DMs give out savage attacker feat for free for 1 session and see actual results.

[djreynolds]

I have been using this feat, and its not bad. It could be better of course, a +1 to constitution, and I would love it if it effected sneak attack... but it doesn't.

But its not bad, and coupled with GWS or GWM it has perks... imagine for GWM all you needed was 3 more in damage to drop a guy and get your bonus attack. Imagine rolling 2's on a crit, and rerolling getting instead getting 1's (has actually happened).

So just for a session hand the feat out for the game just to see how good it is. Sometimes the math, which is very accurate doesn't always fit the situation... like 3 more damage needed to kill someone and get a BA.

Sometimes enemies AC are so hard to crack, and you luckily hit but roll poor damage... fact is you may never get another hit in because of a source of disadvantage, fighting an invisible opponent and you roll with disadvantage and actually hit...

So throw the math out for one session and see. And if you are at a higher level, try it versus opponents forcing disadvantage on you somehow... like darkness or taking the dodge action.

I'd just like to hear yeas or nays after...

Get out of laboratory for a second and actually field test this.

[Lollerabe]

We did, with a +1 strength even for free. It's.. Well fun I guess? The player who got it is new and rolling two dice just seemed to confuse him a bit, but at least he thinks it's fun.

Is it ever worth an actual ASI ? No. Just no. It's a trick option, at the bare minimum make it a half feat.

The fact that you advice us to ignore math/proof/logic in order to see how special/good it is says a lot IMO.

Why would it help against disadvantage ?

[djreynolds]

We did, with a +1 strength even for free. It's.. Well fun I guess? The player who got it is new and rolling two dice just seemed to confuse him a bit, but at least he thinks it's fun.

Is it ever worth an actual ASI ? No. Just no. It's a trick option, at the bare minimum make it a half feat.

The fact that you advice us to ignore math/proof/logic in order to see how special/good it is says a lot IMO.

Why would it help against disadvantage ?

Let's say you finally score a hit on an enemy while at disadvantage, you rolled 2 15's.... and then your damage amounted to 3 plus your ability modifier, you may never hit him again.

Just try it out as free feat for one session and see "in the moment" would it count. You know as you are falling down a cliff, "boy I wish I had feather......falllll..." SPLAT

[Tsubodai]

I am DM'ing a session tomorrow so I will try it out then and tell you the results.

[Lollerabe]

As I already said, I did try it for like 12 sessions and I haven't seen anything the well established math couldn't tell me - it's a lackluster feat and should at the very least be a half feat

[Tsubodai]

Does it feel good at the table though? I know my players would love the opportunity to reroll damage.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Just try it out as free feat for one session and see "in the moment" would it count. You know as you are falling down a cliff, "boy I wish I had feather......falllll..." SPLAT

DMs give out rings of feather fall without attunement for 1 session and see actual results.

[Cybren]

The fact that you advice us to ignore math/proof/logic in order to see how special/good it is says a lot IMO.

i have two objections to this sentence. The first is that I agree with Strunk and White, and the second that i believe gameplay experiences more valuable than abstract theory craft, so the charge that you should experience the gameplay before making too many judgements is valid.

[Lollerabe]

I don't mind play testing, I very much advice it. I never said differently. My point still stands though, having to forget math in order to realize savage attackers 'potential' doesn't bod well now does it?
I did play test it, it's still being playtested at my table - and as I've said multiple times now, it's lackluster. If OP is trying to argue that having savage attacker for free is better/more fun than not having it then sure I agree - how could I not?
Is it a good use of an ASI instead of literally any other feat or a stat bump? No, no it's not. The fact that it might bump your damage by a small margin once in a blue moon when you got disadvantage is... Well, yeah pretty meh

[djreynolds]

Lollerabe is just being honest. I appreciate that.
I'm just curious to see if it might have benefits in the moment and my slice of experience only comes from my table.
Just give it a try, if it's okay. Okay.
It may suck, and that's alright.
Maybe it's cool.
If it was a fighting style, would you take? Over GWS?

But thanks, your insights are what I'm here for.

[Lollerabe]

As a fight style ? Sure. At my table everyone gets a free feat from a list of feats we consider under whelming/used. It allows for more customization and many of the feats adds a + 1 x stat, making most char concepts viable. Savage attacker is on that list with a + 1 strength, so it does see play at our table and will properly continue do so in more campaigns to come.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Savage Attacker is a great feat for Moon Druid for his Wild Shape attacks. Fight me.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Thorough, painstakingly note-taken, repeated and varied play testing is clearly the best source of data on how a feature or feat works in play. Conversely, white room analysis can miss key aspects of why a feat or feature works so well. That said, the disdain some posters have for white room analysis reaches a point that we are supposed to accept a confirmation-bias-riddled individual anecdote over an analysis of the actual mechanics of the game.

The benefits of feats like Mobile and Skulker, for instance, aren't as well identified by the maths because their power depends on situational use in play. But Savage Attacker just modifies a damage distribution; I can't think of a better feat to analyze purely with numbers than Savage Attacker. And one is left wanting.

[jas61292]

This is absolutely one feat I think that so called "white room" analyses undervalue. The main reason is that such analyses simply look at average damage, and average damage doesn't really mean anything in practice. It gives you a good sense what you can do, but misses key things. And one of those key things is that if you miss a kill by 1 damage, it didn't matter if, on average, you would have gotten that kill. Cause you didn't.

Greater average damage means that even if you rolled bad this time, over the course of a campaign you will average out to higher damage. But nothing about that higher average damage will change anything about the fact that you rolled low. Savage Attacker does. It can take a single attack that failed to kill and change that. And that can have an effect on battle that pure math cannot show you. Is it the greatest feat ever? No. But it does what it is designed to do, and does it well. I've seen it in practice, and it has made a huge difference in practice.

[Chronos Flame]

So the thing with Savage Attacker is it is pure damage bonus. It raises average damage by a little by letting you reroll if you do very poorly. Do you know you were 2hp from a kill though? Can you count on rolling less than half on your die? No. Is it a boost? Sure, but saying "Give it for free and see how it holds up" isn't actually playtesting it or really seeing it in the field since free is not its usual cost. For that feat you could get one damage guaranteed. Tired of being a single damage short of a kill? That does it. Or an extra attack sometimes via other feats. Or an AC, an attack bonus AND a damage via dex.

I know this is all just more white-room analysis but what the OP is suggesting isn't field testing either since there is no suggestion of actually giving up the ASI/feat for a couple sessions in its place.

[Strill]

Does it feel good at the table though? I know my players would love the opportunity to reroll damage.

If it feels good, but is a bad option, then it's doubly-bad because it tricks players into choosing bad options.


This is absolutely one feat I think that so called "white room" analyses undervalue. The main reason is that such analyses simply look at average damage, and average damage doesn't really mean anything in practice. It gives you a good sense what you can do, but misses key things. And one of those key things is that if you miss a kill by 1 damage, it didn't matter if, on average, you would have gotten that kill. Cause you didn't.
Except you don't know how much HP the enemy has, so you have no idea whether you need to reroll or not. So you just reroll whenever you get a low roll, meaning that the benefit of savage attacker is indistinguishable from an average damage bonus.

[Gignere]

Yeah getting a free Savage Attacker feels good. But I think getting most of the feats for free would feel good too. But in a normal campaign there is always an opportunity cost. Will savage attacker feel better than say an ASI or lucky or polearm master, spell sniper, sharpshooter, alert, etc.

I highly doubt it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

This is absolutely one feat I think that so called "white room" analyses undervalue. The main reason is that such analyses simply look at average damage, and average damage doesn't really mean anything in practice. It gives you a good sense what you can do, but misses key things. And one of those key things is that if you miss a kill by 1 damage, it didn't matter if, on average, you would have gotten that kill. Cause you didn't.

Greater average damage means that even if you rolled bad this time, over the course of a campaign you will average out to higher damage. But nothing about that higher average damage will change anything about the fact that you rolled low. Savage Attacker does. It can take a single attack that failed to kill and change that. And that can have an effect on battle that pure math cannot show you. Is it the greatest feat ever? No. But it does what it is designed to do, and does it well. I've seen it in practice, and it has made a huge difference in practice.1. Your quarrel is with DPR metrics, not white room analysis in general. Just adding variance as a metric, or estimating rounds-to-kill, would solve your issue.
2. Variance in a damage distribution isn't always bad. It's only bad if an average result would drop the enemy while a bad result wouldn't; variance is actually good if an above-average result would drop the enemy while an average result would not.

[jas61292]

1. Your quarrel is with DPR metrics, not white room analysis in general. Just adding variance as a metric, or estimating rounds-to-kill, would solve your issue.
2. Variance in a damage distribution isn't always bad. It's only bad if an average result would drop the enemy while a bad result wouldn't; variance is actually good if an above-average result would drop the enemy while an average result would not.

This is a good point. Though, because the entire point of white rooms is to be generic, you can never really run an analysis for a particular situation to know whether the high roll damage is needed, and therefore variance is good in that particular instance.

Generally, when people do white room analysis, they always value slight increases in average over potential higher variance. Its why the greatsword is always used over the greataxe in theory, while in practice, the difference in damage variance is the far bigger difference between the weapons than the difference in average damage.

But yeah, variance in damage is not a bad thing. What this feat does is utilize the variance to potentially turn a low roll into a high one. And it is for this reason it is far better for someone with high variance than someone with low variance. People look at the averages, but it is the individual instances where the feat changes things, not by 1 or 2 damage, but by 4, 5, 8 or 10 damage that can really change battles. But yeah, it is very much something that is dependent on damage variance, and is never going to be worth it for the guy using a dagger.

[djreynolds]

Just test it in 1 session of little old combat and just see the effects.

If it sucks, probably, it will not be the first time the forum... and my ex-wife.... have confirmed I'm an idiot.

But just see. I want to know, does this feat matter in the moment.

I'm not sure if this example will hold up. We have a sorcerer in our party and I asked him did you take the shield spell and he said no. "When was the last time I got hit?"

The shield spell is IMO, in phenomenal, but he is way in the back, does he have a point? His AC is 11 because his dex is an 8. But he's right, statistically he never gets attacked in melee or with arrows. He could be better off taking resilient dex, just to enhance his AoE survival rate.

1 little session, kill some fodder.

[Lollerabe]

Dj I'm a bit confused as to what kind of information you are looking for at this point to be honest.
You know that Sattacker is worse than a strength bump and not even close to GWM/PAM/SM and those are just the damage feats.
I already told you about my personal experience with the feat, which tells the same story.
So is it an anecdote you are looking for ?
I'm not trying to bash the thread I'm honestly curious

[Tsubodai]

I believe he is looking for more than one opinion? After all, gameplay experience is very different depending on group.

[Lollerabe]

Ah well carry on then, I've added my two cents at this point.

[djreynolds]

Just try it out.
I think this a feat that can only be seen in game.
A side example. In CoS, at 8th level I really almost took weapon master for my cleric, I wanted to use a magic sword, +2. I didn't, I took wisdom like a good life cleric should, but in that game, in that moment it might have proven beneficial.

I just want to see some real results.

I have an archer and use sharpshooter, and I swear this is true. I declare it before I attack and miss, but would've hit without it. Or don't use it... and would've hit with sharpshooter.

Maybe I can roll up a Charlie Brown archetype.

[Maxilian]

Its really lackluster, but it becomes interesting if you happen to have a (UA) Rune Master with the Earth Rune in his weapon (this feat make it more likely for you to get the max damage of the dice, so its more likely for you to throw an opponent prone)

[Lollerabe]

So you are indeed looking for anecdotes. "A warlock at my table attacked a hobgoblin chief with disadvantage and rolled a 1 on the damage dice but thanks to savage attacker it became a 10 which killed the chief thus saving all our lifes"

How does that change what you already know ? You keep saying 'just try it' which I have, and many others have and you seem like you expect something else than the results.

Are you just waiting for someone to say ' I tried SA and it was the best damn feat ever ?' Cause at this point I honestly feel like this thread is trollish.

[djreynolds]

Not at all.

It's a feat you can use every turn in melee, and reroll and take the higher damage total.

I'm not trying to set the Internet on fire.
I'm just curious has anyone used the feat and said, " It's not bad" or out of 10 attacks, I only raise my damage by 10. Obviously not worth it then.

The issue is I can only take a guess, statistically, on the numbers.

It's increase your damage, of one melee attack, every turn... but nothing else.

Almost every feature gives you 2 or 3 things, the designers play tested the feats and just gave us one perk for savage attacker.

I just want to look at the actual play data from another table and compare.

But I always like to look twice. Perhaps I'm missing something. The only way is for several tables to try it out.

If table 1 says in 10 attacks I raised my damage output by 12... it's not worth it.

If table 2 says it was 40 damage... it's worth trying out.

I have found 5E is very roll dependent and the dice can go your way or not.

I have found in game... gaining sources of advantage is huge. Savage attacker is in essence, advantage on melee damage rolls once a turn.

Honestly am not trying to anger anyone.

This Wednesday our table is going to try it out... but in turn we are allowing the DM to roll damage for monsters or take the average, whichever is higher.

[BigONotation]

Make it every attack instead of once a turn and it's worth it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Advantage is significant because it alters the binary success/fail outcome on a d20 roll. "Advantage" on a damage distribution both modifies a smaller die and simply alters the extent of a success.

Savage Attacker is definitely a more noticeable feat because you'll use the re-roll ability most combat rounds. But statistically it's not actually giving you that much.

Again, this is one of those cases where you really don't need to look at play. Playtesting context is required when the benefit of the feat is not centered on explicit combat actions like attacking and hitting. Savage Attacker is the most pure combat feat in the game. In other words, you wouldn't want to just look at 2 tables and collect the results; you'd want to look at 40 or more tables who took painstaking notes on actions and situations, and then you'd end up with very similar results to someone's excel spreadsheet.

[CaptainSarathai]

I've played at a table where SAttacker was handed out for freeis. It only affected Crit rolls, and it allowed you to take the average if you rolled below it. So on a 10, if you rolled <6, it got bumped to a 6.
This made sense and was welcomed at the table by the players. However, it did not have a Feat Cost attached, and it was not particularly noticeable as a change.

I've also seen a HalfOrc Barbarian with a Great Axe take SAttacker as the intended feat.
And I will say, it was probably the best way to test it. He had 2 attacks. The first attack, he rolled 1d12 and if he rolled less than average, he'd reroll. There were a few cheers and "ohthankgod" moments. If he didn't use it on the first roll though, he would just roll 2d12,k1 on the second, to speed things up. In that case, nobody ever really cheered or noticed.

It's just psychology. That second roll was never statistically earth-shattering or anything, because that's just not how odds work. The first roll was memorable because even if he got a 5, "at least it's not a 1!" but even still, his damage never really seemed unusually high.
Even he has said that, viewed on the whole, he wouldn't waste the feat slot again. It's a nice consolation prize when it does save your bacon, but it just doesn't do it often enough to really be considered worth a feat.

[Sicarius Victis]

If you need to give away something for free to prove that it's not bad, then it's bad and it should feel bad.

That being said, if it wasn't limited to just weapon damage, and would also work with Smite and Sneak Attack, then it's basically worth a feat.

[Foxhound438]

Savage Attacker is a great feat for Moon Druid for his Wild Shape attacks. Fight me.

Well, moon druid is bad enough on its own that I don't think I'd want to gimp myself further by taking a trap feat.

Actually not terrible though, especially if you pick something with a big, singular damage roll.

Generally though, I have seen the feat used once- and it was on a paladin, and the DM let it apply to smite as well as weapon damage... and it still wasn't amazing. Side grade to GWFS at best (since you also have to re-roll any high dice, and only applies once per turn), and costing an ability score improvement to get it, seemed bad to me.

[Vogonjeltz]

Not at all.

It's a feat you can use every turn in melee, and reroll and take the higher damage total.

I'm not trying to set the Internet on fire.
I'm just curious has anyone used the feat and said, " It's not bad" or out of 10 attacks, I only raise my damage by 10. Obviously not worth it then.

The issue is I can only take a guess, statistically, on the numbers.

It's increase your damage, of one melee attack, every turn... but nothing else.

Almost every feature gives you 2 or 3 things, the designers play tested the feats and just gave us one perk for savage attacker.

I just want to look at the actual play data from another table and compare.

But I always like to look twice. Perhaps I'm missing something. The only way is for several tables to try it out.

If table 1 says in 10 attacks I raised my damage output by 12... it's not worth it.

If table 2 says it was 40 damage... it's worth trying out.

I have found 5E is very roll dependent and the dice can go your way or not.

I have found in game... gaining sources of advantage is huge. Savage attacker is in essence, advantage on melee damage rolls once a turn.

Honestly am not trying to anger anyone.

This Wednesday our table is going to try it out... but in turn we are allowing the DM to roll damage for monsters or take the average, whichever is higher.

Savage Attacker value is entirely dependent on when it's used. If the character has multiple attacks for example, they wouldn't want to burn savage attacker on a damage roll that already had a higher than average outcome because there is little chance of a good return there.

Best value is (almost too obviously) on attacks with high damage ranges (i.e. 1d12) and on critical hits which offer more dice variance and thus a higher potential for greater return on the second roll.

i.e. A low damage roll of 1-3 on a great axe would be able to net an average of 4.5 additional damage; on a critical hit (the damage of which is totally unaffected by having better stats) the value would be doubled accordingly, netting an average of 9 points of additional damage on the lower 25% of rolls and 3 points on the quarter above that. That value actually goes up for Barbarians, for example, who get to roll many more additional damage dice for critical hits.

So best users of Savage attacker are probably Champion Fighters who have a much better chance of getting critical hits or Barbarians.

[fbelanger]

It could make a great property to magical weapon.

[djreynolds]

This data is for a 3rd level melee combatant, fighting S&B with a 1d6 rapier.

So I just rolled savage attacker after each strike. Easy.

But if I was fighting with 2 scimitars, it would have been confusing on which attack to use savage attacker on.

If I was had the extra attack, I would've had three attacks to guess on.

The damage just from me ended up being around 9 extra points of damage for the encounter, spread out over 5 attacks.

1d6, rolled 2 rerolled 4 +2
1d6, rolled 4, rerolled 4 +/- 0
1d6, rolled 1, rerolled 6 +5
1d6 rolled 5, rerolled 3 +/-0 you could see this as a negative 2 but I see it as zero
1d6 rolled 3, rerolled 5 +2

The feat itself is all right if you can choose to reroll after all you attacks are made, if you had multiple melee attacks and could choose post roll.

The feat needs to be tried with the combination of a 2d6 weapon and great weapon style. And then with the extra attack

It is easier to use pre 5th level, it gets confusing with multiple attacks as you have to guess.

So next Wednesday I will try with a 5th level fighter with a maul and GWS.

Question, would you as a DM allow GWS to be rolled along with savage attacker as well?

example.

Say I roll an attack with a maul and get a 2 and 5 for damage, and then reroll 1's and 2's and get 3 and 5 for damage for 8 damage.

Now if I roll savage attacker and roll 2 and 2 for damage can I use GWS for this roll as well or is the use of GWS only for the initial roll... confusing

I think I agree with Mr Lollerabe, just because the feat can become muddled in combination with GWS and extra attacks.
He's right

The feat should be rewritten allowing you to look at all your rolls and then reroll... like with use of SD of a battlemaster is after the roll.

[Maxilian]

This data is for a 3rd level melee combatant, fighting S&B with a 1d6 rapier.

So I just rolled savage attacker after each strike. Easy.

But if I was fighting with 2 scimitars, it would have been confusing on which attack to use savage attacker on.

If I was had the extra attack, I would've had three attacks to guess on.

The damage just from me ended up being around 9 extra points of damage for the encounter, spread out over 5 attacks.

1d6, rolled 2 rerolled 4 +2
1d6, rolled 4, rerolled 4 +/- 0
1d6, rolled 1, rerolled 6 +5
1d6 rolled 5, rerolled 3 +/-0 you could see this as a negative 2 but I see it as zero
1d6 rolled 3, rerolled 5 +2

The feat itself is all right if you can choose to reroll after all you attacks are made, if you had multiple melee attacks and could choose post roll.

The feat needs to be tried with the combination of a 2d6 weapon and great weapon style. And then with the extra attack

It is easier to use pre 5th level, it gets confusing with multiple attacks as you have to guess.

So next Wednesday I will try with a 5th level fighter with a maul and GWS.

Question, would you as a DM allow GWS to be rolled along with savage attacker as well?

example.

Say I roll an attack with a maul and get a 2 and 5 for damage, and then reroll 1's and 2's and get 3 and 5 for damage for 8 damage.

Now if I roll savage attacker and roll 2 and 2 for damage can I use GWS for this roll as well or is the use of GWS only for the initial roll... confusing

I think I agree with Mr Lollerabe, just because the feat can become muddled in combination with GWS and extra attacks.
He's right

The feat should be rewritten allowing you to look at all your rolls and then reroll... like with use of SD of a battlemaster is after the roll.

The detail that you have missed is that Savage Attacker can only be used with 1 attack per turn (So having Extra Attack doesn't really help this feat -the only thing is that you have more attacks to decide to use it with) IMHO the only moment this is useful is with the UA Rune Master if you take the Earth Rune (cause getting a max damage in your die means that you will throw prone your enemy)

Note: And yes, it would really need the ability to be able to choose the attack to use it with after you make all the attacks (that would depend on the DM, i would allow it, cause i don't want an UP feat to be even more UP)

Note2: You can't combine GWF with SA because, both the feat and the Fighting style, says that you need to use the new roll

[N810]

Can't you decide what attack to reroll until after you have seen all the damage dice?

[Lollerabe]

Nope - if you have fx 2 attacks you can't roll both hits and then go 'okay I'll use SA on the first attack'.

Again the feat is just poorly designed, hell allowing it to work on all attacks properly wouldn't break a thing.

And as someone mentioned it seems like a thing you could easily use as a magic item property.

'Greataxe of the berserker chieftain'
Flavor text.
"When below 50% of your hit point maximum you deal an additional 1d6 weapon damg and all your attacks benefit from the savage attacker feat effect.
Or something like that.

[djreynolds]

Nope - if you have fx 2 attacks you can't roll both hits and then go 'okay I'll use SA on the first attack'.

Again the feat is just poorly designed, hell allowing it to work on all attacks properly wouldn't break a thing.

And as someone mentioned it seems like a thing you could easily use as a magic item property.

'Greataxe of the berserker chieftain'
Flavor text.
"When below 50% of your hit point maximum you deal an additional 1d6 weapon damg and all your attacks benefit from the savage attacker feat effect.
Or something like that.

I'm gonna finish out the experiment, but it is broken. Like all feats, or most, it needs one more caveat... one more line. It sounds good early on, but once you gain an extra attack you can decide after all rolls. Too bad. I don't like to homebrew feats to make them more appealing. We should do a Mythbusters on feats!!!

[MeeposFire]

Honestly I find rerolling a small die like on most weapon attacks to be tedious and really not all that helpful. It does increase the average damage over time but it does not actually increase the amount of damage you could do if your max was 10 it still will 10 though now you may have more chances at rolling to getting that 10 (though you also have a chance to roll lower than you did).

I probably would not hate these so much if they always were going to help you. Statistically it makes only a small difference but I hate the idea that an ability that costs you to take can actually at times make you worse off than not having it (and the bonus it gives isn't that big to begin with in most cases).

[Occasional Sage]

If it feels good, but is a bad option, then it's my teen years.

Fixed that for my own entertainment.

[djreynolds]

Honestly I find rerolling a small die like on most weapon attacks to be tedious and really not all that helpful. It does increase the average damage over time but it does not actually increase the amount of damage you could do if your max was 10 it still will 10 though now you may have more chances at rolling to getting that 10 (though you also have a chance to roll lower than you did).

I probably would not hate these so much if they always were going to help you. Statistically it makes only a small difference but I hate the idea that an ability that costs you to take can actually at times make you worse off than not having it (and the bonus it gives isn't that big to begin with in most cases).

This is a good thought.

I think if the feat said, when you reroll your melee attack damage, your weapon's die also goes up. 1d6 becomes 1d8, 1d8 becomes 1d10. 1d10 becomes 2d6. 2d6 becomes 2d8.. that could be interesting.

GWM and SS is a static +10, that's huge damage that can be used on every strike.

The designers definitely need to re-write this.

[Zorku]

I believe he is looking for more than one opinion? After all, gameplay experience is very different depending on group.
If that is the case it would greatly help to acknowledge the first anecdote.

The most charitable I can be with this is to assume that English isn't their primary language.

[El_Jairo]

Sorry for necroing this thread, yet I did feel that I wanted to weigh in.
First off when you make an analysis solely based on the average damage per round, you don't have a good grasp on statistics and the game which roles a small number of dice.
Like said here, being able to re roll damage to ensure the kill will have a huge impact in a game of descrete states. Either you are dead or alive, there is no wounded middle state. If their would be, average damage would be a lot more important.
That said I do concur the feeling that this feature seems lacking because it only allows one benefit and most features allow more. This forces the feature into niche uses : weapons with big damage dice, Greataxe is the primary reason for this feature to be useful. What is the worst thing of the Greataxe? Distribution is very big, you have the same amount of chance to roll a 1 or a 12, so this weapon can be very disappointing. That's why GWS is interesting, yet the Greatsword has more use out of it because you're more likely of rolling a 1 or 2 on a d6.

So currently I feel that this feature has two main applications: Half-Orc Barbarian, to get the most out of the big criticals of Barbarian and Half-Orc and mitigate whiffs on damage.
A Champion Fighter with GWM and GWS and Greataxe. Because a fighter has more access to ASI and can afford to use SA to fish for kills while the rest of his build is for fishing for criticals.

Also I see little value placed on the fact that SA has no downside to increasing dmg output. GWM does increase your chances of missing, in some classes you want to hit to trigger a certain ability, so there is a cost of opportunity.

I've played at a table where SAttacker was handed out for freeis. It only affected Crit rolls, and it allowed you to take the average if you rolled below it. So on a 10, if you rolled <6, it got bumped to a 6.
This made sense and was welcomed at the table by the players. However, it did not have a Feat Cost attached, and it was not particularly noticeable as a change.

I've also seen a HalfOrc Barbarian with a Great Axe take SAttacker as the intended feat.
And I will say, it was probably the best way to test it. He had 2 attacks. The first attack, he rolled 1d12 and if he rolled less than average, he'd reroll. There were a few cheers and "ohthankgod" moments. If he didn't use it on the first roll though, he would just roll 2d12,k1 on the second, to speed things up. In that case, nobody ever really cheered or noticed.

It's just psychology. That second roll was never statistically earth-shattering or anything, because that's just not how odds work. The first roll was memorable because even if he got a 5, "at least it's not a 1!" but even still, his damage never really seemed unusually high.
Even he has said that, viewed on the whole, he wouldn't waste the feat slot again. It's a nice consolation prize when it does save your bacon, but it just doesn't do it often enough to really be considered worth a feat.
It is not because you psychological loose the appreciation for the re roll that the re roll loses it's impact. For proper analysis you need to distance yourself from the feelings you might have to look at the true impact.


Savage Attacker value is entirely dependent on when it's used. If the character has multiple attacks for example, they wouldn't want to burn savage attacker on a damage roll that already had a higher than average outcome because there is little chance of a good return there.

Best value is (almost too obviously) on attacks with high damage ranges (i.e. 1d12) and on critical hits which offer more dice variance and thus a higher potential for greater return on the second roll.

i.e. A low damage roll of 1-3 on a great axe would be able to net an average of 4.5 additional damage; on a critical hit (the damage of which is totally unaffected by having better stats) the value would be doubled accordingly, netting an average of 9 points of additional damage on the lower 25% of rolls and 3 points on the quarter above that. That value actually goes up for Barbarians, for example, who get to roll many more additional damage dice for critical hits.

So best users of Savage attacker are probably Champion Fighters who have a much better chance of getting critical hits or Barbarians.
These are some valid points and makes you see that having more attacks only increases the usability of SA. Sure being able to re-roll all damage would be more powerful.
Yet I feel that this feature has been designed like this to avoid it going broken.

[Potato_Priest]

I don't have my books on me. Can somebody do a RAW check to see if savage attacker allows you to reroll sneak attack dice? If so, it might occasionally be valuable for a rogue.

[R.Shackleford]

Savage Attacker is a great feat for Moon Druid for his Wild Shape attacks. Fight me.

*punches phone where your avatar is at*

Well, Blizzard, looks like I don't have a phone.

[JackPhoenix]

If you have to start your post by "sorry for necro", don't. Not to advice anyone, but it's actualy more serious offense than just necromancy, because you *know* what you're doing against the rules, you admit it, and you're doing it anyway.

[Foxhound438]

*punches phone here your avatar is at*

Well, Blizzard, looks like I don't have a phone.

every part of this is funny to me


If you have to start your post by "sorry for necro", don't. Not to advice anyone, but it's actualy more serious offense than just necromancy, because you *know* what you're doing against the rules, you admit it, and you're doing it anyway.

is it just me or has there been a sudden spike of thread necromancy for some reason? maybe posts should auto-lock after an amount of time...