resilient or lucky

[FabulousFizban]

which is the better feat?
is it better to give yourself proficiency bonus to a save, or to roll twice on that save?

[LudicSavant]

It depends on a lot of things. For example, if you have decent saves across the board (like from a paladin aura), no odd scores, and few encounters per day, Lucky is better. But if you have a -1 Wisdom save then rerolling it is just gonna fail that DC18 twice.

You have to math it out for your particular build.

[Zhorn]

At low levels with minimal proficiency; Lucky is the better of the two without question, and is more universally applicable.
At higher levels, the effects of failed saves are more dangerous, and your proficiency bonus is reliably worth more than the gamble of what lucky 'might' yield.

Overall, like LucidSavant says; the particulars your build will be key is weighing the values of Resilient, but in general it's hard to go wrong with Wis, Dex, or Con.

[Greywander]

The usefulness of Lucky is dependent on how likely you are to succeed on that roll (or, if being attacked, how likely the enemy is to fail). Lucky is at its best when your stats are high and the chance of failure is unlikely. If you were unlikely to fail in the first place, you'll be unlikely to fail on the reroll. If, however, your stats are low and a failure was already likely, then you're still likely to fail the reroll. In what could be considered a twist of irony, Lucky is more useful the less you need it.

So I guess what I'm saying is get Resilient, unless your saves are already pretty high (such as from paladin aura), in which case get Lucky. Or get both.

[Keravath]

I've found Lucky to be mostly useless and Resilient (con or wis usually) to be far more reliable. Lucky IS much more flexible since you can use it for a wider range of applications.

Here are some factors to consider:

1) How often is your character likely to be making saves? If you are in melee and need to concentrate on spells then Lucky is useless and resilient CON (or war caster in some cases) is a far better choice.

2) If you don't make saves very often, perhaps attacking at range all the time, then Lucky provides a second chance at any saving throw. However, it is only a second chance, there are no guarantees it works and in my experience it often doesn't. Occasionally, it does make a difference though and these events are usually memorable (which I think is one of the reasons so many folks seem to think Lucky is a great feat - they tend to remember the occasions it made a difference rather than all the times that it didn't ... i.e. uses expended already, failed the re-roll, these just aren't memorable)

Key uses for Lucky
- second chance at a crucial saving throw - remember that if the odds were against you on the initial roll they are still against you on the second roll since you are only using Lucky if you already failed
- second chance at a crucial skill check
- chance to prevent a critical hit against you (this is one of the most useful and reliable applications of Lucky since there is only a 5% chance that it won't stop a critical hit)
- similarly, trying to turn an attack into a miss (however, there are so many attacks typically rolled, most creatures have multi-attack as you go up in tiers, that this is not a very effective use unless you know the attack is likely to take you out)
- turning a disadvantage roll into a roll with triple advantage (this is usually a waste of a use of Lucky unless the party is in dire straits and it is very important to increase your odds of hitting the target)

Lucky is limited to 3 uses/long rest. This makes the type of campaign and DM you have also an important consideration. Most of the folks who seem to claim Lucky is OP also seem to be in campaigns where they have one combat/day and then head off for a long rest. Everyone in the party uses all their resources, they are tapped out and after a minute of combat they camp/retire to the inn and spend the rest of the day at leisure. Many campaigns don't run this way, they have multiple encounters/day, 2-6 typically with short rests interspersed, characters need to conserve resources and can't afford to use them all up in one fight. In this type of campaign, Lucky doesn't even provide one re-roll/combat and if you want to have an extra chance to make a save at the end of the day, you can't afford to spend the uses in the first fight. As a result, the power level of Lucky is strongly dependent on the type of game you play as well as the character you are playing.

I typically play in AL and the number of players who take Lucky on ANY character before tier 3 or 4 when they have already obtained the feats/ASI that are more important to their character concept is extremely small. Lucky is a great choice when you don't have anything better to choose or if the idea of Lucky fits your character concept but in general, I've found resilient con or wis depending on the character is far more useful in the long run (at least until you don't have anything better).

[Zhorn]

Turning disadvantage into super-advantage is nice
WARNING: If you plan on taking the Lucky feat to do this; check with your DM before taking Lucky to find out how they treat its interaction with advantage and disadvantage rolls first.
There are 3 different ways Lucky can be ruled to interact with (dis)advantage, and only one of them allows for the cheesy triple (dis)advantage play.

Scenario 1: The golden interaction.
Roll 2 dice for (dis)advantage, then spend a luck point to roll a third dice BEFORE any are eliminated. Lucky then lets you pick any one of the the three dice. This negates the regular (dis)advantage and turns it into the super (dis)advantage people refer to. 100% cheese, not all DM's will approve since it allows for player to intentionally sabotage themselves to make their outcomes better. example;

Player: I close my eyes and attack the goblin while blind.
DM: Roll to attack with disadvantage
Player: I burn a luck point to turn that into super advantage.

or

Player: I drop prone in front of the bulette.
DM: The creature rolls to attack you with advantage
Player: I burn a luck point to turn that into super disadvantage.

Scenario 2: Single dice interaction before. < (my preference)
Roll 2 dice for (dis)advantage, then elect one of those dice and spend a luck point to roll a third. Lucky allows you to pick between the lucky die and the single elected die from the (dis)advantage roll. Then (dis)advantage is resolved using the die you didn't interact with Lucky, and the die you chose using the Lucky interaction. Advantage and disadvantage are maintained as super advantage can only occur on advantage rolls, and super disadvantage can only occur on disadvantage rolls.

Scenario 3: Single dice interaction after.
Roll 2 dice and resolve (dis)advantage, then spend a luck point to roll a third. Lucky allows you to pick between the lucky die and the single resultant die from the (dis)advantage roll. There is no super (dis)advantage in this scenario.

[NNescio]

WARNING: If you plan on taking the Lucky feat to do this; check with your DM before taking Lucky to find out how they treat its interaction with advantage and disadvantage rolls first.
There are 3 different ways Lucky can be ruled to interact with (dis)advantage, and only one of them allows for the cheesy triple (dis)advantage play.

Scenario 1: The golden interaction.
Roll 2 dice for (dis)advantage, then spend a luck point to roll a third dice BEFORE any are eliminated. Lucky then lets you pick any one of the the three dice. This negates the regular (dis)advantage and turns it into the super (dis)advantage people refer to. 100% cheese, not all DM's will approve since it allows for player to intentionally sabotage themselves to make their outcomes better. example;

Player: I close my eyes and attack the goblin while blind.
DM: Roll to attack with disadvantage
Player: I burn a luck point to turn that into super advantage.

or

Player: I drop prone in front of the bulette.
DM: The creature rolls to attack you with advantage
Player: I burn a luck point to turn that into super disadvantage.

Scenario 2: Single dice interaction before. < (my preference)
Roll 2 dice for (dis)advantage, then elect one of those dice and spend a luck point to roll a third. Lucky allows you to pick between the lucky die and the single elected die from the (dis)advantage roll. Then (dis)advantage is resolved using the die you didn't interact with Lucky, and the die you chose using the Lucky interaction. Advantage and disadvantage are maintained as super advantage can only occur on advantage rolls, and super disadvantage can only occur on disadvantage rolls.

Scenario 3: Single dice interaction after.
Roll 2 dice and resolve (dis)advantage, then spend a luck point to roll a third. Lucky allows you to pick between the lucky die and the single resultant die from the (dis)advantage roll. There is no super (dis)advantage in this scenario.

RAW is 1. RAI* seems to be 3.

(Crawford in the Sage Advice Compendium mentions it would be [1], but the December 2016 Sage Advice podcast clarifies this with JC stating that [1] is RAW while the RAI is different. How exactly different was unclear, but JC back then runs his games according to [3].)

Though personally speaking [1] isn't that overpowered, and it makes sense thematically anyway with fortune favoring the underdog. Likewise for superstitious lucky people who close their eyes or crouch down (or hold their weapon in a weird way) before attempting some Hail Mary move.

[Zhorn]

RAW is 1. RAI* seems to be 3.
My warning is generally to do with different tables and DMs. Check which ruling your DM is going to use before getting Lucky. The wording of the feat is not exactly explicit in the books for the interaction between Lucky and (dis)advantage. It can be easily extrapolated into meaning [1], but it still relies on Sage Advice to clarify, and the validity of Sage Advice varies GREATLY from DM to DM and ruling to ruling.
Heck, even the Sage Advice compendium has both [1] and [2] on the same page


LUCKY
...if you have advantage or disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use...

...If a DM wants advantage and disadvantage to play their normal roles even when the Lucky feat is used, here’s a way to do so: roll two d20s for advantage/disadvantage, roll a third d20 for Lucky, eliminate one of the three dice, and then use the higher (for advantage) or lower (for disadvantage) of the two dice that remain...

[bid]

Lucky interpretation of disadvantage comes to this:
- 2 success: you don't need luck
- 1 success / 1 failure:
-- a) you use lucky and keep the success without rolling
-- b) your lucky dice result determine success / failure
- 2 failures:
-- a) your lucky dice result determine success / failure
-- b) you can't use luck

RAW is a)
RAI is b)

Somehow, I want to mesh both and always have "your lucky dice result determine success / failure" when you use lucky. Because it removes all weirdness and becomes a "roll again" without adv/disadv applied.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Scenario 2: Single dice interaction before. < (my preference)
Roll 2 dice for (dis)advantage, then elect one of those dice and spend a luck point to roll a third. Lucky allows you to pick between the lucky die and the single elected die from the (dis)advantage roll. Then (dis)advantage is resolved using the die you didn't interact with Lucky, and the die you chose using the Lucky interaction. Advantage and disadvantage are maintained as super advantage can only occur on advantage rolls, and super disadvantage can only occur on disadvantage rolls.

Why would you play with this? No one wants to spend a limited use feat to get super-disadvantage.

[Elysiume]

Why would you play with this? No one wants to spend a limited use feat to get super-disadvantage.I don't think it's super disadvantage, it's just worded in an overly-clinical manner that makes it harder to parse. Say A and B are the normal disadvantage dice and C is the lucky die:

https://i.imgur.com/v4siAXB.png

The die you don't choose in the first choice will always be involved in the final calculation, so you want to choose the lower die. In the second choice, you want to choose the higher die, since it's being involved in the final disadvantage calculation. You're effectively choosing to take the lowest roll among the top two dice, the same as taking the middle die. Phrased another way, I'd say the options are, for disadvantage:

Normal: Roll two dice. Choose the lowest of the two.
Scenario 1: Roll three dice. Choose the highest of the three.
Scenario 2: Roll three dice. Choose the middle of the three.
Scenario 3: Roll two dice. Then, roll a third die. Choose either [the lowest of the first two] or [the third].

[Mordaedil]

Key uses for Lucky
- chance to prevent a critical hit against you (this is one of the most useful and reliable applications of Lucky since there is only a 5% chance that it won't stop a critical hit)

As long as you have Lucky uses left, it effectively reduces the chance of landing a critical hit on a player to 0.25% chance. You are effectively forcing the enemy to roll crits at disadvantage, after all.

[Zhorn]

Why would you play with this? No one wants to spend a limited use feat to get super-disadvantage.

Not to get it for themselves, but to impose it on an enemy. While not the best use of Lucky, it is still a potential use of it that can have its moments.

@Elysiume
I love the flowchart