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

[Sacrosanct]

First a bit of a disclaimer. I fully understand that I tend to lean toward a conservative cautious side when dealing with limited resources, so maybe this observation is just me. But one thing I'm noticing after an extended period of playing 5e now is that spells that require an attack roll are generally avoided during game play, and I was wondering if this were true for others as well.

The reason for this is because of the very limited number of spells you can cast, and if you miss, that slot is wasted. In our games, we easily have 3-5 full encounters before even a short rest is done, and 5-8 encounters before we can do a long rest. If you've only got a total of 6 spell slots, you really can't afford to waste them on a spell that requires an attack roll that you have a good chance on missing with. I'm finding that I almost never cast a spell requiring an attack roll unless I have advantage, or I am pretty sure I will hit (or if it's a cantrip of course).

 

[Tormyr]

Our players don't skip the attack roll spells. I think that part of it is that the area of effect spells don't have attack rolls, so there are fewer to choose from. I still see lots of scorching ray, Melf's acid arrow, and witch bolt. They have a +7 to hit, so most spells have at least a 50/50 chance to hit. As to surviving the 5-8 encounters before a long rest, they use a lot of cantrips.

 

[Paladin interrogator]

Our players don't skip the attack roll spells. I think that part of it is that the area of effect spells don't have attack rolls, so there are fewer to choose from. I still see lots of scorching ray, Melf's acid arrow, and witch bolt. They have a +7 to hit, so most spells have at least a 50/50 chance to hit. As to surviving the 5-8 encounters before a long rest, they use a lot of cantrips.

This pretty much sums up our party's experience as well. Only our cleric seemed to consistently have issues with attack role spells. She always misses haha.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I guess it's exemplified at lower levels when spell slots are even rarer. Our cleric quickly learned that casting guiding bolt wasn't worth it, wasting the slot half the time, when something like bless or cure wounds was way more important. Or the necromancer saying hell no to ray of sickness when burning hands was at least guaranteed to do some damage, or sleep was available.

 

[Tormyr]

This pretty much sums up our party's experience as well. Only our cleric seemed to consistently have issues with attack role spells. She always misses haha.

Our war cleric pretty much uses healing spells along with spirit guardians and crusader's mantle. So he doesn't really see any attack rolls. The spirit guardians is pretty amazing though. He probably saved the 7 person level 8 party when they were swarmed by 5 CR4 Octopins.

 

[Paladin interrogator]

Our cleric really stays back out of mele most times to heal and hurl cantrips but I think it was guiding bolt that never hit.

 

[HEEGZ]

I've had terrible luck with Guiding Bolt; it's only ever hit once and I no longer prepare it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I do not avoid spells with attack rolls, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.

 

[Delandel]

After playing a pewpew sorcerer for 7 levels, yes, I try to avoid them. Scorching Ray has never loved me. I don't recall ever hitting with all 3 rays, and such a lack of spell efficiency makes me angry and resentful at my beautiful orange dice. Using a precious spell slot to hit with 1-2 rays while the barbarian is consistently tripling my damage per attack without expending any resources never felt good. The longer we've been together the further we grow apart, me and my d20.

In fact, I was so disappointed with my d20's poor performance last session, I began recording the rolls after a string of 1's, 2's, and 3's. After another 4 hours, I ended up with an average of 9.2 , and that was after a rare surge of high rolls near the end of the session (I believe my d20 sensed how close it was to being forever shelved away).

I stick with save-or-burn-more spells now, such as Burning Hands and Fireball. They never let me down.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.