Should I get a feat or an ASI for my Divination Wizard 4/Knowledge Cleric 1?

[juicytusk]

Hey y'all,

My rock gnome divination wizard recently leveled up (to 4th level wizard) and I can either choose an ASI or a feat. I have a 1 level dip into Knowledge Cleric, 18 AC, and my stats are: 8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 17 Int, 13 Wis, and 9 Cha.

In the battles I've had so far, maintaining concentration hasn't been too much of an issue cause most of the enemies tended to focus on the fighter and the paladin (though 4 or 5 of the encounters did have smarter "bosses" who just ignored them and ran to me). This probably will change in the future though, so idk.

I want to play a controller/debuffer in battle, but I'm not really sure if I should take an ASI to boost my save DCs, or take a feat like War Caster or Resilient (Con) or something else to help with concentration.

Thanks!

[CTurbo]

Best thing you could do is get your Int to 18 so....

1. Take +1 Int and +1 Wis
2. Take Observant (+1 Int)
3. Take Keen Mind (+1 Int)
4. Take Linguist (+1 Int)
5. Take Fade Away (+1 Int)
6. Take +1 Int and +1 Con to setup for Res(Con) later down the road.

[Frogreaver]

Best thing you could do is get your Int to 18 so....

1. Take +1 Int and +1 Wis
2. Take Observant (+1 Int)
3. Take Keen Mind (+1 Int)
4. Take Linguist (+1 Int)
5. Take Fade Away (+1 Int)
6. Take +1 Int and +1 Con to setup for Res(Con) later down the road.

I agree.
I think Alert could work well too. Going first and casting your control spell may actually prove more beneficial.
Also Lucky can held protect concentration while sometimes helping on other checks as well.

[CMCC]

Why’d you go cleric and not artificer for the dip?

[McSkrag]

Best thing you could do is get your Int to 18 so....

1. Take +1 Int and +1 Wis
2. Take Observant (+1 Int)
3. Take Keen Mind (+1 Int)
4. Take Linguist (+1 Int)
5. Take Fade Away (+1 Int)
6. Take +1 Int and +1 Con to setup for Res(Con) later down the road.

CTurbo, as usual, is on target.

I've played this build to level 17 Wizard / 1 Cleric and recommend option #6. Take Resilient CON after you have maxed INT. It's not very flashy but it will make you so much tougher.

When you get to higher levels, I also recommend Mass Suggestion because of how it synergizes with portent dice, and eventually the Lucky feat so you can control all the dice rolls.

Have fun ruining the DM's carefully crafted boss battles!

[Mutazoia]

Personally, I went with Observant. That +5 to passive perception and investigation is no slouch. With a 20 Wisdom, my Druid has a passive perception of 24. Our DM doesn't bother making passive perception checks for our group anymore.

[Chugger]

That list someone submitted above is good. I was thinking +1 int and +1 con and take resilient con at lvl 12 wiz.

[Gtdead]

My priorities when it come to wizards are 20 INT -> Alert -> Res CON and I usually get alert through vhuman. However with your build, unless you are going to reach T4, I don't see how this is going to happen.

I mean, if you are going to prioritize 20 INT, you will get res CON at 12 the least. The +1 INT/+1 CON suggestion is the optimal one in theory, but it forces you to play with that odd CON number for the next 8 levels, where something like observant would probably be more useful all around.

Also since you have multiclassed Cleric and you are quite resilient, you will most likely get a lot of mileage out of paladin's aura (being able to stay in range more than a single classed wizard) so your concentration will get a strong boost.

So my suggestion is
4 Observant (or a campaign appropriate +1 INT feat)
8 +2 INT
12 Alert
16 Res CON
19 +1 CON/+1 WIS or Lucky

You can swap Alert with Lucky if you think it's better for you. It's a good suggestion and works well with Divination.

[kingcheesepants]

What languages do you already have? Being able to speak a lot of languages is useful for spells like suggestion and could very well make linguist a worthwhile feat. Also it let's you make ciphers which is situational but can be handy. Keen mind is very DM dependent but the ability to accurately recall anything you've seen or heard in the past month can be extremely useful. If you already have all the languages you feel might be useful and you don't think you would get much use of a great memory than I'd second all the people saying Observant. If you don't think you'd use any of those than go ahead and raise your Int and Wis (or Con if you want to set up for Resilient later). Alert is also very good for Wizards and you'll probably want that eventually, but get that Int up first.

[Ir0ns0ul]

Although you don’t need to max INT that much because Portent can support “save or suck” spells, I would recommend the option 6: INT +1, CON +1 in order to setup for Resilient CON by level 9.

Remember Constitution saves are not only for Concentration checks, but also nasty debilitating effects like Petrification, Poison and even some cold/acid/poison-based breathe weapons from dragons.

EDIT: In case UA is allowed, Fey Touched feat to round your INT, get you Misty Step and one bonus spell from Enchantment/Divination school is awesome as well. Things like Bane, Command, who will be triggered by your INT not WIS.

[Damuri]

CTurbo, as usual, is on target.

I've played this build to level 17 Wizard / 1 Cleric and recommend option #6. Take Resilient CON after you have maxed INT. It's not very flashy but it will make you so much tougher.

When you get to higher levels, I also recommend Mass Suggestion because of how it synergizes with portent dice, and eventually the Lucky feat so you can control all the dice rolls.

Have fun ruining the DM's carefully crafted boss battles!

To echo a comment above, wouldn't starting as an artificer have given you proficiency in con saves? You already have most of the wisdom saves covered with your gnome cunning. Then you could afford a con of 16 with an 8 cha and 10 wis. Doesn't the 16 con make you even tougherer? And it saves you a feat so you can get lucky 4 levels sooner.

I like observant and I frequently take fade away with a gnome wizard but I wish there were better racial half feats for gnomes.

[shipiaozi]

ASI is never a good choice for Wizard, but since you already have 17int, choose a int+1 feat is a reasonable choice.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

ASI is never a good choice for Wizard, but since you already have 17int, choose a int+1 feat is a reasonable choice.

I don't think I've ever read the POV that ASI is bad for Wizards. Wizards by their nature use that stat nearly every combat round for calculating either an attack or a save. In the case of AOE that is often multiple rolls. Save or suck spells can be game changing. So I've got to ask, how do you come to that conclusion?

[Starman]

ASI is never a good choice for Wizard, but since you already have 17int, choose a int+1 feat is a reasonable choice.


I don't think I've ever read the POV that ASI is bad for Wizards. Wizards by their nature use that stat nearly every combat round for calculating either an attack or a save. In the case of AOE that is often multiple rolls. Save or suck spells can be game changing. So I've got to ask, how do you come to that conclusion?

Gish Wizards can certainly be made that rely very little on the casting stat and can be very powerful, even top tier. But not all Wizards are built to be gishes so I think Shipiaozi should qualify his statement. But I also would like it if he posted a sample Wizard build so he could demonstrate what he is thinking of for a "no ASI" Wizard.

[Gtdead]

I don't think I've ever read the POV that ASI is bad for Wizards. Wizards by their nature use that stat nearly every combat round for calculating either an attack or a save. In the case of AOE that is often multiple rolls. Save or suck spells can be game changing. So I've got to ask, how do you come to that conclusion?

He explained his thoughts on his thread about Bladesingers beings weak. A quick recap is that since the main stat doesn't give the same benefits it used to give in previous editions, like more spell slots, the +1 DC by itself isn't very valuable compared to a feat (like Alert).

There are a lot of counter arguments to this, but it's not an easy thing to prove in a vacuum.

[Bilbron]

Hey y'all,

My rock gnome divination wizard recently leveled up (to 4th level wizard) and I can either choose an ASI or a feat. I have a 1 level dip into Knowledge Cleric, 18 AC, and my stats are: 8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 17 Int, 13 Wis, and 9 Cha.

In the battles I've had so far, maintaining concentration hasn't been too much of an issue cause most of the enemies tended to focus on the fighter and the paladin (though 4 or 5 of the encounters did have smarter "bosses" who just ignored them and ran to me). This probably will change in the future though, so idk.

I want to play a controller/debuffer in battle, but I'm not really sure if I should take an ASI to boost my save DCs, or take a feat like War Caster or Resilient (Con) or something else to help with concentration.

Thanks!
Fey Touched, done.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

He explained his thoughts on his thread about Bladesingers beings weak. A quick recap is that since the main stat doesn't give the same benefits it used to give in previous editions, like more spell slots, the +1 DC by itself isn't very valuable compared to a feat (like Alert).

There are a lot of counter arguments to this, but it's not an easy thing to prove in a vacuum.

Comparisons with previous editions aren't valid, though comparisons with Alert are. I suppose you could make the same argument with other characters, particularly those with attack stats that don't get used for much else, specifically Strength based martials. Regardless, even if someone holds the view that the feat is better, it's an overstatement to say that raising your primary stat is a bad option.

[Gtdead]

Comparisons with previous editions aren't valid, though comparisons with Alert are. I suppose you could make the same argument with other characters, particularly those with attack stats that don't get used for much else, specifically Strength based martials. Regardless, even if someone holds the view that the feat is better, it's an overstatement to say that raising your primary stat is a bad option.

You should check https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621847-Opportunity-cost-and-why-Bladesinger-is-a-weak-archetype if you are interested in his argument. Don't take my word for it.

As I've stated on this thread, I believe that the priority for wizards is 20 INT > Alert > Res CON and the best way to do it is by picking alert as a Vhuman. Crowd Control spells scale exponentially with main stat and that +1 to DC can be more valuable than it looks in a vacuum. But really this discussion should revolve around builds. It's very different if you are a blaster caster.

[Eldariel]

You should check https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621847-Opportunity-cost-and-why-Bladesinger-is-a-weak-archetype if you are interested in his argument. Don't take my word for it.

As I've stated on this thread, I believe that the priority for wizards is 20 INT > Alert > Res CON and the best way to do it is by picking alert as a Vhuman. Crowd Control spells scale exponentially with main stat and that +1 to DC can be more valuable than it looks in a vacuum. But really this discussion should revolve around builds. It's very different if you are a blaster caster.

Again, his argument is based on flawed/incomplete/impossible math and thus his argument itself holds no water though the conclusion itself is still worth entertaining. I have, for example, noticed that I generally want Alert on my casters to maximise my (party's) chances of staying alive since being able to act before the opponent is generally worth more than the 5pp increase (20% - 7% in success rate for most typical values assuming enemy succeeds the save on a roll of 5 - 15) in your chance of landing the CC and the opportunity to prepare an extra spell (maybe a ~10% chance of having more optimal a solution for any given situation). More specifically, it generally carries more unitarian than personal benefit.

Removing surprise and getting +5 Initiative (which for +3 Dex vs. +0 Init amounts to an increase from 66% Init win chance to 83,5% or 17,5pp/26,5% increase) and enabling you to use obscurement as disadvantage to all attacks is probably worth more. In any event, it does a lot more to cut down on the worst case scenario where enemies get to act twice before the party gets to reduce enemy offensive output. That is, in your average encounter they may be pretty close but +Int is better when you're already crushing the opposition (you win Initiative and get to act before them) while Alert enables averting the worst case scenario.

Similarly, I do believe that Lucky is generally better than +2 Int on level 5 specifically if you expect to get to use Counterspell. This is because Counterspell gets +1 from +2 Int but pretty close to +5 from Lucky and Lucky can be used on every Counterspell you have the slots to cast around these levels. Since Counterspell (and Dispel Magic but especially Counterspell due to its action advantageous nature) is an all-or-nothing effect that's immensely valuable on these levels but an immense investment if you fail the check, I think this is not only important but crucial. Further, Lucky acts the part of Resilient: Con/War Caster when used on Concentration saves and can also be used on other critical saves, and it can kinda play the part of Alert in trying to avert critical existential failure when enemy gets the drop on you and threatens to annihilate the party before you get act.


In short, while +2 Int is strong, I feel like it's occasionally a "win more" (though the extra spell prepared is a big mark in favour of it enabling you to prepare for more unexpected circumstances and increase your overall power level) while Alert and Lucky specifically come into play when things go sour and you're about to fail a save against some brutal effect or you are about to get surprised or something similar. Which is why on this level specifically I'd prefer Lucky (it's just the broadest solution) and probably also Alert (it's defensively immensely valuable to the party: Wizard getting a Web/Hypnotic Pattern/Fireball/Sleep/whatever off before the enemy gets to act tends to transform the whole encounter).

[Gtdead]

This argument actually sold me on Lucky. Now I value it more than Res:CON. Great analysis.

[Gignere]

Similarly, I do believe that Lucky is generally better than +2 Int on level 5 specifically if you expect to get to use Counterspell. This is because Counterspell gets +1 from +2 Int but pretty close to +5 from Lucky and Lucky can be used on every Counterspell you have the slots to cast around these levels. Since Counterspell (and Dispel Magic but especially Counterspell due to its action advantageous nature) is an all-or-nothing effect that's immensely valuable on these levels but an immense investment if you fail the check, I think this is not only important but crucial. Further, Lucky acts the part of Resilient: Con/War Caster when used on Concentration saves and can also be used on other critical saves, and it can kinda play the part of Alert in trying to avert critical existential failure when enemy gets the drop on you and threatens to annihilate the party before you get act.


In short, while +2 Int is strong, I feel like it's occasionally a "win more" (though the extra spell prepared is a big mark in favour of it enabling you to prepare for more unexpected circumstances and increase your overall power level) while Alert and Lucky specifically come into play when things go sour and you're about to fail a save against some brutal effect or you are about to get surprised or something similar. Which is why on this level specifically I'd prefer Lucky (it's just the broadest solution) and probably also Alert (it's defensively immensely valuable to the party: Wizard getting a Web/Hypnotic Pattern/Fireball/Sleep/whatever off before the enemy gets to act tends to transform the whole encounter).

I think this is true for most wizards except for divination and chronurgists as these subclasses already has two dice of rerolls/prerolls the need for lucky to avert disaster is lessened. I played a divination wizard and I didn’t take lucky until level 8 preferring to max int first (I found an item that gave +2 int) I think I only wished I had a reroll a couple of times because all the other times I had my divination dice to cover me, pre level 8.
After I had lucky I used it first, and saved my divination dice as knowing the results is stronger than rerolls.

I think people also underestimate the benefit of the +2 int allowing you to have an extra spell prepared. That’s why I thought Shiplaozi’s 8 int wizard was a joke, to demonstrate that it is still effective. Having only 1 spell prepared for like 3 levels is basically not playable. I certainly felt having an extra spells prepared helped me when I played a wizard, at any levels.

[Eldariel]

I think this is true for most wizards except for divination and chronurgists as these subclasses already has two dice of rerolls/prerolls the need for lucky to avert disaster is lessened. I played a divination wizard and I didn’t take lucky until level 8 preferring to max int first (I found an item that gave +2 int) I think I only wished I had a reroll a couple of times because all the other times I had my divination dice to cover me, pre level 8.
After I had lucky I used it first, and saved my divination dice as knowing the results is stronger than rerolls.

I think people also underestimate the benefit of the +2 int allowing you to have an extra spell prepared. That’s why I thought Shiplaozi’s 8 int wizard was a joke, to demonstrate that it is still effective. Having only 1 spell prepared for like 3 levels is basically not playable. I certainly felt having an extra spells prepared helped me when I played a wizard, at any levels.

Interesting, the particular character that really had me feeling I wanted Lucky was specifically with a Diviner. It simply was the case that against spellcasting opponents I didn't have enough Portents left; I used my one 20 to crit a key enemy to death with our Rogue, and only had a low roll when I needed to roll a Counterspell later. I generally want to use especially low Portents on enemy saves and high Portents...rarely more than one per day so I generally want more than that available. I had specifically gone Alert and Res: Con on 1 and 4 (Vuman) and thus when I was in the fights where Counterspell was crucial, I didn't have Lucky. Of course, the character also had 13 Con so I was inclined to get those extra HP to increase my survivability, but in retrospect I feel like I might've been better off with Lucky (though ironically in one of those cases, Res: Con gave me enough HP and Con saves to survive the Cloudkill [we were fighting a Drow Mage and her Shadow Toy] I failed to counter and finish the fight but had I succeeded in the Counterspell we would've won that encounter in a landslide instead of by the skin of our teeth).

Though I agree with the virtues of +2 Int as well and I definitely also really found myself wanting that one more spell prepared especially on low levels; on higher level you have enough slots and enough level-to-level redundancy that the opportunity cost is slightly lower (though given how many insanely powerful 3rd and 5th level spells this game has, the choice remains tough for a long, long time) and you can manage with a lower Int a bit longer. Of course, on higher levels the opportunity cost of each given ASI is also lower and by level 12 you'll probably be looking at 18-20 Int anyways so this point is kinda moot. The difficult ASIs are 4 and 8. There's certainly nothing wrong with just +4 Int but I feel like for averting party defeat, Alert and Lucky may do more. Of course, it also depends on DM style: the DMs I've lately played with have had a significant number of caster enemies and usually enemy casters have a spell level or two more than the party and thus Counterspell comes down to the roll most of the time (and is often simply the difference between victory and defeat).

[Gignere]

Interesting, the particular character that really had me feeling I wanted Lucky was specifically with a Diviner. It simply was the case that against spellcasting opponents I didn't have enough Portents left; I used my one 20 to crit a key enemy to death with our Rogue, and only had a low roll when I needed to roll a Counterspell later. I generally want to use especially low Portents on enemy saves and high Portents...rarely more than one per day so I generally want more than that available. I had specifically gone Alert and Res: Con on 1 and 4 (Vuman) and thus when I was in the fights where Counterspell was crucial, I didn't have Lucky. Of course, the character also had 13 Con so I was inclined to get those extra HP to increase my survivability, but in retrospect I feel like I might've been better off with Lucky (though ironically in one of those cases, Res: Con gave me enough HP and Con saves to survive the Cloudkill [we were fighting a Drow Mage and her Shadow Toy] I failed to counter and finish the fight but had I succeeded in the Counterspell we would've won that encounter in a landslide instead of by the skin of our teeth).

Though I agree with the virtues of +2 Int as well and I definitely also really found myself wanting that one more spell prepared especially on low levels; on higher level you have enough slots and enough level-to-level redundancy that the opportunity cost is slightly lower (though given how many insanely powerful 3rd and 5th level spells this game has, the choice remains tough for a long, long time) and you can manage with a lower Int a bit longer. Of course, on higher levels the opportunity cost of each given ASI is also lower and by level 12 you'll probably be looking at 18-20 Int anyways so this point is kinda moot. The difficult ASIs are 4 and 8. There's certainly nothing wrong with just +4 Int but I feel like for averting party defeat, Alert and Lucky may do more. Of course, it also depends on DM style: the DMs I've lately played with have had a significant number of caster enemies and usually enemy casters have a spell level or two more than the party and thus Counterspell comes down to the roll most of the time (and is often simply the difference between victory and defeat).

Different experiences can be different I generally dealt with casters by abusing vision and line of sight rules. This was more effective than trying to dispel/counterspell them but I had the luxury of staff of swarming insects. When your targets are restricted to spells that doesn’t require LoS while you have vision superiority and free from counterspell, a lot of the encounters became a cakewalk. I might have used counterspell a few times and that was when enemies beat us in initiative, usually if I win initiative my group and I will be well protected from casting.

[Eldariel]

Different experiences can be different I generally dealt with casters by abusing vision and line of sight rules. This was more effective than trying to dispel/counterspell them but I had the luxury of staff of swarming insects. When your targets are restricted to spells that doesn’t require LoS while you have vision superiority and free from counterspell, a lot of the encounters became a cakewalk. I might have used counterspell a few times and that was when enemies beat us in initiative, usually if I win initiative my group and I will be well protected from casting.

That would speak volumes for taking Lucky and using it liberally to win Initiative. But yeah, Staff of Swarming Insects is a gamechanger though it wouldn't have mattered in the encounters I had trouble with (since most of the important spells I failed to counter were the likes of Animate Objects, defensive Dimension Door, Cloudkill, etc.).

But ya, that Staff is just one of the best items in the game and I can attribute a change in priorities to effects like that: though in such a case, like I mentioned, Initiative might just be the #1 priority.

[Keravath]

This argument actually sold me on Lucky. Now I value it more than Res:CON. Great analysis.

I have the complete opposite opinion :)

Lucky has 3 uses/day. That's it. If your adventuring day in one combat lasting 4 rounds you could use Lucky on 3 out of 4 rounds and it is quite powerful. If your adventuring day is perhaps a more typical one with either a much longer combat or several combats in a day then the value of Lucky is much less.

Lucky can :
- help you try to make a failed save
- possibly negate a critical hit
- help you try to make an important failed skill check
- help you make an attack roll that is important that you hit

... but only 3 times/day.

"This is because Counterspell gets +1 from +2 Int but pretty close to +5 from Lucky and Lucky can be used on every Counterspell you have the slots to cast around these levels. "

Could Lucky help with a failed counterspell. Absolutely. Or dispel magic or anything else similar. However, you have to hold onto those uses or it is NOT available.

In all of the campaigns I have played it, Lucky has been borderline useless for the folks who have taken it.
1) It does occasionally help with saves ... but if it is a save that you stand a good chance of failing, you stand a good chance of failing it the second time. e.g. A level 12 wizard with 14 con facing a DC17 con save - fairly common at that level. They need to roll a 15. They have a ~30% chance of success. If they fail, they can use Lucky to roll again ... they still have a 30% chance of success. The combined probability of succeeding on one is 51% ... higher DC and the odds of making the save drop even further.

On the other hand, resilient con with a 16 con at level 12 is +7, they have a 55% chance on one roll and resilient con only gets better from there as proficiency increases.

Look at the base DC10 concentration check. These come up a lot as the wizard takes damage. Without resilient con at level 12 the wizard with 14 con needs to roll an 8 on every check. 35% chance of failure. With resilient and16 con this drops to a 3 - 10% chance of failure. HUGE difference.

If you use your Lucky roll to maintain concentration ... you won't be using it the next round or the next combat for counterspell.

Lucky is a cool, interesting and flexible feat, I have it on one or two characters (where it has been mostly useless but I think made a difference in about 1/4 or 1/5 uses). However, for a wizard I would take resilient con LONG before Lucky in any campaign with a typical adventuring day that contains any more than one average length combat or encounter.

If I take Lucky it is for role playing reasons not mechanical ones except for late in the game where the particular character has maxed out their primary stat and there just aren't any other great options. The added flexibility and occasional rescue by having Lucky are fun.

Anyway, I suggest looking at your typical adventuring day in the games you play and try out Lucky yourself if you like, but I find that most of the opinions I have read on Lucky give it far more value than I have experienced either by playing my own characters with the feat, watching others with the feat or DMing for folks with the feat. Most of the games I am in or run these days, no one bothers with Lucky until at least tier 3/4 since it is has far less value in actual play than most people seem to give it in discussions. (the limit of 3 uses / long rest is a very effective at limiting how useful Lucky is).

[Eldariel]

I have the complete opposite opinion :)

Lucky has 3 uses/day. That's it. If your adventuring day in one combat lasting 4 rounds you could use Lucky on 3 out of 4 rounds and it is quite powerful. If your adventuring day is perhaps a more typical one with either a much longer combat or several combats in a day then the value of Lucky is much less.

Lucky can :
- help you try to make a failed save
- possibly negate a critical hit
- help you try to make an important failed skill check
- help you make an attack roll that is important that you hit

... but only 3 times/day.

"This is because Counterspell gets +1 from +2 Int but pretty close to +5 from Lucky and Lucky can be used on every Counterspell you have the slots to cast around these levels. "

Could Lucky help with a failed counterspell. Absolutely. Or dispel magic or anything else similar. However, you have to hold onto those uses or it is NOT available.

In all of the campaigns I have played it, Lucky has been borderline useless for the folks who have taken it.
1) It does occasionally help with saves ... but if it is a save that you stand a good chance of failing, you stand a good chance of failing it the second time. e.g. A level 12 wizard with 14 con facing a DC17 con save - fairly common at that level. They need to roll a 15. They have a ~30% chance of success. If they fail, they can use Lucky to roll again ... they still have a 30% chance of success. The combined probability of succeeding on one is 51% ... higher DC and the odds of making the save drop even further.

On the other hand, resilient con with a 16 con at level 12 is +7, they have a 55% chance on one roll and resilient con only gets better from there as proficiency increases.

Look at the base DC10 concentration check. These come up a lot as the wizard takes damage. Without resilient con at level 12 the wizard with 14 con needs to roll an 8 on every check. 35% chance of failure. With resilient and16 con this drops to a 3 - 10% chance of failure. HUGE difference.

If you use your Lucky roll to maintain concentration ... you won't be using it the next round or the next combat for counterspell.

Lucky is a cool, interesting and flexible feat, I have it on one or two characters (where it has been mostly useless but I think made a difference in about 1/4 or 1/5 uses). However, for a wizard I would take resilient con LONG before Lucky in any campaign with a typical adventuring day that contains any more than one average length combat or encounter.

If I take Lucky it is for role playing reasons not mechanical ones except for late in the game where the particular character has maxed out their primary stat and there just aren't any other great options. The added flexibility and occasional rescue by having Lucky are fun.

Anyway, I suggest looking at your typical adventuring day in the games you play and try out Lucky yourself if you like, but I find that most of the opinions I have read on Lucky give it far more value than I have experienced either by playing my own characters with the feat, watching others with the feat or DMing for folks with the feat. Most of the games I am in or run these days, no one bothers with Lucky until at least tier 3/4 since it is has far less value in actual play than most people seem to give it in discussions. (the limit of 3 uses / long rest is a very effective at limiting how useful Lucky is).

Most of the times I see people get little benefit out of Lucky it is over a short span of time and they are unlucky (if you roll lower than the first time every time, obviously it offers no benefit) or, more commonly, are not skilled enough at conserving resources. Same with most spellcasters who run out of spells in the middle of the adventure day (there are of course aberrant adventuring days where you have to go through 20 hard encounters and everyone is out of everything towards the end of it and generally the party must disengage or die but those are, as the name says, aberrant). I think of Lucky as a "Feat X++" - I pick it for a purpose and then only use it for high impact options other than that. That is to say, if it's obviously a dangerous fight where I need to go first or we'll get smoked and I roll poorly for Initiative, or if I'm rolling for Counterspell (generally high level spells are always worth countering and the fact that you're rolling means it's 4+ so it's basically always worth it), or some really important save (losing 10 max HP isn't really important enough to bother with but getting stunned by Hypnotic Pattern when the rest of the party is also failing probably is - and getting possessed or something certainly is) where I have a reasonable chance of success (if my Cha is -1 and I'm rolling a high difficulty Cha save it's probably not worth trying since my odds of success are too low).

I'm not saying that's necessarily the case in your table but in games I've played the only time I've seen people not get their money's worth is when they blow it on irrelevant attack rolls or low odd success things they're probably failing anyways (of course, if you're literally rolling against a save-or-die then you've got no choice even if your odds are very low but often the effects aren't quite that brutal quite that fast - and not having Lucky but something else would likely not help you in that case anyways). Lucky's job isn't to fix every one of your problems but it's a better choice if on average it fixes more of your problems than another save. That is, if you are failing under 3 high importance Con saves per day by the margin that another feat would help in then Lucky is potentially better than Res: Con/War Caster. In my experience, if my Counterspells are succeeding, I'm positioning well, using my CC/concealment/disables well, using prone whenever enemy has ranged attacks, and I'm not surprised and acting first, I roll precious few high importance Con-saves. In other words, under the conditions where I play mechanically well and my character is Alert, Lucky outperforms Res: Con significantly. It even offers a cushion against brutal high damage crits when you need it if you an enemy does manage to land a crit with a lot of dice in spite of disadvantage (or has compensatory advantage; of course this is assuming your DM doesn't use the idiotic RAW on Disadvantage + Lucky).


But to reiterate, if you are failing under 3 high importance Con saves per day by the margin that another feat would help in then Lucky is potentially better than Res: Con/War Caster (depending on the auxiliaries: extra HP from Res: Con or the cantrip AoOs and hands-full casting from War Caster). The metric isn't if you have Lucky for every time it counts, it's for how many important times you've had Lucky available. You'll run out eventually if you do use it and if you keep overconserving it, you'll be using it suboptimally. But if you use it on those critical moments you'll conserve a lot of resources and get a lot of value on the average adventuring day. Of course, as dice fall, sometimes it won't help at all and sometimes you'll run out on a critical point but, unsurprisingly enough, by the time you run out you'd probably have been pretty darn deadified if you hadn't had the feat, since that means you would've had an average of ~+4 less for three crucial rolls on that day already and if those rolls truly are crucial, failing those due to not being Lucky means a lot of resource expenditure/potential character death at that point.

[JNAProductions]

One note is that, should you manage to get +9 Con saves, damage of 21 or less can never cause you to fail Concentration saves (barring being affected by Bane or something).

[Eldariel]

One note is that, should you manage to get +9 Con saves, damage of 21 or less can never cause you to fail Concentration saves (barring being affected by Bane or something).

Indeed. Though by that point you're usually on Tier 3 at least so you've got the third ASI and potentially fourth feat already (I do pick Res: Con on my casters too - earlier if I'm a more brawly than avoidy type but that's not the type value I would wager). +4 Con and +5 Prof is the earliest reasonable point to get it (+5 Con is highly unlikely without sacrificing something else).

[JNAProductions]

Indeed. Though by that point you're usually on Tier 3 at least so you've got the third ASI and potentially fourth feat already (I do pick Res: Con on my casters too - earlier if I'm a more brawly than avoidy type but that's not the type value I would wager). +4 Con and +5 Prof is the earliest reasonable point to get it (+5 Con is highly unlikely without sacrificing something else).

Unless you're a Paladin! Then, picking up Res (Con) at 4th level can get you +9 by level 6, when you add Con, Cha, and Prof to it.

Of course, the OP is a Wizard/Cleric, so that's not as helpful.

[Bilbron]

You should check https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621847-Opportunity-cost-and-why-Bladesinger-is-a-weak-archetype if you are interested in his argument. Don't take my word for it.

As I've stated on this thread, I believe that the priority for wizards is 20 INT > Alert > Res CON and the best way to do it is by picking alert as a Vhuman. Crowd Control spells scale exponentially with main stat and that +1 to DC can be more valuable than it looks in a vacuum. But really this discussion should revolve around builds. It's very different if you are a blaster caster.

Love me some Alert, but I think if you take it you're going to be maximizing obscurement and rarely getting hit, which indicates to me that Resilient (or War Caster) would not be an optimal choice for that playstyle. Something like Fighting Initate for Blindfighting or Metamagic Initiate for Subtle Spell (cast from Hiding in your obscurement without revealing position) works better in combination, IMO.


That would speak volumes for taking Lucky and using it liberally to win Initiative. But yeah, Staff of Swarming Insects is a gamechanger though it wouldn't have mattered in the encounters I had trouble with (since most of the important spells I failed to counter were the likes of Animate Objects, defensive Dimension Door, Cloudkill, etc.).

But ya, that Staff is just one of the best items in the game and I can attribute a change in priorities to effects like that: though in such a case, like I mentioned, Initiative might just be the #1 priority.

In a vacuum SSI is good, but it takes an attunement slot to gain perfect concealment. I think you can do this in other ways that "cost" less (e.g. a Feat is much less powerful than a good attuned item).

[Bilbron]

Anyway, I suggest looking at your typical adventuring day in the games you play and try out Lucky yourself if you like, but I find that most of the opinions I have read on Lucky give it far more value than I have experienced either by playing my own characters with the feat, watching others with the feat or DMing for folks with the feat. Most of the games I am in or run these days, no one bothers with Lucky until at least tier 3/4 since it is has far less value in actual play than most people seem to give it in discussions. (the limit of 3 uses / long rest is a very effective at limiting how useful Lucky is).

Interesting. My DM banned Lucky as OP, and I actually don't harshly disagree with that, so I haven't actually seen it in play. I see it as clearly the most powerful Feat in the game. 3x rerolls on saves? OMFG yes. SO HARD to get save rerolls in this game. I'd be all over that, if I could.

[Gtdead]

Love me some Alert, but I think if you take it you're going to be maximizing obscurement and rarely getting hit, which indicates to me that Resilient (or War Caster) would not be an optimal choice for that playstyle. Something like Fighting Initate for Blindfighting or Metamagic Initiate for Subtle Spell (cast from Hiding in your obscurement without revealing position) works better in combination, IMO.


Creating synergistic combos is a great way to optimize and I agree with the sentiment. However 2 non synergistic but strong passive effects with broad application can bring a lot of value and is generally the way I like to build. I try to not overengineer the builds because it tends to have higher and higher opportunity costs while the effect doesn't always follow the same pattern. Sometimes I get overzealous when I theorycraft, but when the times comes for me to actually choose something to play with, my cooler head prevails :p

The reason I changed my opinion about Lucky compared to Res: CON is because of Counterspell. This spell works on a normalized difficulty curve, so the effect of Lucky should be better across the board. It's an interaction that I hadn't thought of before and Counterspell is a strong spell that is worthwhile to optimize. Up till now I viewed Lucky as a mostly defensive ability. I don't really like active defensive abilities unless their effect is strong and very narrow.

[Bilbron]

Creating synergistic combos is a great way to optimize and I agree with the sentiment. However 2 non synergistic but strong passive effects with broad application can bring a lot of value and is generally the way I like to build. I try to not overengineer the builds because it tends to have higher and higher opportunity costs while the effect doesn't always follow the same pattern. Sometimes I get overzealous when I theorycraft, but when the times comes for me to actually choose something to play with, my cooler head prevails :p

The reason I changed my opinion about Lucky compared to Res: CON is because of Counterspell. This spell works on a normalized difficulty curve, so the effect of Lucky should be better across the board. It's an interaction that I hadn't thought of before and Counterspell is a strong spell that is worthwhile to optimize. Up till now I viewed Lucky as a mostly defensive ability. I don't really like active defensive abilities unless their effect is strong and very narrow.
Well, it sounds like you know what you're doing!

I personally love me some active defensive abilities (see my video on Defense where I confess how I've always been a defensive-oriented athlete/player), so there's definitely some subjectivity in play.

However, as I also mention in my video on Efficiency, I don't like Counterspell. It's takes your reaction to both cast it and to identify the spell cast (a difficult proposition even if you take the reaction at DC 15 + Spell Level), so you don't know the spell you're Counterspelling. So you might save the day by Counterspelling a Fireball, but you might also blow a 3rd level slot and your reaction to counter a Ray of Sickness. Or worse, it's a 4th+ level spell and you Counterspell at 3rd level and then you have a significant chance to fail and get nothing for your slot/reaction. Its only reliable use is to Counterspell a Counterspell, which is nice, I guess, but not worth a slot to me when I can just recast the original spell.

Plus I use obscurement in every single encounter (have Alert) and Counterspell requires line of sight. Ultimately, I don't even memorize it, because there are few truly debilitating spells in 5e, it might miss or you might save anyway so you wasted your reaction/slot for nothing, and most of those debilitating spells apply conditions which can be removed with Dispel Magic (which I never go without). If it's just damage or something, my party is pretty resilient.

[Eldariel]

In a vacuum SSI is good, but it takes an attunement slot to gain perfect concealment. I think you can do this in other ways that "cost" less (e.g. a Feat is much less powerful than a good attuned item).

That depends on the opportunity cost. First of all, an attuned item is only a significant cost if you get enough attuned items to actually approach the limit. This is entirely campaign dependent and thus numerically difficult to account for. Further, since SSI is a high tier attuned item you need to get enough high tier attuned items you'd want. It also doesn't cost you Concentration while most ways to generate Concealment other than it and Pyrotechnics do.

Now, I do agree that Pyrotechnics + Alert is probably more efficient under most circumstances if you have means to sidestep the action economy issues of lighting fire (Unseen Servant, familiar) but the big difference is that Pyrotechnics + Alert denies you the chance to cast targeted spells (such as super-efficient action economy spells like Counterspell) yourself as well as Staff doesn't. The options that don't basically always cost you a feat you wouldn't spend otherwise (a feat to get Devil's Sight), a dip (the Shadow Sorc or Warlock dip) and also Concentration. Concentration is such a massive cost that I probably wouldn't want to pay it for a selfish defense such as this. And of course, Darkness-based obscurement is less reliable since it's penetrated by so many things (True sight, Devils, Warlocks and Shadow Sorcs).


Now I generally prefer to open up with a disable on the big enemies but there are cases where denying sight could be the first priority (Beholderkin comes to mind immediately).

[Bilbron]

That depends on the opportunity cost. First of all, an attuned item is only a significant cost if you get enough attuned items to actually approach the limit. This is entirely campaign dependent and thus numerically difficult to account for. Further, since SSI is a high tier attuned item you need to get enough high tier attuned items you'd want. It also doesn't cost you Concentration while most ways to generate Concealment other than it and Pyrotechnics do.

Now, I do agree that Pyrotechnics + Alert is probably more efficient under most circumstances if you have means to sidestep the action economy issues of lighting fire (Unseen Servant, familiar) but the big difference is that Pyrotechnics + Alert denies you the chance to cast targeted spells (such as super-efficient action economy spells like Counterspell) yourself as well as Staff doesn't. The options that don't basically always cost you a feat you wouldn't spend otherwise (a feat to get Devil's Sight), a dip (the Shadow Sorc or Warlock dip) and also Concentration. Concentration is such a massive cost that I probably wouldn't want to pay it for a selfish defense such as this. And of course, Darkness-based obscurement is less reliable since it's penetrated by so many things (True sight, Devils, Warlocks and Shadow Sorcs).


Now I generally prefer to open up with a disable on the big enemies but there are cases where denying sight could be the first priority (Beholderkin comes to mind immediately).
I definitely agree about Concentration, and recommend anyone optimized around Obscurement to figure out a way to make it without it. Pyrotechnics is fantastic, as is the Eversmoking Bottle (uncommon, no attunement, no concentration). What I did was ask my DM if I could bring over Smokesticks from Pathfinder (action to create 10' cube fog cloud) and he let me (I paid a price in regressing my ASI development... homebrew stuff), so now I actually start most battles with 4x of my Tiny Servants creating a 20x20x10 cube of obscurement for me to operate in (the 5th feeds me an antitoxin). But if he hadn't, I'd be using Summon Actions to manage Pyrotechnics, or acquired an EB.

If you build around it, SSI is really nice, I admit. Just the powergamer in me says it's better, long term, to keep that attunement slot open for something super juicy, and engineer ways to make obscurement work to my advantage in other ways. But there is certainly subjectivity involved and I've no doubt a character optimized for a SSI would be quite formidible.

[Starman]

Unseen Servant + Eversmoking Bottle is hard to beat.

[Keravath]

Most of the times I see people get little benefit out of Lucky it is over a short span of time and they are unlucky (if you roll lower than the first time every time, obviously it offers no benefit) or, more commonly, are not skilled enough at conserving resources. Same with most spellcasters who run out of spells in the middle of the adventure day (there are of course aberrant adventuring days where you have to go through 20 hard encounters and everyone is out of everything towards the end of it and generally the party must disengage or die but those are, as the name says, aberrant). I think of Lucky as a "Feat X++" - I pick it for a purpose and then only use it for high impact options other than that. That is to say, if it's obviously a dangerous fight where I need to go first or we'll get smoked and I roll poorly for Initiative, or if I'm rolling for Counterspell (generally high level spells are always worth countering and the fact that you're rolling means it's 4+ so it's basically always worth it), or some really important save (losing 10 max HP isn't really important enough to bother with but getting stunned by Hypnotic Pattern when the rest of the party is also failing probably is - and getting possessed or something certainly is) where I have a reasonable chance of success (if my Cha is -1 and I'm rolling a high difficulty Cha save it's probably not worth trying since my odds of success are too low).

I'm not saying that's necessarily the case in your table but in games I've played the only time I've seen people not get their money's worth is when they blow it on irrelevant attack rolls or low odd success things they're probably failing anyways (of course, if you're literally rolling against a save-or-die then you've got no choice even if your odds are very low but often the effects aren't quite that brutal quite that fast - and not having Lucky but something else would likely not help you in that case anyways). Lucky's job isn't to fix every one of your problems but it's a better choice if on average it fixes more of your problems than another save. That is, if you are failing under 3 high importance Con saves per day by the margin that another feat would help in then Lucky is potentially better than Res: Con/War Caster. In my experience, if my Counterspells are succeeding, I'm positioning well, using my CC/concealment/disables well, using prone whenever enemy has ranged attacks, and I'm not surprised and acting first, I roll precious few high importance Con-saves. In other words, under the conditions where I play mechanically well and my character is Alert, Lucky outperforms Res: Con significantly. It even offers a cushion against brutal high damage crits when you need it if you an enemy does manage to land a crit with a lot of dice in spite of disadvantage (or has compensatory advantage; of course this is assuming your DM doesn't use the idiotic RAW on Disadvantage + Lucky).


But to reiterate, if you are failing under 3 high importance Con saves per day by the margin that another feat would help in then Lucky is potentially better than Res: Con/War Caster (depending on the auxiliaries: extra HP from Res: Con or the cantrip AoOs and hands-full casting from War Caster). The metric isn't if you have Lucky for every time it counts, it's for how many important times you've had Lucky available. You'll run out eventually if you do use it and if you keep overconserving it, you'll be using it suboptimally. But if you use it on those critical moments you'll conserve a lot of resources and get a lot of value on the average adventuring day. Of course, as dice fall, sometimes it won't help at all and sometimes you'll run out on a critical point but, unsurprisingly enough, by the time you run out you'd probably have been pretty darn deadified if you hadn't had the feat, since that means you would've had an average of ~+4 less for three crucial rolls on that day already and if those rolls truly are crucial, failing those due to not being Lucky means a lot of resource expenditure/potential character death at that point.

Different games are different. In the ones I play and run, the caster can't usually stand safe and secure in the back and not get hit. They don't have the option of never having to roll a concentration save.

I agree with you ... if in an adventuring day your caster never experiences 3 situations where they have to roll an important save, ability check or avoid a critical then Lucky IS the better choice. For those three rolls, you can use Lucky and see how great it is when it helps you make the roll once in a while. (Say 50% chance of succeeding on a roll requiring an 11 that you already failed).

I think there is one DM I have played with where that is an frequent option. The encounters are usually met by the characters at the front, they can be melee heavy and the DM doesn't have the opponents suffer op attacks to get to the really dangerous opponents hiding at the back. I find Adventurer's League games can get run that way sometimes depending on the DM.

However, most DMs including myself, run the NPCs based on their intelligence and capability. Ranged attackers will often focus on the caster in the back because they know this is likely the best way to interrupt concentration on the spells aiding the opponents or interfering with their side. A spell caster will drop a fireball on the back line to force concentration checks .. or they might cast dispel magic if they have it on whatever the wizard already cast. Or a hold spell on the wizard .. or anything else that will shut down that caster at the back and break concentration.

In the games I run and play, the caster in the back can NEVER count on less than 3 important saves/checks during ANY adventuring day. They could end up facing a half a dozen concentration checks in ONE round depending on the nature of the opposing forces and how important the opposition thinks it is to break the wizards concentration.

Anyway, my first post made it clear that if you have one fight/adventuring day (or if you prefer 3 important die rolls/adventuring day as the metric) then Lucky IS the better choice. However, my play experience seems to be the opposite of yours and a back line caster in the games I play can NEVER be confident of not being targeted when facing intelligent opponents which usually results in far more than 3 important die rolls in a gaming day. 3 Rolls where Lucky may only help them succeed 1/2 the time (assuming the original DC was as low as 11 - of course the chances of failing the roll the first time go up the higher the DC and thus the chances of failing even with Lucky).

The best aspect of the Lucky feat is its flexibility - it can be used for ANY save or ANY skill check or ANY attack roll you make or made against you - which makes it a great fall back feat when you have everything else you want but in my opinion, in the games I play, not before - unless I am taking it for roleplaying reasons :)

[Bilbron]

The best aspect of the Lucky feat is its flexibility - it can be used for ANY save or ANY skill check or ANY attack roll you make or made against you - which makes it a great fall back feat when you have everything else you want but in my opinion, in the games I play, not before - unless I am taking it for roleplaying reasons :)

Not quite. You can use it for any of those rolls that YOU make, but in regards to your enemy, you can only affect his attack rolls. I hear people saying Chronal Shift is like Lucky, but CS allows you to affect your enemies saves/checks, as well. That makes it considerably more powerful, I think.

[Keravath]

Not quite. You can use it for any of those rolls that YOU make, but in regards to your enemy, you can only affect his attack rolls. I hear people saying Chronal Shift is like Lucky, but CS allows you to affect your enemies saves/checks, as well. That makes it considerably more powerful, I think.

I considered putting brackets in that sentence to make it clear that you could affect your attack rolls or an opponents attack rolls but not an opponents saves or ability checks with Lucky :) ... but I thought the commas would be enough :) ... my bad.

To clarify - you can use Lucky on
- your saving throws
- your ability checks
- attack rolls you make
- attack rolls made to hit you

[Eldariel]

Different games are different. In the ones I play and run, the caster can't usually stand safe and secure in the back and not get hit. They don't have the option of never having to roll a concentration save.

I agree with you ... if in an adventuring day your caster never experiences 3 situations where they have to roll an important save, ability check or avoid a critical then Lucky IS the better choice. For those three rolls, you can use Lucky and see how great it is when it helps you make the roll once in a while. (Say 50% chance of succeeding on a roll requiring an 11 that you already failed).

As other feats only help with one of those things, Lucky only has to be compared to that. For example, if you only are failing under 3 important Constitution-saves by enough that you'd have succeeded had you had Res: Con (practically speaking, if your base Con is like 15 and you're on Tier 2 with +3 Prof this means the +4 from the feat would have to help you) then Lucky can do that while also doing one other thing. This is because you only need to use Lucky after you know results of the initial roll.

If you need to do more other rolls than that, it doesn't matter. If you use it for ability checks or enemy crits or whatever, that's okay. That's not an option you'd have had otherwise. That's something only Lucky can do. Therefore every time you do one of those things successfully, Lucky is paying back in spades. Of course, they have to actually be critical - you can't just try to reroll every fail but you need a fairly high threshold for it.

This is something I quickly learnt with my Diviner over the first few levels: never use low Portent on enemy attack rolls and prefer not to use high Portent on allied attack rolls. Those are generally individually low enough impact that it's just not worth it. Low rolls on enemy saves pretty much always. High rolls on allied Initiative, some real key checks (e.g. Counterspell check or perhaps some highly debiliating and difficult Shoves or such). Only 20s are good for attacks and only on characters with strong crits (Eldritch Smiting Warlocks, Rogues, Paladins, some Wizards/Clerics). Same applies to Lucky. If it's not threatening to knock me unconscious, I might not even bother using Lucky on enemy crit on myself unless I'm Concentrating on something important.


I think there is one DM I have played with where that is an frequent option. The encounters are usually met by the characters at the front, they can be melee heavy and the DM doesn't have the opponents suffer op attacks to get to the really dangerous opponents hiding at the back. I find Adventurer's League games can get run that way sometimes depending on the DM.

However, most DMs including myself, run the NPCs based on their intelligence and capability. Ranged attackers will often focus on the caster in the back because they know this is likely the best way to interrupt concentration on the spells aiding the opponents or interfering with their side. A spell caster will drop a fireball on the back line to force concentration checks .. or they might cast dispel magic if they have it on whatever the wizard already cast. Or a hold spell on the wizard .. or anything else that will shut down that caster at the back and break concentration.

I run games that way myself and that's the way games I've played in have been run (but then, there are usually multiple casters so ranged enemies are limited in how much they can focus fire). But I find skilled Wizard play and abusing positioning and prone can cover for that most of the time. Even if enemies do attack you, if you're Prone and have Mage Armor with access to Shield you generally don't have to bother making that many Concentration checks: they're attacking against AC 20+ at disadvantage.

Similarly, party scouting, tactics and positioning play a huge part. If you're often surrounded and engaging in fights in open environments, that makes life harder and probably vindicates taking Res: Con early but OTOH if you're frequently surrounded that's a pretty high grave scouting failure (since the most important part of scouting is making sure you can engage on at worst equal terms). And of course, if the DM doesn't really describe terrain.


In the games I run and play, the caster in the back can NEVER count on less than 3 important saves/checks during ANY adventuring day. They could end up facing a half a dozen concentration checks in ONE round depending on the nature of the opposing forces and how important the opposition thinks it is to break the wizards concentration.

How many enemies with ranged attacks do you run in an average encounter and what kind of terrain? If after the first big disable/fireball there's still the ~40 left with line of fire and you without sufficient cover so that they are able to land dozen hits at disadvantage against AC 20+. But that seems pretty brutal for the non-casters. If enemy is doing it with e.g. Animate Objects/Conjure Animals from the enemy casters, Counterspell and the criticality of a successful roll again raise their heads.

Generally my approach to mass enemy formations is to try and maintain spots of cover/concealment with spells (Mold Earth/Minor Illusion) before the encounter. In encounter I'll try to win Initiative (if necessary, that's a place where I'll drop a resource like Lucky or Portent) catch as many as I can with AOE and then use my move action to go back into cover from as many enemies as possible, and drop prone if I can expect enemy to be unable to attack me in melee reasonably. This way I maximise my contributions and minimise enemy chance to affect me. They might get one-two potshots in but if I'm prone and have Shield, it's quite likely they're missing even at reasonably high attack bonuses.


Anyway, my first post made it clear that if you have one fight/adventuring day (or if you prefer 3 important die rolls/adventuring day as the metric) then Lucky IS the better choice. However, my play experience seems to be the opposite of yours and a back line caster in the games I play can NEVER be confident of not being targeted when facing intelligent opponents which usually results in far more than 3 important die rolls in a gaming day. 3 Rolls where Lucky may only help them succeed 1/2 the time (assuming the original DC was as low as 11 - of course the chances of failing the roll the first time go up the higher the DC and thus the chances of failing even with Lucky).

The best aspect of the Lucky feat is its flexibility - it can be used for ANY save or ANY skill check or ANY attack roll you make or made against you - which makes it a great fall back feat when you have everything else you want but in my opinion, in the games I play, not before - unless I am taking it for roleplaying reasons :)

I've usually played ~3-10 encounters per day though there are exceptions with 0 to 20 encounters (granted, I only remember one 20 encounter day and I DMd that myself). Thing is, I don't need Lucky in most encounters. Generally in lower difficulty encounters I can use cover, prone, my disable, and my defensive spells (optimal positioning depends on whether enemy has spellcasters of course; Counterspell means you don't want total cover from the enemy caster though prone is generally still fine) to simply avoid giving enemies a reasonable shot at landing that many hits. If I do have to roll Concentration I still have a reasonable shot at making it and only have to drop a use of Lucky if I'm failing and if I can't afford to fail (which isn't actually at all given on latter rounds; once the mop-up has commenced you might not need to care about maintaining your Concentration that much anymore).

On subsequent rounds if enemy is focusing you, you can even afford to take the Dodge action or cast like Minor Illusion or Pyrotechnics or Mold Earth or similar to give yourself some cover/concealment to make it harder for the enemy to attack you in the first place; this can easily accomplish more than a single TtD or Firebolt or whatever if your Concentration is of high importance.