Treantmonk's opinion on feats

[MaxWilson]

Link (https://youtu.be/MsXSmxXE82s)

The other thread died a horrible death, so maybe we can start over here. Please do not argue in this thread about rules interpretations. Just share your insights into and opinions about what makes certain feats good or bad or over/underrated.

Here's my reaction:


I'm less interested in ratings than in discussion, so I'll just point out two uses for feats that Treantmonk missed:

(1) Skulker lets you hide when lightly obscured. Darkvision makes darkness light obscurement instead of heavy. If you have the Skulker feat, you can therefore hide from any monster relying on darkvision, anywhere it's dark. This is even more defensively powerful than Gloomstalker because you cannot usually be targeted, even at disadvantage.

For example, a 4th level Skulker Goblin Moon Druid can cast Pass Without Trace and then scout ahead in the Underdark, and now if he meets, say, a Troll and a Chuul, he can shapeshift into Brown Bear form and kill both monsters single-handedly just by Hiding (at +14) after every attack sequence he makes, and then finishing off the Troll with Primal Savagery once it hits 0 HP.

It's niche because it relies on lots of darkness, and it doesn't work against blindsight/truesight, but it was weird to me that Treantmonk completely skipped over that aspect of the feat because it's arguably better than either "not revealed when you miss on a ranged weapon attack" or "Perception not hampered by dim light".

(2) Alert feat: Treantmonk spent little time on the "unseen attackers don't gain advantage against you," which is a shame because it is likewise a very strong component.

Say you're a Shadow Monk or an Eldritch Knight. You'd like to become a better tank. Shadow Monks only get specific spells, and EKs only get mostly abjuration/evocation spells, so it's not easy to pick up spells like Blur. You do have easy access to the Darkness spell, but it gives no net benefits when you use it because "disadvantage against unseen targets" is cancelled out by "advantage to unseen attackers." But if you take Alert, not only do you get benefits to initiative and against surprise, but now your Darkness spell is also effectively a super-long-duration Blur spell. That's great!

I had a monk in one campaign who was blind (as part of her character concept) but used Alert + Darkness to turn that weakness into a strength.

If you have something that actually blocks vision, like Fog Cloud, it can work even against truesight/devil's sight (though probably not tremorsense). The default Darkness version obviously does not work against truesight/devil's sight though.

[djreynolds]

I find mage slayer very strong. The second part has no range requirements. So a wizard could cast fireball, if some would have full cover from say an arrow or magic missile even.... Just to make the other caster roll a con save at disadvantage

The AOE doesn't care about frontal cover because it's everywhere.

Even if the other caster uses absorb elements, he still has to roll.

[Zalabim]

Weapon Master is certainly a rarely useful feat. The only use I find for it is for rogues as it opens the option of 4 of the following weapons, for the following purposes. Longbow for the longest range. Heavy crossbow for the highest damage. Net for restraining. Scimitar for slashing damage. Whip for reach. Just like he says, some of those things can even be substituted with a good enough approximation, or gotten by other means.

Savage Attacker: It's likely about 3 damage when you get deep into it, but it's definitely not enough.

Skulker: Yeah, this is a good feat for rogues. Players can often control the circumstances this feat effects.

Dungeon Delver: I don't know about this one. The pace benefit is like the ranger's natural explorer. Most of the time, the pace you're traveling isn't even tracked. Finding secret doors basically turns you into an elf. It stands out most on passive checks to notice secret passages that aren't necessary, but are the easier ways to get around that only the locals know about and use. To give a video game example, those dungeons that have quick exits at the back of them, imagine how helpful it would be to be able to spot and open one of those from the other side. That's how the dungeon denizens get everywhere quickly and safely. It's all really circumstantial benefits that most PCs aren't going to see benefits from.

Alert: Unseen enemies (I wonder if he doesn't know about the errata for that) not getting advantage on you is great. There's a lot of enemies that take advantage of this, plus the options for the players to instigate those situations themselves.

Sentinel: It does its job, and it's job is one that some players want to do. This feat really lands right on the mark.

GWM/SS: There's a third factor. How much HP the target has left, or how important the damage you're potentially dealing right now is. I think his video on damage does kind of address this.

Lucky: It's true that you won't go wrong with lucky, but I do think you can often go more right. It's like Hunter's Mark that way.

Dual Wielder: All I'll say here is even if it's the best possible use of dual wielder it's still a bad use for a feat. Actually, I'll add that I think dual lances is still better and the combo with mounted combatant is not too expensive for the benefits.

Shield Master: I agree with the way the two rulings are presented. I'm tired of people arguing "RAW" about the latter clarification.

Crossbow Expert: I think this is one of those overrated but still good selections. I do think it's overrated because the range on the hand crossbow is a lot shorter, and people do run over their bonus action limits a lot when evaluating the value of the feat. It's still good in combination with sharpshooter, especially for the right character. Like a fighter.

Elven Accuracy: God people overrate this so much. It's balanced. Assuming you get advantage pretty much all the time. It's not going to break the game, and for most builds that want to use it, it isn't even very good. For a few characters, it's the best choice, but again, not overpowered. Just balanced. Assuming you do get advantage pretty much all the time.

Ritual Caster: I pick it for flavor rather than power, but it's good. It just is. And I pick all my feats for the flavor anyway. Or at least a joke. (A tanner with Healer? Yeah, he'll save your hides.)

Moderately Armored: A fair description, and I'd add that I think it is also useful on more characters. Unarmored characters also often have access to better alternatives than light armor. Heavily armored can also be really good on some types of characters if your dexterity isn't so good, but it's hard to say if such characters are themselves a good choice.

Inspiring Leader: Too many guides rated this as worse than Tough. Also compared to Healer, you can use inspiring leader to good effect on allies even if they don't have as many levels or hit dice as you do.

Afterword: I'm looking forward to trickery cleric too, to see if I've missed anything.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I shared my thoughts in the youtube comments but I'd also like to share them here for the sake of expression.

Out of all of Treantmonk's evaluation tiers (Bad, Underrated, Overrated and Good) I most disagree with his decision of Bad feats. After watching his evaluation of spells and then these feats I've come to a conclusion about his thought process: He undervalues the exploration pillar of the game.

This is his right as a player and DM, to play the game how he prefers, however I think he should be more up front with this bias like he is with his vehement loathing of Save or Suck spells.

Skulker: I feel like he severely underestimated this feat. Not much more I can add to what MaxWilson has already said, where Treantmonk seems to believe that it doesn't do a lot to make a stealth build better, I think it can make a stealth build fantastic when lighting/darkvision rules are properly handled

Dungeon Delver: I have a bias towards being the keen eyed front man who spots all the secrets. I don't think he's necessarily wrong about Dungeon Delver being a lackluster or niche option, however when it's paired with observant you'll almost certainly be finding any secret door you pass by. Whether that's important is dependant on the campaign and setting.

Savage Attacker: This is a terrible feat so I was shocked to see it escape as just the third worst, specifically when compared to Skulker.

Weapon Master: Rated as an honorable mention, even though it's only niche use is to acquire whip proficiency for spell sniper booming blade. I'm not sure when I'd take this feat over multiclassing fighter for those weapon proficiencies.

Charger, Lightly Armored, Heavily Armored, Grappler: They weren't on the list of worst feats, I was very surprised.

[djreynolds]

I think if you are using TWF and are dex based, you should grab defensive duelist before the dual wielder feat.

For rangers and fighters using TWF, you probably do not have a readily used reaction.
Defensive duelist is there every turn.

Defensive duelist is an awesome feat, and it something you can grab at 12th level.

Up to +6 A.C., pretty good

[Jerrykhor]

I just laughed hard when he said he didn't think any feat was absolutely useless, because he is wrong. There is only one answer to that, and that is Grappler feat.

Though its good to see him rate Inspiring Leader highly. I like that feat, the only problem being you are normally required to RP the 10min pep talk.

[Zalabim]

I just laughed hard when he said he didn't think any feat was absolutely useless, because he is wrong. There is only one answer to that, and that is Grappler feat.

Though its good to see him rate Inspiring Leader highly. I like that feat, the only problem being you are normally required to RP the 10min pep talk.

Grappler isn't totally useless though. It's actually good if you want to be a grappler in a mostly ranged party. I'm not sure you'd want to be a grappler in a mostly ranged party, but there it is.

[Misterwhisper]

I just laughed hard when he said he didn't think any feat was absolutely useless, because he is wrong. There is only one answer to that, and that is Grappler feat.

Though its good to see him rate Inspiring Leader highly. I like that feat, the only problem being you are normally required to RP the 10min pep talk.

Your dm wants you to rp the 10 min pep talk.
Wow, that would go over like once and then be a waste of time.

I actually don’t agreee with skulker being in the bottom 3, or is not great or anything but for sure not bottom 3.

My top 3

Sentinel
Pam/CBE
Resilience

Bottom

Grappler
Mage slayer
Dual wielder

[Jerrykhor]

Grappler isn't totally useless though. It's actually good if you want to be a grappler in a mostly ranged party. I'm not sure you'd want to be a grappler in a mostly ranged party, but there it is.

It still doesnt make you better at Grappling. Getting benefits after I land a successful grapple is useless because if you can't land a grapple in the first place, then its all for naught. You know whats funny? Tavern Brawler makes you a better grappler than Grappler.

[Zalabim]

It still doesnt make you better at Grappling. Getting benefits after I land a successful grapple is useless because if you can't land a grapple in the first place, then its all for naught. You know whats funny? Tavern Brawler makes you a better grappler than Grappler.

Tavern Brawler doesn't make you better at grappling either (unless you're raising your strength modifier with it). Maybe that's what you mean though. If you want to grapple an enemy, you're more likely to succeed if you just go for the grapple than if you wait to hit first then grapple. It does let you deal damage and grapple more concurrently, and can increase your damage while grappling.

It doesn't make you better at grappling but it makes grappling better for you. It sounds like an indistinct distinction.

[Specter]

Has anyone actually done any math on Savage Attacker? Seems to me no one should take it instead of something else.

[djreynolds]

Has anyone actually done any math on Savage Attacker? Seems to me no one should take it instead of something else.

I've handed it out for free.

Some of the results were underwhelming.

But a few times, in the heat of the moment, it was minimum damage to maximum. And it ended the fight. Total luck.

Hand it out for free for one combat, but at lower levels I did notice just increase of 4-5 damage can be lethal

[MaxWilson]

Grappler isn't totally useless though. It's actually good if you want to be a grappler in a mostly ranged party. I'm not sure you'd want to be a grappler in a mostly ranged party, but there it is.

In that circumstance I'd just skip Grappler and go with Crossbow Expert and a bunch of nets. It's faster at granting advantage to your allies, and scales better.

[Naanomi]

The recent Errata change for Dungeon Delver has raised it from ‘bad’ to ‘ok’ to me... passive perception is a big deal at many tables

[Tvtyrant]

Savage attacker seems good on Moon Druids. Rerolling the 4d10 off a mammoth or the other elephant line (elephant and triceratops) seems pretty decent.

[Foxhound438]

In that circumstance I'd just skip Grappler and go with Crossbow Expert and a bunch of nets. It's faster at granting advantage to your allies, and scales better.

That's actually a pretty good option, especially if you're holding a hand crossbow in the other hand... Pretty sure the one attack limitation doesn't also remove your ability to attack on a different action. Only having to hit AC to get them is pretty nice, and then if they want to get out it'll either waste its action for the turn or at least soak a hit to do so.

One thing that I've noticed in this case is that Treantmonk seems to gloss over specific ways to build around feats in favor of looking at things from a "universalist" perspective. Perfect example is that he rates lucky as being very good because anyone can take it, which is true, but as someone else said there's usually something better that you can be doing to fit your specific build more, like crossbow expert on a bonus action light character (a fighter), which he in turn says is overrated because of the cases where the bonus action is more contended for (a ranger). Being less good on the ranger doesn't change the fact that it's just short of a free extra attack for a battlemaster fighter, which is WAAAAAY better than getting an extra 3 d20 rolls per day from lucky. Hell, I'd say the extra attack only happening like half of the time is still better than lucky on the ranger using hunter's mark, since mark gets more value with more attacks.

I do agree with him on inspiring leader- on a character that's already investing in charisma like a paladin or bard, this can usually make the difference of a round of combat on anyone that's getting hit. I've played both as the user and along side one, and it's always been a welcome benefit.

I was surprised to not see mobile at all in there, maybe it was on his short list but just didn't make the video. It's such a staple of monks and (pre swashbuckler) rogues that I'd imagine if it wasn't rated among the best he'd mention it as an overrated one.

Another one that I almost expected to see some mention was fey teleportation, but this one hasn't garnered much attention on forums, so that might be why. It's pretty cool to have teleportation on a short rest cooldown for a non-full caster such as a fighter or rogue.

[mephnick]

Skulker is much better than he thinks.

Dude should stick to writing Wizard guides in the 00's.

[Misterwhisper]

Skulker is much better than he thinks.

Dude should stick to writing Wizard guides in the 00's.

He is too biased towards summoning to write a good wizard guide either.

I will give him credit for having good formatting style, organization, and being a good speaker though.

[Pex]

I'm surprised he thought Inspiring Leader was underrated, but I agree it's effective. I have a character who has it. It does make a difference. At the most cynical it keeps you conscious, able to act for one more round than you would have without it. That one extra round of contribution you can do helps a lot to give your party the win. It's useful for NPCs you need/want to keep alive. It's also a good morale booster. EVeryone likes seeing more hit points, but even more it's a stress reliever when you take your first damage from an attack or spell and it only takes away the temporary hit points. That's one round of an enemy's attack that was indirectly wasted, especially if you were surprised.

[MaxWilson]

That's actually a pretty good option, especially if you're holding a hand crossbow in the other hand... Pretty sure the one attack limitation doesn't also remove your ability to attack on a different action. Only having to hit AC to get them is pretty nice, and then if they want to get out it'll either waste its action for the turn or at least soak a hit to do so.

At a table where the DM agrees with the part in bold, Booming Blade + bonus action net is a pretty sweet combo for a Crossbow Expert Eldritch Knight. (E.g. if you're a Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert EK, this tactic could be one of your melee options for tight quarters, and you get it sort of "for free", no extra feat cost.)


One thing that I've noticed in this case is that Treantmonk seems to gloss over specific ways to build around feats in favor of looking at things from a "universalist" perspective.

Agreed.


I do agree with him on inspiring leader- on a character that's already investing in charisma like a paladin or bard, this can usually make the difference of a round of combat on anyone that's getting hit. I've played both as the user and along side one, and it's always been a welcome benefit.

Absolutely. Inspiring Leader is fantastic. In HP terms, it's sort of like +6 to Con for everyone in your whole party, and at low levels it's even better than that.

Incidentally it is still good even if you don't invest particularly in Charisma, as long as you meet the prereqs. The bulk of the temp HP comes from your level, not from your Charisma bonus. Inspiring Leader is a perfectly valid choice for a Fighter, for example, and it's even thematic for fighter as a "leader of men". (Inspiring Leader = your troops are more likely to survive and win battles = better reputation as a commander = good morale = inspiring leader.)


I was surprised to not see mobile at all in there, maybe it was on his short list but just didn't make the video. It's such a staple of monks and (pre swashbuckler) rogues that I'd imagine if it wasn't rated among the best he'd mention it as an overrated one.

Agree, Mobile is a great feat that is easy to leverage, especially with Booming Blade.


Another one that I almost expected to see some mention was fey teleportation, but this one hasn't garnered much attention on forums, so that might be why. It's pretty cool to have teleportation on a short rest cooldown for a non-full caster such as a fighter or rogue.

I think it's dominated by the DMG Eladrin subrace. Given the choice between a High Elf with Fey Teleportation, and an Eladrin with a spare feat, there's very little you gain from going the High Elf route. If Eladrin isn't an option then I could see situations where Fey Teleportation would be useful for escaping grapples and avoiding dangerous terrain like Wall of Fire, but the fact that you must be a High Elf to take it really puts a damper on its utility IMO.

[Foxhound438]

I think it's dominated by the DMG Eladrin subrace. Given the choice between a High Elf with Fey Teleportation, and an Eladrin with a spare feat, there's very little you gain from going the High Elf route. If Eladrin isn't an option then I could see situations where Fey Teleportation would be useful for escaping grapples and avoiding dangerous terrain like Wall of Fire, but the fact that you must be a High Elf to take it really puts a damper on its utility IMO.

Very fair, especially with the version that's in Mordenkainen's tome that has tack on effects when you use it. The game I'm in right now doesn't allow a large swath of races though, including Eladrin.

[BarneyBent]

I said it in the other thread, but ignoring the second point in Crossbow Expert seems like
a big oversight. Removing disadvantage when an enemy is within 5 ft is one thing, but it applies not just to crossbows, but all ranged attacks, including spells! So a Warlock can spam Agonizing Eldritch Blast in melee now. Put that on a Hexblade and don’t worry about Blade Pact, you can take Chain or Tome and be that much more powerful.

[MaxWilson]

I said it in the other thread, but ignoring the second point in Crossbow Expert seems like
a big oversight. Removing disadvantage when an enemy is within 5 ft is one thing, but it applies not just to crossbows, but all ranged attacks, including spells! So a Warlock can spam Agonizing Eldritch Blast in melee now. Put that on a Hexblade and don’t worry about Blade Pact, you can take Chain or Tome and be that much more powerful.

Even without Crossbow Expert, Booming Blade + Mobile is roughly competitive with Agonizing Eldritch Blast anyway. The only reason to go Blade Pact would be if you were planning on leveraging GWM + PAM + Lifedrinker to do damage much greater than what Agonizing Eldritch Blast can achieve without Quicken Spell metamagic.

[Zuras]

(Snip)
Out of all of Treantmonk's evaluation tiers (Bad, Underrated, Overrated and Good) I most disagree with his decision of Bad feats. After watching his evaluation of spells and then these feats I've come to a conclusion about his thought process: He undervalues the exploration pillar of the game.

This is his right as a player and DM, to play the game how he prefers, however I think he should be more up front with this bias like he is with his vehement loathing of Save or Suck spells.
(Snip)


While you’re not wrong on this, note that he does explain his reasoning. It gets back to why the ranger class has so many problems—your DM is unlikely to rule you fail catastrophically at stuff in the exploration pillar that doesn’t involve an athletics/acrobatics check, because it isn’t very fun.

Seriously, instant death traps are almost as dangerous to the cohesion of your table as they are to PCs, and you can find half a dozen “Tomb of Horrors taught me being a jerk DM is bad” stories on D&D blogs without much effort.

Also, as he points out, if a secret passage goes somewhere cool and important to the plot, your DM will want you to find it.

You can disagree with his opionions, obviously, but I don’t think it’s a case of bias, just assessment. It’s the same logic that makes perception a more important skill than a knowledge skill like arcana. Most adventure mods are designed so dumb PCs can still complete them, even if they don’t understand what the magic runes mean, but provide no way to avoid getting surprised by the assassins if your perception sucks.

[JellyPooga]

Also, as he points out, if a secret passage goes somewhere cool and important to the plot, your DM will want you to find it.

Secret doors shouldn't be plot critical. If they are, then yeah, the GM should also provide easy access to their discovery. Where DD doea come in handy in that regard is the secret doors that are "additional finds"; the extra goodies that might otherwise go unnoticed by a hasty or less thorough party. For these, if they're included in the adventure, DD can be worth its weight in gold (or other treasure!).

[Galactkaktus]

Has anyone actually done any math on Savage Attacker? Seems to me no one should take it instead of something else.

Average damage for a dice with n sides.

(1+2+3+...+n)/n=n(n+1)/2/n=(n+1)/2

Average damage for a dice with n sides and savage attacker. you either take the average damage of the dice(rerolling) or the value on the dice.

(n+1)/2=n/2+0,5

Since a dice doesn't have half values you will get better average damga if you reroll any value on the dice that is equal to n/2 or less.

So if we replace any value that is n/2 or less in the original method (1+2+3+...+n)/n with (n+1)/2 and tthen subtract (1+2+3+...+n)/n. We will get the extra average damage that rerolling the dice gives.

((n+1)/2-1+(n+1)/2-2+...+(n+1)/2+n/2)/n=(n/2*(n+1)/2-n/2*(n/2+1)/2)/n=(n^2/2+n/2)/2-(n^2/4+n/2)/2)/n=(n^2/4+n/4-n^2/8-n/4)/n=(n^2/4-n^2/8)/n=n/4-n/8=n/8

So the ability to reroll an even sided dice adds n/8 average damage were n is the number of sides on the dice.

for example
d4 gives 4/8
d6 gives 6/8

[ProsecutorGodot]

While you’re not wrong on this, note that he does explain his reasoning. It gets back to why the ranger class has so many problems—your DM is unlikely to rule you fail catastrophically at stuff in the exploration pillar that doesn’t involve an athletics/acrobatics check, because it isn’t very fun.

Seriously, instant death traps are almost as dangerous to the cohesion of your table as they are to PCs, and you can find half a dozen “Tomb of Horrors taught me being a jerk DM is bad” stories on D&D blogs without much effort.

Also, as he points out, if a secret passage goes somewhere cool and important to the plot, your DM will want you to find it.

You can disagree with his opionions, obviously, but I don’t think it’s a case of bias, just assessment. It’s the same logic that makes perception a more important skill than a knowledge skill like arcana. Most adventure mods are designed so dumb PCs can still complete them, even if they don’t understand what the magic runes mean, but provide no way to avoid getting surprised by the assassins if your perception sucks.
Just to clarify, my main issue with his evaluation of exploration based feats is in Skulker, not Dungeon Delver.

Put simply, his reasoning for Dungeon Delver makes enough sense that I can understand the evaluation, even if I disagree. His evaluation of Skulker however ignores how much of a boon it is for a stealth build, even going so far as to say that it doesn't noticeably improve it. His rating of Weapon Master as only an honorable mention for bad feats off of it's half feat aspect as well as Savage Attacker being considered better than Skulker secures my belief that he's got a bias towards the combat pillar in his evaluations more than anything else.

Not a bad thing, but a clear bias in my mind.

[Zalabim]

Has anyone actually done any math on Savage Attacker? Seems to me no one should take it instead of something else.
I did, once. Enthusiastically. It has a greater impact on larger dice. It has a greater impact when you have multiple attacks. Specifically, when you make multiple consecutive hits. It has less impact if you have lower accuracy. It has less impact when you already have a reroll ability like GWF style. Because it's once per turn, it also has a greater impact when you make a reaction attack. If you combine everything that's good for the feat, you can get about 3, maybe 4, damage per round out of it. That's mainly on something like a barbarian with berserker and maybe sentinel for a lot of reaction attacks and high accuracy. A fighter with a lance could try to make use of it too. It's pretty ehhh. To give a comparison, GWM can give that barbarian an average ~9 more damage per round, and ramps up that bonus a lot faster with increased accuracy.

Average damage for a dice with n sides.

(1+2+3+...+n)/n=n(n+1)/2/n=(n+1)/2

Average damage for a dice with n sides and savage attacker. you either take the average damage of the dice(rerolling) or the value on the dice.

(n+1)/2=n/2+0,5

Since a dice doesn't have half values you will get better average damga if you reroll any value on the dice that is equal to n/2 or less.

So if we replace any value that is n/2 or less in the original method (1+2+3+...+n)/n with (n+1)/2 and tthen subtract (1+2+3+...+n)/n. We will get the extra average damage that rerolling the dice gives.

((n+1)/2-1+(n+1)/2-2+...+(n+1)/2+n/2)/n=(n/2*(n+1)/2-n/2*(n/2+1)/2)/n=(n^2/2+n/2)/2-(n^2/4+n/2)/2)/n=(n^2/4+n/4-n^2/8-n/4)/n=(n^2/4-n^2/8)/n=n/4-n/8=n/8

So the ability to reroll an even sided dice adds n/8 average damage were n is the number of sides on the dice.

for example
d4 gives 4/8
d6 gives 6/8
It lets you choose the highest, so you just always use the reroll on the last hit on your turn. Otherwise, you use it earlier if you roll badly on damage. I figured about 1/3 of max to be the optimal limit, but that varies a lot in the moment. So anydice.com will tell you it's worth about 1 damage when you roll 1d6, worth about 2 damage when you roll 1d12, and worth about 1.33 damage when you roll 2d6. Savage attacker actually makes one hit with a greataxe do more damage than one hit with a greatsword.

Anyway, since you know your roll before you use the reroll and it can't lower your damage, if you roll a 4 out of 12, then there's 4/12 unchanged, 1/12 + 1 through 1/12 +8 damage. That makes it average +3 damage. Doing the same for 3, 2, and 1, gives 3.75, 4.58, and 5.5 respectively. Averaged together, if you use it on a 4 or less, you increase your average hit by 4.2. Those rolls happen 1/3 of the time, after you hit, so assuming you hit 65% of the time, there's ~21.5% chance you use savage attacker on your first attack, 78.5% chance it's still available for your second attack. If that's your last attack, then you use savage attacker no matter your roll, which means it's worth ~2 damage, and you hit 65% of the time still, so that gives 51% chance you use it there. The remaining ~27.5% of the time you don't use it at all. All told, you actually raise your damage this turn by ~1.9. Compared to just using it on your first hit, assuming you hit at all, which raises your average by 1.755 [2*(1-.35^2)], and doesn't make you feel as smart. More attacks and more accuracy make it more likely you use savage attacker well. I'm not even trying to figure out what effect critical hits have on when you should use it. I'm just going to say critical hits benefit more.

In that circumstance I'd just skip Grappler and go with Crossbow Expert and a bunch of nets. It's faster at granting advantage to your allies, and scales better.
I didn't mean for the ability to restrain enemies. I meant it for the ability for your grappler to still at least get advantage while holding the enemy in place, without giving your ranged allies disadvantage. Nets are great though, and that is one of those things I mean with whether you want to play a grappler in such a situation at all.

[mephnick]

Just to clarify, my main issue with his evaluation of exploration based feats is in Skulker, not Dungeon Delver.

Also, he says something like "Skulker miss not revealing you doesn't matter because you can just hide again".

Seriously? I basically shut it down at that.

[Sindeloke]

Some more math on Savage Attacker:

Average of 1d12 is 6.5
Average of 2d12 drop lowest is 8.49

The highest average beneft per turn any martial weapon can get from this feat is 1.99 damage.

+2 Strength will give most damage-focused martials up to +3 on their turn (~2.1 after misses) but only +1 on a reaction. You also get 5% accuracy across the board.

So it's only worth taking if a) you have exactly 19 str and no other damage feats left, b) you can make and hit with an opportunity attack in at least 80% of combat rounds and will never be a level 11+ fighter, or c) your Strength is capped, your campaign won't get to 5th level and PAM and GWM are banned.

Not 100% useless, then, but niche to say the least.

Edit: oh, or if you have a badarse wild shape attack. That's a pretty clever use actually. Stealing an Ice Devil polearm or something could be a good gimmick build too.

[MaxWilson]

Savage Attacker could potentially be useful if you're fighting orcs and goblins and lots of other weak-ish creatures--it significantly boosts your chance of achieving a one-hit kill, including on opportunity attacks.

Its main use though is merely emotional: some people just *feel* bad when they roll low damage (especially on a crit), and this feat is designed to make them feel good instead of bad.

[Pex]

Savage Attacker could potentially be useful if you're fighting orcs and goblins and lots of other weak-ish creatures--it significantly boosts your chance of achieving a one-hit kill, including on opportunity attacks.

Its main use though is merely emotional: some people just *feel* bad when they roll low damage (especially on a crit), and this feat is designed to make them feel good instead of bad.

That's true. Players don't experience average damage increase. They experience a 1 and 3 on a great sword attack become a 4 and 6. That's +6 damage.

[MaxWilson]

That's true. Players don't experience average damage increase. They experience a 1 and 3 on a great sword attack become a 4 and 6. That's +6 damage.

Well, it depends on the player. I experience average damage, but other people only experience the individual events separately. Getting a crit for 4d6 and then rolling only 7 damage doesn't bother me--I'm focused more on tactical decision-making, which means probabilities and averages.

To put it another way, if I mess up and allow an enemy to get an opportunity attack on me when I could have avoided it, I feel bad about that even if the enemy winds up missing. The game isn't about the die rolls for me. If it is about die rolls for you, then you might enjoy Savage Attacker.

[jas61292]

Savage Attacker is definitely one that I think is better in actual play than the numbers would lead you to believe. I've only seen it in play on one character, when a player of mine took it about half way through a playthrough of Princes of the Apocalypse, but it was quite impactful. He was a Barbarian (bear totem), and used a Great Axe. It didn't always come up, but it had a big impact, because turning a 1 or 2 into even just a 6 or 7 often ended up taking out an enemy. And turning a low roll to an 11 or 12 sometimes changed the entire flow of a battle.

I won't say it was the most powerful thing ever, but I do just feel that average damage doesn't do it justice, since average only matters in abstract. Whether an enemy is alive or dead is what matters in actuality, and a small increase in average damage does less to effect whether something lives or dies than big damage swings.

[Chaosmancer]

One thing about this list that does bother me a little is tied to an issue I have with some feats in general.

As an example, I HATE Lucky. Not because it is too powerful or because it slows the game. No, I hate it because everyone takes it. I had a game run to 20 and by the end four of my six players had taken lucky. It's just aggravating.

And a couple of the ones he mentioned like Alert are like that for me. I'm just sick of them.

I don't have that issue with GWM or SS, though I have had a few people excitedly discover PAM and Sentinel and tell me all about it. Weapon feats just don't seem as popular at my table.

[Misterwhisper]

One thing about this list that does bother me a little is tied to an issue I have with some feats in general.

As an example, I HATE Lucky. Not because it is too powerful or because it slows the game. No, I hate it because everyone takes it. I had a game run to 20 and by the end four of my six players had taken lucky. It's just aggravating.

And a couple of the ones he mentioned like Alert are like that for me. I'm just sick of them.

I don't have that issue with GWM or SS, though I have had a few people excitedly discover PAM and Sentinel and tell me all about it. Weapon feats just don't seem as popular at my table.

My issue with lucky is converting disadvantage into super advantage.

We had a player who took lucky so that when he needed an attack to land would close his eyes when he attacked this giving himself disadvantage because he could not see the enemy but would then use lucky to roll 3 dice and pick the best.

Lucky should just straight up give advantage on a roll 3 times a day.

[KorvinStarmast]

I just laughed hard when he said he didn't think any feat was absolutely useless, because he is wrong. There is only one answer to that, and that is Grappler feat.

Though its good to see him rate Inspiring Leader highly. I like that feat, the only problem being you are normally required to RP the 10min pep talk. I have a dwarf rogue with the grappler feat. Str 16. He's surprisingly effective at grappling things, and good at sticking them with his short sword. If he gets to a higher level, (we are stalled at 6). I may switch to daggers only ... not sure. That campaign has slowed and is almost dead. I don't care as much about lock picking, since we have a cleric who gives me guidance when we need that.
Expertise is in Athletics and Stealth. (I do wish we would find gaunts of ogre power, that would be cool..)

[KorvinStarmast]

And a couple of the ones he mentioned like Alert are like that for me. I love alert. Not sure why you hate on it. You pay a price to get it; it's worth the price.

[Misterwhisper]

I love alert. Not sure why you hate on it. You pay a price to get it; it's worth the price.

I think he meant he hated it because everyone takes it around his group.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think he meant he hated it because everyone takes it around his group. Not being surprised is a good feature to have ...

[MaxWilson]

Lucky should just straight up give advantage on a roll 3 times a day.

That would be a nerf, because then you couldn't use it retroactively. A reroll is much, much stronger than advantage.

Instead, just get the DM to rule that when you have disadvantage, you can use Lucky to replace one of the two dice in the disadvantage, not both. If you roll (3,11), you can use Lucky to roll a 17 yielding min(17,11) = 11 instead of min(3,11) = 3. But you can't replace min(3,11) with 17 because you do still have disadvantage.

Do this, and Lucky is still somewhat valuable even if you have disadvantage, but it's never better than not having disadvantage, so no "closing my eyes to shoot better" shenanigans will occur.

[Misterwhisper]

Not being surprised is a good feature to have ...

Yeah I love the feat too.

I tend to love stats more than feats unless it is center to the whole concept.

Mainly because I suck at rolling dice, I need all the little plus ones I can get.

[strangebloke]

@Kryx has told me before that Savage attack is about 50% as good as an ASI for most characters.

Obviously its better for Druids, sometimes. But still, it should probably be a half feat.

Agreed on Skulker. It's a dirty, sneaky, deadly feat. My main issue with it is that Wood Elves can do much the same thing under the right conditions for a lot lower investment. Nearly all the same conditions, if you've been bullying your DM. Never attack a camp of wood elves when its raining.

[JellyPooga]

My issue with lucky is converting disadvantage into super advantage.

We had a player who took lucky so that when he needed an attack to land would close his eyes when he attacked this giving himself disadvantage because he could not see the enemy but would then use lucky to roll 3 dice and pick the best.

Lucky should just straight up give advantage on a roll 3 times a day.

Personally, I like the "disadvantage to super advantage" thing; it really emphasises the feeling of being truly lucky. When the chips are down and things look grim, your character can simply rely on luck to pull him through, kind of deal. A player abusing that aspect, like the guy who closes his eyes to generate "free disadvantage", however, is not playing in the spirit of the ability and IMO deserves to have his luck privilage confiscated (or some other sanction) and would at any table I was running. A good GM needs to learn how to say "no", especially when a player is blatantly gaming the system like that.

[Coffee_Dragon]

That would be a nerf, because then you couldn't use it retroactively. A reroll is much, much stronger than advantage.

Except for rogues who want to add Sneak Attack damage at will.

[strangebloke]

Personally, I like the "disadvantage to super advantage" thing; it really emphasises the feeling of being truly lucky. When the chips are down and things look grim, your character can simply rely on luck to pull him through, kind of deal. A player abusing that aspect, like the guy who closes his eyes to generate "free disadvantage", however, is not playing in the spirit of the ability and IMO deserves to have his luck privilage confiscated (or some other sanction) and would at any table I was running. A good GM needs to learn how to say "no", especially when a player is blatantly gaming the system like that.

I don't know, a lucky character closing their eyes just before a big swing and knocking it out of the park is a pretty thematic thing.

I just don't like Lucky because it adds a use-on-reaction, long-rest-based resource and therefore slows down the game and encourages long resting for any or no reason. Also, It's just kind of fictionally convoluted. "I don't have any luck left! Don't put me in the line of fire!"

[MaxWilson]

Except for rogues who want to add Sneak Attack damage at will.

Sure, except for that, and a couple of other corner cases like negating disadvantage (turning it into straight-up advantage apparently).

But overall it would be a nerf. E.g. if you have +6 to Con saves, today you can use Lucky to make your concentration saves only when you roll a 3 or lower: you effectively have advantage on 20 Con saves before you run out. With this rule change, you'd only have advantage on three Con saves.

Nor could you save it to negate enemy crits.

This proposed change is a nerf for the same reason the Protection fighting style is unpopular and bad. Retroactive (dis)advantage is far more powerful than regular advantage. I wouldn't even bother taking Lucky at any table where this proposal was adopted. Advantage on three rolls per day? Pffft.

[AHF]

I said it in the other thread, but ignoring the second point in Crossbow Expert seems like
a big oversight. Removing disadvantage when an enemy is within 5 ft is one thing, but it applies not just to crossbows, but all ranged attacks, including spells! So a Warlock can spam Agonizing Eldritch Blast in melee now. Put that on a Hexblade and don’t worry about Blade Pact, you can take Chain or Tome and be that much more powerful.

Totally agree. Crossbow Expert is really good on lots of builds. Any archer type really benefits by being able to apply their +2 to hit on attacks (Archery Style) within 5 feet at no disadvantage and eligible for the +10 damage from SS. That is much better than dropping your bow and grabbing your rapier when someone charges into melee with you.

[Pex]

One thing about this list that does bother me a little is tied to an issue I have with some feats in general.

As an example, I HATE Lucky. Not because it is too powerful or because it slows the game. No, I hate it because everyone takes it. I had a game run to 20 and by the end four of my six players had taken lucky. It's just aggravating.

And a couple of the ones he mentioned like Alert are like that for me. I'm just sick of them.

I don't have that issue with GWM or SS, though I have had a few people excitedly discover PAM and Sentinel and tell me all about it. Weapon feats just don't seem as popular at my table.

Different players have different experiences. Having played many campaigns with many players the number of players who have taken Lucky is one. The number of players who have taken Great Weapon Master is one. The number of players who have taken Sharpshooter is one. Name a feat and the non-zero number of players who have taken it is at most 2. If I were to include myself three players have taken Healer.

[Zalabim]

More broadly about lucky, what effects is the new errata talking about with:

(November 2018 PHB errata)[New]
Advantage and Disadvantage
(p. 173).
In the first sentence of the fourth
paragraph, both instances of “reroll” have
been changed to “reroll or replace."

So that paragraph now reads:
"When you have advantage or disadvantage and something in the game, such as the halfling's Lucky trait, lets you reroll or replace the d20, you can reroll or replace only one of the dice. You choose which one. For example, if a halfling has advantage on an ability check and rolls a 1 and a 13, the halfling could use the Lucky trait to reroll the 1."

What effects replace a die instead of rerolling it? Some monster abilities maybe?

Personally, I like the "disadvantage to super advantage" thing; it really emphasises the feeling of being truly lucky. When the chips are down and things look grim, your character can simply rely on luck to pull him through, kind of deal. A player abusing that aspect, like the guy who closes his eyes to generate "free disadvantage", however, is not playing in the spirit of the ability and IMO deserves to have his luck privilage confiscated (or some other sanction) and would at any table I was running. A good GM needs to learn how to say "no", especially when a player is blatantly gaming the system like that.
I like it too, but I think you'd have to do more than blink to count as being blinded for the disadvantage. If the GM enforces that your PC is blind for the whole round, like averting your eyes from a creature with a gaze attack at least, then I think the tradeoff balances out.

Totally agree. Crossbow Expert is really good on lots of builds. Any archer type really benefits by being able to apply their +2 to hit on attacks (Archery Style) within 5 feet at no disadvantage and eligible for the +10 damage from SS. That is much better than dropping your bow and grabbing your rapier when someone charges into melee with you.
You don't have to drop your bow to fight with your rapier. Other than that, it's very good if you're specialized in ranged attacks, or just want to keep targeting the most important enemy and ignore the one in front of you.

[mephnick]

As an example, I HATE Lucky. Not because it is too powerful or because it slows the game. No, I hate it because everyone takes it.

Huh, I hate it for all of those reasons and more.

But I think re-roll mechanics are always bad design in role-playing..so maybe I'm biased.

[MaxWilson]

Totally agree. Crossbow Expert is really good on lots of builds. Any archer type really benefits by being able to apply their +2 to hit on attacks (Archery Style) within 5 feet at no disadvantage and eligible for the +10 damage from SS. That is much better than dropping your bow and grabbing your rapier when someone charges into melee with you.

It's a matter of taste. Personally I'd rather be a Mobile Sharpshooter who, in this situation, grabs his rapier with his free hand, stabs the enemy with a Booming Blade + follow-up attack from War Magic, and then withdraws out of melee range to avoid retaliation.

But Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter *is* kind of fun against prone targets, so there's that in its favor.

[Cynthaer]

More broadly about lucky, what effects is the new errata talking about with:

(November 2018 PHB errata)[New]
Advantage and Disadvantage
(p. 173).
In the first sentence of the fourth
paragraph, both instances of “reroll” have
been changed to “reroll or replace."

So that paragraph now reads:
"When you have advantage or disadvantage and something in the game, such as the halfling's Lucky trait, lets you reroll or replace the d20, you can reroll or replace only one of the dice. You choose which one. For example, if a halfling has advantage on an ability check and rolls a 1 and a 13, the halfling could use the Lucky trait to reroll the 1."

What effects replace a die instead of rerolling it? Some monster abilities maybe?
Divination wizards' Portent ability lets them preroll d20s and then replace rolls with them later. I assume this errata is targeted at that.

[MaxWilson]

Divination wizards' Portent ability lets them preroll d20s and then replace rolls with them later. I assume this errata is targeted at that.

Potentially it also prevents Lucky-with-disadvantage from acting as super-advantage. It's not 100% clear because Lucky doesn't use the word "replace" but it seems clear that that's what Lucky is doing: replacing the original d20 with a different d20.


You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment. You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.

[AHF]

It's a matter of taste. Personally I'd rather be a Mobile Sharpshooter who, in this situation, grabs his rapier with his free hand, stabs the enemy with a Booming Blade + follow-up attack from War Magic, and then withdraws out of melee range to avoid retaliation.

But Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter *is* kind of fun against prone targets, so there's that in its favor.

There are lots of different approaches depending on your character build and the SCAG cantrips make melee attacks a lot more attractive for many builds. I was just kind of shocked that this aspect of the feat was completely ignored in the video. As noted, it lets you keep taking advantage of the +2 bonus to hit from style (which can be a big deal), SS, can let you fire up close at prone or other targets or let you focus fire on a distant target even with a melee opponent in your face (like continuing to plug that caster). Just a lot of valuable options that open up.

IMO, that is a central feature of the feat that you can’t ignore if you are assessing it.

[MaxWilson]

There are lots of different approaches depending on your character build and the SCAG cantrips make melee attacks a lot more attractive for many builds. I was just kind of shocked that this aspect of the feat was completely ignored in the video. As noted, it lets you keep taking advantage of the +2 bonus to hit from style (which can be a big deal), SS, can let you fire up close at prone or other targets or let you focus fire on a distant target even with a melee opponent in your face (like continuing to plug that caster). Just a lot of valuable options that open up.

IMO, that is a central feature of the feat that you can’t ignore if you are assessing it.

Good point.

BTW, it's too bad Crossbow Expert crossbows aren't eligible for Mounted Combatant advantage, but Prodigy is the next-best thing. Prodigy (Athletics) + Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert is all kinds of crazy fun BTW for a fighter. By 6th level you can knock an enemy prone (+7 to Athletics with Str 12) and fire two crossbow bolts into the prone target (+2ish to hit at advantage for d6+13ish) before withdrawing out of range (taking only an opportunity attack at disadvantage), every turn that you want to. Or just grapple the enemy to keep them prone for everyone else to beat on if you feel like doing that instead.

I agree that it's a central feature of the feat. I don't remember what Treantmonk said about Crossbow Expert specifically (I think he glossed over it in only a few sentences) but you're right, it's incorrect to ignore that point because it's a huge part of the Crossbow Expert value proposition.

P.S. Another fun way to use Crossbow Expert is on a Repelling Blast warlock when there's a druid or bard in the party who can cast Spike Growth. Stand in the middle of the spikes. Blast enemies from a distance. If enemies cross the difficult terrain (taking 2d4 damage per square to do so) to get into melee range of you, you just blast them right back across the spikes for d10+4d4 (potentially +CHA) damage per hit, and now they have to burn more movement and more HP to get back to you. You can do this without Crossbow Expert of course but you'll miss more often.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I agree that it's a central feature of the feat. I don't remember what Treantmonk said about Crossbow Expert specifically (I think he glossed over it in only a few sentences) but you're right, it's incorrect to ignore that point because it's a huge part of the Crossbow Expert value proposition.

He didn't explain too much of his thought process in the video, but he commented in response to a commenter who brought it up in favor of using Crossbow Expert for spells with this:

I did forget to mention that, and you have my apology on one condition: NEVER take Crossbow Expert with a spellcaster so you can cast ranged cantrips in melee. You almost made my eyes bleed when I read that...

[MaxWilson]

He didn't explain too much of his thought process in the video, but he commented in response to a commenter who brought it up in favor of using Crossbow Expert for spells with this:

CE on a spellcaster is niche but not awful, especially if you are playing in AL or something where you don't have access to Booming Blade. Obviously there are alternatives (can use Darkness instead of CE) but those alternatives have their own opportunity cost (concentration, spells known, sometimes invocations). Methinks Treantmonk's comment is a knee-jerk reaction.

[Foxhound438]

He didn't explain too much of his thought process in the video, but he commented in response to a commenter who brought it up in favor of using Crossbow Expert for spells with this:

I actually agree with him there, you'd be way better off with something like war caster on 99% of casters. Even a warlock trying to use eldritch blast in melee is probably better off if they spend their feat on increasing con and just taking the one opportunity attack before they repelling blast push them into the setting sun.

[MaxWilson]

I actually agree with him there, you'd be way better off with something like war caster on 99% of casters. Even a warlock trying to use eldritch blast in melee is probably better off if they spend their feat on increasing con and just taking the one opportunity attack before they repelling blast push them into the setting sun.

It's easy to come up with plausible counterexamples. Maybe I want to be one of the party tanks (or off-tanks) instead of a skirmisher. Maybe I don't want to take multiple opportunity attacks when fighting hordes of creatures. Maybe I also like having the control option of being able to throw nets without disadvantage. Maybe I want to stand in a chokepoint and blast enemies through hostile terrain (Spike Growth example above). Maybe I'm interested in all of the above. If so, Crossbow Expert may be worth considering, especially if Booming Blade is not an option for some reason.

I can imagine playing a Crossbow Expert Hexblade 2/Lore Bard X with Spike Growth as a magical secret, and being quite happy about the Crossbow Expert.

P.S. And of course Warcaster synergizes nicely with Crossbow Expert: if you take both, then you don't have disadvantage on your Eldritch Blast opportunity attacks.

P.P.S. Come to think of it, another Warcaster/Crossbow Expert synergy is being able to hold your shield in one hand, grapple your enemy with the other to keep them prone, and still get to pour Eldritch Blasts into them at advantage. It's very nearly the best possible one-handed at-will damage for a grappler, since GWM and Sharpshooter both require two free hands and Sneak Attack damage doesn't scale well. I almost took this combination on a paladorlock in the past but (1) something else edged it out, I can't remember what, and (2) the campaign petered out before high levels due to RL issues. Warcaster + CE is definitely not bad though.

[Treantmonk]

LOL - I stopped by to look up a recent thread on Trickery Clerics and found a thread with my name. "Hey, they're talking about my feat video!"...:eek::eek::eek:

After reading it, I think we can all agree the conclusions are clear as day.

OK, so this thread doesn't seem like a minefield at all, so instead of working on what I was supposed to, instead I'm going to have fun and talk D&D.


This is even more defensively powerful than Gloomstalker because you cannot usually be targeted, even at disadvantage.

You are making good points, but this point is objectively false. A Gloomstalker is effectively invisible to darkvision so can always make stealth rolls

An invisible creature can always try to hide.
just as someone with Skulker can, except that if they don't, because they don't want to use an action, or they fail the stealth roll, they still remain unseen.


Unseen enemies (I wonder if he doesn't know about the errata for that)

Good question! What's the errata?


Crossbow Expert: I think this is one of those overrated but still good selections.

I agree. Some have pointed out that I didn't mention that you can fire in melee without disadvantage. The reason is because that part of the feat is not overrated IMO. However, I've seen players take this feat, only to find that after a couple levels, they find it hard to spare the bonus action, not realizing that there are a lot more bonus action options available at higher levels. The mistaking a bonus action and a free action are what I think has that aspect of the feat overrated, which is why it made the list, and why I focused on that portion of the feat.


Elven Accuracy: God people overrate this so much. It's balanced.

I agree. This is a pretty good feat, you get a +1 to an ability score (and a number of choices) and a pretty good add-on, but this idea that it's broken...


Afterword: I'm looking forward to trickery cleric too, to see if I've missed anything.

I'm working on it now. I should point out that a lot of the criticisms of Trickery Cleric are completely valid, I just happen to think they can be navigated.


however I think he should be more up front with this bias like he is with his vehement loathing of Save or Suck spells.

The reason I'm upfront with my bias against single target save and nothing happens spells is because I'm aware it is a significant bias. Naturally, all my opinions are biased (as are yours - no offense). These aren't lists I've developed from polling or scientific testing - they are based on my experience, and thus biased by my experience. I am not necessarily aware of where my experiences differ significantly from yours.


I think it can make a stealth build fantastic when lighting/darkvision rules are properly handled

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've found a lot of DM's I've played with play "loosey-goosey" (that's the technical term) with lighting rules, especially when it comes to dim vs bright light, and doubly especially when we are using theatre of the mind. Again, these experiences may differ at other tables.


Defensive duelist is an awesome feat, and it something you can grab at 12th level.

Up to +6 A.C., pretty good

I have mixed feelings. Up to +6 AC is pretty good, but it only works against one attack and uses up your reaction. I note that there's a certain first level spell that gives +5 for the entire round using that same reaction...


Has anyone actually done any math on Savage Attacker?

If you check out ThinkDM (I've posted links in the video description) that is exactly the kind of thing he does, not sure if he's done savage attacker, but you could reach out to him @ThinkingDM on Twitter. His mathematical analysis are quite good.


One thing that I've noticed in this case is that Treantmonk seems to gloss over specific ways to build around feats in favor of looking at things from a "universalist" perspective.

You are correct, and that is largely by design. These videos where I'm talking about 16 different feats - you do NOT want me to go into 10 minute descriptions of how they can be built around a specific build. About as much as I go into that is mentioning in Sentinel that "you might want to take a look at how Polearm Master interacts with this feat." If it's not dead-obvious, it's a subject for a more in-depth build video.


good on the ranger doesn't change the fact that it's just short of a free extra attack for a battlemaster fighter


Even that is only true at certain levels. What about once the Battlemaster picks up Magic Initiate (Warlock)? They will eventually, fighters at high levels are just searching for any half-decent feat that works to enhance their fighting style. Other bonus action options will come along, it's merely a question of when. You are right though, it was the Ranger's that take this that I was more specifically referring to.


maybe it was on his short list but just didn't make the video.

I like Mobile, but I wouldn't rank it top 3. I didn't even realize it was a staple of Monk and Rogue builds. Aren't most Monks and Rogues pretty mobile anyways? Or is it about attacking and disengaging? (Rogues are pretty good at that too - seems almost redundant, I would be more inclined to put Mobile on a bladesinger off the top of my head)


I almost expected to see some mention was fey teleportation

I like Fey Teleportation. Not quite enough to rank it amongst the best, but I do love a teleport - and getting it as an add-on to an ability score boost is lovely.


Dude should stick to writing Wizard guides in the 00's.

Why? So I can have your approval?


I'm surprised he thought Inspiring Leader was underrated, but I agree it's effective

I didn't think it was underrated either, but as research for the video I googled "Feat ranking 5e". After reading a few posts I was surprised to not see it ranked more highly.


I think it's dominated by the DMG Eladrin subrace. Given the choice between a High Elf with Fey Teleportation, and an Eladrin with a spare feat, there's very little you gain from going the High Elf route.

If you have no need of Int or Cha, then I can see that. However, for an Eldritch Knight, an Arcane Archer, an Arcane Trickster or a Wizard I can definitely see a reason to take High Elf over Eladrin.


I said it in the other thread, but ignoring the second point in Crossbow Expert seems like
a big oversight.

If I was rating Crossbow Expert as either Best or Worst I would agree. I was saying it was overrated, and focusing on the part of the feat I considered to be overrated to make the point.


And a couple of the ones he mentioned like Alert are like that for me. I'm just sick of them.

I would hate DMing a group that all had Alert, I must admit. So many interesting challenges are simply not available.


My issue with lucky is converting disadvantage into super advantage.

It's absurd. No idea why the designers simply didn't make it "pick either the disadvantaged result or the result of your Lucky d20"


Methinks Treantmonk's comment is a knee-jerk reaction.

Nope, I've had days to think about it. Taking Crossbow Expert for the purpose of being able to cast Ranged Cantrips from melee just seems like a terrible feat investment to me. I mean, like really bad. Cantrips just aren't that great, and you can just take a melee-capable cantrip. Toll the Dead comes to mind. I could see it being O...K for a Warlock for their Agonizing Repelling Blasts, but honestly, once you are feat-able, is this the one you're thinking of?

If I'm missing some kind of combo, please let me in on it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You are making good points, but this point is objectively false. A Gloomstalker is effectively invisible to darkvision so can always make stealth rolls
This isn't necessarily true, you're only invisible to creatures relying on darkvision to see you if you are in darkness, not dim light. The feature is powerful but you would still be spotted in an area of dim light, skulker makes it so that intelligent Darkvision having creatures who carry/use light sources will still have a damn hard time finding you.

Dim light is also considered lightly obscured, which is helpful for hiding from those non darkvision having people who carry light.

[Treantmonk]

This isn't necessarily true, you're only invisible to creatures relying on darkvision to see you if you are in darkness, not dim light. The feature is powerful but you would still be spotted in an area of dim light, skulker makes it so that intelligent Darkvision having creatures who carry/use light sources will still have a damn hard time finding you.

Dim light is also considered lightly obscured, which is helpful for hiding from those non darkvision having people who carry light.

That's true, if we're talking about actual Dim Light rather than Darkvision in Darkness, that's entirely different. Good point, I didn't even consider that.

[MaxWilson]

You are making good points, but this point is objectively false. A Gloomstalker is effectively invisible to darkvision so can always make stealth rolls

You misunderstand what I wrote. Being hidden is defensively more powerful than being invisible, that is all. You usually leverage Skulker with Cunning Action or Nimble Escape. You COULD combine Cunning Action with Gloomstalker 3, but usually you wouldn't want to pay the price in levels.

You're mostly correct about Gloomstalker + Hide dominating Skulker + Hide, at least in darkness. But that's not the comparison I was addressing.

[Misterwhisper]

LOL - I stopped by to look up a recent thread on Trickery Clerics and found a thread with my name. "Hey, they're talking about my feat video!"...:eek::eek::eek:

After reading it, I think we can all agree the conclusions are clear as day.

OK, so this thread doesn't seem like a minefield at all, so instead of working on what I was supposed to, instead I'm going to have fun and talk D&D.



You are making good points, but this point is objectively false. A Gloomstalker is effectively invisible to darkvision so can always make stealth rolls

just as someone with Skulker can, except that if they don't, because they don't want to use an action, or they fail the stealth roll, they still remain unseen.



Good question! What's the errata?



I agree. Some have pointed out that I didn't mention that you can fire in melee without disadvantage. The reason is because that part of the feat is not overrated IMO. However, I've seen players take this feat, only to find that after a couple levels, they find it hard to spare the bonus action, not realizing that there are a lot more bonus action options available at higher levels. The mistaking a bonus action and a free action are what I think has that aspect of the feat overrated, which is why it made the list, and why I focused on that portion of the feat.



I agree. This is a pretty good feat, you get a +1 to an ability score (and a number of choices) and a pretty good add-on, but this idea that it's broken...



I'm working on it now. I should point out that a lot of the criticisms of Trickery Cleric are completely valid, I just happen to think they can be navigated.



The reason I'm upfront with my bias against single target save and nothing happens spells is because I'm aware it is a significant bias. Naturally, all my opinions are biased (as are yours - no offense). These aren't lists I've developed from polling or scientific testing - they are based on my experience, and thus biased by my experience. I am not necessarily aware of where my experiences differ significantly from yours.



I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've found a lot of DM's I've played with play "loosey-goosey" (that's the technical term) with lighting rules, especially when it comes to dim vs bright light, and doubly especially when we are using theatre of the mind. Again, these experiences may differ at other tables.



I have mixed feelings. Up to +6 AC is pretty good, but it only works against one attack and uses up your reaction. I note that there's a certain first level spell that gives +5 for the entire round using that same reaction...



If you check out ThinkDM (I've posted links in the video description) that is exactly the kind of thing he does, not sure if he's done savage attacker, but you could reach out to him @ThinkingDM on Twitter. His mathematical analysis are quite good.



You are correct, and that is largely by design. These videos where I'm talking about 16 different feats - you do NOT want me to go into 10 minute descriptions of how they can be built around a specific build. About as much as I go into that is mentioning in Sentinel that "you might want to take a look at how Polearm Master interacts with this feat." If it's not dead-obvious, it's a subject for a more in-depth build video.



Even that is only true at certain levels. What about once the Battlemaster picks up Magic Initiate (Warlock)? They will eventually, fighters at high levels are just searching for any half-decent feat that works to enhance their fighting style. Other bonus action options will come along, it's merely a question of when. You are right though, it was the Ranger's that take this that I was more specifically referring to.



I like Mobile, but I wouldn't rank it top 3. I didn't even realize it was a staple of Monk and Rogue builds. Aren't most Monks and Rogues pretty mobile anyways? Or is it about attacking and disengaging? (Rogues are pretty good at that too - seems almost redundant, I would be more inclined to put Mobile on a bladesinger off the top of my head)



I like Fey Teleportation. Not quite enough to rank it amongst the best, but I do love a teleport - and getting it as an add-on to an ability score boost is lovely.



Why? So I can have your approval?



I didn't think it was underrated either, but as research for the video I googled "Feat ranking 5e". After reading a few posts I was surprised to not see it ranked more highly.



If you have no need of Int or Cha, then I can see that. However, for an Eldritch Knight, an Arcane Archer, an Arcane Trickster or a Wizard I can definitely see a reason to take High Elf over Eladrin.



If I was rating Crossbow Expert as either Best or Worst I would agree. I was saying it was overrated, and focusing on the part of the feat I considered to be overrated to make the point.



I would hate DMing a group that all had Alert, I must admit. So many interesting challenges are simply not available.



It's absurd. No idea why the designers simply didn't make it "pick either the disadvantaged result or the result of your Lucky d20"



Nope, I've had days to think about it. Taking Crossbow Expert for the purpose of being able to cast Ranged Cantrips from melee just seems like a terrible feat investment to me. I mean, like really bad. Cantrips just aren't that great, and you can just take a melee-capable cantrip. Toll the Dead comes to mind. I could see it being O...K for a Warlock for their Agonizing Repelling Blasts, but honestly, once you are feat-able, is this the one you're thinking of?

If I'm missing some kind of combo, please let me in on it.

The reason CBE is one of the best feats in the game is as follows:

1.a Normally archers/ranged casters are dealt with by getting in melee range and screwing up their chances to hit. At that point the caster has the option to cast a melee spell to not have to deal with disadvantage. With the feat though you can still cast the best spell option you have on hand, not the best one you have that is melee. It is not limited to cantrips, if they get in your face and you are in trouble, why firebolt when you can scorching ray, or even desegregate.

1.b the disadvantage from using your ranged attack with someone in melee range is even bigger of an issue because it does not have to be targeting the enemy in melee range. You might really need to put an arrow into the group leader in the back of the enemy pack, but if you have generic mook number 4 standing next to you, you have disadvantage to use a ranged attack against the main threat and if you are an archer you don’t really have the variable options the caster does you either have to: attack with disadvantage at the target you need, attack the enemy in melee range to keep him from closing. Ext round if you move, drop your main weapon and draw a melee one, or you can back up and take an opportunity attack just to get a better chance of hitting your primary target.

CBE gets rid of all of that, shoot whoever you need, with whatever attack option you want.

2. This is compounded for the same reason that PAM is so often taken, it lets you get free two weapon fighting style given as part of the feat AND you can do it with only one weapon of using a hand crossbow. That is only one magic weapon to find/buy/whatever. Add on the fact that you don’t even have to care of an enemy is in melee and it is even better.

3. It opens up a whole different group of weapon options. Nobody with extra attacks is ever going to use a crossbow without it. The main class that would use a crossbow without extra attack is rogue and with CBE they get a second shot at that sneak attack, for free, from range, and only need one weapon that they are already proficient in.

4. It eliminates weapon switching and carrying. With CBE you don’t need but one weapon, a ranged one to fight anywhere you need. People without it would need to carry more than one magic weapon otherwise just so they can deal with resistances/immunities.

5. Why do you keep saying cantrips? The feat works on any ranged attack, cantrips, leveled spells, archery weapons, whatever.

Eldritch blast, firebolt, and the like are covered.
So are scorching ray, enervation, finger of death, and all other ranged attack spells.

[Treantmonk]

You misunderstand what I wrote.

Yep, that's what happened. With your clarification, I agree, Hidden is better than invisible. I should mention that Glomstalker+Rogue is a pretty natural multiclass though which allows that cunning action Hide while invisible as required.

Gloomstalker is a monster though, especially levels 3-5.

[Treantmonk]

The reason CBE is one of the best feats in the game is as follows:

You don't need to convince me, UNLESS you are saying it's better than Sharpshooter. If that's your opinion, I disagree. I think Crossbow Expert is a good feat, and with an archer build, I would take it after Sharpshooter.


5. Why do you keep saying cantrips?
The comment I was responding to was whether I realized that Crossbow Expert worked to allow you to cast ranged cantrips in melee. I am aware that Crossbow Expert allows other ranged options in melee. However, I think the ability to use other ranged options in melee is GOOD. The comment was made like being able to cast cantrips in melee was some reason to consider giving greater value to the feat, which I thought was funny, so I made the "eyes bleed" comment to be funny back.

I should point out 3 things:

1) When I rate a spell or feat as overrated, that does not mean it's bad. In fact, often it's good, just overrated for some reason.

2) I rated Crossbow Expert as overrated because I've seen players take it thinking that they were going to get a free attack every round, then as levels increase they find out that attack means sacrificing other bonus action options. I find this comes up often, players see "bonus action" and think "free action". It's not free though, most characters have bonus action options that don't require feats, so in those cases, when they take a feat that provides a bonus action option, it ends up being just one more option, rather than a free action.

3) The ability to attack in melee without disadvantage had nothing to do with my reasoning to point out the feat was overrated. That's why I ommitted that feature when discussing the feat being overrated in the video. That said, whenever I rate anything that's good as overrated, I know I'm going to get heat. That's OK, I like the discussion. In this case though, you are preaching to the choir. You are trying to convince me on something I already agree with you on.

[Misterwhisper]

You don't need to convince me, UNLESS you are saying it's better than Sharpshooter. If that's your opinion, I disagree. I think Crossbow Expert is a good feat, and with an archer build, I would take it after Sharpshooter.


The comment I was responding to was whether I realized that Crossbow Expert worked to allow you to cast ranged cantrips in melee. I am aware that Crossbow Expert allows other ranged options in melee. However, I think the ability to use other ranged options in melee is GOOD. The comment was made like being able to cast cantrips in melee was some reason to consider giving greater value to the feat, which I thought was funny, so I made the "eyes bleed" comment to be funny back.

I should point out 3 things:

1) When I rate a spell or feat as overrated, that does not mean it's bad. In fact, often it's good, just overrated for some reason.

2) I rated Crossbow Expert as overrated because I've seen players take it thinking that they were going to get a free attack every round, then as levels increase they find out that attack means sacrificing other bonus action options. I find this comes up often, players see "bonus action" and think "free action". It's not free though, most characters have bonus action options that don't require feats, so in those cases, when they take a feat that provides a bonus action option, it ends up being just one more option, rather than a free action.

3) The ability to attack in melee without disadvantage had nothing to do with my reasoning to point out the feat was overrated. That's why I ommitted that feature when discussing the feat being overrated in the video. That said, whenever I rate anything that's good as overrated, I know I'm going to get heat. That's OK, I like the discussion. In this case though, you are preaching to the choir. You are trying to convince me on something I already agree with you on.

I very much think that CBE is better than sharpshooter.

1. CBE works with any ranged attack in the game, SS Is only weapon attacks. So the sheer number of builds/classes that can use it effectively is much higher.

2. Ignoring cover is nice, ignoring disadvantage is better.
It comes down to the same issue, most people will deal with archers by closing in melee. The SS guy just lost all. We fit of his feat. If they are in melee they don’t have cover, and if they are in melee there is no way you will take a -5 to hit on top of disadvantage to your attack.

3. A bonus action attack is better than -5/+10. One more attack is one more chance to get that needed hit in. You have just increased your chance to get damage in by a solid percent chance. (Percent varies on how many attacks you get)
Using -5/+10 is lowering your chance to land a hit by a significant amount to probably about double your damage on that attack, but it is damage that does not multiply on a crit. I will take my extra shot of 1d6 + 3-5 over dropping my to hit for the attack for +10.

3.b sharpshooter is circumstantial, CBE isn’t. You may need your bonus action for something else but it is always an option.

4. At low levels, where most play happens CBE is MUCH better.
In t1 doubling your number of attacks, and not fearing melee,(well anymore than anyone else at least) is great. SS is much weaker at t1 and t2 really. When your attack bonus is probably only 5 to 8 for most of the game that -5 is huge, unless you can get easy advantage, which is possible, but now you are spending more resources to pull off your abilities, and you are going for more of an all or nothing situation.

SS is a good feat, but it would not break the top 3 at all, in any of the categories. Maybe, maybe, overrated category.

[Treantmonk]

I very much think that CBE is better than sharpshooter.

OK, then we disagree somewhat.


1. CBE works with any ranged attack in the game, SS Is only weapon attacks. So the sheer number of builds/classes that can use it effectively is much higher.

I generally want Crossbow Expert on a Ranged build. I guess some spellcaster builds focused on Ranged, but not usually ranged ATTACK ROLLS. That's the thing about spells, the versatility is almost hard to avoid. Stuck in melee? You have a million options (intentional hyperbole) to do something effective that doesn't have disadvantage imposed. If I'm going to take a feat, give me Resilient (Con) or Warcaster, or heck, toughness. Crossbow Expert is WAY down on the list.


2. Ignoring cover is nice, ignoring disadvantage is better.

Except I find I can usually find ways to bypass the disadvantage without investing a feat. Sometimes it costs me a bit of damage, but nothing earth shattering.


It comes down to the same issue, most people will deal with archers by closing in melee. The SS guy just lost all. We fit of his feat. If they are in melee they don’t have cover, and if they are in melee there is no way you will take a -5 to hit on top of disadvantage to your attack.

I guess it might come down to style. Very few of my archers could get pinned down in melee. They are going to have cunning action (disengage) or Misty Step. Those that might are usually switch hitters who can simply drop the bow (or crossbow).


3. A bonus action attack is better than -5/+10. One more attack is one more chance to get that needed hit in. You have just increased your chance to get damage in by a solid percent chance. (Percent varies on how many attacks you get)

We are a fair bit apart here. As mentioned, using your bonus action for an attack is not always free. There comes a point where applying the -5/+10 is advantageous, and it really is free.


Using -5/+10 is lowering your chance to land a hit by a significant amount to probably about double your damage on that attack, but it is damage that does not multiply on a crit. I will take my extra shot of 1d6 + 3-5 over dropping my to hit for the attack for +10.

There's a calculator I linked in the video description. You can precisely know when to apply the -5/+10. With multiple attacks, this can end up being a ton of damage.


4. At low levels, where most play happens CBE is MUCH better.

I'm going to agree with you on this one. Sharpshooter is the long play investment. CE is a more effective short-term investment- at very low levels.

Listen, we aren't miles apart, but I think we will have to agree to disagree to some degree.

[Foxhound438]

I like Mobile, but I wouldn't rank it top 3. I didn't even realize it was a staple of Monk and Rogue builds. Aren't most Monks and Rogues pretty mobile anyways? Or is it about attacking and disengaging? (Rogues are pretty good at that too - seems almost redundant, I would be more inclined to put Mobile on a bladesinger off the top of my head)


Basically, yes. While rogue does get to disengage on a bonus action, being able to dash or 2wf with that bonus action makes mobile a pretty decent pickup. Plus, if you're dashing, the extra 10 feet gets twice the value.

Monks tend to not want to stay in melee unless they have to for some reason, due to that d8 hit die and needing stats everywhere, and their disengage bonus action costs Ki to use, so getting it for free while also getting a flurry of blows is nice. Obviously open hand, drunkard, and sun soul monks need not apply due to their specific benefits, but for intellectuals like me who prefer shadow monk and those damned troglodytes that like kensai it's a decent boon.

[diplomancer]

I think Crossbow Expert is a good feat, and with an archer build, I would take it after Sharpshooter.






I'm going to agree with you on this one. Sharpshooter is the long play investment. CE is a more effective short-term investment- at very low levels.



Aren't these two statements a bit contradictory? Even if Sharpshooter is better over a greater number of levels, shouldn't you take first the feat that is more effective at lower levels?

[Citan]

Link (https://youtu.be/MsXSmxXE82s)

The other thread died a horrible death, so maybe we can start over here. Please do not argue in this thread about rules interpretations. Just share your insights into and opinions about what makes certain feats good or bad or over/underrated.

Here's my reaction:
Thanks for sharing. ;)

For once I agree with a full part of Treantmonk, the "worst" feats. I mean, I think he's underrating Dungeon Delver, but it seems like a common behaviour with many DMs of making light of all surviving/exploration aspect of the game.
So under this assumption obviously the feat is of little use.

However...
1. I don't understand how Ritual Caster would be "underrated": seems to me it's one of the most useful feats, and potentially one of the most powerful. Although this is of course very DM-dependant or party-dependant. If all you're gonna get is only the starting ritual you'd better get Magic Initiate. With spells as loot / items to buy or party that can learn, it's great.

2. I don't agree putting GWM and Sharpshooter on the same level. Sharpshooter is imo much better for the following reason: when you put away the -5+10, all GWM offers is an overall unreliable bonus action weapon attack, unless either is true:
a) you made a crit-fish build with every feature helping in that regard,
b) your party is great enough to consciously work with you to let you get the finishing blow
c) you are smart -and mobile, and accurate- enough to regularly get to strike mooks and use them as "chainers" (kill one mook and the next, or kill one mook and hurt bigger guy).
Sharpshooter on the other hand, immediately, definitely, permanently...
- removes the bother of most cover: although it seems oft forgotten by people, creatures themselves are being cover for others: when you play at range and want to help melee allies, they don't always have a chance to clear a line of sight to your target (especially in small, crowded places like underground corridor or doorways).
- doubles, or triples, the effective reach of your attacks: guerilla tactics are now much easy to use (attack from cover of forest, uphill or otherwise sneaking place), kiting tactics and surprise attacks are also much easier: melee enemies may be dead before even reaching you, archers will mechanically be less threatening (unless you are using "shorter" weapons against longbow users, or your DM decides they all have the same unnerving Sharpshooteresque accuracy for some crappy reason).

Also, while GWM requires *very* specific build to be really good, Sharpshooter is beneficial to everyone on both ends of a spectrum: of course it's more beneficial to a dedicated Fighter/Ranger/Rogue, but since first two bullets apply on *all* ranged weapon attacks, it's good also for melee-heavy that still want to be decent at range (= using thrown weapons, light hammers 20->60, javelins 30->120), or some wannabee martials (Whispers Bard, Eldricht Smiting Warlock, Clerics with empowered weapon attacks like Tempest/Nature/War).

- Elven Accuracy: this is a can of worms I won't open, but although I completely agree it's not game-breaking per se, it can be much much better than any other offensive feat for many more characters that Treantmonk seems to imagine. :)
And it's simply required for those that would like to use GWM/Sharp's -5+10 against high AC targets, which should be a common will at higher levels. ^^

As for the rest, I didn't have time to view all video so now idea what the other underrated/overrated/best feats were in his opinion.

[Zalabim]

The Alert errata is just changing "hidden" to "unseen". Makes it a bit clearer/broader. It's not part of the newest set, but I've seen confusion about that benefit in the past.


Aren't these two statements a bit contradictory? Even if Sharpshooter is better over a greater number of levels, shouldn't you take first the feat that is more effective at lower levels?
It depends. The Ranger is the mostly likely one to both take the feats and start getting some bonus action options very early. Plus the hand crossbow only gives you a 30' best range. Past that you have disadvantage again. In my experience, that's not enough range for a ranged character. You'll find yourself always either in melee or too far away. CE is probably more of a first pick for the fighter again, depending on archetype, but sharpshooter pays off well already by beating cover and against some early low ac high hp enemies like zombies. Then you can get CE and still have 120' range with your hand crossbow.

[JellyPooga]

Basically, yes. While rogue does get to disengage on a bonus action, being able to dash or 2wf with that bonus action makes mobile a pretty decent pickup. Plus, if you're dashing, the extra 10 feet gets twice the value.

Don't forget that Mobile offers not only twice the value on that extra 10ft for a Rogue taking a Bonus Action Dash, but in an area of difficult terrain, it doubles down again; a most useful feature when you've got the support of a control mage (usually a Wizard or Druid) who can create such areas with spells. The difference between a critter with 30ft (standard) movement and a Rogue with Mobile who's Dashing is a massive 15ft vs. 80ft. Perhaps not significant in small dungeons, but in open combat (corridors and external environments particularly) it's huge. Even fast opponents with 50ft or 60ft speed struggle to engage such a target; in a flat "race" through difficult terrain, the non-Mobile foe would need a speed of 80ft just to keep pace by Dashing themselves and even then they can't do anything but a Bonus Action. To effectively engage, that goes up to a standard speed of 160ft. Mobile is a nice boon for Fighters and Wizards, but for a Rogue or Monk it's game-changing.

[AHF]

Don't forget that Mobile offers not only twice the value on that extra 10ft for a Rogue taking a Bonus Action Dash, but in an area of difficult terrain, it doubles down again; a most useful feature when you've got the support of a control mage (usually a Wizard or Druid) who can create such areas with spells. The difference between a critter with 30ft (standard) movement and a Rogue with Mobile who's Dashing is a massive 15ft vs. 80ft. Perhaps not significant in small dungeons, but in open combat (corridors and external environments particularly) it's huge. Even fast opponents with 50ft or 60ft speed struggle to engage such a target; in a flat "race" through difficult terrain, the non-Mobile foe would need a speed of 80ft just to keep pace by Dashing themselves and even then they can't do anything but a Bonus Action. To effectively engage, that goes up to a standard speed of 160ft. Mobile is a nice boon for Fighters and Wizards, but for a Rogue or Monk it's game-changing.

It can be very impactful in dungeon environments where a rogue can find cover or otherwise break line of sight without moving too far and then use the hide action in the same round she sneak attacks. Sneak attack + disengage + hide = good mix of offensive and defensive utility.

[Treantmonk]

Thanks for sharing. ;)However...
1. I don't understand how Ritual Caster would be "underrated": seems to me it's one of the most useful feats, and potentially one of the most powerful. Although this is of course very DM-dependant or party-dependant. If all you're gonna get is only the starting ritual you'd better get Magic Initiate. With spells as loot / items to buy or party that can learn, it's great.


The majority of my overrated/underrated choices are based on googling feat rankings then seeing which ones I figure were rated unusually low or high. Ritual caster was one of those I found rated lower than I would have thought.

[Treantmonk]

Aren't these two statements a bit contradictory? Even if Sharpshooter is better over a greater number of levels, shouldn't you take first the feat that is more effective at lower levels?

Not exactly. I said CE is better at low levels. Specifically I mean levels 1-4. Unless I'm a variant human, I'm not even getting my first chance at a feat until level 4.

[ThePolarBear]

At that point the caster has the option to cast a melee spell to not have to deal with disadvantage.

Not really. Any spell that doesn't have a ranged attack is fair game.


why firebolt when you can scorching ray, or even d[i]s[int]eg[r]ate.

FIY Disintegrate is not a ranged attack. In fact, there's no ranged attack spell that i can recall on top of my head that is higher than a second level spell, at least in the PHB. There might be ones that relies on a ranged attack from a weapon to be delivered (Lightning Arrow iirc), but that's pretty much the extent of it.


Why do you keep saying cantrips?

Because of the enormous amount of 10 spells that are ranged attacks in the PHB, cantrips are the ones that are most likely to be benefitting from CBE. Eldritch Blast in the specific.


scorching ray, enervation, finger of death, and all other ranged attack spells.

Of the three named spells, only one benefits from CBE. This should show how small the pool of spells that are affected by it actually is.

[Misterwhisper]

Not really. Any spell that doesn't have a ranged attack is fair game.



FIY Disintegrate is not a ranged attack. In fact, there's no ranged attack spell that i can recall on top of my head that is higher than a second level spell, at least in the PHB. There might be ones that relies on a ranged attack from a weapon to be delivered (Lightning Arrow iirc), but that's pretty much the extent of it.



Because of the enormous amount of 10 spells that are ranged attacks in the PHB, cantrips are the ones that are most likely to be benefitting from CBE. Eldritch Blast in the specific.



Of the three named spells, only one benefits from CBE. This should show how small the pool of spells that are affected by it actually is.

This is why I should not type things while in a car and from memory.

List of spells with ranged attacks:

Cantrips:

Chill Touch
Eldritch Blast
Fire Bolt
Magic Stone
Produce Flame
Ray Of Frost

1st:

Chaos Bolt
Chromatic Orb
Guiding Bolt
Ice Knife
Ray of Sickness
Witchbolt (Not that anyone would ever use it)

2nd:

Acid Arrow
Ray of Enfeeblement (Got it confused with enervate)

4th:
Storm Sphere

5th:
Wall of Light

7th:
Crown of Stars

I am not saying that someone has to use these just because they have CBE, but the fact that they just became totally viable due to a feat and just having the option is very nice.

I will be honest, unless I was making a caster who also used a bow, I probably would not take it either, but I can see some people who might.

Ex. I have been looking at making a total elemental caster who focuses on one element and if I picked fire, Scorching Ray, Produce Flame, Firebolt, and Chromatic Orb is rather nice.
(Although I am looking into making a lightning elementalist not a fire one)

[MaxWilson]

Nope, I've had days to think about it. Taking Crossbow Expert for the purpose of being able to cast Ranged Cantrips from melee just seems like a terrible feat investment to me. I mean, like really bad. Cantrips just aren't that great, and you can just take a melee-capable cantrip. Toll the Dead comes to mind. I could see it being O...K for a Warlock for their Agonizing Repelling Blasts, but honestly, once you are feat-able, is this the one you're thinking of?

If I'm missing some kind of combo, please let me in on it.

Yep. As mentioned upthread, if you want to be tanky and especially if you don't have access to Booming Blade, Crossbow Expert is a great option. It also goes well with Warcaster for better opportunity attacks and awesome one-handed attacks while grappling. I can definitely imagine playing a Hexblade 2/Valor Bard X with Warcaster, and Crossbow Expert who does the usual Valor Bard: Strongest Man In the World trick (Hex (Strength) + grapple/prone using Extra Attack) with one hand while shielding himself with the other and yet still gets to pour Hexed Eldritch Blast into you at advantage. That's what you'd do against single strong enemies (Enlarging yourself if necessary for Huge enemies). Against larger numbers of enemies you could throw down a Spike Growth and just Agonizing Repelling Blast anyone who comes close to you, threatening Agonizing Eldritch Blast opportunity attacks against anyone who tries to bypass you.


[rolls dice] Stats: 11, 17, 12, 12, 13, 12

Those stats are good enough to justify the Skaldlock. I'll make it a human with Str 12 Dex 14 (13) Con 12 Int 11 Wis 12 Cha 18 (17).

Level 1: Hexblade 1, Warcaster. Take Hex, Expeditious Retreat to get you through level 1. Take Booming Blade if you can. At this point you're both a mobile skirmisher and an off-tank with a pretty threatening opportunity attack (average 2d8+4 (13) damage with Booming Blade) so you can do things like get up in the monster's face and then Dodge to buy time for other PCs to kill things.

Level 2: Hexblade 2. Agonizing Repelling Blast.

Level 3: Hexblade 2, Bard 1.

Level 5: Hexblade 2, Valor Bard 3. Expertise in Athletics and whatever (Stealth is good). At this point you're throwing 2nd level spells instead of Fear/Hypnotic Pattern, and you're still stuck with long-rest Bardic Inspiration instead of short rest, but you've got good combat actions anyway thanks to cantrip scaling, and you're not regretting your choices.

Level 6: Hexblade 2, Valor Bard 4, pick up Crossbow Expert.

Level 8: At this point if you had gone Lore Bard instead of Valor Bard you'd be able to toss out Spike Growth and tank by standing on the spikes while tossing Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast. Instead you went Valor, so you tank by grabbing a monster and grinding its face in the dirt (Attack: Grapple + Prone), then throwing Hexed Eldritch Blasts with advantage against the back of its head. If you had gone the Swords route instead you'd be doing basically the same thing AND spending a Flourish die, but flourishes rely on Attack actions and you basically only want to use those for grappling, so I've chosen Valor.

Level 12: At this point you get your first magical secrets, and if you want to reinforce the tanking theme you can pick Enlarge and Spike Growth at this point. Or whatever you like. Build is basically done at this point, in the sense that advancement past this point will be just like any other bard: picking spells you especially want, prioritizing Wish as usual at 18th level.

Later on you get War Magic (IIRC) which will potentially let you throw a net to restrain enemies as a bonus action and Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast them at advantage as your main action. Up to you whether you want to plan that far ahead, and it does require re-taking Eldritch Blast as a Magical Secret so it becomes a bard spell for you, but it's an interesting option.

Can you do this without Crossbow Expert? Sure! It just means that in all the cases where you'd have advantage above, you instead have no advantage or disadvantage. (E.g. advantage for prone target cancelled by disadvantage for ranged attack against adjacent, non-incapacitated enemy.) You also have disadvantage on your Eldritch Blast opportunity attacks. It's still a fun build, and maybe you have a better use for that feat, but Crossbow Expert is helps justify e.g. why you're bothering to grapple/prone the enemy in the first place. It also lets you remain relevant in the combat if you want to ignore your grappled enemy and blast other enemies this turn instead. It magnifies your strengths and is definitely a defensible choice.

That is why I think anyone who says "never take Crossbow Expert on a caster" hasn't sufficiently thought it through. "Never" is a very strong claim.

[Corran]

I really like the lucky feat. That said, I only had one character take it so far. That's because there is usually something better to do with your ASI's, I'll admit. But if I were to play that same character again, or a similar one in nature, lucky would be my first pick. The reason is not some convoluted pairing of mechanics that allowed lucky to overperform, but that having access to lucky changed my whole gameplay. Having the safety net of a reroll (as necessary), allowed me to take more risks when stealing things and scouting was involved. And it led me to do things that otherwise I would probably not have my character attempt. Maybe I am overestimating that sense of security that the lucky feat provided me, maybe I am underestimating how risky I would be if I didn't have the lucky feat on my character, but the way I am thinking this, I'd take that safety net over a +2 to my main stat anytime. Last thing, persuasion and deception checks. Yeah, that character was a talker as well as sneaky. And our campaign was heavy on the social side, meaning that there were several interactions with influential NPC's. But let me generalize on this one. I like how checks sometimes can define the course that the narrative takes, mainly charisma checks IME. When you try hard enough for your character to achieve something important with words, and the DM decides to allow you a roll, then being able to reroll in case I roll badly is the least all my effort deserves. I would hate it for all my effort regarding something that I consider very important to go to waste, simply because the dice didn't behave now that I really wanted them to.

Failing rolls is part of the game, and many times the best dnd stories begin after or at least involve some notoriously bad dice rolls. I will freely admit to that, but I will also say that when playing the game and the outcome of an action is yet to be decided, and assuming that having my character succeed in that action is important enough, I would rather succeed and shape the event in the way I would like it to be, rather than spectacularly fail and have it be sth funny I can recall when I am playing the next campaign with another character. Having the option to decrease the randomness of an important d20 roll is important to me, because I dread having to improvise to make the best out of a bad situation (enter a failed stealth/sleight of hand/deception/etc check). When things go unexpectedly bad for y characters, I usually panic and make all the wrong decisions, so I guess it's a mentality thing more than anything else.

ps: On a related note, we don't use inspiration at my table, so that definitely affects my point of view regarding lucky.
pps: My lucky character was an assassin, so being able to reroll the unlucky roll(s) of the three consecutive successful rolls I needed in order to surprise crit an enemy (ie stealth/deception, initiative, attack), and given I had a good chance already at each one of those things, lucky came in really useful.

[Misterwhisper]

I really like the lucky feat. That said, I only had one character take it so far. That's because there is usually something better to do with your ASI's, I'll admit. But if I were to play that same character again, or a similar one in nature, lucky would be my first pick. The reason is not some convoluted pairing of mechanics that allowed lucky to overperform, but that having access to lucky changed my whole gameplay. Having the safety net of a reroll (as necessary), allowed me to take more risks when stealing things and scouting was involved. And it led me to do things that otherwise I would probably not have my character attempt. Maybe I am overestimating that sense of security that the lucky feat provided me, maybe I am underestimating how risky I would be if I didn't have the lucky feat on my character, but the way I am thinking this, I'd take that safety net over a +2 to my main stat anytime. Last thing, persuasion and deception checks. Yeah, that character was a talker as well as sneaky. And our campaign was heavy on the social side, meaning that there were several interactions with influential NPC's. But let me generalize on this one. I like how checks sometimes can define the course that the narrative takes, mainly charisma checks IME. When you try hard enough for your character to achieve something important with words, and the DM decides to allow you a roll, then being able to reroll in case I roll badly is the least all my effort deserves. I would hate it for all my effort regarding something that I consider very important to go to waste, simply because the dice didn't behave now that I really wanted them to.

Failing rolls is part of the game, and many times the best dnd stories begin after or at least involve some notoriously bad dice rolls. I will freely admit to that, but I will also say that when playing the game and the outcome of an action is yet to be decided, and assuming that having my character succeed in that action is important enough, I would rather succeed and shape the event in the way I would like it to be, rather than spectacularly fail and have it be sth funny I can recall when I am playing the next campaign with another character. Having the option to decrease the randomness of an important d20 roll is important to me, because I dread having to improvise to make the best out of a bad situation (enter a failed stealth/sleight of hand/deception/etc check). When things go unexpectedly bad for y characters, I usually panic and make all the wrong decisions, so I guess it's a mentality thing more than anything else.

ps: On a related note, we don't use inspiration at my table, so that definitely affects my point of view regarding lucky.
pps: My lucky character was an assassin, so being able to reroll the unlucky roll(s) of the three consecutive successful rolls I needed in order to surprise crit an enemy (ie stealth/deception, initiative, attack), and given I had a good chance already at each one of those things, lucky came in really useful.

I can count on one hand the number of dms I have met that even knew inspiration existed in 5e.

[The Jack]

Treantmonk doesn't have a bias against save or suck spells, they do genuinly suck, and they're really going to bring your morale down when you waste a slot on them.

Also, his wizard guides helped make wizards more approachable to me, they made good points of reference. I don't always agree with him (He continues to rate mold earth brown: Go back to wizard school you clueless sorcerer hack!) but they're helpful and im thankful. That said this video had too many ommisions and felt poorly done. The premise was lacking too, you cant really be a generalist when it comes to feats.

The three worst/best over/under rated format is no good.
He writes well but his video performance could be improved. Camera angle, lighting and lack of a fun accent are really hurting him.

[Misterwhisper]

Treantmonk doesn't have a bias against save or suck spells, they do genuinly suck, and they're really going to bring your morale down when you waste a slot on them.

Also, his wizard guides helped make wizards more approachable to me, they made good points of reference. I don't always agree with him (He continues to rate mold earth brown: Go back to wizard school you clueless sorcerer hack!) but they're helpful and im thankful. That said this video had too many ommisions and felt poorly done. The premise was lacking too, you cant really be a generalist when it comes to feats.

The three worst/best over/under rated format is no good.
He writes well but his video performance could be improved. Camera angle, lighting and lack of a fun accent are really hurting him.

Lack of a fun accent?

I don’t tend to watch much YouTube but does an accent really matter.

[Corran]

He writes well but his video performance could be improved. Camera angle, lighting and lack of a fun accent are really hurting him.
By all that holy and good, Treantmonk, if you are reading this, please, please, please, don't ever start speaking with a fun accent. YouTube is full of people screaming and/or speaking (more often than not incoherently) in a fun accent, that I find it really healthy that he is not using one. Personal taste and all...

[Misterwhisper]

By all that holy and good, Treantmonk, if you are reading this, please, please, please, don't ever start speaking with a fun accent. YouTube is full of people screaming and/or speaking (more often than not incoherently) in a fun accent, that I find it really healthy that he is not using one. Personal taste and all...

I would also consider it fairly racist to fake an accent, and badly, from a country a person has never been to just to look more memorable to viewer so they can go, “oh yeah, I know who you mean the guy with the _______ accent”

CoughFPSRussiaCough

[Corran]

I would also consider it fairly racist to fake an accent, and badly, from a country a person has never been to just to look more memorable to viewer so they can go, “oh yeah, I know who you mean the guy with the _______ accent”

CoughFPSRussiaCough
Yeah, agreed. I mean, something like that might come off as racist if it was poorly acted, even if that was not the intent. But I should have probably used the word voice or tone, instead of accent. I mean, the needlessly overenthusiastic tone of some streamers sometimes puts me off because when a topic interests me already, I am like ''yeah yeah, get on with all the pleasantries and get on topic'', and hope that the streamer will then start talking like a normal person rather than an entertainer. Kind of ''I am here for the actual content, not for the performance''. Overenthusiastic fake attitudes and tones on interent videos, have something vaguely fake about them that I particularly don't like.

[Pex]

Treantmonk doesn't have a bias against save or suck spells, they do genuinly suck, and they're really going to bring your morale down when you waste a slot on them.



That is a matter of opinion, not fact. It is disappointing when the monster makes the save, but the attempt is enough for some people. Sometimes the monster fails the save. That's the game. Guaranteed outcomes are fun in their own right, but so too is the risk.

[Treantmonk]

By all that holy and good, Treantmonk, if you are reading this, please, please, please, don't ever start speaking with a fun accent. YouTube is full of people screaming and/or speaking (more often than not incoherently) in a fun accent, that I find it really healthy that he is not using one. Personal taste and all...

If you say so my good man. Tip tip, cheerio and good day to you sir!

[Malifice]

For example, a 4th level Skulker Goblin Moon Druid can cast Pass Without Trace and then scout ahead in the Underdark, and now if he meets, say, a Troll and a Chuul, he can shapeshift into Brown Bear form and kill both monsters single-handedly just by Hiding (at +14) after every attack sequence he makes, and then finishing off the Troll with Primal Savagery once it hits 0 HP.

Chuuls have this feature:

Sense Magic: The chuul Senses magic within 120 feet of it at will. This trait otherwise works like the Detect Magic spell but isn't itself magical.

It will sense the Druids Pass without trace spell, and be able to attack (at disadvantage) on its turn.

Two attacks at +6 (at disadvantage). Either attack hits, and the Druid is grappled and wont be hiding any more.

Also; is there any reason at all why either monster doesnt or cant simply Ready an attack (trigger - when lattacked)? You know - Lash out wildly in the area where they're getting attacked from? They could also Ready a grapple (trigger: when attacked), which makes it impossible for the Druid to Hide while grappled.

The Chuul doesnt even need to ready a grapple; its claw attacks auto grapple on a hit.