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.
That's not strictly true... They can take a feat they did not tell me about ahead of time, if they can explain to me how it works in-game. For example, at level 4, the cleric came to me with the idea of taking the Ritual Caster feat, and choosing Wizard spells. This surprised me until he brought up the fact that his cleric had kept going back to the town's divination wizard asking for cartomancy readings, and that he had become very interested in this kind of spellcasting. He went to her and offered to pay her for some spells to start his spell book, and she gave him Identify (and I can't remember what else) -- one she had used for the party a number of times before, so he had watched her do it. This made in-character sense, so I had no problem with it.
But then I have good players, and I generally don't have to worry about them taking in-character things, since they pretty much always do.
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.
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.
That's not strictly true... They can take a feat they did not tell me about ahead of time, if they can explain to me how it works in-game. For example, at level 4, the cleric came to me with the idea of taking the Ritual Caster feat, and choosing Wizard spells. This surprised me until he brought up the fact that his cleric had kept going back to the town's divination wizard asking for cartomancy readings, and that he had become very interested in this kind of spellcasting. He went to her and offered to pay her for some spells to start his spell book, and she gave him Identify (and I can't remember what else) -- one she had used for the party a number of times before, so he had watched her do it. This made in-character sense, so I had no problem with it.
But then I have good players, and I generally don't have to worry about them taking in-character things, since they pretty much always do.
Would a fighter who uses a bow all the time have to justify sharpshooter? or would that one explain itself?
Personally? I think it's the fact that it changes a roll that has been already made. DMs don't like it because it interrupts the flow and alters their plans. Things that mess with or change rolls are the bane of a DMs existence.
Personally? I think it's the fact that it changes a roll that has been already made. DMs don't like it because it interrupts the flow and alters their plans. Things that mess with or change rolls are the bane of a DMs existence.
How can Lucky mess with plans? A die was rolled, and then it was re-rolled. You can't really make plans in the few seconds between the two rolls. You say, "Roll to hit," and the Lucky character's player rolls a nat 3. Darn, he says. OK, using Lucky. Re-rolls and gets a 19. "Hit" says the DM. At what point would I have started making plans?
If you mean that it could confer a successful roll when the DM planned the roll to fail, I submit that as a DM you ought not to be relying on a die roll for your plans to go well or not. If a single die roll is going to eff with your adventure that much, then I suspect the adventure was overly fragile to begin with in terms of what you were planning.
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.
I never mind it when a player uses Lucky. To be honest, the vast majority of the time most people don’t use lucky in combat and even if they do, I’m already dealing with a fairly optimized 11th level Fighter with Sharpshooter and a +2 Longbow, another 11th level Battlemaster with a +1 Longbow, an 11th level Warlock with EB, and an 11th level Barbarian with a massive magic sword. When the non-optimized Battlemaster uses lucky to reroll to make sure she hits for a maneuver to work, that’s the least of my worries.
How I picture it in game isn’t so much taking another shot but that you simply extra focus yourself whether opening a lock or aiming a shot a half second longer than normal. It’s not an auto success by any means.
Goody for them. Unless one is playing AL, at which point they deserve what they get and it's impossible to enjoy the game anyways, RAW for Lucky turning disadvantage into Elfy SuperMegaUltraAdvantage makes no bloody sense. Given the general DM attitude towards Lucky, a player can generally push for SuperMegaUltraAdvantage and the DM will say "All right. Lucky's banned", or they can agree to play something resembling fair and maybe actually get the feat.
Up to them, really.
Who hurt you so bad to make you think AL is unenjoyable? Having played both homebrewed and AL, I love them both. Though, I suppose that's neither here nor there.
ANYWAYS, is it so wrong to turn one disadvantaged roll into "maybe super advantage?" Keep in mind, you only get to spend 3 such luck points in a given adventuring day, and also keep in mind, taking lucky effectively means a character has skipped over an ASI that may provide much more reliable and generalized benefits. It's an investment that player decided they wanted, and as far as in-story reasons go for taking it, the very innate and mere existence of being an adventurer that gets to go on a cool journey and survive a battle or two is all the justification needed for taking the feat.
Heck, if a lvl 11 fighter wants to use up all their luck points to turn their disadvantage attacks into advantage so he might possibly have a cool moment, what's wrong with that? At the end of the day, such a player used up all their luck points into one round! He won't have it for any future saves. If he uses his points for making a mental-based save that happens to be his dump stat, chances aren't looking much better that he'll make the save regardless, and if it's for ensuring he makes a save he's good at, then chances are he was going to make it anyways.
How I picture it in game isn’t so much taking another shot but that you simply extra focus yourself whether opening a lock or aiming a shot a half second longer than normal. It’s not an auto success by any means.
I feel like that accurately describes some feats and abilities that allow rerolls under certain circumstances, like a Fighter's Indomitable or something like that. But I feel like, flavor-wise, it doesn't really work with Lucky. I tend to think of it more as something out of a player's control. Like... I picture taking a miss and turning it into a hit involves the character whiffing hard... but their target attempts to dodge, and by coincidence puts themselves right where the PC's missed swing happens to be landing.
How I picture it in game isn’t so much taking another shot but that you simply extra focus yourself whether opening a lock or aiming a shot a half second longer than normal. It’s not an auto success by any means.
I feel like that accurately describes some feats and abilities that allow rerolls under certain circumstances, like a Fighter's Indomitable or something like that. But I feel like, flavor-wise, it doesn't really work with Lucky. I tend to think of it more as something out of a player's control. Like... I picture taking a miss and turning it into a hit involves the character whiffing hard... but their target attempts to dodge, and by coincidence puts themselves right where the PC's missed swing happens to be landing.
Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. The way Lucky works is just a mechanical explanation of in-game events. The fact that the player might take a few extra seconds to roll another die to perhaps succeed doesn't mean that, for the character, the time is rewound or anything like that. It just means that a few times a day the character has a bit of luck and succeed at something they might otherwise have failed at.
I don't feel it is generally OP. It's a limited resource, and it takes sacrificing an ASI or another feat to gain it.
The one thing I don't like is that it can turn disadvantage into super-advantage. If a roll with disadvantage using lucky is more likely to succeed than a roll with neither advantage nor disadvantage using lucky (and the same as a roll with advantage using lucky), something is squiffy. It just feels... wrong. Yes, you are lucky, but disadvantage should still be worse than advantage or neither.
I would probably house rule that you need to roll with disadvantage first, take the lower number, then roll your extra lucky dice and choose from those two. I would make it clear that this was the case before allowing the player to take lucky, though.
I don't feel it is generally OP. It's a limited resource, and it takes sacrificing an ASI or another feat to gain it.
The one thing I don't like is that it can turn disadvantage into super-advantage. If a roll with disadvantage using lucky is more likely to succeed than a roll with neither advantage nor disadvantage using lucky (and the same as a roll with advantage using lucky), something is squiffy. It just feels... wrong. Yes, you are lucky, but disadvantage should still be worse than advantage or neither.
I would probably house rule that you need to roll with disadvantage first, take the lower number, then roll your extra lucky dice and choose from those two. I would make it clear that this was the case before allowing the player to take lucky, though.
As some folks pointed out if you did it this way then Advantage you would get to roll Advantage, pick the higher number then roll your lucky die. If you have Elven Accuracy then it's you do this for Advantage, then again for EA then again for lucky.
It would make using lucky with Adv proc crits a bit more common.
I would probably house rule that you need to roll with disadvantage first, take the lower number, then roll your extra lucky dice and choose from those two.
That is how we have played it. Didn't realize it was a "house rule." To me (and my group, I think -- no one has objected), the lower die is "the roll" you are re-rolling with your luck. The higher die never factored in, because it isn't, for lack of better term, "the roll."
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.
I wouldn't have, either, if I hadn't been trawling these forums. I think there's even Sage Advice saying that, on disadvantage, roll all 3 and choose the highest. It's ridiculous, but RAW.
I wouldn't have, either, if I hadn't been trawling these forums. I think there's even Sage Advice saying that, on disadvantage, roll all 3 and choose the highest. It's ridiculous, but RAW.
Here it is:
How does the Lucky feat interact with advantage and disadvantage?
The Lucky feat represents extraordinary luck that can help you when you need it most. It lets you spend a luck point; roll an extra d20 for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw; and then choose which d20 to use. This is true no matter how many d20s are in the mix. For example, if you have advantage or disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use. You still have advantage or disadvantage, since the feat doesn’t say it negates it, but you get to pick the die. The upshot of this fact is that a rogue, for instance, who has disadvantage on an attack roll couldn’t use Sneak Attack even if the rogue uses the Lucky feat to pick the die.
The Lucky feat is a great example of an exception to a general rule. The general rule in this case is the one that tells us how advantage and disadvantage work. The specific rule is the Lucky feat, and we know that a specific rule trumps a general rule if they conflict with each other.
If a DM wants advantage and disadvantage to play their normal roles even when the Lucky feat is used, here’s a way to do so: roll two d20s for advantage/disadvantage, roll a third d20 for Lucky, eliminate one of the three dice, and then use the higher (for advantage) or lower (for disadvantage) of the two dice that remain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The original question was what Build would run Lucky as a Primary Feat. I submit...
Halfling / Human - The Master of Fate - Divination Wizard (Portent) and Lucky, if Halfling maybe Bountiful Luck. This would be a control / support role.
The amount of dice manipulation on this would be crazy, never role a 1 (halfling), have your save or suck spells land more often (Portent), maintain spells or add to survivability Lucky. DM's would hate it.
The original question was what Build would run Lucky as a Primary Feat. I submit...
Halfling / Human - The Master of Fate - Divination Wizard (Portent) and Lucky, if Halfling maybe Bountiful Luck. This would be a control / support role.
The amount of dice manipulation on this would be crazy, never role a 1 (halfling), have your save or suck spells land more often (Portent), maintain spells or add to survivability Lucky. DM's would hate it.
Halfling's Lucky racial trait doesn't say that you'll never roll a 1, it says that you can reroll if you roll a one but must use the new roll. While rolling back to back 1s is a low probability (.05×.05=.0025 or 0.25% chance) it's still possible. Just clarification for anyone that reads it and thinks that it can never happen as opposed to the minimal chance that it is.
I'm considering doing something like this for a potential future build. The thought was having a wild magic sorcerer who is a gambler and is favored of Lady Luck but seeks out ways of hedging every bet by playing the contingencies. I'd have to see what other options could play off that theme, but there are enough options available to allow for a few builds.
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.
That's not strictly true... They can take a feat they did not tell me about ahead of time, if they can explain to me how it works in-game. For example, at level 4, the cleric came to me with the idea of taking the Ritual Caster feat, and choosing Wizard spells. This surprised me until he brought up the fact that his cleric had kept going back to the town's divination wizard asking for cartomancy readings, and that he had become very interested in this kind of spellcasting. He went to her and offered to pay her for some spells to start his spell book, and she gave him Identify (and I can't remember what else) -- one she had used for the party a number of times before, so he had watched her do it. This made in-character sense, so I had no problem with it.
But then I have good players, and I generally don't have to worry about them taking in-character things, since they pretty much always do.
Does a Ranger who takes Gloomstalker at level 3 have to explain how they all of the sudden can see and disappear in the dark?
I would probably house rule that you need to roll with disadvantage first, take the lower number, then roll your extra lucky dice and choose from those two.
That is how we have played it. Didn't realize it was a "house rule." To me (and my group, I think -- no one has objected), the lower die is "the roll" you are re-rolling with your luck. The higher die never factored in, because it isn't, for lack of better term, "the roll."
This is intuitively what I thought until I saw a discussion about it. Then I reread the feat and could not argue with it. As written, disadvantage becomes (effectively) double advantage. What's more, if you roll with disadvantage and the higher number is a 20, you can just choose to turn it into a crit if you have a lucky die to spend.
This is how lucky applies to my folk hero bard!, they get dragged into random adventures when they try to relax but since it happens so often they kinda just go with the flow of it and because of that they have uncanny and incredibly good luck
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
K.D. Rey
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's not strictly true... They can take a feat they did not tell me about ahead of time, if they can explain to me how it works in-game. For example, at level 4, the cleric came to me with the idea of taking the Ritual Caster feat, and choosing Wizard spells. This surprised me until he brought up the fact that his cleric had kept going back to the town's divination wizard asking for cartomancy readings, and that he had become very interested in this kind of spellcasting. He went to her and offered to pay her for some spells to start his spell book, and she gave him Identify (and I can't remember what else) -- one she had used for the party a number of times before, so he had watched her do it. This made in-character sense, so I had no problem with it.
But then I have good players, and I generally don't have to worry about them taking in-character things, since they pretty much always do.
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.
Would a fighter who uses a bow all the time have to justify sharpshooter? or would that one explain itself?
What about something like Resilient (CON)?
No judgements just curiosity.
Personally? I think it's the fact that it changes a roll that has been already made. DMs don't like it because it interrupts the flow and alters their plans. Things that mess with or change rolls are the bane of a DMs existence.
How can Lucky mess with plans? A die was rolled, and then it was re-rolled. You can't really make plans in the few seconds between the two rolls. You say, "Roll to hit," and the Lucky character's player rolls a nat 3. Darn, he says. OK, using Lucky. Re-rolls and gets a 19. "Hit" says the DM. At what point would I have started making plans?
If you mean that it could confer a successful roll when the DM planned the roll to fail, I submit that as a DM you ought not to be relying on a die roll for your plans to go well or not. If a single die roll is going to eff with your adventure that much, then I suspect the adventure was overly fragile to begin with in terms of what you were planning.
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.
I never mind it when a player uses Lucky. To be honest, the vast majority of the time most people don’t use lucky in combat and even if they do, I’m already dealing with a fairly optimized 11th level Fighter with Sharpshooter and a +2 Longbow, another 11th level Battlemaster with a +1 Longbow, an 11th level Warlock with EB, and an 11th level Barbarian with a massive magic sword. When the non-optimized Battlemaster uses lucky to reroll to make sure she hits for a maneuver to work, that’s the least of my worries.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
How I picture it in game isn’t so much taking another shot but that you simply extra focus yourself whether opening a lock or aiming a shot a half second longer than normal. It’s not an auto success by any means.
DM - And In The Darkness, Rot: The Sunless Citadel
DM - Our Little Lives Kept In Equipoise: Curse of Strahd
DM - Misprize Thou Not These Shadows That Belong: The Lost Mines of Phandelver
PC - Azzure - Tyranny of Dragons
Who hurt you so bad to make you think AL is unenjoyable? Having played both homebrewed and AL, I love them both. Though, I suppose that's neither here nor there.
ANYWAYS, is it so wrong to turn one disadvantaged roll into "maybe super advantage?" Keep in mind, you only get to spend 3 such luck points in a given adventuring day, and also keep in mind, taking lucky effectively means a character has skipped over an ASI that may provide much more reliable and generalized benefits. It's an investment that player decided they wanted, and as far as in-story reasons go for taking it, the very innate and mere existence of being an adventurer that gets to go on a cool journey and survive a battle or two is all the justification needed for taking the feat.
Heck, if a lvl 11 fighter wants to use up all their luck points to turn their disadvantage attacks into advantage so he might possibly have a cool moment, what's wrong with that? At the end of the day, such a player used up all their luck points into one round! He won't have it for any future saves. If he uses his points for making a mental-based save that happens to be his dump stat, chances aren't looking much better that he'll make the save regardless, and if it's for ensuring he makes a save he's good at, then chances are he was going to make it anyways.
It's just an extra roll, 3 times a day.
I feel like that accurately describes some feats and abilities that allow rerolls under certain circumstances, like a Fighter's Indomitable or something like that. But I feel like, flavor-wise, it doesn't really work with Lucky. I tend to think of it more as something out of a player's control. Like... I picture taking a miss and turning it into a hit involves the character whiffing hard... but their target attempts to dodge, and by coincidence puts themselves right where the PC's missed swing happens to be landing.
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
Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. The way Lucky works is just a mechanical explanation of in-game events. The fact that the player might take a few extra seconds to roll another die to perhaps succeed doesn't mean that, for the character, the time is rewound or anything like that. It just means that a few times a day the character has a bit of luck and succeed at something they might otherwise have failed at.
The only time I used Lucky was on a halfling Wild Magic Sorcerer, and I also ended up with Bountiful Luck and Second Chance.
The DM ended up hating me for all the random re-rolls and additional dice I tossed on everyone. It was fun, but it did bog down the game.
I don't feel it is generally OP. It's a limited resource, and it takes sacrificing an ASI or another feat to gain it.
The one thing I don't like is that it can turn disadvantage into super-advantage. If a roll with disadvantage using lucky is more likely to succeed than a roll with neither advantage nor disadvantage using lucky (and the same as a roll with advantage using lucky), something is squiffy. It just feels... wrong. Yes, you are lucky, but disadvantage should still be worse than advantage or neither.
I would probably house rule that you need to roll with disadvantage first, take the lower number, then roll your extra lucky dice and choose from those two. I would make it clear that this was the case before allowing the player to take lucky, though.
As some folks pointed out if you did it this way then Advantage you would get to roll Advantage, pick the higher number then roll your lucky die. If you have Elven Accuracy then it's you do this for Advantage, then again for EA then again for lucky.
It would make using lucky with Adv proc crits a bit more common.
That is how we have played it. Didn't realize it was a "house rule." To me (and my group, I think -- no one has objected), the lower die is "the roll" you are re-rolling with your luck. The higher die never factored in, because it isn't, for lack of better term, "the roll."
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.
I wouldn't have, either, if I hadn't been trawling these forums. I think there's even Sage Advice saying that, on disadvantage, roll all 3 and choose the highest. It's ridiculous, but RAW.
Here it is:
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The original question was what Build would run Lucky as a Primary Feat. I submit...
Halfling / Human - The Master of Fate - Divination Wizard (Portent) and Lucky, if Halfling maybe Bountiful Luck. This would be a control / support role.
The amount of dice manipulation on this would be crazy, never role a 1 (halfling), have your save or suck spells land more often (Portent), maintain spells or add to survivability Lucky. DM's would hate it.
I am the Patron of Light, not its Patron Saint. ***Casts Flame Strike ***
Halfling's Lucky racial trait doesn't say that you'll never roll a 1, it says that you can reroll if you roll a one but must use the new roll. While rolling back to back 1s is a low probability (.05×.05=.0025 or 0.25% chance) it's still possible. Just clarification for anyone that reads it and thinks that it can never happen as opposed to the minimal chance that it is.
I'm considering doing something like this for a potential future build. The thought was having a wild magic sorcerer who is a gambler and is favored of Lady Luck but seeks out ways of hedging every bet by playing the contingencies. I'd have to see what other options could play off that theme, but there are enough options available to allow for a few builds.
Does a Ranger who takes Gloomstalker at level 3 have to explain how they all of the sudden can see and disappear in the dark?
This is intuitively what I thought until I saw a discussion about it. Then I reread the feat and could not argue with it. As written, disadvantage becomes (effectively) double advantage. What's more, if you roll with disadvantage and the higher number is a 20, you can just choose to turn it into a crit if you have a lucky die to spend.
This is how lucky applies to my folk hero bard!, they get dragged into random adventures when they try to relax but since it happens so often they kinda just go with the flow of it and because of that they have uncanny and incredibly good luck
K.D. Rey