Why are people exited about the Piercer feat from TCE?

[Mastikator]

I've seen some threads here and there, specifically on reddit saying that the new Piercer feat is amazing.
Quick recap on what it does:

+1 strength or dex
when you hit a creature with an attack that deals piercing damage you can reroll one dice once per round
when you score a critical with piercing damage you add one dice


People were saying this seems awesome if you use ranged attacks since it doesn't specify melee. So I did what any sane normal person would and ran a computer simulation where I calculate how much extra damage you get from using this feat.
(I simulated 1,000,000 d8 rolls, where you reroll on 4, and calculated the difference, rerolling on 4 is the optimal choice BTW).

The result is 1, on average you increase damage by 1. On a d10 you get 1.25 if you reroll on a 5 or less.
That does not take into consideration the crit bonus, but adding another d8 on every 5% attacks is only +0.225, +0.42 if you have advantage.

So with a longbow you're looking at +1.2 damage, I can only see myself taking this feat as a longbow warrior if I happen to have odd dexterity number (13,15,17,19). Otherwise it's not better than just taking +2 dexterity.

I haven't done the calculations on what happens if you are using sneak attack though, maybe it's slightly better? The more d6s you add the closer the bonus damage would approach +5, but that's also proportionally less.

HOWEVER, even with odd dexterity number I'd still always take Sharpshooter. Sharpshooter gives +10 more damage boost, ignore cover and range penalty. It just seems a million times better? (or at least ten times better)

[RogueJK]

From what I saw, the excitement was more from the +1 ability score half-feat angle, and lumped in with the other two similar feats (Slasher and Crusher).

Before, there weren't really any great STR half-feats, other than potentially Heavy Armor Master that lost some of its steam at higher levels (and even that wasn't an option for non-heavily-armored STR build like Barbarians).

Other STR half feats, like Athlete, Tavern Brawler, Weapon Master, and the like, were just plain bad. So folks with odd STR scores were left with lackluster options.

DEX was similar, although not quite as bad, since many DEX builds ended up being worked around incorporating Elven Accuracy so they at least had one go-to DEX half-feat option already.

Now odd-numbered STR/DEX characters at least have a few potentially better options, although I do agree that Piercer is the least interesting of the three related feats.

[stoutstien]

I concur it's the least interesting and mechanically impactful of the three new damage feats. I don't even want to call them weapon feats because they're not limited to just weapon attacks. I guess it's better than savage attacker?

[Damon_Tor]

HOWEVER, even with odd dexterity number I'd still always take Sharpshooter. Sharpshooter gives +10 more damage boost, ignore cover and range penalty. It just seems a million times better? (or at least ten times better)

I despise when people meticulously work out the math for some other feat so they can claim it's bad, then come along and claim sharpshooter/GWM gives "+10 damage." If you actually do the math, sharpshooter is a net loss of damage against anything with an AC that's worth a damn, especially if you have bonus damage from other sources as well (see: rogue). And most boss fights are going to have reasonable AC, that's just the way the game is structured, so when it actually matters Sharpshooter is totally worthless, a trap.

For a class like a rogue that's rolling a fist full of d6s on every attack, you've got strong odds that one of those dice is going to be a 1. In which case Piercer is pretty reliably adding +2.5 damage every round before we even consider the crit bonus, AND you aren't tanking your to-hit chance to get it. PLUS it's a half feat. It's freaking amazing.

[Mastikator]

I despise when people meticulously work out the math for some other feat so they can claim it's bad, then come along and claim sharpshooter/GWM gives "+10 damage." If you actually do the math, sharpshooter is a net loss of damage against anything with an AC that's worth a damn, especially if you have bonus damage from other sources as well (see: rogue). And most boss fights are going to have reasonable AC, that's just the way the game is structured, so when it actually matters Sharpshooter is totally worthless, a trap.

For a class like a rogue that's rolling a fist full of d6s on every attack, you've got strong odds that one of those dice is going to be a 1. In which case Piercer is pretty reliably adding +2.5 damage every round before we even consider the crit bonus, AND you aren't tanking your to-hit chance to get it. PLUS it's a half feat. It's freaking amazing.

I actually did the math on that too a few weeks LMAO (mostly I wanted to know when it was a good idea to use the +10 damage on my fighter). At level 4 with 18 dex you'll do more damage against anything with AC 17 or less. 18 if you have advantage. Fighter archery fighting style raises the AC dropoff by 2 (obviously). At level 6 with 20 dex the enemy will need 22 AC to not be worth doing sharshooter on. (at 11 it's 24, at 20 it's 25)
Multiattack scales with sharpshooter while piercer only lets you reroll one die per turn.

Edit- to get those stats/feat, variant human, standard array.

[RogueJK]

And there are ways that you can reliably offset the -5 attack penalty to allow it to be used effectively against even higher AC enemies, like stacking things such as Advantage, Elven Accuracy, the Archery fighting style, the Bless spell, etc.

So I disagree that Sharpshooter is a trap. It's perhaps better to say that it shouldn't be used on every single ranged attack, for example if you're fighting someone with a high AC and you don't have a way to effectively counter the attack penalty up and running yet.

And it may be worth skipping on someone like a Rogue that has fewer attacks and already has another way to add large amounts of damage on a hit, but even if you only occasionally use the -5/+10, Sharpshooter is still a great feat for any archer, thanks to the range boost (especially handy on Hand Crossbows) and the ignoring of cover. Basically "Spell Sniper" for ranged weapon attacks, with the -5/+10 just being a nice additional option.

[Amnestic]

I actually did the math on that too a few weeks LMAO (mostly I wanted to know when it was a good idea to use the +10 damage on my fighter). At level 4 with 18 dex you'll do more damage against anything with AC 17 or less. 18 if you have advantage. Fighter archery fighting style raises the AC dropoff by 2 (obviously). At level 6 with 20 dex the enemy will need 22 AC to not be worth doing sharshooter on. (at 11 it's 24, at 20 it's 25)
Multiattack scales with sharpshooter while piercer only lets you reroll one die per turn.

Edit- to get those stats/feat, variant human, standard array.

And how does it work out if you're a rogue with only one attack trying to land SA? Probably closer.

Also Piercer's more fun than sharpshooter. Sharpshooter is boring. It's swingy all or nothing. Piercer gives you additional dice rolling opportunities, and people like rolling dice.

...which is the other reason I wish Wild Talent had made it to Tasha's, but oh well.

[Mastikator]

And how does it work out if you're a rogue with only one attack trying to land SA? Probably closer.

Also Piercer's more fun than sharpshooter. Sharpshooter is boring. It's swingy all or nothing. Piercer gives you additional dice rolling opportunities, and people like rolling dice.

...which is the other reason I wish Wild Talent had made it to Tasha's, but oh well.

At 10d6 sneak attack plus 1d8 from your rapier/light crossbow it's probably around +2.5. If you have odd dex it raises to +3.5 which is a "yeah I'll take it". But I feel like just because all other dex half feat suck doesn't really mean Piercer is awesome. It's.. okay? Unremarkable? The more I think about it the more I feel like the crit bonus is kinda lame, like if it let you ignore piercing resistance and turn piercing immunity into piercing resistance then it may be better. I guess I'm not from the school of "big dice numbers wow".

[Amnestic]

I guess I'm not from the school of "big dice numbers wow".

You're apparently from the school of "big flat numbers wow".

I can't say I saw any specific excitement for piercer in the first place (most of the attention seemed to be on Crusher, from what I saw at least) but it's a 'fine' pick for some builds as a half-feat and not for others. It being worse (in most cases) than sharpshooter - a half-feat that frequently gets brought up as (if not broken, then at least) frustrating says it's 'balanced' to me. Good job Wizards I guess?

It's fine. Could be better, but if it was competing with sharpshooter for all builds then it'd be an issue surely.

From a quick glance at another thread no monsters have piercing immunity and piercing resistance isn't an issue as soon as you grab your first magic weapon, so downgrading piercing resistance would be a very minor, very niche benefit. I guess it'd be something. I could see it as an extra bullet points on all the damage-type feats I suppose.

[MoiMagnus]

Honestly, if the reroll was not limited at once per round (so once per attack), I would be reasonably happy to take it with a fighter archer at any table where I feel like the DM is not really strict on covers. Not sure I would take it, but I would consider it.

I don't like -5/+10 effects (even though I acknowledge they are powerful and would use it if I have it available), so if ignoring covers is not a must have, I would not take sharpshooter.

But right now, this feat is not interesting enough for me. Really not far, but not enough. And when I take suboptimal feats, I want them to have a RP effect of some sort and this one doesn't have any significant RP effect.

[Gignere]

At 10d6 sneak attack plus 1d8 from your rapier/light crossbow it's probably around +2.5. If you have odd dex it raises to +3.5 which is a "yeah I'll take it". But I feel like just because all other dex half feat suck doesn't really mean Piercer is awesome. It's.. okay? Unremarkable? The more I think about it the more I feel like the crit bonus is kinda lame, like if it let you ignore piercing resistance and turn piercing immunity into piercing resistance then it may be better. I guess I'm not from the school of "big dice numbers wow".

I think Elven accuracy is awesome for a half dex feat of course only elves and half elves.

[Mastikator]

You're apparently from the school of "big flat numbers wow".

Guilty as charged.

[stoutstien]

I generally just dislike rerolls like this the same reason GWF will always get a pass in my book. I'd much rather just have a static die size increase which is a lower total increase but less annoying. Maybe just add an extra die and drop the lowest roll.

If I'm rolling dice I want a chance to change the outcome. I want to turn a miss into a hit or a failed saving throw into a passing one.

[Meichrob7]

It lets you combine it with custom lineage and start with 18 Dex which is a huge middle finger to anyone without a ranger option because Dex is broken and you’ll just go first in initiative, and ping away at them from range with 18 attacking stat at level 1. At level 4 you’re at 20 Dex. Congrats you’re now as dexterous as a level 20 rogue unless they have found the one magic item that lets you bypass stat caps.

Also on the math front. A half feat that gives +1 damage per round is pretty damn good. That’s comparable to a feat that gives +2 damage per round which almost none of them do.

I look at it more like a fighting style, and if you actually take the feat for fighting styles you have to pay your whole ASI for it.

[loki_ragnarock]

It's a fun option for the two weapon fighting champion half orc.

Gotta make those short swords stick, you dig? And with a minimal investment, you can.

It's not nothing. I wouldn't say it's going to roll into the top picks for power builds, though.

[RogueJK]

Also on the math front. A half feat that gives +1 damage per round is pretty damn good. That’s comparable to a feat that gives +2 damage per round which almost none of them do.

I look at it more like a fighting style, and if you actually take the feat for fighting styles you have to pay your whole ASI for it.


That's... actually a pretty good way of looking at it.

+2 to damage is effectively equivalent to the Dueling Fighting Style, plus you're getting extra crit damage, plus you're getting the addition of all the other benefits that come from evening out your STR/DEX to the next breakpoint. (+1 to attack, skills, and saving throw, potentially better AC and Initiative, etc.)

And it stacks with Dueling. And it isn't limited to just one-handed melee weapons.

[MaxWilson]

That's... actually a pretty good way of looking at it.

+2 to damage is effectively equivalent to the Dueling Fighting Style, plus you're getting extra crit damage, plus you're getting the addition of all the other benefits that come from evening out your STR/DEX to the next breakpoint. (+1 to attack, skills, and saving throw, potentially better AC and Initiative, etc.)

And it stacks with Dueling. And it isn't limited to just one-handed melee weapons.

Dueling gives you +2 per hit, not per round.

[Mjolnirbear]

I forget the exact wording in the book, but if OP's wording is accurate it has additional benefits.

1. It's another feat that is actually useful for moon druids, who can benefit from very few. A great many animal forms have bite attacks, which do piercing.
2. It's also a way to play weaponless if you have natural weapons. Most do slashing, I think, but it's an option.
3. It's just a teeny bit closer to a crit-fishing build. A half-orc barbarian with this feat could get more benefit than the feat alone would suggest.

[Hytheter]

Personally I took Piercer because I had 19 dex and the extra crit damage is juicy on my Fighter/Gloom Stalker/Assassin surprise nova. I likely wouldn't look at it twice otherwise.

Regarding Sharpshooter, here's a formula: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?472938-Great-Weapon-Mastery-How-to-5-10-Like-a-Pro
Whether it's worth it depends on your specific build but for a fighter sharpshooter is 100% worth it nearly 100% of the time.

[Dork_Forge]

Gonna throw this out there, feats like this are more enjoyable to the people actually playing the game, rolling it out 1,000,000 times in a simulation is, imo, utterly useless.

When you actually use the ability at the table:

You don't add 0.225 damage on a crit, you add an additional die, you can get unlucky and flub it for 1, but on average your crits will be (say for a longbow) doing 4.5 more damage. Looking at things from such a top down probability stand point is not how the game is actually played.

On average +1 damage? Not only is that actually pretty good as part of a half feat that is effectively always on, but the times you roll a 1 or 2 on damage and reroll it for better are what you'll actually remember as a player. It's what will feel good and satisfying when you undo a fairly miserable looking damage roll.

And you get these things whilst bumping your primary attribute, that can feel pretty darn satisfying for the player taking it.

On comparing it to Sharpshooter:

Just... why? They are entirely different feats with entirely different aims, the character taking SS is going to want to max their Dex to get the most out of it anyway, these feats are not in competition.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It looks like a great feat for a crit fisher.
Just like the Half Orc feature that let you add a dice to critical attacks.

Can probably work well with orc barbarian using rapier.

4d8 of crit sounds fun, you also get more dice as you level up.

[Dork_Forge]

It looks like a great feat for a crit fisher.
Just like the Half Orc feature that let you add a dice to critical attacks.

Can probably work well with orc barbarian using rapier.

4d8 of crit sounds fun, you also get more dice as you level up.

If you mix it with Orcish Fury (also a half feat), then a Half Orc Barbarian can eventually (17th at peak) work their way up to 8d10 +mod+rage on a crit as a mini nova, rerolling a bad die to help keep the damage up, using a Pike so still a reach weapon eligible for GWM and PAM if wanted.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

If you mix it with Orcish Fury (also a half feat), then a Half Orc Barbarian can eventually (17th at peak) work their way up to 8d10 +mod+rage on a crit as a mini nova, rerolling a bad die to help keep the damage up, using a Pike so still a reach weapon eligible for GWM and PAM if wanted.

Sounds awesome.
I may steal this for my next high level game build.

He shall be named the critter.

I don't think there is a better way to add more dice that isn't zealot barbarian.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I just realized today, that the Crusher, Slasher, and Piercer feats are worded in such a way as to function with spell attacks that deal the appropriate damage.

I haven't mapped out the possibilities yet, but a Magic Stone thrown by someone with the Crusher feat, (for example), would be able to move the affected creature 5'.

The Piercer feat, would work with the Ice Knife spell.

While the Piercer feat is the least appealing to me, the Slasher feat applies a movement penalty on a hit with slashing damage, and on a critical hit subjects the victim to a Disadvantage penalty on all attack rolls until your next turn.

A Order of Scribes Wizard might be able to get some surprising mileage out of these feats.

[Galithar]

I just realized today, that the Crusher, Slasher, and Piercer feats are worded in such a way as to function with spell attacks that deal the appropriate damage.

I haven't mapped out the possibilities yet, but a Magic Stone thrown by someone with the Crusher feat, (for example), would be able to move the affected creature 5'.

The Piercer feat, would work with the Ice Knife spell.

While the Piercer feat is the least appealing to me, the Slasher feat applies a movement penalty on a hit with slashing damage, and on a critical hit subjects the victim to a Disadvantage penalty on all attack rolls until your next turn.

A Order of Scribes Wizard might be able to get some surprising mileage out of these feats.

Any chance you have a list of spells that can deal B, P, S damage?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Any chance you have a list of spells that can deal B, P, S damage?

LoL..afraid not. The number of spells that contain spells attacks is very small, though.

Thorn Whip and the Piercer feat work together.

Being able to use the Piercer feat to re-roll a low damage
die roll with Thorn Whip, is a interesting way to increase Cantrip damage output.

[LudicSavant]

I've seen some threads here and there, specifically on reddit saying that the new Piercer feat is amazing.
Quick recap on what it does:

+1 strength or dex
when you hit a creature with an attack that deals piercing damage you can reroll one dice once per round
when you score a critical with piercing damage you add one dice


People were saying this seems awesome if you use ranged attacks since it doesn't specify melee. So I did what any sane normal person would and ran a computer simulation where I calculate how much extra damage you get from using this feat.
(I simulated 1,000,000 d8 rolls, where you reroll on 4, and calculated the difference, rerolling on 4 is the optimal choice BTW).

The result is 1, on average you increase damage by 1. On a d10 you get 1.25 if you reroll on a 5 or less.
That does not take into consideration the crit bonus, but adding another d8 on every 5% attacks is only +0.225, +0.42 if you have advantage.

So with a longbow you're looking at +1.2 damage, I can only see myself taking this feat as a longbow warrior if I happen to have odd dexterity number (13,15,17,19). Otherwise it's not better than just taking +2 dexterity.

I haven't done the calculations on what happens if you are using sneak attack though, maybe it's slightly better? The more d6s you add the closer the bonus damage would approach +5, but that's also proportionally less.

HOWEVER, even with odd dexterity number I'd still always take Sharpshooter. Sharpshooter gives +10 more damage boost, ignore cover and range penalty. It just seems a million times better? (or at least ten times better)

"Reroll the first die that's under 4" is not the optimal strategy for maximizing the DPR of Piercer, and therefore your simulation doesn't tell us much, unfortunately.

Calculating the average DPR of Piercer's second bullet point is very simple: It's just (critrate) * (average damage of the extra die) * (number of attacks). So for example if you're rolling a d12 with a 27.1% critrate (such as for a Gunner Samurai, which is now a Good Thing), it's adding 1.7615 damage per attack (over the Samurai's large number of attacks). In addition to the benefit of the +1 Dexterity and the first bullet point.

Calculating the DPR of Piercer's first bullet point is considerably more complex, due to the element of player choice (e.g. you don't need to reroll the first die under a 4; you have to weigh your current roll against the probability of rolling lower later in the turn). With a single d12 damage die rolled, it'd be worth 1.5 average damage, with that approaching a limit of 5.5 as the number of attacks / dice rolled approaches infinity (since the probability of your lowest damage die being rolled being a 1 approaches 100%).

[MrStabby]

I just realized today, that the Crusher, Slasher, and Piercer feats are worded in such a way as to function with spell attacks that deal the appropriate damage.

I haven't mapped out the possibilities yet, but a Magic Stone thrown by someone with the Crusher feat, (for example), would be able to move the affected creature 5'.

The Piercer feat, would work with the Ice Knife spell.

While the Piercer feat is the least appealing to me, the Slasher feat applies a movement penalty on a hit with slashing damage, and on a critical hit subjects the victim to a Disadvantage penalty on all attack rolls until your next turn.

A Order of Scribes Wizard might be able to get some surprising mileage out of these feats.

When we discussed it before, I thought a scribes wizard, elven accuracy and crusher could work for crit fishing with spells - and hexblade dip to boost damage further (of course). This was based on the UA versions though - not sure if it has changed

[Mastikator]

"Reroll the first die that's under 4" is not the optimal strategy for maximizing the DPR of Piercer, and therefore your simulation doesn't tell us much, unfortunately.

Calculating the average DPR of Piercer's second bullet point is very simple: It's just (critrate) * (average damage of the extra die) * (number of attacks). So for example if you're rolling a d12 with a 27.1% critrate (such as for a Gunner Samurai, which is now a Good Thing), it's adding 1.615 damage per attack (over the Samurai's large number of attacks). In addition to the benefit of the +1 Dexterity and the first bullet point.

Calculating the DPR of Piercer's first bullet point is considerably more complex, due to the element of player choice (e.g. you don't need to reroll the first die under a 4; you have to weigh your current roll against the probability of rolling lower later in the turn). With a single d12 damage die rolled, it'd be worth 1.5 average damage, with that approaching a limit of 5.5 as the number of attacks / dice rolled approaches infinity (since the probability of your lowest damage die being rolled being a 1 approaches 100%).
I'm pretty sure I stipulated 1d8 per round, rerolling on 4 is optimal. on 1d10 rerolling on 5 is optimal. And I also stipulated that I did not simulate rolling multiple dice on a turn so it doesn't tell you when you should reroll in that case. So your weird strawman doesn't add any new information.

Calculating actual DRP needs to take many more factors into account, such as how high you need to roll to hit (and to crit), how many attacks you get per round. Also if you have advantage.

Edit-
The point of the simple simulation I made was to check how much damage you'd get from rerolling (if rerolling optimally), which would be an indication of how strong the mechanic is. Not to be a gospel of truth for all situations. Please. Chill.

[Galithar]

I'm pretty sure I stipulated 1d8 per round, rerolling on 4 is optimal. on 1d10 rerolling on 5 is optimal. And I also stipulated that I did not simulate rolling multiple dice on a turn so it doesn't tell you when you should reroll in that case. So your weird strawman doesn't add any new information.

Calculating actual DRP needs to take many more factors into account, such as how high you need to roll to hit (and to crit), how many attacks you get per round. Also if you have advantage.

Edit-
The point of the simple simulation I made was to check how much damage you'd get from rerolling (if rerolling optimally), which would be an indication of how strong the mechanic is. Not to be a gospel of truth for all situations. Please. Chill.

It's not a strawman. He simply pointed out that your simulation doesn't tell the whole story. Which is accurate, it doesn't. Under your proposed conditions its accurate; however, those conditions are unlikely to be the truth of an actual use case. This makes your simulation of limited value. All he did was suggest alternative calculations that would be better representative of it's value. I don't see a need to get so defensive. He wasn't attacking you, he was trying to improve the math. Thats kinda what LudicSavant does lol

[Mastikator]

It's not a strawman. He simply pointed out that your simulation doesn't tell the whole story. Which is accurate, it doesn't. Under your proposed conditions its accurate; however, those conditions are unlikely to be the truth of an actual use case. This makes your simulation of limited value. All he did was suggest alternative calculations that would be better representative of it's value. I don't see a need to get so defensive. He wasn't attacking you, he was trying to improve the math. Thats kinda what LudicSavant does lol

Me: "So with a longbow you're looking at..." and "I haven't done the calculations on what happens if you are using sneak attack though"

What part of that makes you think I'm saying that I've calculated every situation? Did the "People were saying this seems awesome if you use ranged attacks since it doesn't specify melee" not tip you off that maybe this has a narrow concern? Specifically you're using a longbow or heavy crossbow.

My proposed conditions was: you use a longbow and roll damage once per turn. That was obvious in the OP that you or LudicSavant View Post obviously didn't care to read through. Is the outcome different under different situations? Yes. Did I say it's the same under those situations? No, I specifically mentioned sneak attack probably gaining more effect but being outside of the concern.

[Galithar]

Me: "So with a longbow you're looking at..." and "I haven't done the calculations on what happens if you are using sneak attack though"

What part of that makes you think I'm saying that I've calculated every situation? Did the "People were saying this seems awesome if you use ranged attacks since it doesn't specify melee" not tip you off that maybe this has a narrow concern? Specifically you're using a longbow or heavy crossbow.

My proposed conditions was: you use a longbow and roll damage once per turn. That was obvious in the OP that you or LudicSavant View Post obviously didn't care to read through. Is the outcome different under different situations? Yes. Did I say it's the same under those situations? No, I specifically mentioned sneak attack probably gaining more effect but being outside of the concern.

No we both read it. We just chose to add to the discussion, and you took it as a personal attack. Which is fine I guess. Stating the flaws of a simulation don't make them disappear though, you're judging this as if those are conditions that would happen in combat, and not that this could easily be taken on a samauri fighter or similar.

That changes the calculations significantly, and someone exploring the effects of the conditions you chose not to, is in no way invalid or an attack on your person.

If you only look at a narrow set of circumstances and say "I don't see why people are excited about this." Don't be surprised when someone points out some conditions that could drastically change your math.

[Darzil]

I guess just gets better the more attacks or dice are rolled. So with two attacks and a bonus action attack, using d8, might (say, I haven't simulated to see if this is best strategy), reroll on a 2 for the first attack, 3 for the second and 4 on the third - I make that just under 2 damage added (1.921875)

Then of course the value of the crit dice goes up if you have access to advantage, paralysis and/or larger than normal crit ranges.

So the OP comparison is the minimum advantage (though it's actually lower than that, as there is always the chance that damage would have finished off the target anyway).


First attack reroll on 2, expected improvement is 0.75 (1/8 * 3.5 + 1/8 * 2.5)
Second attack reroll on 3, expected improvement is 0.703125 (1/8 * 3.5 + 1/8 * 2.5 + 1/8 * 1.5) * (0.75 - chance that you didn't use it on first roll)
Third attack reroll on 4, expected improvement is 0.46875 (1/8 * 3.5 + 1/8 * 2.5 + 1/8 * 1.5 + 1/8 * 0.5) * (0.75 * 0.625 - chance you didn't use it on first two rolls)
Total 1.921875

[LudicSavant]

It's not a strawman. He simply pointed out that your simulation doesn't tell the whole story. Which is accurate, it doesn't. Under your proposed conditions its accurate; however, those conditions are unlikely to be the truth of an actual use case. This makes your simulation of limited value. All he did was suggest alternative calculations that would be better representative of it's value. I don't see a need to get so defensive. He wasn't attacking you, he was trying to improve the math. Thats kinda what LudicSavant does lol

Pretty much! :smallsmile:


What part of that makes you think I'm saying that I've calculated every situation

Ironically for someone accusing another of a straw man argument, I am left to wonder what part of my post made you think that I thought you were saying that...? :smallconfused:

I know full well you were only talking about a character making a single longbow attack with a 5% chance to crit.

This is, of course, the absolute minimum benefit you can get from the feat. Those using a more optimal/synergistic strategy for Piercer will get significantly more out of it by using things like Elven Accuracy Gunners etc. I look forward to seeing an analysis of such options with Piercer.

[MoiMagnus]

"Reroll the first die that's under 4" is not the optimal strategy for maximizing the DPR of Piercer, and therefore your simulation doesn't tell us much, unfortunately.

Indeed, the optimal strategy is
"If you expect 'D' additional damages by keeping the reroll, then you should reroll your d8 only if you obtain 'round(4-D)' or less".

For example, if you know for sure that one other of your attacks will hit (unlikely scenario, but it makes the math simple), then keeping the reroll for that attack is "D=1". Rerolling your first damage roll if 3 or less, and the second damage roll if 4 or less give you an average of 10.5 damages instead of 10 damages you would get in average for by following the simple strategy of "reroll if 4 or less asap".
(Edit: Dazil, your math are correct and likely the optimal strategy if you don't factor hitting chances of latter attacks)

In practice, "reroll if 4 or less asap" will still be the near-optimal strategy most of the time. The main exceptions being if you have a second attack with advantage, or two other attacks with reasonable chances of hitting.

[Mr Adventurer]

On topic - I don't really understand the feat. Isn't the reroll benefit the exact same as the whole benefit of the Savage Attacker feat? How does that make sense?

[Darzil]

On topic - I don't really understand the feat. Isn't the reroll benefit the exact same as the whole benefit of the Savage Attacker feat? How does that make sense?
It isn't quite the same, though it gets close.
Savage Attacker you can reroll all the dice, not just one (matters for Greatsword/Maul), and can choose which to take after rolling, not just the second roll.

[MoiMagnus]

On topic - I don't really understand the feat. Isn't the reroll benefit the exact same as the whole benefit of the Savage Attacker feat? How does that make sense?

Nope,
(1) Savage Attacker allows you to chose the best instead of the new one (Average of 5.8 instead of 5.5 if you have a single d8 attack)
(2) Savage Attacker allows you reroll all the weapon dice instead of one if you use a weapon with 2d6.
(3) Savage Attacker works with critical hits by allowing you to reroll all the dice rather than just one.

But still, Savage Attacker is pretty bad IMO.

[Mr Adventurer]

Thanks. Wow, yeah, pretty marginal.

[RogueJK]

Dueling gives you +2 per hit, not per round.

Good catch. That's what I get for trying to think right before bed.

Still, not awful for a half feat, but not great. Still potentially better than spending a whole feat on a Fighting Style in many situations, though.



Any chance you have a list of spells that can deal B, P, S damage?

Easily done with DnDBeyond. You can sort spells by damage type. You can then further sort by class too, if you want to know B/P/S spells available to a specific class.

Bludgeoning:
0: Magic Stone, Shillelagh
1: Catapult, Earth Tremor
2: Dust Devil, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp
3: Erupting Earth, Tidal Wave, Wind Wall
4: Everard's Black Tentacles, Ice Storm, Storm Sphere, Control Water* (if caught in vortex)
5: Bigby's Hand, Maelstrom, Wrath of Nature* (if used to conjure rocks), Transmute Rock* (if used to cause a stone ceiling to collapse)
6: Bones of the Earth, Investiture of Wind
7: Whirlwind
8: Earthquake, Tsunami
9: Meteor Swarm, Storm of Vengeance

Piercing:
0: Thorn Whip
1: Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Ice Knife
2: Cordon of Arrows
3: N/A
4: Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
5: Insect Plague
6: Wall of Thorns* (when first conjured)
7-9: N/A

Slashing:
0-1: N/A
2: Cloud of Daggers
3-4: N/A
5: Wrath of Nature* (if used to conjure trees)
6: Blade Barrier, Wall of Thorns* (if an enemy tries to move through it)
7-9: N/A

Note: Hunter's Mark and Magic Weapon also technically deal B/P/S damage, depending on the damage type of the weapon you're using. But they don't do standalone B/P/S damage without an accompanying B/P/S weapon hit, so you could already get the benefits of the feats without these spells from just the weapon hit.

[Galithar]

Easily done with DnDBeyond. You can sort spells by damage type. You can then further sort by class too, if you want to know B/P/S spells available to a specific class.

Bludgeoning:
0: Magic Stone, Shillelagh
1: Catapult, Earth Tremor, Hunter's Mark* (based on weapon damage)
2: Dust Devil, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp
3: Erupting Earth, Tidal Wave, Wind Wall
4: Everard's Black Tentacles, Ice Storm, Storm Sphere, Control Water* (if caught in vortex)
5: Bigby's Hand, Maelstrom, Wrath of Nature* (if used to conjure rocks), Transmute Rock* (if used to cause a stone ceiling to collapse)
6: Bones of the Earth, Investiture of Wind
7: Whirlwind
8: Earthquake, Tsunami
9: Meteor Swarm, Storm of Vengeance

Piercing:
0: Thorn Whip
1: Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Ice Knife, Hunter's Mark* (based on weapon damage)
2: Cordon of Arrows
3: N/A
4: Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
5: Insect Plauge
6: Wall of Thorns* (when first conjured)
7-9: N/A

Slashing:
0: N/A
1: Hunter's Mark* (based on weapon damage)
2: Cloud of Daggers
3-4: N/A
5: Wrath of Nature* (if used to conjure trees)
6: Blade Barrier, Wall of Thorns* (if an enemy tries to move through it)
7-9: N/A

Thank you so much! I didn't know DnD Beyond could do that. I don't use it.

It looks like lots of options for bludgeoning, some for piercing, and very little on slashing. Thanks again.

[Naanomi]

I just realized today, that the Crusher, Slasher, and Piercer feats are worded in such a way as to function with spell attacks that deal the appropriate damage.
A Dao-pact warlock tacking on a little more knockback on their Eldritch blast?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

A Dao-pact warlock tacking on a little more knockback on their Eldritch blast?

And giving all the party advantage if crit.
Sounds like I have new build to add to my list.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you actually do the math, sharpshooter is a net loss of damage against anything with an AC that's worth a damn, especially if you have bonus damage from other sources as well (see: rogue). Experiential observation: Our Ranger/Hunter(3)-Rogue/Scout(5) took sharpshooter at Rogue(4)/ He discovered that it was Sydney or theBush. On a hit, it was powerful, on a crit it was nuts, and he missed quite a bit due to the -5. My warlock spent extra effort trying to get him advantage on attacks by using such things as web, hold person, etc. I think he'd have liked Piercer. His character retired and the player now has a warlock.

Me? I like Crusher. Adv Attacks for the whole party.

A Dao-pact warlock tacking on a little more knockback on their Eldritch blast? You read my mind.

[Chaosmancer]

I think I have to agree with the thrust of the OP's position, even if not for the reasons of damage output.

Crusher gives control (moving enemy) and grants advantage on crits.
Slasher gives control (slowing enemy) and causes the enemy to attack at disadvantage on crits.

Piercer... lets you reroll a single damage die and then add +1 die on a crit? That goes against the theme and just plain is boring. I really don't want "more damage" I want some control and utility effects like the other two feats.

[Dark.Revenant]

Indeed, the optimal strategy is
"If you expect 'D' additional damages by keeping the reroll, then you should reroll your d8 only if you obtain 'round(4-D)' or less".

For example, if you know for sure that one other of your attacks will hit (unlikely scenario, but it makes the math simple), then keeping the reroll for that attack is "D=1". Rerolling your first damage roll if 3 or less, and the second damage roll if 4 or less give you an average of 10.5 damages instead of 10 damages you would get in average for by following the simple strategy of "reroll if 4 or less asap".
(Edit: Dazil, your math are correct and likely the optimal strategy if you don't factor hitting chances of latter attacks)

In practice, "reroll if 4 or less asap" will still be the near-optimal strategy most of the time. The main exceptions being if you have a second attack with advantage, or two other attacks with reasonable chances of hitting.

Factoring in hit chance and crits, let's use an example scenario:
Fighter, Archery style, 18 Dex, Level 5-8
+9 to hit for 1d8+4 damage, vs. AC 16 (typical for monsters in this range); 70% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit for an extra damage die
Two attacks

Let's suppose we're considering just the second attack. We will get +0.5 to +3.5 extra damage if we wind up with a die of value 4 to 1, and naturally it's always the right choice to reroll on the last attack if those die values come up. With some probabilistic math, including the chance to crit for two damage dice and the chance to miss altogether, the overall odds of reaching those four die values follow:
Reroll-4 scenario: ~8.58% for +0.5 damage
Reroll-3 scenario: ~8.78% for +1.5 damage
Reroll-2 scenario: ~9.02% for +2.5 damage
Reroll-1 scenario: ~9.30% for +3.5 damage

Thus, if we've got our reroll free when making our second attack, the expected damage increase (including miss/crit) is ~0.73.

This means, on the first attack, the optimal choice is to use the reroll if we've got a 3 or lower to reroll (at least ~0.77 better than waiting), and to sit and wait if we've only got a 4 or higher (at least ~0.23 better than rerolling now).

We can also calculate the overall DPR. We have an overall ~27.1% chance of using our reroll on the first attack (including miss chance), and it turns out that if we do indeed use the reroll, the damage we expect out of it is ~2.52. For the other ~72.9%, we already have our figure of ~0.73 damage. Putting this together, the DPR increase is ~1.41. If we "normalize" based on our 70% hit chance, the adjusted value for the sake of comparison is ~2.01 DPR, or just about half of what we expect from something like the Dueling style.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am *only* taking into account the rerolling benefit, NOT the extra die from a crit that the Piercer feat gives you. I do this to isolate the benefit of just the reroll. Technically, that extra crit die would also shift the probabilities a little bit, but it makes the math ugly.

[RogueJK]

It looks like lots of options for bludgeoning, some for piercing, and very little on slashing.

Yep. Bludgeoning has the most overall, and specifically the most Wizard spells. If someone was wanting to do the whole "Scribe Wizard with Crusher feat" thing, you can potentially make any damage-dealing spell from Levels 1-7 and 9 deal Bludgeoning damage, provided you have at least one spell per level in your spellbook from this list:

1: Catapult, Earth Tremor
2: Dust Devil, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp
3: Erupting Earth, Tidal Wave
4: Everard's Black Tentacles, Ice Storm, Storm Sphere
5: Bigby's Hand
6: Investiture of Wind
7: Whirlwind
8:
9: Meteor Swarm

However, while Crusher's 5' knockback effect would apply to any spell that you swapped to do Bludgeoning damage, you'd have to swap to Bludgeoning on a damage-dealing spell that specifically requires an Attack Roll in order to potentially take advantage of the Critical Hit rider. And there are very few of those above Levels 1 and 2... Level 7 Crown of Stars is the only one I can think of.

So overall, a Scribe Wizard pushing enemies around 5' at a time with Bludgeoning-swapped spell is cool, but probably not really all that useful. Still, I could see it being fun at low levels to pepper enemies with Bludgeoning Orb, Bludgeoning Missile, Bludgeoning Knife, Bludgeoning Ray, or Melf's Bludgeoning Arrow while shoving them around a bit. :D


Much more useful would be the abovementioned Dao Genie Warlock with their Bludgeoning Eldritch Blast + Crusher, because you could take advantage of both aspects of Crusher, and wouldn't have to spend spell slots either. Bonus points if you stack on Repelling Blast for 15' total knockback.

[MaxWilson]

Yep. Bludgeoning is the most overall, and specifically the most Wizard spells. If someone was wanting to do the whole "Scribe Wizard with Crusher feat" thing, you can potentially make any damage-dealing spell from Levels 1-7 and 9 deal Bludgeoning damage, provided you have at least one spell per level in your spellbook from this list:

1: Catapult, Earth Tremor
2: Dust Devil, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp
3: Erupting Earth, Tidal Wave
4: Everard's Black Tentacles, Ice Storm, Storm Sphere
5: Bigby's Hand
6: Investiture of Wind
7: Whirlwind
8:
9: Meteor Swarm

However, while Crusher's 5' knockback effect would apply to any spell that you swapped to do Bludgeoning damage, you'd have to swap to Bludgeoning on a damage spell that requires an Attack Roll specifically to take advantage of the Critical Hit rider. And there are very few of those above Levels 1 and 2... Level 7 Crown of Stars is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

So overall, a Scribe Wizard pushing enemies around 5' at a time with Bludgeoning-swapped spell is cool, but probably not really all that useful. Still, I could see it being fun at low levels to pepper enemies with Bludgeoning Orb, Bludgeoning Missile, Bludgeoning Knife, Bludgeoning Ray, or Melf's Bludgeoning Arrow while shoving them around. :D

The pushing effect on Crusher needs an attack roll too--as amusing as Wall of Bludgeoning would be (to damage AND push enemies back when they try to enter it), it is illegal.

[Segev]

In the ToA game I ran recently, the barbarian had a personal peeve about rolling low on her damage dice, and also really loved rolling extra dice on crits, so Piercer was all but perfect for her. Especially since the magic weapon she had was a trident.

[RogueJK]

The pushing effect on Crusher needs an attack roll too--as amusing as Wall of Bludgeoning would be (to damage AND push enemies back when they try to enter it), it is illegal.

Well, there you go... So basically you're looking at a nifty trick for a Custom Lineage or Variant Human Scribe Wizard with Crusher in a Tier 1 campaign, but not much use once you get up past 1st and 2nd level spells.

Dao Genie Warlock is even more of a clear winner.

[animewatcha]

Piercer + elven accuracy + expanded crit range of Champion archetype??

[MaxWilson]

Well, there you go... Nifty party trick for a Custom Lineage or Variant Human Scribe Wizard in a Tier 1 campaign, but not much use once your get past 1st and 2nd level spells.

Dao Genie Warlock is even more of a clear winner there.

Yeah, Dao will be awesome mechanically under these rules. Set up your Spike Growth and now you can potentially (DM willing) cheese grater enemies for 25' on a single hit: push 10' (Repelling Blast), pull 10' (Grasp of Hadar), pull or push 5' (Dao + Crusher), for 1d10+CHA force damage + 10d4 piercing + PROF bludgeoning = ~40 HP on a single hit, plus potentially 1d10+CHA force + 4d4 piercing on other hits.

In my eyes this is not entirely a good thing though, because it MAKES NO SENSE! Why is a Dao-bonded genielock suddenly pulling people towards him with bludgeoning damage when he hits someone with a force blast? What justification underlies these supposed effects?

Yet another reason to disallow Tasha's: it undermines what little design integrity 5E had in the first place. Including Tasha's in your game brings down the average quality of the rules in play. Do not use uncurated.

[Darthnazrael]

I feel like a glaring and important detail is being overlooked here (unless I missed it in some of the lengthier posts); you can take both, you know.

Learning whether Piercer is better than Sharpshooter is only important in deciding which to take first.I thinks it's more important to know whether it's worth taking at all, and to that question I think the answer is pretty easily yes, as long as you can benefit from the stat increase.

Is it as powerful as Sharpshooter? No. But Sharpshooter is already amazing, build-defining. Sharpshooter builds didn't need another feat to make them even better, but they got it, and yet all I see from detractors to this feat is complaining it's only a marginal buff, as opposed to a flat doubling of their output.

[MaxWilson]

I feel like a glaring and important detail is being overlooked here (unless I missed it in some of the lengthier posts); you can take both, you know. Learning whether Piercer is better than Sharpshooter is only important in deciding which ti take first. I thinks it's more important to know whether it's worth taking at all, and to that question I think the answer is pretty easily yes, as long as you can benefit from the stat increase.

Is it as powerful as Sharpshooter? No. But Sharpshooter is already amazing, build-defining. Sharpshooter builds didn't need [i]another[/] feat to make them even better, but they got it, and yet all I see from detractors to this feat is complaining it's only a marginal buff, as opposed to a flat doubling of their output.

It also has to be better than the other competition, like Crossbow Expert, Skill Expert (Athletics) to get easy advantage, Elven Accuracy to help you exploit advantage even harder, Mobile/Defensive Duelist to keep you safe even when heavily outnumbered, Resilient (Wis) to keep you from getting mind-controller, Skulker to make you quasi-invisible, etc.

Sharpshooter might be the FIRST feat you take before Piercer, but if there are eight others you also want more, you'll never get around to taking Piercer.

[Darthnazrael]

It also has to be better than the other competition, like Crossbow Expert, Skill Expert (Athletics) to get easy advantage, Elven Accuracy to help you exploit advantage even harder, Mobile/Defensive Duelist to keep you safe even when heavily outnumbered, Resilient (Wis) to keep you from getting mind-controller, Skulker to make you quasi-invisible, etc.

Sharpshooter might be the FIRST feat you take before Piercer, but if there are eight others you also want more, you'll never get around to taking Piercer.

How is a Sharpshooter build making use of Skill Expert (Athletics) to get advantage? It certainly doesn't need Defensive Duelist, and if it has CBE or Gunner, it has little need for Mobile. Skulker is mediocre in general.

There's no holistic way to compare Piercer and Resilient, so that's simply going to be a personal choice. Aside from that, I'm hearing CBE/Gunner, Elven Accuracy, Sharpshooter, and Piercer as viable feat choices. That's certainly a lot, but you're also netting +3 dex total in the Gunner version. An Elf Samurai Gunner on point buy is Dex 20 with these 4 feats by level 12.

[Yakk]

Rerolling a d10 on a 5 or under is worth 1/2 times (5.5)-(1+2...+5)/5. On a d2N it is worth 1/2 times N+.5 - (N)(N+1)/2/N = N+.5 - (N+1)/2 = N/2, or on a dX it is worth X/8.

If you expect to have a P chance at a dX to roll, you can skip rerolls that generate PX/8 or less damage. If 1.5 > PX/8 > 0.5 (which is reasonably likely), your first replacement becomes (X/2-1)/X times (X/2+.5)-(1+...+(X/2-1))/(X/2-1)

If your die is a d(2N+2) (so N=X/2-1) this is N/(2N+2) times (N+1.5)-(N)(N+1)/2N = N/(2N+2) times N/2+1 = (X/2-1)/X * ((X/2-1)/2+1) = (X/2-1)/X * (X/4+1/2) = (X/2-1) * (1/4+1/2X) = X/8 -1/2X

The follow up attack deals P*X/8 if we have the reroll, and no extra if not. (X/2+1)/X * PX/8 = (X/2+1)P/8

So we get P*( X/8 - 1/2X + (X/2+1)P/8) + (1-P)( PX/8) ignoring crits.

P*( X/8 - 1/2X + (X/2+1)P/8) + (1-P)( PX/8)
= PX/8 - P/2X + (X/2+1)P^2/8 + PX/8 - P^2X/8
= PX/4 - P/2X + P^2X/16 + P^2/8 - P^2X/8
= PX/4 - P/2X - P^2(X/16 - 1/8)
plugging in X=8 and P=1/2

= 1 - (1/2)/28 -(1/4)(8/16 - 1/8)
= 1 - 1/8 -3/32
= 0.84375 aka 27/32nds

In comparison, one swing did 0.5 on average.

To not reroll on a "2 under par" you'd need to have later possible rerolls (including accuracy) average 1.5 or more damage.

...

So for a simple and general rule, if it is not your last attack, reroll 2 under par (1-3 on a d8, 1-4 on a d10, 1-2 on a d6) so long as you have a decent hit chance (ie, at least 5050, accounting for all later rolls). If it is your last attack, reroll the worst die under par.

[MaxWilson]

How is a Sharpshooter build making use of Skill Expert (Athletics) to get advantage?

Skilled (Athletics) to shove enemies prone, Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert + Elven Accuracy to exploit Prone. Two to four Sharpshooter attacks at advantage generally beats three to five without advantage, plus other teammates can use that same advantage too, and there are control benefits too such as being able to avoid taking melee attacks in return. I assume you're already familiar with the tricks a PAM/GWM can play with prone--Skilled (Athletics) lets a Dexy fighter play in the same league, only unlike the melee fighter they can continue to punish an enemy who doesn't chase them.

Obviously shooting them from extreme range so they can't even fight back is even better, but shoving prone is surprisingly nice for Tier 3 SS/CE fighters going 1 on 1 with tough monsters like Boneclaws and Mariliths.


It certainly doesn't need Defensive Duelist

Without Defensive Duelist you tend to be squishy (AC 17-18), and even if you're an Eldritch Knight who an Shield in a pinch, you're much better off if you can simply draw a dagger in your offhand for +4-6 to AC without spending a spell slot. I don't know what makes you say "certainly doesn't need Defensive Duelist" unless you play in games where you are never forced into anything approximating melee, in which case hurray for you I guess but too much success is boring so I'm also sorry for you. I like games where you try to plan for everything, but also sometimes things go disastrously wrong despite your best efforts. Maybe you're just so much better than I am that that never, ever happens.

[RogueJK]

Skilled (Athletics) to shove enemies prone, Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert + Elven Accuracy to exploit Prone. Two to four Sharpshooter attacks at advantage generally beats three to five without advantage, plus other teammates can use that same advantage too, and there are control benefits too such as being able to avoid taking melee attacks in return. I assume you're already familiar with the tricks a PAM/GWM can play with prone--Skilled (Athletics) lets a Dexy fighter play in the same league, only unlike the melee fighter they can continue to punish an enemy who doesn't chase them.

Obviously shooting them from extreme range so they can't even fight back is even better, but shoving prone is surprisingly nice for Tier 3 SS/CE fighters going 1 on 1 with tough monsters like Boneclaws and Mariliths.

I dunno... Closing to melee range to use an attack to Shove someone prone, and then remaining adjacent to them in order to avoid the Disadvantage of making attacks on a prone enemy from further than 5 feet away, is risky for the average Archer. Staying at range while the enemy focuses on the tankier melee characters, and working out another party tactic to gain Advantage (preferably one that doesn't cost a Feat plus one or more of your attacks), is going to be the better/safer bet for most Archers.

I can't say I've ever seen "prioritize Athletics Expertise so you can shove them prone and then shoot them point blank" discussed here before as an optimal strategy for DEX-based ranged (er... not so ranged) builds.

It's certainly a popular option for STR-based melee characters, though.

[MaxWilson]

I dunno... Closing to melee range to use an attack to Shove someone prone, and then remaining adjacent to them in order to avoid the Disadvantage of making attacks on a prone enemy from further than 5 feet away, is risky for the average Archer. Staying at range while the enemy focuses on the tankier melee characters, and working out another party tactic to gain Advantage (preferably one that doesn't cost a Feat plus one or more of your attacks), is going to be the better/safer bet for most Archers.

The order of preference for me is:

1.) kill from extreme range without ever being threatened,
2.) take some shots in melee range for extremely high damage while getting yourself and allies out of melee ASAP if possible,
3.) cage fight where you're stuck in melee the whole time and can't kite or use cover at all. Hopefully you can at least do extremely high damage, but you'll take damage in return.

Athletics is not useful in #1, but #1 is also the most boring one to actually play out--if #1 is possible, the DM shouldn't make you roll, they should just narrate the ending and move on. Making monsters surprise you at close range is how other DMs like to do things, so having an option to shove enemies prone and make a bunch of attacks at tri-vantage in exchange for taking an opportunity attack at disadvantage is a good thing, enabling #2. If it really is a cage match like a locked room, then at least you're in a good position to work with teammates to KEEP prone enemies prone (attacking with disadvantage, against the best-armored PC, instead of freely targeting whoever they want to target), which is option #3.

And that's why I'd take Skill Expert (Athletics) over Piercer. In scenario #1, neither of them matter; in #2 and #3, Skilled (Athletics) has more impact, except against foes immune to grapple/prone like Wraiths and Specters, which need to be dealt through other means like Action Surge or another PC's Confusion. Saving resources including HP for those emergencies is exactly why inexpensive/at-will tactics like kiting are so nice even if you persuade the DM not to roll the whole boring encounter out in detail.


I can't say I've ever seen "prioritize Athletics Expertise so you can shove them prone and then shoot them point blank" discussed here before as an optimal strategy for DEX-based ranged (er... not so ranged) builds.

Based on previous discussion, a lot of people aren't even aware that Sharpshooters CAN get advantage against prone foes with Crossbow Expert, so the fact that not a lot of people talk about it means little. A lot of people seem to mistakenly believe the rule is "melee attackers get advantage against prone targets, ranged attackers get disadvantage," neither of which is strictly true.

Also remember that in this discussion context, "prioritize" = "prioritize more than Piercer", but still not more highly than SS/CE themselves, and plenty of people never even play high enough to take multiple feats. Nor was Skill Expert even an option until Tasha's came out. Prodigy (Athletics) was, but it's restricted to humans and more expensive (it's not a half-feat), and it was STILL good IME in Tier 3.

[Dork_Forge]

The order of preference for me is:

1.) kill from extreme range without ever being threatened,
2.) take some shots in melee range for extremely high damage while getting yourself and allies out of melee ASAP if possible,
3.) cage fight where you're stuck in melee the whole time and can't kite or use cover at all. Hopefully you can at least do extremely high damage, but you'll take damage in return.

Athletics is not useful in #1, but #1 is also the most boring one to actually play out--if #1 is possible, the DM shouldn't make you roll, they should just narrate the ending and move on. Making monsters surprise you at close range is how other DMs like to do things, so having an option to shove enemies prone and make a bunch of attacks at tri-vantage in exchange for taking an opportunity attack at disadvantage is a good thing, enabling #2. If it really is a cage match like a locked room, then at least you're in a good position to work with teammates to KEEP prone enemies prone (attacking with disadvantage, against the best-armored PC, instead of freely targeting whoever they want to target), which is option #3.

And that's why I'd take Skill Expert (Athletics) over Piercer. In scenario #1, neither of them matter; in #2 and #3, Skilled (Athletics) has more impact, except against foes immune to grapple/prone like Wraiths and Specters, which need to be dealt through other means like Action Surge or another PC's Confusion. Saving resources including HP for those emergencies is exactly why inexpensive/at-will tactics like kiting are so nice even if you persuade the DM not to roll the whole boring encounter out in detail.



Based on previous discussion, a lot of people aren't even aware that Sharpshooters CAN get advantage against prone foes with Crossbow Expert, so the fact that not a lot of people talk about it means little. A lot of people seem to mistakenly believe the rule is "melee attackers get advantage against prone targets, ranged attackers get disadvantage," neither of which is strictly true.

Also remember that in this discussion context, "prioritize" = "prioritize more than Piercer", but still not more highly than SS/CE themselves, and plenty of people never even play high enough to take multiple feats. Nor was Skill Expert even an option until Tasha's came out. Prodigy (Athletics) was, but it's restricted to humans and more expensive (it's not a half-feat), and it was STILL good IME in Tier 3.

I think table difference is at play here, but your scenarios seem to be lacking a pretty common aspect: medium range, where the melee users can close but you're not in melee if you're ranged. The environment/map actually being large enough to facilitate extreme (or even particularly long) range isn't really that common ime.

The expertise Athletics shove is an interesting choice, but is it worth a feat and an entire attack when you weren't at disadvantage to begin with?

[MaxWilson]

I think table difference is at play here, but your scenarios seem to be lacking a pretty common aspect: medium range, where the melee users can close but you're not in melee if you're ranged. The environment/map actually being large enough to facilitate extreme (or even particularly long) range isn't really that common ime.

I don't see a meaningful distinction here. Either someone has to be in melee, or no one has to be in melee. If no one has to be in melee but you start in melee, then extraction is a valid goal worth planning for; but what does talking about "medium range" add to the discussion? Are you just saying you should have a plan for what to do when someone's in melee but it isn't you? The answer is: shoot the bad guys. Do it from far away or up close, whatever gives you better damage ratios under the circumstances.


The expertise Athletics shove is an interesting choice, but is it worth a feat and an entire attack when you weren't at disadvantage to begin with?

Depends on how many attacks you have already. For a Tier 3 Fighter it's almost always worth it as long as your Shove is reliable, because three attacks at advantage (or tri-vantage with Elven Accuracy) is better than four attacks without, especially if it also allows you to extract yourself and/or allies from melee at the same time (assuming said allies will cooperate with that plan). Even if they won't cooperate with that plan, it's probably because they are also melee-oriented, in which case the only time it wouldn't be worth it is if you're playing with PHB initiative (I don't) and that ally goes "before" you in the initiative order so they never get to exploit the prone condition you generate before the enemy stands up (but you can exploit one they generate). To me that's a failure of the PHB initiative system and one of the reasons I don't use it.

Illustration: Aarakocra Purple Dragon Knight 11, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Skilled (Athletics), Dex 18 (15 + 2 for Aarakocra +1 for Skill Expert (Athletics)), Archery style, using a nonmagical Hand Crossbow. +10 to hit for d6+4, or +5 to hit for d6+14.

Four attacks without advantage against AC 15: 39.20 DPR
Three advantaged attacks against AC 15: 42.89 DPR, a 9% increase.

Four attacks without advantage against AC 19: 25.20 DPR
Three advantaged attacks against AC 19: 31.34 DPR, a 24% increase.

Obviously it's better if you can get someone else to knock them prone instead (like a druid's conjured wolf), because then you get a 46% and 66% increase in damage (respectively) instead of 9% and 24%. But if you consider the initial "knock prone" attempt as a defensive move with offensive fringe benefits, then it pays for itself as long as the monster has typically crummy monster Athletics skill--if your Athletics +9ish gets unlucky and fails twice in a row to knock over a Str 21 Nalfeshnee, so that your third attempt succeeds and you only get one shot at advantage, well, at least the Nalfeshnee is still only getting one attack against you at disadvantage. Instead of taking 50.05 DPR from him on average you're only taking 18.35 this round (on average), and no Horror Nimbus.

Yes, I know that you're on the record as not experiencing averages, only individual die rolls. For you it's not 18.35 damage on average, it's a bunch of misses and hits, with the hits being large but infrequent. I'm not sure if it would feel bad to you to get hit by the infrequent hits because then you "wasted" your shove attempt, or if it would feel good because at least he didn't get to Horror Nimbus and make two claw attacks, but that's why I talk in terms of averages: at least then you can get a feel for how much impact the variant strategy (pushing) has so you can decide for yourself whether it's worth the bother.

BTW, with +9 to Athletics, the Aarakocra would have a 70% chance of pushing the Goristro prone on each attempt. There's only a 9% he'd fail the first two Shove attempts this way.

You may ask, why would an Aarakocra be fighting a Nalfeshnee at close range anyway? The Aarakocra is faster, why not just kite him to death? Obviously if he can, he should, but if there are slower (N)PCs involved you might have to, or if you're in an area of high winds where flying is disallowed, etc. "Plans are useless but planning is indispensable," and having a plan for how to fight at close range lets you be less timid.

[Damon_Tor]

I feel like your sharpshooter would have a better time throwing a net via Quick Toss than trying to shove.

[MaxWilson]

I feel like your sharpshooter would have a better time throwing a net via Quick Toss than trying to shove.

If you're a Battlemaster, sure, why not?

I typically prefer EKs for the mobility, defense, and magic weapon access.

[Ironheart]

I like the idea of this being a valid choice for a barbarian that takes Fighting Initiate for Great Weapon Fighting, and this feat to do really well with a pike- often forgot in favor of all of the other heavy 2 handed weapons, and the fact that Polearm Master leaves it out of the BA attack benefit. Rerolling damage dice on 1’s, 2’s, and having another chance to reroll again if it’s bad again sounds really nice in practice and stacks well with Brutal Critical in later levels, since those are all additional weapon damage dice.

I initially really wanted lances to fill this space, but RAW it looks like lacking the two handed property disqualifies them from GWF, even if you have to use two hands to use them without being mounted.

I’ll echo others in saying that if you’re here for the rerolling aspect, Savage Attacker is much better and applies to a wider variety of weapons (Notably Mauls and Greatswords).

The most attractive benefit IMO is the fact that this is a half feat and therefore can reasonably be taken at earlier levels while still progressing your relevant attack stat.

Edit: It also stands out as a ‘good enough’ standalone feat for a Champion Fighter, where it’ll be useful straight from level 1 to 20, if a bit stale.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't see a meaningful distinction here. Either someone has to be in melee, or no one has to be in melee. If no one has to be in melee but you start in melee, then extraction is a valid goal worth planning for; but what does talking about "medium range" add to the discussion? Are you just saying you should have a plan for what to do when someone's in melee but it isn't you? The answer is: shoot the bad guys. Do it from far away or up close, whatever gives you better damage ratios under the circumstances.

The only ranged option was 'extreme range' where you can kite to heart's content to the point where it may as well be narrative. From what I've seen, played and run that is not a typical encounter, the space isn't available to do that alot of the time (or the terrain suitable etc.) and you end up at range, but not out of the realms of being closed on (perhaps repeatedly if you're fleeing again and again).

The distinction between extreme range and approachable/limited range make a tactical difference to me, it may not for you, but it seemed like a potentionally common scenario that was omitted.


Depends on how many attacks you have already. For a Tier 3 Fighter it's almost always worth it as long as your Shove is reliable, because three attacks at advantage (or tri-vantage with Elven Accuracy) is better than four attacks without, especially if it also allows you to extract yourself and/or allies from melee at the same time (assuming said allies will cooperate with that plan). Even if they won't cooperate with that plan, it's probably because they are also melee-oriented, in which case the only time it wouldn't be worth it is if you're playing with PHB initiative (I don't) and that ally goes "before" you in the initiative order so they never get to exploit the prone condition you generate before the enemy stands up (but you can exploit one they generate). To me that's a failure of the PHB initiative system and one of the reasons I don't use it.

So I think a couple of important things here are:

-You're talking about tier 3, with your monster example to follow fitting into that, most play happens before this point

-Your default lense isn't one of RAW combat, I'm not sure what your initiative is exactly (I think I've seen you mention it's action based), but it just seems sensible to pass criticism of something in the environment it is created to be played.


Illustration: Aarakocra Purple Dragon Knight 11, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Skilled (Athletics), Dex 18 (15 + 2 for Aarakocra +1 for Skill Expert (Athletics)), Archery style, using a nonmagical Hand Crossbow. +10 to hit for d6+4, or +5 to hit for d6+14.

Four attacks without advantage against AC 15: 39.20 DPR
Three advantaged attacks against AC 15: 42.89 DPR, a 9% increase.

Four attacks without advantage against AC 19: 25.20 DPR
Three advantaged attacks against AC 19: 31.34 DPR, a 24% increase.

Obviously it's better if you can get someone else to knock them prone instead (like a druid's conjured wolf), because then you get a 46% and 66% increase in damage (respectively) instead of 9% and 24%. But if you consider the initial "knock prone" attempt as a defensive move with offensive fringe benefits, then it pays for itself as long as the monster has typically crummy monster Athletics skill--if your Athletics +9ish gets unlucky and fails twice in a row to knock over a Str 21 Nalfeshnee, so that your third attempt succeeds and you only get one shot at advantage, well, at least the Nalfeshnee is still only getting one attack against you at disadvantage. Instead of taking 50.05 DPR from him on average you're only taking 18.35 this round (on average), and no Horror Nimbus.

Just so I'm completely following, this is Skilled (athletics) and a +1 Str?

Your comparison seems, odd? The assumption seems to be shove prone and leave taking the AoO at disadvantage, and just staying where you are if you're making the 4 attacks? Even if you decided to make four attacks, just walking away and potentially eating one attack is better than staying in front of a melee centric monster like that. Though I guess the hope is here that it doesn't try and pursue you? Its 30 ft fly speed is on par with the majority of PCs and whilst the Aarakocra has a high fly speed 1) most Sharpshooters won't have that kind of speed and 2) you can't ever really out run it, if it actually wants to pursue you (other PCs are engaged with other creatures, down or you've drawn its ire in particular because you just gave it some new face piercings) it will and whilst it can't attack on the turn it teleports, it can force more AoOs.


Yes, I know that you're on the record as not experiencing averages, only individual die rolls. For you it's not 18.35 damage on average, it's a bunch of misses and hits, with the hits being large but infrequent. I'm not sure if it would feel bad to you to get hit by the infrequent hits because then you "wasted" your shove attempt, or if it would feel good because at least he didn't get to Horror Nimbus and make two claw attacks, but that's why I talk in terms of averages: at least then you can get a feel for how much impact the variant strategy (pushing) has so you can decide for yourself whether it's worth the bother.

I think by "get hit by the infrequent hits" you mean the prone monster still hits you at disadvantage? I mean, no if I got a bunch of attacks with advantage for shoving I wouldn't and I do shove in combat. I recently played a 'character roulette' game where the character you played was one built by someone else. I got a Centaur Paladin and proceeded to fully leverage the charge attack and shoving prone to great effect in that combat (yielding I think two crits from the advantage which I promptly smited on). Shoving is a great tactic to use, I'm just not sure I would ever spend an ASI taking a feat solely to achieve that. I pretty much always dump Str to an 8 or 10 and take Athletics as a prof to cover that weakness, the times athletics comes up I'm glad I have it, but I wouldn't ever invest so much on something that wasn't a core character concept or seeing frequent use at least.

And I think context is important here, what you're referring to in regards to my distaste for such removed from play simulation is the nonesensical notion that a person could ever benefit by such a minute number that it wouldn't ever actual come up in play. You could derive value from these things in context, 'if you take x then it has y benefit on average when it comes into play, but it only yields z benefit from this 'lifetime' persepctive.' However that's not the context those kinds of calculations and simulations are often used on this forum, and it leads to misleadind and derisive information.

On that particular build I would have happily taken Piercer, because as a half feat you can easily and neatly work it into your main stat progression. Start with a 17 and hit 18 at 4th like normal but with the benefits or the feat and by extension, some degree of higher damage.


BTW, with +9 to Athletics, the Aarakocra would have a 70% chance of pushing the Goristro prone on each attempt. There's only a 9% he'd fail the first two Shove attempts this way.

You could also take martial adept or fighting initiate and trip attack in these scenarios with a higher chance of success, with a fail case of well no prone, but I did do that extra damage. Or take Tough and not give a monkeys about being more likely to be hit it because you have the hp buffer to allow for such things.


You may ask, why would an Aarakocra be fighting a Nalfeshnee at close range anyway? The Aarakocra is faster, why not just kite him to death? Obviously if he can, he should, but if there are slower (N)PCs involved you might have to, or if you're in an area of high winds where flying is disallowed, etc. "Plans are useless but planning is indispensable," and having a plan for how to fight at close range lets you be less timid.

I'm not asking that, as a player I don't expect to be able to leverage my niche all the time (in this case range) and as a DM I don't allow it. I create the encounters and a player getting to just do the same thing all of the time successfully can make things stale and lead to other issues (hp or ac bloat that doesn't need to be there etc.). Information gathering and tactics are important, but I see it as a task of the DM to make things interesting and challenging (to the player's taste, not needlessly) and as long as it doesn't lead to forced or obviously unnatural set ups, does nothing but benefit the game.

Nevertheless I do agree with the notion of plans and back up plans, it's partly the cause of why I favour high hp build strategies, a high pool of hp is something you can count on in pretty much every situation.

[MaxWilson]

-You're talking about tier 3, with your monster example to follow fitting into that, most play happens before this point

In post #57, #59, and #61 I said I was talking about Tier 3, and elsewhere on this thread I've made the point that Skill Expert isn't high-priority to me compared to Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert, only to Piercer. It's a little bit aggravating to have you wake up at the end of a discussion and suddenly realize that something is part of the premise, and then point it out like it hasn't been something I've been saying all along.

Remember the context here: we're talking about Piercer. For example, from post #59:


Also remember that in this discussion context, "prioritize" = "prioritize more than Piercer", but still not more highly than SS/CE themselves, and plenty of people never even play high enough to take multiple feats. Nor was Skill Expert even an option until Tasha's came out. Prodigy (Athletics) was, but it's restricted to humans and more expensive (it's not a half-feat), and it was STILL good IME in Tier 3.

It's just very discouraging to have conversations like this. I'm trying to be helpful by pointing out something a given person may not have known about (prone is useful for Crossbow Expert Sharpshooters!) but right now it feels like I'm saying things that can't be heard (http://wiki.c2.com/?OnlySayThingsThatCanBeHeard) so I'm going to bed before I get any sadder.

[Dork_Forge]

In post #57, #59, and #61 I said I was talking about Tier 3, and elsewhere on this thread I've made the point that Skill Expert isn't high-priority to me compared to Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert, only to Piercer. It's a little bit aggravating to have you wake up at the end of a discussion and suddenly realize that something is part of the premise, and then point it out like it hasn't been something I've been saying all along.

Remember the context here: we're talking about Piercer. For example, from post #59:


Also remember that in this discussion context, "prioritize" = "prioritize more than Piercer", but still not more highly than SS/CE themselves, and plenty of people never even play high enough to take multiple feats. Nor was Skill Expert even an option until Tasha's came out. Prodigy (Athletics) was, but it's restricted to humans and more expensive (it's not a half-feat), and it was STILL good IME in Tier 3.

It's just very discouraging to have conversations like this. I'm trying to be helpful by pointing out something a given person may not have known about (prone is useful for Crossbow Expert Sharpshooters!) but right now it feels like I'm saying things that can't be heard (http://wiki.c2.com/?OnlySayThingsThatCanBeHeard) so I'm going to bed before I get any sadder.

Alrighty then:

This particular thread of conversation started in your reply to Darthnazrael (post #53), where he wasn't talking about any particular tier or level range. Your reply stated that it needed to be better than the competition, this is a key to why I said what I did. We are in a thread talking about Piercer, the subconversation you said it needed to be better than its competition. The fact that you then went on to point to tier 3 where shoving prone is more advantageous (because you get more attacks as a Fighter) was my point. I'm aware of the context you're talking about the feat in, I didn't 'wake up at the end' as you so put it, I'm pointing out that the context you chose is not only favourable to the feat you're putting into contention with it, but I'll now expand what I've touched on previously, it doesn't make sense. You can naturally build Piercer into Dex progression, there's no reason for it to have to compete in tier 3 like it's a stand alone feat and you have surplus ASIs on a build you haven't even maxed Dex on (making advantage more advantageous btw for no real reason since +1 Dex has wider reaching benefits that would make a heck more sense).

Your context was particularly bad for the feat this conversation exists to discuss. I highlighted that it should be kept in mind that is the context you're talking about, because that changes things, again, unnecessarily.

There's also an undertone here of not following along with what you're actually saying, which is imo, unwarranted since I have been reading. Like how in your posts before I replied to you, you talked about leveraging prone with SS+CBE+EA+Skilled, a build so feat heavy that unless you roll very highly, makes absolutely no sense to take a 'just in case' feat like skilled:athletics. Your illustration to me then abandoned EA later on, as I'm assuming you actually thought about it more.

But enough of that detour, in 57 you actually established the context you think I missed. By established I mean you said "...surprisingly nice for Tier 3 SS/CE Fighters..." in the middle of a sentence in the middle of your post in a tone that seems more like passing thought than establishing context.

Of course maybe I'm missing more important context, like at the end of post #59 where you mention that Prodigy was still good in your experience in Tier 3. A remark about an entirely separate feat, when the only one that seems to be talking about Tier 3 appears to be you (but I could be wrong) and it's not like you're actually prefacing anything or being really clear about that. It seems more like that's the context in your head because your actual posts are mentions and references almost inpassing or in tangent.

Then I engage with you, you say Tier 3 in a way to preface what you're saying and provide a Tier 3 scenario (which I find particularly suits your point, but whatever), I'm now actually talking to you and it is now readily apparent that your points seem grounded in Tier 3 rather than just evaluating the feat.

I bring this to you as an issue, you make an assumption and I take it offended. I am sorry for any offense caused Max, I am trying to discuss in good faith.

I can certainly understand how it can be disheartening when things happen in discussions, to pick no particular example, like the person ignoring your entire (fairly long post) to make assumptions of you when it's 1)incorrect, 2) not what the bulk of the post is about and 3) not even the first thing you said.

I can certainly see how discussions can be aggravating and disheartening.

More on topic, Piercer isn't a great feat, but if you can bump an odd Dex score with it, then it can make a nice addition to a character and because of its +1, can be worked in any tier. Even Tier 1, this alone means that it shouldn't be held against anything other than half feats, the comparison seems to miss the mark. It's benefits are always applicable to someone using a piercing weapon as well, something that should be weighted against specific scenario benefits from other feats. In my opinion of course.

[Chaosmancer]

Well, there you go... So basically you're looking at a nifty trick for a Custom Lineage or Variant Human Scribe Wizard with Crusher in a Tier 1 campaign, but not much use once you get up past 1st and 2nd level spells.

Dao Genie Warlock is even more of a clear winner.

Honestly, not broken up about Wizard's not being able to utilize this feat effectively. I think an actual big winner here is the sling. It had zero value as a ranged weapon, and now it is a ranged control option if you take Crusher. Which is kind of cool.

[KorvinStarmast]

More on topic, Piercer isn't a great feat, but if you can bump an odd Dex score with it, then it can make a nice addition to a character and because of its +1, can be worked in any tier. Even Tier 1, this alone means that it shouldn't be held against anything other than half feats, the comparison seems to miss the mark. It's benefits are always applicable to someone using a piercing weapon as well, something that should be weighted against specific scenario benefits from other feats. Rapiers and short swords are standard rogue and bard weapons; an additional die for a rogues attack never hurts. (Am I following your reasoning well enough?)

[Segev]

Honestly, not broken up about Wizard's not being able to utilize this feat effectively. I think an actual big winner here is the sling. It had zero value as a ranged weapon, and now it is a ranged control option if you take Crusher. Which is kind of cool.

:smallbiggrin:

I am cracking up over the image of hurling a sling stone and causing it to fly back five feet. Then I reread the feat, and realize it lets you move it ANY DIRECTION. You can hit them with a sling stone and make the move TOWARDS you. Or sideways!

[Dork_Forge]

Rapiers and short swords are standard rogue and bard weapons; an additional die for a rogues attack never hurts. (Am I following your reasoning well enough?)

I think? Both would see benefit from the feat (the Bard more so if they were something like Swords or Valor Bard), as would a Barbarian using a Pike. I'm a fan of the feat and will probably take it on a Dex build at some point (my next character is a Soulknife who has no need of it).

[Thunderous Mojo]

:smallbiggrin:

I am cracking up over the image of hurling a sling stone and causing it to fly back five feet. Then I reread the feat, and realize it lets you move it ANY DIRECTION. You can hit them with a sling stone and make the move TOWARDS you. Or sideways!

The character deftly bounces the stone off the ground, and hits their target on their bottom. Involuntarily the monster moves forward....
.......great slap stick comedy.🥸

[Tzun]

Given the opportunity cost for taking a feat, I think this feat is pretty average for most builds, but I think it really shines for rogues with an odd Dex score. With all the dice rolled from sneak attack damage there should almost always be a good chance where Piercer will make a difference. And since rogues usually only get one attack, usually, there's no guessing on which attack should I use Piercer on. And it only gets better as you level up and get more sneak attack die.

[Segev]

Given the opportunity cost for taking a feat, I think this feat is pretty average for most builds, but I think it really shines for rogues with an odd Dex score. With all the dice rolled from sneak attack damage there should almost always be a good chance where Piercer will make a difference. And since rogues usually only get one attack, usually, there's no guessing on which attack should I use Piercer on. And it only gets better as you level up and get more sneak attack die.

...huh. Does Piercer apply to damage add-ons from non-weapon sources when using a piercing weapon? That's...much better than I thought.

[RogueJK]

...huh. Does Piercer apply to damage add-ons from non-weapon sources when using a piercing weapon? That's...much better than I thought.

"Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals piercing damage, you can re-roll one of the attack’s damage dice, and you must use the new roll."


It doesn't say "reroll one of the weapon's damage dice", but "one of the attack's damage dice". So that would include damage dice added on to the attack by things like Sneak Attack, Hunter's Mark, or the like.

[Segev]

"Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals piercing damage, you can re-roll one of the attack’s damage dice, and you must use the new roll."


It doesn't say "reroll one of the weapon's damage dice", but "one of the attack's damage dice". So that would include damage dice added on to the attack by things like Sneak Attack, Hunter's Mark, or the like.

That is...definitely better than I was thinking it was.

[RogueJK]

RAW, it would even appear to apply to something like a Superiority Dice expended on a Battlemaster Maneuver, provided it was one of the maneuvers that added the Superiority dice to the attack's damage.

That could be extra nice, because it's always disheartening to spend one of your limited Superiority dice and roll a 1.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I generally just dislike rerolls like this the same reason GWF will always get a pass in my book. I'd much rather just have a static die size increase which is a lower total increase but less annoying. Maybe just add an extra die and drop the lowest roll.

If I'm rolling dice I want a chance to change the outcome. I want to turn a miss into a hit or a failed saving throw into a passing one.

Agreed. I would add rerolling damage dice slows. the. fight. down.

[RogueJK]

Agreed. I would add rerolling damage dice slows. the. fight. down.

There's an easy way to avoid that (at least in certain situations). If you know what type of die you're going to be rerolling, and it's one dice each time like Piercer, you can roll an extra one of that and just drop the lowest before tallying them.

For example, if you get two Rapier hits that round and have the Piercer feat, rather than rolling 2d8 then rolling again to reroll one of the d8s, you can just roll 3d8 off the bat and drop the lowest. This doesn't take any more time than just rolling 2d8 and being done with it, like you would without the Piercer feat.

But granted, that doesn't apply to every reroll situation. It doesn't help with stuff like Empowered Spell or Great Weapon Fighting Style, where you have to see the results before deciding how many (if any) dice to reroll. And it wouldn't help if you had a Rapier plus Sneak Attack dice, because you wouldn't know ahead of time if it was a d8 or a d6 that you're going to be rerolling.

[MaxWilson]

There's an easy way to avoid that (at least in certain situations). If you know what type of die you're going to be rerolling, and it's one dice each time like Piercer, you can roll an extra one of that and just drop the lowest before tallying them.

For example, if you get two Rapier hits that round and have the Piercer feat, rather than rolling 2d8 then rolling again to reroll one of the d8s, you can just roll 3d8 off the bat and drop the lowest. This doesn't take any more time than just rolling 2d8 and being done with it, like you would without the Piercer feat.

It's also stronger than the Piercer feat, because when you roll damage for one hit, Piercer doesn't let you see how many additional future hits you will get that round nor what damage you will roll on them.

It is both more convenient than Piercer and stronger.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It is both more convenient than Piercer and stronger.

Is that such an undesirable outcome, given the consensus that is forming that Piercer is the weakest, of the B,P,S Trio of Feats?

I also agree that gaining Expertise in Athletics, is better than getting the Piercer feat.
I would extend that further and say, taking the Skilled Feat: Athletics would, overall, be a more impactful choice, for almost any character, than the Piercer feat.

A Druid using Thorn Whip and the Piercer Feat to exploit Conjure Bonfire,
is a charming gimmick.

A Druid that has Expertise in Athletics is a matter to take seriously.

[MaxWilson]

Is that such an undesirable outcome, given the consensus that is forming that Piercer is the weakest, of the B,P,S Trio of Feats?

I'd say it's not an outcome at all. I'm just pointing out that it's a false equivalence--what is being described isn't Piercer.

Would it be bad if Piercer somehow found a way to be as strong as that seeing-the-future method? Naw, it would still be weak-ish. But it's even weaker than that.


A Druid that has Expertise in Athletics is a matter to take seriously.

Partly it depends on how your DM rules elemental grappling. Does an Earth Elemental with Athletics Expertise (prof +4 for 10th level) have:

(A) +13 to two grappling attempts from Str +5 and Athletics +8, OR
(B) +5 to two grappling attempts because elemental bodies are too different for Athletics to translate, OR
(C) +13 to only one grappling attempt since Multiattack doesn't strictly mention grappling (personally as DM I implicitly add grappling to every stat block with hands or hand-like appendages, e.g. dragon claws, but if I were using strictly RAW monsters the Earth Elementals technically wouldn't get this either), OR
(D) no grappling attempts (because the DM rules they have no hands)?

At table (A) Skilled is great for druids. At table (D) maybe not so much, although it's still good for monks.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Even in the situation where a DM uses option D: no elemental grappling
Wild Shape before 10th level has plenty of fine beast shapes
to use Skilled: Athletics with.

While Athletics checks may not play a constant nor important role at all tables. I do believe Athletics checks are relevant consideration for many tables.

Breaking Stuff, Extending Jumps, grabbing hold of rushing horse,
mounting the rushing horse, etc, etc. Athletics can, reasonably, apply to a myriad of situations, adventurers can expect to see.

A Tier 4 Wizard, with 10 STR receives a +1 to an Ability Score, and a substantial increase to succeed on DC 20 Athletics checks compared to being the same Tier 4 Wizard that lacks proficiency in Athletics, or just has proficiency.

Clearly, other priorities might require resource allocation more than worrying about Athletics ability rolls that could not be replaced by magic use.

Yet, if I found myself in the enviable position of not feeling like I needed to address other glaring weaknesses, or add a feat that would improve upon spellcasting, I would consider it.

The number of qualifications and conditions I am including, should,
(I hope), make it clear, I'm not saying Skilled: Athletics is necessary...but it helps shore up a potential weakness.