A large part of what make D&D an "adventure" is the randomness that leads to dramatic moments. Lucky essentially puts a foot on the scale in the player's favor, so that the really important campaign defining moments may never properly take shape. With 3 uses per day, there is a pretty good chance that the player will always succeed when it matters.
The Lucky feat isn't particularly OP for combat, but it disrupts the story itself. There is a reason that DM Inspiration is typically capped at (1).
Lucky is not so much overpowered as it is against the spirit of the game, for many tables. The dice decide how one's efforts pan out. One can try and fish for lower DCs, advantage, a better skill, whatever they can do to hedge their bets, but Lucky disregards all of that and allows a player to say "I'm just gonna keep rolling until I get the number I want". Many DMs don't care for that and insist that Lucky have some grounding in the character's story before the player can take it. ... But ordinary Schmoe having the ability to directly bend the cosmos to his whim simply because he doesn't like bad rolls? That's a DM paddling.
This argument makes no sense to me. Adventures don't hinge on a specific player succeeding or failing on any one roll, and rerolling certain rolls is just another form of hedging your bets. It's no different from the Shield spell, Bless, Bardic Inspiration, Enhance Ability, or literally anything else that improves your chances of succeeding on a roll. Expertise is far more powerful when it comes to ensuring a character will almost always succeed on certain kinds of rolls.
The idea that the feat needs to have some in-universe explanation is also silly. Players don't have to explain their rolls because that's not a thing in the narrative. To any in-universe character there's no difference between the player having rolled something through pure chance and getting that number on a reroll.
In my experience the people that say the feat is OP are either talking about the "super disadvantage" loophole, or are assuming those 3 rerolls will succeed (not a fair assumption) and comparing that to an ASI letting you succeed on 1 extra roll out of every 20.
This argument makes no sense to me. Adventures don't hinge on a specific player succeeding or failing on any one roll, and rerolling certain rolls is just another form of hedging your bets.
...
In my experience the people that say the feat is OP are either talking about the "super disadvantage" loophole, or are assuming those 3 rerolls will succeed (not a fair assumption) and comparing that to an ASI letting you succeed on 1 extra roll out of every 20.
The issue of being OP, and being bannable, can be treated as two separate, but overlapping issues.
Aside from "super advantage", it's really not OP, but if you've watched shows like Critical Role Season 1, you can see how the DM and players react to the use of the Lucky feat.
There's a tense build-up to a dramatic moment, the player fails, and everyone gets excited to see what is about to happen... *Poof*, everything is ok again. For most party members, that's not really a problem, but for the rogue, who is almost always the first person to cross a threshold or trigger a trap, it becomes easy to start taking it for granted, and the spotlight loses its luster. Because the players can see behind the curtain, there are certain expectations that don't always align with what the characters themselves experience. Expertise is certainly more powerful, but doesn't come with the overt voluntary reversal of fortune. At least when party members are working together to get advantage, it is a collaborative effort and anticipatory, rather than reactionary.
There is a good reason that some legendary monsters get Legendary Resistances and Players don't. Lucky is kind of like a lesser Legendary Resistance.
Aside from "super advantage", it's really not OP, but if you've watched shows like Critical Role Season 1, you can see how the DM and players react to the use of the Lucky feat.
I mean that's why Matt made an entire school of magic based around it, and let his players have not only a magical object, but also a spell that gives one use of Luck......
I really don't get the argument you make in the end about legendary resistances, like the way a read that is you seem fine to give Monsters this luck, but players is a no-no.
3 rerolls, per long rest is not really going to "ruin" epic moments. You also keep using a rogue as the example of why Lucky is bad, but rogues get Reliable Talent that will more likely ruin a trap and make things feel anti-climatic.
I mean that's why Matt made an entire school of magic based around it, and let his players have not only a magical object, but also a spell that gives one use of Luck......
I really don't get the argument you make in the end about legendary resistances, like the way a read that is you seem fine to give Monsters this luck, but players is a no-no.
3 rerolls, per long rest is not really going to "ruin" epic moments. You also keep using a rogue as the example of why Lucky is bad, but rogues get Reliable Talent that will more likely ruin a trap and make things feel anti-climatic.
The mechanic of Luck is not inherently problematic, it's just the particular implementation.
1) Critical Role's Dodecahedron: A) It's once per day, B) It's a party resource, and C) It's literally a god-level artifact [Plot Device]. It doesn't need to follow normal rules, and simply carrying it shapes the campaign. (It sounds like you haven't gotten very far into Campaign 2, so I won't post spoilers.)
2) Chronurgy Magic: A) None of his players use the class, B) It replaces a significant class feature, and C) It encourages collaborative play.
The spell Fortune's Favor burns a 2nd-level prepared spell slot, takes 1 minute to cast, only lasts 1 hour, and has an expensive material component. A feat that grants three castings of a 2nd-level spell per day would be considered very powerful, even if it retained these limitations.
3) Legendary Resistances: That essentially is what I'm saying. Legendary resistances/actions are a mechanic to help balance the action economy between a party of 4-8 versus a monolithic BBEG. Lucky isn't equivalent to legendary resistances, but the reasoning behind monster-exclusive abilities can be used to examine the role that feats like Lucky play in the bigger picture.
4) Reliable Talent: Foiling a trap isn't the point, it's about managing expectations. Reliable Talent sets the bottom-line before the dice are ever rolled, so there is no expectation of failure, if the players know the Trap DC.
Again, I'm not saying that this feat is "broken" or OP, just that there are reasons for a DM banning it at their table for gameplay reasons. Similar reasons to why Aarakocra are often discouraged. They're not "OP", but letting players use them impacts the game in ways that may simply not be worth it.
A while back, I had built a UA Mystic/Warlock Tiefling Variant character that ended up getting permanent advantage on everything that mattered, could fly, didn't need to eat, sleep, breathe, etc. It didn't really excel at anything, wasn't a great damage dealer, didn't really have many spells, and it didn't have any particular skill expertise. Despite being mechanically middling, the fact that it always had advantage made the other players feel like it was over-powered and that caused problems. (It was based on the character Vision for a Marvel-themed campaign.)
With the right group and the right campaign anything can be great, but some character creation options deserve a "Talk to your DM" warning tag(Which the Aarakocra has). People are more sensitive to some things, even when the math says that it doesn't matter.
It definitely doesn't "ruin" a campaign, it just takes the wind out of its sails. A clever DM can build in contingencies that can make it work, but it does mean more work for the DM.
The issue is that it's three "Epic moments" Every. Single. Day. Failing dramatically is part of what makes a story compelling and there aren't usually that many adventure defining moments at any given time.
Except that it's not really three "EPIC" moments every single day, is it? It's usually "damnit, I really wanted to hit that fiend, roll again, wohoo a total of 19 instead of 14!" or "Yay! I managed to pickpocket that dude's wallet!" or "Hooray, I didn't fall down a ledge to take 2D6 points of damage."
And, as a general thought, how often does the action taken at disadvantage really matter that much in the bigger picture? 'Lucky' is generally more of a "don't roll a '1' three times a day" and not a "autocrit three times a day" kind of thing. Statistically the Luck stone (plus 2 to all abilities for calculating ability rolls and saving throws) is a lot more "OP" than the Lucky feat.
Speaking of rolling ones, how come the Lucky feat gets so much hate but the Halflings' Luck doesn't seem to get as much attention?
I remember in my first full campaign I played as a Goblin Bard with the Lucky feat... I partly took it because my DM in general is pretty good at describing how events play out, and I thought it would be fun to have her describe how luck kicked in when I used my Lucky points... like one instance that sticks out in my mind had me running across a table and a bandit was taking an attack of opportunity at me... so I lucky'd to avoid the hit, and she narrated that one of the legs of the table suddenly broke, I slid down the rest of the length of the table, grabbed a goblet of wine right before it was gonna spill and took a swig before finishing my turn. Although in retrospect it was kind of a waste of Lucky, because I could have just used Nimble Escape to disengage, but like I said... first real campaign. I eventually started using Nimble Escape pretty regularly, but I would still forget about Fury of the Small most days.
Anyway, I've said this before on other discussions, but despite how frustrating Lucky can be for DM's at time, it's not really that amazing of a feat. I think the big difference with it, though, compared to other feats, is that it works for literally any build. Sharpshooter will completely gut CR ratings and force you to change plans for any combat that character gets involved in... assuming that they're playing a martial class that's specced out for ranged combat. Polearm Master can turn a barbarian or fighter into a humanoid wheat thresher... but its basically useless for a Rogue. For my bard I luckily rolled pretty well for stats so I was able to take another feat later, and Warcaster got so much more use and had a greater impact on combat than lucky ever did. But at the end of the day if anyone, regardless of Race, Class, or Subclass chooses Lucky as a feat, it will work for them. Maybe it won't have as much effect as a feat that plays more into their specific build, but it's the only feat I can think of off the top of my head that you can slap on any character and have it work just fine.
It is good for very build in some way and is absolutely flavorless compared to the other feats IMO. It also stands against everything that makes this game unpredictable and thus fun.
I give inspiration pretty much once per downtime and good roleplay is rewarded. So lucky would be overkill.
One of my players has a homebrewed Sorcerer who is a "Fate Waver" and has not only Lucky but also some class-based abilities that allow die rerolls ("spinning fate"). I have not found it to be OP.
I certainly don't find it "frustrating" as some DMs are claiming it to be. Why would I be frustrated if my party succeeds at something because of a die roll? Isn't that always how they succeed at something?
As for it being epic... the most epic fight they had was one during which they were also using Bonus Actions to make skill challenge checks against a portal where an evil being was in the process of being summoned up from the Shadowfell (kinda-sorta based on the Keep on the Shadowfell thing in the portal, but massively homebrewed). They had to get 5 successes before 3 failures, and they were sitting at 4-2. They knew the next roll was going to either succeed or fail. The Ranger wanted to do it - she had inspiration. But the sorcerer's player said, "No, let me do it -- I have luck and inspiration. We NEED this." Why would that frustrate me? It was epic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It is good for very build in some way and is absolutely flavorless compared to the other feats IMO. It also stands against everything that makes this game unpredictable and thus fun.
I give inspiration pretty much once per downtime and good roleplay is rewarded. So lucky would be overkill.
You believe players having the ability to reroll is against the game.... yet hand out inspiration - something meant to prevent the unpredictability of the game.....
Re-rolls do not make the game unpredictable. Or haven't you ever seen someone roll an 11, decide to re-roll, and get a nat 1? (I have.)
Oh, all the time. Or when you feel bad as a DM and give them a pity "advantage roll" because someone heled "I help" a little too late and they still roll a 2 and a 3
That's why I don't understand this "3 times per long rest I might succeed is OP" mentality this thread has been arguing. I mean, Halflings can't even roll a 1 unless they roll 2 in a row!
I'm not sure anyone is really arguing that Lucky is overpowered. It more seems to be the case that the feat often doesn't feel connected to the character. It's simply a thing the player bolts on that exists in the metaspace outside the game world, something they invoke whenever they don't like the look of a given roll.
Compare things like the bard's Bardic Inspiration, or the artificer's Flash of Genius, both of which alsoexist to try and salvage bad rolls. Bardic Inspiration is a beloved ability; a player who can riff on the spot to provide Bardic Inspiration is usually their table's favorite player. Flash of Genius is less interesting, but even then it exists in a space where the artificer is assumed to shout last-second warnings or advice, or to experience a sudden insight that aids them beyond their normal skills. An artificer who can describe these things is a better artificer player, while an artificer who simply says "Yeah, I'm gonna Flash that one" often ends up earning ire.
Lucky, meanwhile? It's just...sorta there. Yes, it's supposed to represent unusual luck or some ability to influence probability, but you know what else represents that? Being an adventurer. ALL PCs are assumed to have unusual luck - good and bad both, often simultaneously - which is abstracted as part of why one is throwing a d20 to see if they can do the thing. It's why people tend to only allow Lucky when it hooks into the character somehow, whether that's because of some divine provenance or a trend towards chaotic magic. Or some other means whereby the character is using the ability to try and actively manipulate fate, rather than the player simply saying "Nah, I'ma Lucky that." Which is part of negotiating with a DM for the feat. I imagine few DMs will simply hard-ban Lucky forever, it's more a matter of "tell me why this particular character gets these mystic meta-rerolls. Give me the story here."
It's simply a thing the player bolts on that exists in the metaspace outside the game world, something they invoke whenever they don't like the look of a given roll.
As a DM, I never allow anything that is just bolted onto a character for metagaming reasons.
The Lucky character in our game is a special homebrewed sorcerer subclass called a "Fate Weaver" and all his abilities are about changing fate/luck. His concept is that he alters probabilities (the player is a big fan of characters like Scarlet Witch, Long Shot, etc., and that is the concept he is going for. (He has also played this concept before, so I knew what it was all about out of the gate and why he would want the Lucky feat.)
Now, this player is certainly not above metagaming to min-max things (in fact, he does it a lot more now than I ever remember him doing it back in our in-person RPG days as kids). But I tend to stomp on most of that as a DM, and only allow things that are in character for the PC.
imagine few DMs will simply hard-ban Lucky forever, it's more a matter of "tell me why this particular character gets these mystic meta-rerolls. Give me the story here."
Agreed.
And I agree that if it's just "I want to be able to re-roll things," it's time to explain to the player that D&D is not about winning and bad rolls are just something to RP about.
imagine few DMs will simply hard-ban Lucky forever, it's more a matter of "tell me why this particular character gets these mystic meta-rerolls. Give me the story here."
Agreed.
And I agree that if it's just "I want to be able to re-roll things," it's time to explain to the player that D&D is not about winning and bad rolls are just something to RP about.
So, you require every single "meta" choice to be reasoned? FYI - every choice done outside of in game RP is meta so.... I hope these requirements exist for the less "meta" feats and even for class or subclass too. To require them to give a reason for this feat but not something like Sharpshooter, a way more narrow feat but frankly just as "OP" is a bit silly to me. Do rouges need to have a reason for their Reliable Talent feature? If the players doesn't in game explain why they don't roll below a 10, do they have to accept a roll below a 10 then?
Ok, cool. It looks like we're mostly all coming back to the same page.
If a character choice contributes to the enjoyment of the TTRPG experience, then pretty much anything is fair game. If it's just math, then it should be treated suspiciously. The act of making (non-obligatory/arbitrary) choices without regard to the game/story is ultimately destructive, even if the actual impact is negligible. (Obviously, most choices are fairly safe as they necessarily refine a character's identity, rather than widen it.)
The Lucky feat is particularly vulnerable to being exploited in this way, but is not inherently problematic. Kind of like finding a loaded firearm on the ground.... don't pick it up unless you have a plan, because merely having it makes you a threat to others.
As was mentioned previously, some games may be designed as a Min-Max dungeon crawl, in which case, the "human factor" of story design becomes essentially irrelevant, and all character choices are fair game. The obstacles and challenges can inexplicably rise to meet the capabilities of the group.
BioWizard is actually on record as stating that players cannot take feats in his games that they have not prepared for in-session ahead of time, Hollow. A player that desires a feat has to communicate that desire to him ahead of time, at which point they figure out a way for the character to train for the feat if it's something they could feasibly do. So long as his players are on board with that, which I assume they are, there doesn't seem to be an issue.
The main problem seems to be that Lucky, as it's currently designed, is more vulnerable than most other feats to being used in a "bad faith" way - i.e. by someone attempting to juke the system. The feat itself is not terrible, but it encourages the sort of thinking many DMs want to squash. It's honestly the same reason I've seen a number of DMs replace the Reliable Talent feature with something else for rogues, or houserule that nat 1s override RT and cause a failure anyways. As a nigh-religiously devoted skillmonkey, Reliable Talent is absolutely amazing to me, but even I can see why those DMs do what they do.
BioWizard is actually on record as stating that players cannot take feats in his games that they have not prepared for in-session ahead of time, Hollow. A player that desires a feat has to communicate that desire to him ahead of time, at which point they figure out a way for the character to train for the feat if it's something they could feasibly do. So long as his players are on board with that, which I assume they are, there doesn't seem to be an issue.
The main problem seems to be that Lucky, as it's currently designed, is more vulnerable than most other feats to being used in a "bad faith" way - i.e. by someone attempting to juke the system. The feat itself is not terrible, but it encourages the sort of thinking many DMs want to squash. It's honestly the same reason I've seen a number of DMs replace the Reliable Talent feature with something else for rogues, or houserule that nat 1s override RT and cause a failure anyways. As a nigh-religiously devoted skillmonkey, Reliable Talent is absolutely amazing to me, but even I can see why those DMs do what they do.
Ah well. Is what it is, I suppose.
Yeah ultimately I think it comes down to that...why are you choosing this feat? Something like sharpshooter is fairly obvious you want to be better with a bow and for a character that uses only almost exclusively it fits a lot more narratively they would be amazing at it.
Lucky just seems harder to fit into a character in a natural way and if its chosen for purely meta reasons feels worse somehow than combat feats. I am not entirely sure why but I do feel it that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This argument makes no sense to me. Adventures don't hinge on a specific player succeeding or failing on any one roll, and rerolling certain rolls is just another form of hedging your bets. It's no different from the Shield spell, Bless, Bardic Inspiration, Enhance Ability, or literally anything else that improves your chances of succeeding on a roll. Expertise is far more powerful when it comes to ensuring a character will almost always succeed on certain kinds of rolls.
The idea that the feat needs to have some in-universe explanation is also silly. Players don't have to explain their rolls because that's not a thing in the narrative. To any in-universe character there's no difference between the player having rolled something through pure chance and getting that number on a reroll.
In my experience the people that say the feat is OP are either talking about the "super disadvantage" loophole, or are assuming those 3 rerolls will succeed (not a fair assumption) and comparing that to an ASI letting you succeed on 1 extra roll out of every 20.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The issue of being OP, and being bannable, can be treated as two separate, but overlapping issues.
Aside from "super advantage", it's really not OP, but if you've watched shows like Critical Role Season 1, you can see how the DM and players react to the use of the Lucky feat.
There's a tense build-up to a dramatic moment, the player fails, and everyone gets excited to see what is about to happen... *Poof*, everything is ok again. For most party members, that's not really a problem, but for the rogue, who is almost always the first person to cross a threshold or trigger a trap, it becomes easy to start taking it for granted, and the spotlight loses its luster. Because the players can see behind the curtain, there are certain expectations that don't always align with what the characters themselves experience. Expertise is certainly more powerful, but doesn't come with the overt voluntary reversal of fortune. At least when party members are working together to get advantage, it is a collaborative effort and anticipatory, rather than reactionary.
There is a good reason that some legendary monsters get Legendary Resistances and Players don't. Lucky is kind of like a lesser Legendary Resistance.
I mean that's why Matt made an entire school of magic based around it, and let his players have not only a magical object, but also a spell that gives one use of Luck......
I really don't get the argument you make in the end about legendary resistances, like the way a read that is you seem fine to give Monsters this luck, but players is a no-no.
3 rerolls, per long rest is not really going to "ruin" epic moments. You also keep using a rogue as the example of why Lucky is bad, but rogues get Reliable Talent that will more likely ruin a trap and make things feel anti-climatic.
The mechanic of Luck is not inherently problematic, it's just the particular implementation.
1) Critical Role's Dodecahedron: A) It's once per day, B) It's a party resource, and C) It's literally a god-level artifact [Plot Device]. It doesn't need to follow normal rules, and simply carrying it shapes the campaign. (It sounds like you haven't gotten very far into Campaign 2, so I won't post spoilers.)
2) Chronurgy Magic: A) None of his players use the class, B) It replaces a significant class feature, and C) It encourages collaborative play.
The spell Fortune's Favor burns a 2nd-level prepared spell slot, takes 1 minute to cast, only lasts 1 hour, and has an expensive material component. A feat that grants three castings of a 2nd-level spell per day would be considered very powerful, even if it retained these limitations.
3) Legendary Resistances: That essentially is what I'm saying. Legendary resistances/actions are a mechanic to help balance the action economy between a party of 4-8 versus a monolithic BBEG. Lucky isn't equivalent to legendary resistances, but the reasoning behind monster-exclusive abilities can be used to examine the role that feats like Lucky play in the bigger picture.
4) Reliable Talent: Foiling a trap isn't the point, it's about managing expectations. Reliable Talent sets the bottom-line before the dice are ever rolled, so there is no expectation of failure, if the players know the Trap DC.
Again, I'm not saying that this feat is "broken" or OP, just that there are reasons for a DM banning it at their table for gameplay reasons. Similar reasons to why Aarakocra are often discouraged. They're not "OP", but letting players use them impacts the game in ways that may simply not be worth it.
A while back, I had built a UA Mystic/Warlock Tiefling Variant character that ended up getting permanent advantage on everything that mattered, could fly, didn't need to eat, sleep, breathe, etc. It didn't really excel at anything, wasn't a great damage dealer, didn't really have many spells, and it didn't have any particular skill expertise. Despite being mechanically middling, the fact that it always had advantage made the other players feel like it was over-powered and that caused problems. (It was based on the character Vision for a Marvel-themed campaign.)
With the right group and the right campaign anything can be great, but some character creation options deserve a "Talk to your DM" warning tag(Which the Aarakocra has). People are more sensitive to some things, even when the math says that it doesn't matter.
Except that it's not really three "EPIC" moments every single day, is it? It's usually "damnit, I really wanted to hit that fiend, roll again, wohoo a total of 19 instead of 14!" or "Yay! I managed to pickpocket that dude's wallet!" or "Hooray, I didn't fall down a ledge to take 2D6 points of damage."
And, as a general thought, how often does the action taken at disadvantage really matter that much in the bigger picture? 'Lucky' is generally more of a "don't roll a '1' three times a day" and not a "autocrit three times a day" kind of thing. Statistically the Luck stone (plus 2 to all abilities for calculating ability rolls and saving throws) is a lot more "OP" than the Lucky feat.
Speaking of rolling ones, how come the Lucky feat gets so much hate but the Halflings' Luck doesn't seem to get as much attention?
I was using the context of the OP comment. It's true that Epic moments don't happen every day, but it more than covers when they do happen.
If a campaign isn't "epic" then the lucky feat definitely matters far less. Lucky in a "dungeon crawl" is very different from Lucky in a "story".
There are many ways to play, and it's easy to imagine that several of us are considering this with different lenses.
I remember in my first full campaign I played as a Goblin Bard with the Lucky feat... I partly took it because my DM in general is pretty good at describing how events play out, and I thought it would be fun to have her describe how luck kicked in when I used my Lucky points... like one instance that sticks out in my mind had me running across a table and a bandit was taking an attack of opportunity at me... so I lucky'd to avoid the hit, and she narrated that one of the legs of the table suddenly broke, I slid down the rest of the length of the table, grabbed a goblet of wine right before it was gonna spill and took a swig before finishing my turn. Although in retrospect it was kind of a waste of Lucky, because I could have just used Nimble Escape to disengage, but like I said... first real campaign. I eventually started using Nimble Escape pretty regularly, but I would still forget about Fury of the Small most days.
Anyway, I've said this before on other discussions, but despite how frustrating Lucky can be for DM's at time, it's not really that amazing of a feat. I think the big difference with it, though, compared to other feats, is that it works for literally any build. Sharpshooter will completely gut CR ratings and force you to change plans for any combat that character gets involved in... assuming that they're playing a martial class that's specced out for ranged combat. Polearm Master can turn a barbarian or fighter into a humanoid wheat thresher... but its basically useless for a Rogue. For my bard I luckily rolled pretty well for stats so I was able to take another feat later, and Warcaster got so much more use and had a greater impact on combat than lucky ever did. But at the end of the day if anyone, regardless of Race, Class, or Subclass chooses Lucky as a feat, it will work for them. Maybe it won't have as much effect as a feat that plays more into their specific build, but it's the only feat I can think of off the top of my head that you can slap on any character and have it work just fine.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
It is good for very build in some way and is absolutely flavorless compared to the other feats IMO. It also stands against everything that makes this game unpredictable and thus fun.
I give inspiration pretty much once per downtime and good roleplay is rewarded. So lucky would be overkill.
One of my players has a homebrewed Sorcerer who is a "Fate Waver" and has not only Lucky but also some class-based abilities that allow die rerolls ("spinning fate"). I have not found it to be OP.
I certainly don't find it "frustrating" as some DMs are claiming it to be. Why would I be frustrated if my party succeeds at something because of a die roll? Isn't that always how they succeed at something?
As for it being epic... the most epic fight they had was one during which they were also using Bonus Actions to make skill challenge checks against a portal where an evil being was in the process of being summoned up from the Shadowfell (kinda-sorta based on the Keep on the Shadowfell thing in the portal, but massively homebrewed). They had to get 5 successes before 3 failures, and they were sitting at 4-2. They knew the next roll was going to either succeed or fail. The Ranger wanted to do it - she had inspiration. But the sorcerer's player said, "No, let me do it -- I have luck and inspiration. We NEED this." Why would that frustrate me? It was epic.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If youse think Lucky is OP, you all would hate this lady then:
https://ddb.ac/characters/32979668/GyFeKw
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think Dawnforgecast had a build like this....
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/8je6ki/the_most_annoying_build_in_dd/
You believe players having the ability to reroll is against the game.... yet hand out inspiration - something meant to prevent the unpredictability of the game.....
Re-rolls do not make the game unpredictable. Or haven't you ever seen someone roll an 11, decide to re-roll, and get a nat 1? (I have.)
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Oh, all the time. Or when you feel bad as a DM and give them a pity "advantage roll" because someone heled "I help" a little too late and they still roll a 2 and a 3
That's why I don't understand this "3 times per long rest I might succeed is OP" mentality this thread has been arguing. I mean, Halflings can't even roll a 1 unless they roll 2 in a row!
I'm not sure anyone is really arguing that Lucky is overpowered. It more seems to be the case that the feat often doesn't feel connected to the character. It's simply a thing the player bolts on that exists in the metaspace outside the game world, something they invoke whenever they don't like the look of a given roll.
Compare things like the bard's Bardic Inspiration, or the artificer's Flash of Genius, both of which also exist to try and salvage bad rolls. Bardic Inspiration is a beloved ability; a player who can riff on the spot to provide Bardic Inspiration is usually their table's favorite player. Flash of Genius is less interesting, but even then it exists in a space where the artificer is assumed to shout last-second warnings or advice, or to experience a sudden insight that aids them beyond their normal skills. An artificer who can describe these things is a better artificer player, while an artificer who simply says "Yeah, I'm gonna Flash that one" often ends up earning ire.
Lucky, meanwhile? It's just...sorta there. Yes, it's supposed to represent unusual luck or some ability to influence probability, but you know what else represents that? Being an adventurer. ALL PCs are assumed to have unusual luck - good and bad both, often simultaneously - which is abstracted as part of why one is throwing a d20 to see if they can do the thing. It's why people tend to only allow Lucky when it hooks into the character somehow, whether that's because of some divine provenance or a trend towards chaotic magic. Or some other means whereby the character is using the ability to try and actively manipulate fate, rather than the player simply saying "Nah, I'ma Lucky that." Which is part of negotiating with a DM for the feat. I imagine few DMs will simply hard-ban Lucky forever, it's more a matter of "tell me why this particular character gets these mystic meta-rerolls. Give me the story here."
Please do not contact or message me.
As a DM, I never allow anything that is just bolted onto a character for metagaming reasons.
The Lucky character in our game is a special homebrewed sorcerer subclass called a "Fate Weaver" and all his abilities are about changing fate/luck. His concept is that he alters probabilities (the player is a big fan of characters like Scarlet Witch, Long Shot, etc., and that is the concept he is going for. (He has also played this concept before, so I knew what it was all about out of the gate and why he would want the Lucky feat.)
Now, this player is certainly not above metagaming to min-max things (in fact, he does it a lot more now than I ever remember him doing it back in our in-person RPG days as kids). But I tend to stomp on most of that as a DM, and only allow things that are in character for the PC.
Agreed.
And I agree that if it's just "I want to be able to re-roll things," it's time to explain to the player that D&D is not about winning and bad rolls are just something to RP about.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
So, you require every single "meta" choice to be reasoned? FYI - every choice done outside of in game RP is meta so.... I hope these requirements exist for the less "meta" feats and even for class or subclass too. To require them to give a reason for this feat but not something like Sharpshooter, a way more narrow feat but frankly just as "OP" is a bit silly to me. Do rouges need to have a reason for their Reliable Talent feature? If the players doesn't in game explain why they don't roll below a 10, do they have to accept a roll below a 10 then?
[Redacted]
Ok, cool. It looks like we're mostly all coming back to the same page.
If a character choice contributes to the enjoyment of the TTRPG experience, then pretty much anything is fair game. If it's just math, then it should be treated suspiciously. The act of making (non-obligatory/arbitrary) choices without regard to the game/story is ultimately destructive, even if the actual impact is negligible. (Obviously, most choices are fairly safe as they necessarily refine a character's identity, rather than widen it.)
The Lucky feat is particularly vulnerable to being exploited in this way, but is not inherently problematic. Kind of like finding a loaded firearm on the ground.... don't pick it up unless you have a plan, because merely having it makes you a threat to others.
As was mentioned previously, some games may be designed as a Min-Max dungeon crawl, in which case, the "human factor" of story design becomes essentially irrelevant, and all character choices are fair game. The obstacles and challenges can inexplicably rise to meet the capabilities of the group.
BioWizard is actually on record as stating that players cannot take feats in his games that they have not prepared for in-session ahead of time, Hollow. A player that desires a feat has to communicate that desire to him ahead of time, at which point they figure out a way for the character to train for the feat if it's something they could feasibly do. So long as his players are on board with that, which I assume they are, there doesn't seem to be an issue.
The main problem seems to be that Lucky, as it's currently designed, is more vulnerable than most other feats to being used in a "bad faith" way - i.e. by someone attempting to juke the system. The feat itself is not terrible, but it encourages the sort of thinking many DMs want to squash. It's honestly the same reason I've seen a number of DMs replace the Reliable Talent feature with something else for rogues, or houserule that nat 1s override RT and cause a failure anyways. As a nigh-religiously devoted skillmonkey, Reliable Talent is absolutely amazing to me, but even I can see why those DMs do what they do.
Ah well. Is what it is, I suppose.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah ultimately I think it comes down to that...why are you choosing this feat? Something like sharpshooter is fairly obvious you want to be better with a bow and for a character that uses only almost exclusively it fits a lot more narratively they would be amazing at it.
Lucky just seems harder to fit into a character in a natural way and if its chosen for purely meta reasons feels worse somehow than combat feats. I am not entirely sure why but I do feel it that way.