Savage Attacker

[Ruslan]

We all know the feat is weak. It only provides a small boost on level 1, and doesn't scale at all when you get multiple attacks. Which is a shame, because the name oozes with flavor, and I'd really like to be a Savage Attacker. With that in mind, two proposed fixes:


Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon’s damage dice and use either total.
Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.





Whenever you hit with an Strength-based melee weapon attack, you have Advantage on the weapon damage roll.



Let me know what you think. By the way, the intent of option 2 is to give advantage only for the weapon damage itself, and not any riders (not Smite, Sneak Attack, etc).

[Theodoxus]

I'm not seeing how option 1 is different mechanically than option 2 - other than a boost to Str...

Rerolling damage and taking the better of the two is identical to rolling damage twice and taking the better of the two (advantage).

What am I missing?

[FinnS]

I'm not seeing how option 1 is different mechanically than option 2 - other than a boost to Str...

Rerolling damage and taking the better of the two is identical to rolling damage twice and taking the better of the two (advantage).

What am I missing?

First version you can only re-roll once per turn.
Second version you get to pick the higher value on every roll.

[ChubbyRain]

First version you can only re-roll once per turn.
Second version you get to pick the higher value on every roll.

Neither.

Make "advantage on weapon damage" be a champion feature instead of the extra crits.

[Kane0]

Savage Attacker:
When you miss on a melee attack roll that isn't a natural 1, you still deal minimum possible damage.

Bam.

[Lawful Good]

Savage Attacker:
When you miss on a melee attack roll that isn't a natural 1, you still deal minimum possible damage.

Bam.

I like this, but how would it function with riders, such as D Smite or magic weapons?

[Professor Gnoll]

I like this, but how would it function with riders, such as D Smite or magic weapons?
"When you miss with a weapon attack on any roll other than a natural 1, the target takes damage equal to the minimum possible damage roll on the attack." Then you can't add riders, because it isn't a hit. Unless it should be allowed to add riders.

[Kane0]

Well if you want to spend a spell slot to deal an extra point of damage or three thats up to you. Isn't one of the major benefits of pallysmite you can choose to activate when you hit anyways?

If your magic weapon says "On a hit you deal +1d8 poison damage and the target must succeed on a DC 14 Con save or he poisoned for 1 minute" then none of that happens, because you didnt hit. Your dm might rule you still do 1 extra point of poison damage though.

Edit: pretty much what Gnoll said.

[djreynolds]

We all know the feat is weak. It only provides a small boost on level 1, and doesn't scale at all when you get multiple attacks. Which is a shame, because the name oozes with flavor, and I'd really like to be a Savage Attacker. With that in mind, two proposed fixes:




Let me know what you think. By the way, the intent of option 2 is to give advantage only for the weapon damage itself, and not any riders (not Smite, Sneak Attack, etc).

I had a thread awhile back.... and to try it out I gave it out for free.

Try it out for 1 session for free, and allow it to be used post roll if you have multiple attacks

The feat may surprise you, it may be worth it.

I noted on a fighter who gets lots of AoO attacks with sentinel or PAM, who has the feats to grab it, it upped their damage.. is it better than GWM/SS... no it is not. That static +10, is huge.

But if I told you it could add, as a "mean", +5 damage a turn. Is it worth it then.

Try it out for free. Have it like a team feat for defeating something awesome as a reward.

[N810]

Savage Attacker:
When you miss on a melee attack roll that isn't a natural 1, you still deal minimum possible damage.

Bam.

...so just use -5/+10 on every attack ?

[ChubbyRain]

...so just use -5/+10 on every attack ?

Any DM worth their salt has already removed the -5/+10 from their games.

Not only does it "break the rules" of 5e, but its generally a trap to use unless you have advantage or some other base bonus.

[N810]

well if I get 21 damage on a miss I don't see why I'm not using it every swing...

[Specter]

Option 2 will be a major speed bump in the game, because every damage roll will be separate (for multiple attacks) and rolled twice.

[N810]

or use 1 more dice...

[Kane0]

Oh yeah my table changed -5/+10 to +1 Str/Dex ages ago. I didn't even think of it.

[Deleted]

Oh yeah my table changed -5/+10 to +1 Str/Dex ages ago. I didn't even think of it.

I'm pretty sure most games have done something like this. People always forget about -5/+10.

[Desamir]

Any DM worth their salt has already removed the -5/+10 from their games.

Not only does it "break the rules" of 5e, but its generally a trap to use unless you have advantage or some other base bonus.

Wait... are you saying -5/+10 is weak?

[Deleted]

Wait... are you saying -5/+10 is weak?

-5/+10 is only worth it if you are attacking creatures you will definitely hit (low AC) or you have a form of advantage (COUGHrecklessattackCough).

I've seen the math via... Reddit I think, I forget... But essentially it is a trap. It looks nice and all but doesn't live up to what it could be worth.

That -5 really really hurts this feature.

Plus it doesn't fit in with the rest of the game, but then again neither does the core of the Fighter... So that doesn't matter as much.

It isn't that it is weak, just that it isn't reliable enough for the output. When it IS reliable enough, then it's too strong.

-5 is a greater penalty than disadvantage, disadvantage is usually a -3.33333333333333(more 3's).

Plus, the creatures you would hit with this are already dying from your attacks. Using this on goblins or whatever is a waste, but low AC creatures are what you are going to hit with it.

[Davemeddlehed]

Any DM worth their salt has already removed the -5/+10 from their games.

Not only does it "break the rules" of 5e, but its generally a trap to use unless you have advantage or some other base bonus.

Why wouldn't any DM worth their salt just work around one thing? No single thing is unbeatable. What happens if the weapon gets disarmed, or the character is restrained, blinded, charmed, knocked prone, grappled, can't reach the enemy, or just use creatures with an AC above 15?

No DM worth their salt just up and pulls canon out of the game. That's lazy.

[Desamir]

-5/+10 is only worth it if you are attacking creatures you will definitely hit (low AC) or you have a form of advantage (COUGHrecklessattackCough).

I've seen the math via... Reddit I think, I forget... But essentially it is a trap. It looks nice and all but doesn't live up to what it could be worth.

Was it this thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3or0i4/great_weapon_master_a_simple_way_to_tell_you_when/) by chance?


That -5 really really hurts this feature.

Plus it doesn't fit in with the rest of the game, but then again neither does the core of the Fighter... So that doesn't matter as much.

It isn't that it is weak, just that it isn't reliable enough for the output. When it IS reliable enough, then it's too strong.

-5 is a greater penalty than disadvantage, disadvantage is usually a -3.33333333333333(more 3's).

Plus, the creatures you would hit with this are already dying from your attacks. Using this on goblins or whatever is a waste, but low AC creatures are what you are going to hit with it.

I agree that it doesn't really fit into 5e mechanically, but I disagree with some of the math here.

Archers, for example, typically have high accuracy and low base damage. For them, it's a DPR increase to -5/+10 against AC 19 or less (that's with +3 Dex, +2 proficiency, archery fighting style, longbow). Sharpshooter is basically a straight damage increase, and virtually required.

[Contrast]

Snip

I mean I can give everyone the Durable feat for free and I'm sure everyone would get some use out of it. Still doesn't mean they should take it when it actually costs them a feat.

Pretty sure savage attacker falls well below a +5 on average even in optimal conditions. On a d12 you're raising your average from 6.5 to 8.5 for a +2.

I do really like the idea of handing it out as a reward for, say, becoming a gladatorial champion or the like (in part because its so low impact).


Any DM worth their salt has already removed the -5/+10 from their games.

Not only does it "break the rules" of 5e, but its generally a trap to use unless you have advantage or some other base bonus.

I don't think that's remotely true. This belief is even more confusing seeing as you don't seem to actually think its overly powerful.

[Deleted]

Was it this thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3or0i4/great_weapon_master_a_simple_way_to_tell_you_when/) by chance?



I agree that it doesn't really fit into 5e mechanically, but I disagree with some of the math here.

Archers, for example, typically have high accuracy and low base damage. For them, it's a DPR increase to -5/+10 against AC 19 or less (that's with +3 Dex, +2 proficiency, archery fighting style, longbow). Sharpshooter is basically a straight damage increase, and virtually required.

Yeah, archers have an offset on that penalty mostly built in. As I said, you need a way to reliably get advantage (archery style is essentially almost advantage +2 ~ +3.333).

Even then it really isnt worth the missing as the bonus damage wont always kill something all that much faster.

If a creature has 60 HP and you normally can deal 20 damage. You will deal 30 damage to this creature. Then you allies pick it off BUT they each deal 20 damage also.

You: 30 damage (30 total)
Ally 1: 20 damage (50 total)
Ally 2: 20 damage (70 total)

If you didnt have the +10

You: 20 damage (20 total)
Ally 1: 20 damage (40 total)
Ally 2: 20 damage (60 total)

Which group killed the monster faster? Neither.

High damage doesn't mean squat unless the monster HP is at the correct range. Thinsg that are easy to kill don't need the +10 and things that are harder to kill wont be hit as often (so it probably balances out) or will have weird HP ranges.

Unless you are playing with the cleave rules, doing more damage doesn't equate to killing faster. The target HP matters a lot.

[Foxhound438]

Savage Attacker:
When you miss on a melee attack roll that isn't a natural 1, you still deal minimum possible damage.

Bam.


...so just use -5/+10 on every attack ?

change the miss damage to str or dex mod +1 and you're golden. Even fixes questions of extra damage modifiers from spells and things like lifedrinker that normally add a second mod.

[Kane0]

Or Str + Prof, that works nicely and scales too.

[Deleted]

Was it this thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3or0i4/great_weapon_master_a_simple_way_to_tell_you_when/) by chance?



I agree that it doesn't really fit into 5e mechanically, but I disagree with some of the math here.

Archers, for example, typically have high accuracy and low base damage. For them, it's a DPR increase to -5/+10 against AC 19 or less (that's with +3 Dex, +2 proficiency, archery fighting style, longbow). Sharpshooter is basically a straight damage increase, and virtually required.

No clue if it was that thread, its been a while.

[Vogonjeltz]

-5/+10 is only worth it if you are attacking creatures you will definitely hit (low AC) or you have a form of advantage (COUGHrecklessattackCough).

I've seen the math via... Reddit I think, I forget... But essentially it is a trap. It looks nice and all but doesn't live up to what it could be worth.

That -5 really really hurts this feature.

Plus it doesn't fit in with the rest of the game, but then again neither does the core of the Fighter... So that doesn't matter as much.

It isn't that it is weak, just that it isn't reliable enough for the output. When it IS reliable enough, then it's too strong.

-5 is a greater penalty than disadvantage, disadvantage is usually a -3.33333333333333(more 3's).

Plus, the creatures you would hit with this are already dying from your attacks. Using this on goblins or whatever is a waste, but low AC creatures are what you are going to hit with it.

It's an adjusted AC of 16. The basic formula is that the normal damage of a hit X 5 must be less than the remaining numbers that hit X 10.

Anyway, Savage Attacker is fine in that it nets advantage on a damage roll, which is great for classes that crit often (Champions) or classes that crit or hit for many dice (any Barbarian or Rogue).

[Saggo]

-5/+10 is only worth it if you are attacking creatures you will definitely hit (low AC) or you have a form of advantage (COUGHrecklessattackCough).

The AC threshold (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472938-Great-Weapon-Mastery-How-to-5-10-Like-a-Prohttp://) at level 1 is AC 16 (Proficiency 2, Modifier +3, Weapon 2d6). At AC 16, normal attacks vs -5/+10 is even, anything below AC 16 it's a damage increase to use -5/+10. The AC threshold for a longbow at level 1 is AC 17, meaning there are more targets for a longbow power attack than a greatsword power attack including AC 17 where it's a slight damage increase over a normal attack (unlike a 2d6 weapon). For reference (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2091322934), the average expected AC for a CR 1 is AC 13.

As the AC threshold for actually higher than the average, I wouldn't say you need "low AC".

[djreynolds]

I gave out savage attacker for free, the mean was +5 in damage over a few days of playing. Not the average.

Dice are funny and they land wrong all the time, the average was about +3, I think like +2.8.

But that's taking into consideration rolling a 5 in damage and re-rolling a 6 in damage, etc.

But from what we saw, the 1d10 and 1d12 rolled awful, 1s, 2s and 3s and on the rerolls were 8s, 9s, and 10s and the mean, not the average for this trial was +5. So for these weapon types, savage attacker isn't bad when you roll low with weapons like a great axe

So if you have the feat to spare, savage attacker isn't bad for a great axe or polearm wielder... its just there are other feats out there that are more important... like resilient wisdom/con, lucky, alert, max str, max dex, max con.... etc.

That's the problem with savage attacker, it isn't used because there are so many other feat, IMO, more important.

Players will pull out the average damage done by a 1d12, saying it is 6.5. That's probably true, but it doesn't account for the actual rolls. The 1s and 2s, being able to reroll these could be nice.

The other issue with savage attacker is extra attacks.

[Contrast]

I'm not sure you understand the math djreynolds. First, mean is a type of average (and in my experience what people usually mean when they say average is mean). I'm not sure what you mean (ha) when you say 'mean, not the average' - mode, median? What?

You can check out the math yourself on AnyDice.com, output 1d12 vs output [highest 1 of 2d12]. Your average (mean) damage increases by around +2.

If you were getting +5 to your average (mean) damage then you were a statistical anomaly (particularly seeing as I assume the entire party was not using d12 weapons which maximise the usefulness - for comparison a d6 based weapon only gains +1 damage on average). To check - when you figured out your average were you including all the times savage attacker did nothing in the total or just the times when it added damage?

Things which improve the usefulness of savage attacker are critting or things which add weapon die (half orc, barbarian).

Extra attacks are a marginal boost in that you can choose to 'save' it for when you roll low. This is counter balanced by the times you save it and then simply roll higher on your next roll. You know what helps more though? 2 points of strength where you get to add that bonus to every attack.

Honestly the damage increase is so marginal I would take utility feats over it even if I had run out of combat feats and stats I wanted to take.

I understand what you're saying in that it can help to alleviate the bad feelings when you roll a 1 and maximises your chances of rolling a 12 (which feels good). The average 6.5 vs 8.5 very much does account for actual rolls though - thats just the math. If you were to sit down and roll thousands of actual d12s, that is what you would be trending towards.

[djreynolds]

I'm sorry took statistics, when most players weren't born yet. Is it the mode the I mean, pardon the pun.

So the mode we saw was 5. Whether some rolled an 5 and then a 10...5

Or someone rolled a 1 and then a 6..5

So I guess the mode. The difference between first roll and second roll, ended up most of the time would be a 5.

The total average, the mean, was 2.8, all the differences added up and divided

[Contrast]

It sounds like you were rolling slightly above average.

For every time you rolled a 5 and then a 10 there will be a time you rolled a 10 and then a 5 meaning savage attacker added nothing. This is why people usually use mean because it weights the value to take account for that sort of thing whereas the mode completely ignores this unless 0 is the most common result :smalltongue:

To summarise what I see as both sides of the argument - savage attacker significantly increases your chance of rolling max damage and significantly reduces your chance of rolling a 1 on damage (once per turn) which can feel pretty good. In terms of total extra damage caused, the actual increase in damage is pretty marginal. If you were trying to 'fix' the feat I guess you need to try and keep the first while addressing the second.

[djreynolds]

It sounds like you were rolling slightly above average.

For every time you rolled a 5 and then a 10 there will be a time you rolled a 10 and then a 5 meaning savage attacker added nothing. This is why people usually use mean because it weights the value to take account for that sort of thing whereas the mode completely ignores this unless 0 is the most common result :smalltongue:

To summarise what I see as both sides of the argument - savage attacker significantly increases your chance of rolling max damage and significantly reduces your chance of rolling a 1 on damage (once per turn) which can feel pretty good. In terms of total extra damage caused, the actual increase in damage is pretty marginal.

Thanks for the math help... its been a long time

We had a total of 100 rerolls with savage attacker, 18 of them were a difference of 5.

Also note, you will find this funny out of all 100 rolls... 27 of them were less than the original damage, obviously savage attacker isn't always that savage

Its just too expensive for a feat when it is

only used for melee weapon damage, no SA or smites no bows no cantrips

you have to guess with extra attacks which one to reroll

and too many other feats are needed.

We used it like a team feat award, the whole party got it

[Vogonjeltz]

Thanks for the math help... its been a long time

We had a total of 100 rerolls with savage attacker, 18 of them were a difference of 5.

Also note, you will find this funny out of all 100 rolls... 27 of them were less than the original damage, obviously savage attacker isn't always that savage

Its just too expensive for a feat when it is

only used for melee weapon damage, no SA or smites no bows no cantrips

you have to guess with extra attacks which one to reroll

and too many other feats are needed.

We used it like a team feat award, the whole party got it

If you restrict yourself to only using it on attacks that deal (on a great axe for example) < half damage, you'll see a +9 damage increase, on average.

[gfishfunk]

Late to the party: how about simply add a d4 to 1h weapon damage, a d6 to versatile weapons, and add a d8 to 2h weapons. Once per turn. On the first hit.

Or in a hit, provoke a save to cause a bleeding condition (1d4 over time).