by a nuke spell. The DC for the concentration check is now 15, so...

  • Normally, they have a 40% chance to succeed (13 or better)
  • With Resilient, they still have a 55% chance to succeed (10 or better)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 64% chance to succeed (13 or better on at least one roll)

Once again, Warcaster is better, though the difference is less pronounced: Warcaster is only about 20% better than Resilient.

Level 16 Wizard, 18CON, taking 22 damage

Things have changed a bit. They're way stronger, but they're still getting hit by a pretty mild attack (for their level). DC is 11, here's how the stats shake out:

  • Normally, they have a 70% chance to succeed (7 or better)
  • With Resilient, they have a 95% chance to succeed (only fails on a NAT1)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 91% chance to succeed (7 or better on at least one roll)

The odds have flipped in Resilient's favor, and by a significant margin: Resilient causes you to fail about half as frequently as Warcaster does.

Level 19 Wizard, 20CON, taking 34 damage

This is a pretty decent for this level. DC is 17, here's the stats:

  • Normally, they have a 45% chance of success (12 or higher)
  • Resilient gives a 75% chance of success (6 or higher)
  • Warcaster gives a 69.75% chance of success (12 or higher on at least one roll)

Resilient once again wins out, though they're both very close to each other in this situation. The raw percentage point difference is greater than in the previous example, but Resilient is only about 20% better than Warcaster in terms of overall failure prevention.

3 added 3 characters in body
source | link
  • The More Damage that the caster is taking in a single blow, the better Warcaster is better when the damage is near an extreme, i.e. really high or really low.
  • The Higher Level that the caster is, the better Resilient is.
  • These two feats don't conflict with each other, so if you have the option of getting both, you should get both
  • The More Damage that the caster is taking in a single blow, the better Warcaster is.
  • The Higher Level that the caster is, the better Resilient is.
  • These two feats don't conflict with each other, so if you have the option of getting both, you should get both
  • Warcaster is better when the damage is near an extreme, i.e. really high or really low.
  • The Higher Level that the caster is, the better Resilient is.
  • These two feats don't conflict with each other, so if you have the option of getting both, you should get both
2 added 44 characters in body
source | link

That's a lot of damage, but pretty plausible for getting hit by a nuke spell. The DC for the concentration check is now 3015, so...

  • Normally, they have a 5%40% chance to succeed (NAT20 only13 or better)
  • With Resilient, they still have a 5%55% chance to succeed (still needs a NAT2010 or better)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 9.75%64% chance to succeed (a NAT2013 or better on at least one roll)

Once again, Warcaster is better, nearly doubling their chance of successthough the difference is less pronounced: Warcaster is only about 20% better than Resilient.

Level 16 Wizard, 18CON, taking 1122 damage

Things have changed a bit. They're way stronger, but they're still getting hit by a pretty mild attack (for their level). DC is 11, here's how the stats shake out:

Level 19 Wizard, 20CON, taking 1734 damage

This is a pretty weak hitdecent for this level. DC is 17, here's the stats:

Resilient once again wins out, though they're both very close to each other in this situation. The raw percentage point difference is greater than in the previous example, but Resilient is only about 20% better than Warcaster in terms of overall failure prevention.

Level 19 Wizard, 20CON, taking 47 damage

More typical for your level. DC is 47, meaning the stats are identical to the 30 hit the level 7 wizard took earlier:

  • Normally, they have a 5% chance to succeed (NAT20 only)
  • With Resilient, they still have a 5% chance to succeed (still needs a NAT20)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 9.75% chance to succeed (a NAT20 on at least one roll)

So what's my overall recommendation?

Well, if you have the spare ASIs to spend, get both. But if you don't, I would generally recommend Warcaster, for a couple of reasons:

  • It's a lot better than Resilient for especially heavy hits (which are generally more common at higher levels), with Resilient essentially doing nothing if the damage has been blown way past the 30-range anyways. Warcaster will always improve your chances, even if less so for milder attacks when compared to Resilient.
  • Warcaster comes with extra features: the ability to cast spells while holding a weapon, and the ability to use an attack-roll spell as an Attack of Opportunity. Those can be pretty good, depending on the circumstances.

Obviously though, Resilient is definitely not a bad choice, and if you tend to take lots of small hits more frequently, instead of big hits, or if you need better Constitution Saving Throws in general, that might be better.

That's a lot of damage, but pretty plausible for getting hit by a nuke spell. The DC for the concentration check is now 30, so...

  • Normally, they have a 5% chance to succeed (NAT20 only)
  • With Resilient, they still have a 5% chance to succeed (still needs a NAT20)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 9.75% chance to succeed (a NAT20 on at least one roll)

Once again, Warcaster is better, nearly doubling their chance of success.

Level 16 Wizard, 18CON, taking 11 damage

Things have changed a bit. They're way stronger, but they're still getting hit by a pretty mild attack. DC is 11, here's how the stats shake out:

Level 19 Wizard, 20CON, taking 17 damage

This is a pretty weak hit for this level. DC is 17, here's the stats:

Resilient once again wins out, though they're both very close to each other in this situation. The raw percentage point difference is greater than in the previous example, but Resilient is only about 20% better than Warcaster in terms of overall failure prevention.

Level 19 Wizard, 20CON, taking 47 damage

More typical for your level. DC is 47, meaning the stats are identical to the 30 hit the level 7 wizard took earlier:

  • Normally, they have a 5% chance to succeed (NAT20 only)
  • With Resilient, they still have a 5% chance to succeed (still needs a NAT20)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 9.75% chance to succeed (a NAT20 on at least one roll)

So what's my overall recommendation?

Well, if you have the spare ASIs to spend, get both. But if you don't, I would generally recommend Warcaster, for a couple of reasons:

  • It's a lot better than Resilient for especially heavy hits (which are generally more common at higher levels), with Resilient essentially doing nothing if the damage has been blown way past the 30-range anyways. Warcaster will always improve your chances, even if less so for milder attacks when compared to Resilient.
  • Warcaster comes with extra features: the ability to cast spells while holding a weapon, and the ability to use an attack-roll spell as an Attack of Opportunity. Those can be pretty good, depending on the circumstances.

Obviously though, Resilient is definitely not a bad choice, and if you tend to take lots of small hits more frequently, instead of big hits, or if you need better Constitution Saving Throws in general, that might be better.

That's a lot of damage, but pretty plausible for getting hit by a nuke spell. The DC for the concentration check is now 15, so...

  • Normally, they have a 40% chance to succeed (13 or better)
  • With Resilient, they still have a 55% chance to succeed (10 or better)
  • With Warcaster, they have a 64% chance to succeed (13 or better on at least one roll)

Once again, Warcaster is better, though the difference is less pronounced: Warcaster is only about 20% better than Resilient.

Level 16 Wizard, 18CON, taking 22 damage

Things have changed a bit. They're way stronger, but they're still getting hit by a pretty mild attack (for their level). DC is 11, here's how the stats shake out:

Level 19 Wizard, 20CON, taking 34 damage

This is a pretty decent for this level. DC is 17, here's the stats:

Resilient once again wins out, though they're both very close to each other in this situation. The raw percentage point difference is greater than in the previous example, but Resilient is only about 20% better than Warcaster in terms of overall failure prevention.

1
source | link