Fixing “Savage Attacker”

[LVOD]

This just came up in another thread (5e Feats Tier list), but Savage Attacker is awful.

With a greataxe, your average damage goes up to 8.486, whereas if you’d just used the ASI you’d have 7.5 average damage, +1 to accuracy, and +1 to all relevant rolls associated with that stat.

And it also only applies once per turn! So if you have two attacks, you break even on damage with the ASI on a d12.


Now as someone pointed out, this doesn’t account for increased dice rolled on crits, and obviously in those rare situations where your 1 turns into a 12, it will make all the difference, but the point remains that this feat is pretty definitively a trap.


So I have two questions:

1) am I missing something that actually makes this feat worthwhile?

2) how can we fix it? The obvious solution would be to just make it a half feat, or let it apply to each attack instead of only one, but how does that stack up balance-wise?

Giants! I ask for your wisdom.

[Kryx]

Savage attacker is fine as a half feat that applies to all attacks (remove once a turn). I've measured the balance of that implementation a few times and it seems perfectly balanced as a half feat. Not top tier like RAW -5/+10, but those are just broken.

[Talamare]

Savage Attacker
On your turn, when you score a Critical Hit with a Melee Weapon Attack, or reduce a creature to 0 HP with a Melee Weapon Attack; You may spend a Bonus Action to make an Attack.

Once per turn, when you roll for damage for a Melee Weapon Attack, you may reroll the weapon's damage dice and use either total.


Power Attack
When you declare a Melee Weapon Attack, you may choose to forgo the bonus to Proficiency on the Attack Roll; if you do the attack deals additional Damage equal to your proficiency. Heavy Weapons gain double your Proficiency in additional damage instead.

[strangebloke]

Hey.

It's certainly not OP as a 'per attack' ability. It's basically just 2 damage which isn't crazy. On a crit it's slightly better, but even then, the proportional increase it offers doesn't scale linearly.

1d12=6.5 -> 8.5 (~30% increase)
2d12=13 -> 15.8 (~25% increase)
...
7d12=45.5 -> 50.5(~10% increase)

Making it every attack doesn't even fix it, IMO.

One option that's very roll-heavy is to change the text to: 'Whenever you roll weapon damage, you can choose to reroll one or more of the weapon damage dice. You can keep the higher of the two rolled. On your turn, you can reroll a number of damage die equal to your STR mod.'

You crit? Say hello to +10 damage. You don't crit? Say hello to +2 damage per hit. Without crits it's strictly worse than an ASI. With crits, or after your attack stat is maxed, it's very good. Strong incentive to use a greataxe over a GReatsword, if you take this feat. Otherwise, Greatsword is 1 damage ahead.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

Here is what my group uses...


SAVAGE ATTACKER
You swing harder and faster than anyone on the battlefield. You gain the following benefits.


Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon’s damage dice and use either total.
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack on your turn, you can make that attack a critical hit. Once you use this feature, you must finish a long rest before you can use it again.

[Tanarii]

Power Attack
When you declare a Melee Weapon Attack, you may choose to forgo the bonus to Proficiency on the Attack Roll; if you do the attack deals additional Damage equal to your proficiency. Heavy Weapons gain double your Proficiency in additional damage instead.
I thought this "solution" to the OP problem of GWM was known to actually make things worse as you gained levels? As in, -2/+4 is usually better in regards to DPR than -6/+12.

[Talamare]

I thought this "solution" to the OP problem of GWM was known to actually make things worse as you gained levels? As in, -2/+4 is usually better in regards to DPR than -6/+12.

DPR is a little less important than Impact on a Battle.

Getting +10 Damage at low levels, even if its unreliable, and make a potentially interesting encounter fall flat because of the massive damage.
With 3 hits in a row, on a slightly statistically unlikely scenario that results in you doing 40-50 damage in 1 turn on a Lv4 enemy.

This change also fixes other issues, as it grants the possibility of using Power Attack to 1 handed weapons. Thus opening up their viability in DPR.

[Tanarii]

DPR is a little less important than Impact on a Battle.Gotcha. DPR is not the be all and end all by any means.


This change also fixes other issues, as it grants the possibility of using Power Attack to 1 handed weapons. Thus opening up their viability in DPR.I like that it opens up style options. I dislike Power Attack (ie -to hit/+damage) in general, but if it costs a ASI to gain and it's the only benefit and it can apply to any style, it might actually be balanced.

[Kane0]

I have a different version of it in my sig, worked pretty well last time I tested it.

[Eric Diaz]

There is this 4e thing:

"Brutal: A brutal weapon’s minimum damage is higher than that of a normal weapon. When rolling the weapon’s damage, reroll any die that displays a value equal to or lower than the brutal value given for the weapon. Reroll the die until the value shown exceeds the weapon’s brutal value, and then use the new value."

(I don't remember if they actually used it in the game; just googled it)

Now, I don't like that much die rolling, so maybe one could make "“Savage Attacker” mean you have a MINIMUM damage equal to your strength mod when you roll a weapon die, limited to the size of the die. So someone with STR 20 would ALWAYS deal 4 dmg when using a dagger, for example, and a STR 24 barbarian would deal 6 damage with a shortsword, always. As for your greataxe, you would roll, and maybe roll again because of TWM... but your minimum would still be the same.

Alternatively, the minimum is equal to half the damage die (6 on a d6, etc).

Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there.

[LVOD]

There is this 4e thing:

"Brutal: A brutal weapon’s minimum damage is higher than that of a normal weapon. When rolling the weapon’s damage, reroll any die that displays a value equal to or lower than the brutal value given for the weapon. Reroll the die until the value shown exceeds the weapon’s brutal value, and then use the new value."

(I don't remember if they actually used it in the game; just googled it)

Now, I don't like that much die rolling, so maybe one could make "“Savage Attacker” mean you have a MINIMUM damage equal to your strength mod when you roll a weapon die, limited to the size of the die. So someone with STR 20 would ALWAYS deal 4 dmg when using a dagger, for example, and a STR 24 barbarian would deal 6 damage with a shortsword, always. As for your greataxe, you would roll, and maybe roll again because of TWM... but your minimum would still be the same.

Alternatively, the minimum is equal to half the damage die (6 on a d6, etc).

Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there.

Ooooooo. Thats actually pretty nice. I think the rerolling over and over is a bit much, maybe instead saying “if you roll lower than your str mod, the roll = your mod instead up to the max damage for a weapon.”

On a greataxe with a 5 mod, it only works out to about 1 extra damage, unfortunately, whereas a greatsword would be an automatic 12 every time (unless you count the total of the dice instead, in which case it works out to like 0.8 damage).

Not super strong unless you use a 1 handed weapon, in which case its pretty great, but the flavor doesn’t really fit. I mean “savage attacker” should benefit massive violent weapons more than shortswords and daggers.

[jollydm]

There is this 4e thing:

"Brutal: A brutal weapon’s minimum damage is higher than that of a normal weapon. When rolling the weapon’s damage, reroll any die that displays a value equal to or lower than the brutal value given for the weapon. Reroll the die until the value shown exceeds the weapon’s brutal value, and then use the new value."

(I don't remember if they actually used it in the game; just googled it)

Now, I don't like that much die rolling, so maybe one could make "“Savage Attacker” mean you have a MINIMUM damage equal to your strength mod when you roll a weapon die, limited to the size of the die. So someone with STR 20 would ALWAYS deal 4 dmg when using a dagger, for example, and a STR 24 barbarian would deal 6 damage with a shortsword, always. As for your greataxe, you would roll, and maybe roll again because of TWM... but your minimum would still be the same.

Alternatively, the minimum is equal to half the damage die (6 on a d6, etc).

Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there.

Not a bad suggestion. Brutal weapons were pretty nasty in 4E - one of my players played an Avenger with an Executioner's Axe and churned out tons of damage.

[strangebloke]

Savage attacker is fine as a half feat that applies to all attacks (remove once a turn). I've measured the balance of that implementation a few times and it seems perfectly balanced as a half feat. Not top tier like RAW -5/+10, but those are just broken.

I think this is the most lightweight, sensible solution, and I have come to trust your DPR calcs like the gospel.


There is this 4e thing:

"Brutal: A brutal weapon’s minimum damage is higher than that of a normal weapon. When rolling the weapon’s damage, reroll any die that displays a value equal to or lower than the brutal value given for the weapon. Reroll the die until the value shown exceeds the weapon’s brutal value, and then use the new value."

(I don't remember if they actually used it in the game; just googled it)

Now, I don't like that much die rolling, so maybe one could make "“Savage Attacker” mean you have a MINIMUM damage equal to your strength mod when you roll a weapon die, limited to the size of the die. So someone with STR 20 would ALWAYS deal 4 dmg when using a dagger, for example, and a STR 24 barbarian would deal 6 damage with a shortsword, always. As for your greataxe, you would roll, and maybe roll again because of TWM... but your minimum would still be the same.

Alternatively, the minimum is equal to half the damage die (6 on a d6, etc).

Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there.

Doesn't play nicely with gwf at all, so perhaps we don't use this solution? If we do, should be die size based, not strength based, since str based favors smaller dice hugely.

Like if the minimum is strength based, 2d6 becomes 10-12, but 1d12 becomes 5-12.

I'd be more on favor of allowing exploding dice. Raise the damage cap for mini-crits.

[Eric Diaz]

Ooooooo. Thats actually pretty nice. I think the rerolling over and over is a bit much, maybe instead saying “if you roll lower than your str mod, the roll = your mod instead up to the max damage for a weapon.”

On a greataxe with a 5 mod, it only works out to about 1 extra damage, unfortunately, whereas a greatsword would be an automatic 12 every time (unless you count the total of the dice instead, in which case it works out to like 0.8 damage).

Not super strong unless you use a 1 handed weapon, in which case its pretty great, but the flavor doesn’t really fit. I mean “savage attacker” should benefit massive violent weapons more than shortswords and daggers.

Well, if you use the alternative (minimum = half the dice), it works both for small and for large weapons, but it is more significant for large weapons. Using it with 1d4+4 will add less than 5% damage, while using this rule with 1d12+4 would add more than 10% damage, I think.

Not a lot of damage, but better than GWF if you're using a greataxe, I think.


Doesn't play nicely with gwf at all, so perhaps we don't use this solution? If we do, should be die size based, not strength based, since str based favors smaller dice hugely.

Like if the minimum is strength based, 2d6 becomes 10-12, but 1d12 becomes 5-12.

I'd be more on favor of allowing exploding dice. Raise the damage cap for mini-crits.

That is not what I am suggesting... Minimum would be the minimum, no matter if 1d10, 2d6 or 2d12.

I agree with you that it should be die size based.

But why should it play nice with gwf? GWF makes the greataxe almost useless for most classes and races, IMO, so why not add something as an alternative to gwf? Specially since “Savage Attacker” might be a better fit to barbs than fighters, thematically.

Exploding dice are nice, but, again, not that great if you're using d12s, so a "savage attacker" would be better for daggers.

[strangebloke]

But why should it play nice with gwf? GWF makes the greataxe almost useless for most classes and races, IMO, so why not add something as an alternative to gwf? Specially since “Savage Attacker” might be a better fit to barbs than fighters, thematically.

Exploding dice are nice, but, again, not that great if you're using d12s, so a "savage attacker" would be better for daggers.

It should play nicely with GWF because GWF is a class feature that people who use big weapons can and should take. Not being able to use class features at the same time is bad design.

yeah exploding dice are bad, but I'd prefer them to your system. I like rolling dice. If you don't like rolling dice, 5e is not a great system for you!

Honestly, just the 'roll 2 and choose' is probably what we want here. That feature gives more the larger the variance is, and 1d12 has the highest variance, so it will play nicely with the greataxe, which we agree is desireable. Kryx's solution remains the cleanest one, but allowing to roll and choose each die individually is probably fine as well.

[Zalabim]

It should play nicely with GWF because GWF is a class feature that people who use big weapons can and should take. Not being able to use class features at the same time is bad design.
I don't disagree with your conclusion later, but this here. Not being able to use class features from different classes at the same time is just design. It's not good or bad. Expecting barbarians to take a fighter class feature for no reason other than 'it's strong' is bad though. Like 100% of the time, show the munchkin to the door, bad. It's fine for any barbarian to take fighter levels. It's wrong to expect every barbarian to take fighter levels. Deeply wrong.

[Waazraath]

1) am I missing something that actually makes this feat worthwhile?


Two things:

1) there are very few abilities that top a class max damage. What I mean: stat increase is maxed (20), so each class has a fixed damage ceiling. There are hardly feats, or racial abilities, that can permanently increase that ceiling. Savage attacker is (even though it is with just a little).
2) niche, but moon druid / polymorph (and variants) can morph you into something that has 1 very big attack. Then it gets better.

Makes that it 'worthwhile'? Up for you to deceide of course. It's not very high on my own 'what feat to take' list...

[Zanthy1]

I would like to point out that at lower levels, such as 1-3 it is an amazing ability (obviously you'd have to be vhuman). I would only take it if I knew I wasn't going to get much higher than those tier 1 levels though. Anytime before extra attack comes on is actually useful.

[Eric Diaz]

It should play nicely with GWF because GWF is a class feature that people who use big weapons can and should take. Not being able to use class features at the same time is bad design.


Agree to disagree.

[strangebloke]

Agree to disagree.

Well, I do disagree, but isn't making abilities work together well generally agreed to be a good thing?

Like, you pick up a greataxe at level 1. You pick GWF at 2 because hey, that's reasonable. You pick Savage attacker at 4, because you're a half-orc barbarian. Savage, that's you all over! But now your level 2 feature does nothing! It was a trap! You figure this out halfway into level 5 and you're like... Hey, DM. Can I rebuild my character?

If you're saying that GWF needs to be fixed anyway, then... sure! Let's do that!

[Eric Diaz]

Well, I do disagree, but isn't making abilities work together well generally agreed to be a good thing?

Like, you pick up a greataxe at level 1. You pick GWF at 2 because hey, that's reasonable. You pick Savage attacker at 4, because you're a half-orc barbarian. Savage, that's you all over! But now your level 2 feature does nothing! It was a trap! You figure this out halfway into level 5 and you're like... Hey, DM. Can I rebuild my character?

If you're saying that GWF needs to be fixed anyway, then... sure! Let's do that!


Yeah, I see what you're saying; we are looking at this from different angles.

I think we basically agree on GWF after all (it needs some fixing), but some of our assumptions are different.

GWF is already pretty bad for greataxes IMO; it adds less than 1 point of damage per die, there is really no reason to choose that over dueling unless you are really focused on maximizing your crits (well, not a bad idea if you're a barbarian, I guess, but not quite enough to alter your DPR much).

But this discussion also assumes multi-classing, something I rarely use in my games.

So, while I was thinking in a single-class barbarian alternative to GWF, you are thinking of a good option for a barb/fighter that already has GWF.

Which makes sense too, TBH.

But using exploding damage and other mechanics that make the greataxe even worse when compared to the greatsword does not work for me.

I'll admit I don't have a perfect solution for this; GWM is a better feat for barbarians, and it portrays the "savage attacker" archetype well enough.

So while I agree that Savage Attacker should be fixed, I am not sure I need it to exist in the first place.

Savage attacker seems to be made for barbarians but (IIRC) doesn't work with brutal critical or half-orcs. If it did, it would be good enough for barb - maybe even fighters if you remove the "once per turn" limit.

...and I went full circle by disagreeing with part of your post and agreeing completely to your proposed solution (just let every die be rerolled, no limits, great for crits and favors greataxe over greatsword because barbs - although, again, too many dice for me if you combine with GWF).

Well, I'm a bit sleepy, this post became too long, just throwing some ideas out there, hope it makes sense.

[strangebloke]

I don't disagree with your conclusion later, but this here. Not being able to use class features from different classes at the same time is just design. It's not good or bad. Expecting barbarians to take a fighter class feature for no reason other than 'it's strong' is bad though. Like 100% of the time, show the munchkin to the door, bad. It's fine for any barbarian to take fighter levels. It's wrong to expect every barbarian to take fighter levels. Deeply wrong.

To be fair, you don't have to be a barbarian to want to take Savage Attacker.

[Zalabim]

To be fair, you don't have to be a barbarian to want to take Savage Attacker.

That's true, but if the theme of a feat has a specific class in mind, then pointing out that the function of that feat isn't very good with a different class's ability is actually a bonus. Otherwise you'll have a grey-mashed "fighter" that sneak attacks, rages, GWF re-rolls with a flurry of greatswords as the basic reference for feat design. The Barroghtermon.

[El_Jairo]

I have played many dice games and I value a re-roll very highly.
Yet I feel that the RAW version of Savage Attacker a bit lacking in comparison to other feats, like GWM. As GWM gives you two things.
My current fix would be to have it affect all dice related to a weapon, so Sneak Attack and Critical dice should all be affected by it and it should come with a attribute +1 to Str or Dex.
The once a turn doesn't bother me as much.

I have the impression that most people look at averages but those are only relevant at a large number of dice rolled. Each roll of the dice has a big impact, the logic is that a re-roll is important enough.
As a reference Lucky only gives three re-rolls per long rest. I reckon that re-rolling damage will be relevant more than three times per long rest. Unless you have only one encounter per long rest.

[djreynolds]

Give it out for free and see its actual impact, not statistical.

Actually take the time and write out the damage rolls, and then the re-rolls with savage attacker.

At lower levels it is actually very strong re-rolling damage.

[stoutstien]

My fix was another approach all together. I added +1 str or Con and allowed the players to replace and damage roll with the weapon average. D12=6, d8 =4 and so on.
Edit once per turn

[CTurbo]

I changed Savage Attacker at my table too-


Savage Attacker

--When you hit with a melee weapon attack, you can roll the weapons damage die twice and use either total.
--When you crit with a melee weapon attack, you can forgo rolling the extra crit bonus die and instead use the highest number possible for the damage die once per attack.





It's basically advantage for the damage die, and it works on any and every attack, but only for the weapon'e damage die and not smites, sneak, hex damage etc dice. It also deters actual rerolling which tends to slow down game play at times.

I've had a couple players take it and they have been happy with it, and it does not feel overpowered. I have not crunched the numbers though to see how much difference it actually makes.

[El_Jairo]

My fix was another approach all together. I added +1 str or Con and allowed the players to replace and damage roll with the weapon average. D12=6, d8 =4 and so on.
Edit once per turn
What is your reasoning behind allowing +Con over Dex?
I don't associate Savage Attacker with tanking ability.

Is the replacement allowed after the roll? Because if it is, I feel like it is a reliable way to get higher damage output, not that that would be a bad thing though.


I changed Savage Attacker at my table too-


Savage Attacker

--When you hit with a melee weapon attack, you can roll the weapons damage die twice and use either total.
--When you crit with a melee weapon attack, you can forgo rolling the extra crit bonus die and instead use the highest number possible for the damage die once per attack.





It's basically advantage for the damage die, and it works on any and every attack, but only for the weapon'e damage die and not smites, sneak, hex damage etc dice. It also deters actual rerolling which tends to slow down game play at times.
I can see this method being nice and efficient in a mechanical way, there is not much decisions to make.

The second part of your feature seems a little redundant as you would be able to roll with advantage on the weapon die anyway and add the critical die, which is expected to be be around 2x average damage of the weapon die, which equals about max weapon damage.

As far as number crunching goes, as can be seen on anydice site. Your average damage does not go up a ton but the expected damage does increase significantly. The standard deviation is a lot smaller and more upwards as the bell curve is skewed towards higher damage.

If you want, I can get the link.

For my taste allowing players the choice is not bad.
You have that possibility with GWM and people don't seem to mind it. Even though GWM had a risk built in to miss.
With Savage Attacker you have no risk only an upside.
From a psychological point of view I feel that allowing the player to choose to reroll a whiff on damage feels more satisfying. Having advantage all the time feels less dynamic but is a good impact, having a reliable damage output with more high spikes than low spikes is welcome in securing the kill and would have good synergy with the Cleave part of GWM.