Advantage/Disadvantage: What counts as a "roll"?

[Lanced Crescent]

So I saw the Sage ruling on the Lucky Feat, and a scenario popped into my head:

Say you have advantage, and you quicken a true strike, which you use on a cantrip, just because. You roll a 1, which is an auto-fail, and then some other number.

Question: is the True Strike essentially "wasted" on the 1, or is the process of making an attack roll, or any "roll" really, inclusive of determining which physical die roll you use when you have advantage or disadvantage?

[HoarsHalberd]

So I saw the Sage ruling on the Lucky Feat, and a scenario popped into my head:

Say you have advantage, and you quicken a true strike, which you use on a cantrip, just because. You roll a 1, which is an auto-fail, and then some other number.

Question: is the True Strike essentially "wasted" on the 1, or is the process of making an attack roll, or any "roll" really, inclusive of determining which physical die roll you use when you have advantage or disadvantage?

1 is not an auto-fail by RAW first of all. Secondly, advantage always picks the higher number anyway. Like how if you roll disadvantage and get a 20 and an 8(for example), you don't crit but instead probably miss. If you're playing with crit-fails then you're playing with essentially a house rule (though the most prevalent one I'd imagine) and hence you're better off asking your DM.

[Ninja_Prawn]

1 is not an auto-fail by RAW first of all. Secondly, advantage always picks the higher number anyway. Like how if you roll disadvantage and get a 20 and an 8(for example), you don't crit but instead probably miss. If you're playing with crit-fails then you're playing with essentially a house rule (though the most prevalent one I'd imagine) and hence you're better off asking your DM.

Yeah... If you have advantage and then cast True Strike, it's already wasted because True Strike just gives you advantage. They don't stack. And you can use a luck point after the advantaged roll.

[HoarsHalberd]

Yeah... If you have advantage and then cast True Strike, it's already wasted because True Strike just gives you advantage. They don't stack. And you can use a luck point after the advantaged roll.

I think the advantage mentioned was meant to be from True strike they just got their order of events wrong. The rest of it seems to imply they were talking about the advantage in the first place.

[Lanced Crescent]

Firstly, whoops, I thought True Strike still gave +20 to an attack roll. So for that specific case, yeah, no problems then.

As for auto-fails, 1's still are. Right on p 194 of the PHB, under making an attack, it says 1's are misses when you roll an attack roll, along with 20's being crits.

So to phrase it another way, say you get a numerical bonus to the first attack roll. The same question, basically, except instead of True Strike, you get a generic bonus.

[ProphetSword]

When rolling Advantage or Disadvantage the other die doesn't count. If you have something that affects the roll in some way, it will affect the outcome of the roll because the other die does not matter in the equation.

Example: I have something that will throw a +5 on my roll (like Bardic Inspiration, for example). I have advantage. I roll a 3 and an 18. I now have 18+5 = 23; because the 3 didn't count. I selected 18 as my roll. It acts as though I just rolled 18 and nothing else.

Just because you are rolling more the one die doesn't matter. Your roll is the one selected and the other die does not count against you if the ability says it only affects the first roll or first attack or whatever.

[Lanced Crescent]

Okay, I actually agree with that. I'm just scratching my head about the Lucky Feat ruling, since it seems to count advantaged/disadvantaged rolls with the additional roll from Lucky as 3 separate rolls you can choose from. I guess I have a sound basis for arguing against that ruling in games, now that I've clarified the logic behind rolls.

[CNagy]

Okay, I actually agree with that. I'm just scratching my head about the Lucky Feat ruling, since it seems to count advantaged/disadvantaged rolls with the additional roll from Lucky as 3 separate rolls you can choose from. I guess I have a sound basis for arguing against that ruling in games, now that I've clarified the logic behind rolls.

A roll is any number of dice that you roll for a specific purpose. The attack roll is 1d20. A damage roll is all the dice you are rolling to deal damage; the weapon's damage dice, sneak attack dice, rider effect dice, critical hit dice, etc.

An attack roll with (dis)advantage is 2d20, and the rules for advantage and disadvantage tell you how to resolve the roll. Lucky just lets you add 1d20 to a few specific types of rolls, and allows you to handpick the die result that will resolve whatever it is you are rolling for. Advantage and disadvantage are what you would call the general rules in place, Lucky has specific rules that overrides how advantage and disadvantage rolls resolve.

[Wartex1]

The Lucky feat, if you have advantage or disadvantage, has you roll a third die, and then pick from any of the three rolls.

It turns disadvantage into super advantage.

[whibla]

The Lucky feat ... turns disadvantage into super advantage.

I confess, I do not follow WotC's twitter feed etc. so if there's a post regarding this feel free to correct me, but this is how I have interpreted the interaction between disadvantage and the Lucky feat.

Disadvantage - roll 2 dice, you are assumed to have rolled the lower of the two. For example you rolled 11 and 8, your roll is 8.

Figuring this might not be high enough you chose to roll again, using a luck point. Let's say you roll a 7.

You may only choose between the 7 and the 8. The dice you rolled the 11 on was discarded as part of the disadvantage, so it is not available for you to choose as a result of being Lucky.

Lucky turns advantage into super advantage, but it turns disadvantage into, at best, advantage, nothing more.

As said though, feel free to correct me*.

*With a reference, not an opinion please :smallwink:

[Wartex1]

I confess, I do not follow WotC's twitter feed etc. so if there's a post regarding this feel free to correct me, but this is how I have interpreted the interaction between disadvantage and the Lucky feat.

Disadvantage - roll 2 dice, you are assumed to have rolled the lower of the two. For example you rolled 11 and 8, your roll is 8.

Figuring this might not be high enough you chose to roll again, using a luck point. Let's say you roll a 7.

You may only choose between the 7 and the 8. The dice you rolled the 11 on was discarded as part of the disadvantage, so it is not available for you to choose as a result of being Lucky.

Lucky turns advantage into super advantage, but it turns disadvantage into, at best, advantage, nothing more.

As said though, feel free to correct me*.

*With a reference, not an opinion please :smallwink:

Right here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats

[Slipperychicken]

Right here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats

Crawford also confirmed in a tweet that he meant the "super advantage" ruling.

[Lanced Crescent]

Lucky has specific rules that overrides how advantage and disadvantage rolls resolve.

See, this is what I absolutely don't see in the wording of the feat. I know about the super advantage thing. I just don't see the basis for it in the text.

So, if you'll indulge me, since I sincerely want to know, why isn't Lucky, by RAW, simply restricted to letting you choose between one of the 2 d20's you roll for advantage/disadvantage and the d20 that Lucky lets you roll in addition to that?

Aside from Crawford saying so, I mean.

[Ninja_Prawn]

See, this is what I absolutely don't see in the wording of the feat. I know about the super advantage thing. I just don't see the basis for it in the text.

So, if you'll indulge me, since I sincerely want to know, why isn't Lucky, by RAW, simply restricted to letting you choose between one of the 2 d20's you roll for advantage/disadvantage and the d20 that Lucky lets you roll in addition to that?

Aside from Crawford saying so, I mean.

I'm with you on this one. Crawford's ruling is nonsense. Lucky + Disadvantage should give you a choice between the lucky die and the lower of the the two original dice.

Although... rereading the feat, Super Advantage is supported by the RAW. It says you "choose which of the d20s". With disadvantage, you roll 3no d20s, so you can choose any of them.

If it said "choose which of the rolls", I would read that as the disadvantaged roll is one roll and you could only choose the lower d20.

[CNagy]

See, this is what I absolutely don't see in the wording of the feat. I know about the super advantage thing. I just don't see the basis for it in the text.

So, if you'll indulge me, since I sincerely want to know, why isn't Lucky, by RAW, simply restricted to letting you choose between one of the 2 d20's you roll for advantage/disadvantage and the d20 that Lucky lets you roll in addition to that?

Aside from Crawford saying so, I mean.

Because you don't resolve the advantage/disadvantage roll before using Lucky. It's not two separate rolls (a disadvantage attack/ability/skill roll and a lucky roll) it is one roll; an attack/ability/skill roll with disadvantage and lucky tacked on. Specific beats general, and Lucky says you get to pick which of the d20s is used. If you resolved disadvantage first, then in the case of rolling 3 and 20, then rolling 11 as the additional lucky d20, you wouldn't be able to choose the 20--which is directly contradictory to Lucky's rules, as the 20 was definitely one of the dice rolled and thus should be able to be selected.

Interestingly enough, by RAW it is not the same when you are affecting an attacker's attack roll. There, it specifies that you choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or your own. In that case, by the way it is written, the opponent resolves his advantage (most likely scenario) to come up with a result, and then you choose between that or your own lucky roll.

Non-rules related: I think this makes sense thematically, as well. Lucky is about inexplicable luck that kicks in at just the right moment. When might you need a lucky break more than when you find yourself in an awful set of circumstances? But while it is powerful in its ability to bring out the best result in your own actions, it is more limited in how it can reach out and affect others (at least, as written.) Someone should tweet Crawford for a clarification on the attacker's attack roll, but that's the RAW as I see it.

[Chronos]

The rules for advantage and disadvantage make the interaction clear, and they do not agree with Crawford's ruling. Neither does Crawford's ruling agree with anything resembling common sense.

[ProphetSword]

The rules for advantage and disadvantage make the interaction clear, and they do not agree with Crawford's ruling. Neither does Crawford's ruling agree with anything resembling common sense.

Unless I misunderstand him, I would say that his ruling does support the rules. Which is this:

Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check. or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.

Sounds to me like you spend a luck point and roll an additional d20 along with the number you already have (whether that's one or two). Then you use a luck point to pick one of the dice (whether that's two or three).

It's pretty clear. I'd be happy to hear why you disagree, though, as I am curious as to your position on it. It's possible I misunderstood what he said.

[CNagy]

The rules for advantage and disadvantage make the interaction clear, and they do not agree with Crawford's ruling. Neither does Crawford's ruling agree with anything resembling common sense.

Again, those are the general rules. Lucky has specific rules. Specific trumps general. At what point does fate-altering luck have anything to do with common sense?

[Chronos]

The rules for advantage are the specific rules, because they actually address the interaction, while the Lucky feat does not address the interaction, and so is the more general rule.

[CNagy]

The rules for advantage are the specific rules, because they actually address the interaction, while the Lucky feat does not address the interaction, and so is the more general rule.

That's not how those terms are used. General rules are the rules of the game as it is typically played. Typically, your attack roll will be 1d20. Typically, Advantage and Disadvantage will mean rolling 2d20 and picking the highest or lowest, as applicable. Typically, you are incapacitated at 0 HP. Typically, it takes half of your movement to stand up from prone. Etc, etc. General rules are the rules as they exist before you start adding exceptions (commonly in the form of class features, feats, spells, and the odd other stuff.)

So Lucky specifically changes the process for any of your rolls that it is applied to. It adds a d20 to the roll and gives the player their pick of which d20 they will use to resolve the roll. That is a specific exception to the general rules of how those rolls are resolved.

[Anlashok]

The rules for advantage and disadvantage make the interaction clear, and they do not agree with Crawford's ruling. Neither does Crawford's ruling agree with anything resembling common sense.

Dunno. I can see the argument that you might think turning disadvantage into advantage+ is dumb, because it is a pretty huge power swing... but not liking something doesn't make it invalid and "you choose which of the d20s is used..." is honestly as explicit as rules text can get. I cannot imagine how you can interpret "you choose which of the d20s is used" to mean anything other than you getting to choose which of the 20ds gets used. Because that's what it says pretty plainly.

Common sense is irrelevant when discussing rules text because it's subjective, as clearly stated here. What you find completely beyond the pale other people are finding intuitive and not that big of a deal.


The rules for advantage are the specific rules, because they actually address the interaction, while the Lucky feat does not address the interaction, and so is the more general rule.
That's not even a little bit what SvG actually refers to.

[Lanced Crescent]

Because you don't resolve the advantage/disadvantage roll before using Lucky. It's not two separate rolls (a disadvantage attack/ability/skill roll and a lucky roll) it is one roll; an attack/ability/skill roll with disadvantage and lucky tacked on. Specific beats general, and Lucky says you get to pick which of the d20s is used. If you resolved disadvantage first, then in the case of rolling 3 and 20, then rolling 11 as the additional lucky d20, you wouldn't be able to choose the 20--which is directly contradictory to Lucky's rules, as the 20 was definitely one of the dice rolled and thus should be able to be selected.

Interestingly enough, by RAW it is not the same when you are affecting an attacker's attack roll. There, it specifies that you choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or your own. In that case, by the way it is written, the opponent resolves his advantage (most likely scenario) to come up with a result, and then you choose between that or your own lucky roll.

Non-rules related: I think this makes sense thematically, as well. Lucky is about inexplicable luck that kicks in at just the right moment. When might you need a lucky break more than when you find yourself in an awful set of circumstances? But while it is powerful in its ability to bring out the best result in your own actions, it is more limited in how it can reach out and affect others (at least, as written.) Someone should tweet Crawford for a clarification on the attacker's attack roll, but that's the RAW as I see it.

I disagree. The Lucky Feat says when "you make a roll... " I interpret this as meaning a roll with advantage/disadvantage has already resolved which of the higher/lower die is used. Thus, you end up choosing between two dice.

Thematically, someone getting inexplicably lucky is okay, but why is it better when you're on the ropes? Someone being lucky while doing something smart should be better off than someone doing something intentionally stupid just to harness that luck to greater effect.

Going prone in melee to get disadvantage on the attack roll, and then using the Lucky Feat to get super advantage, is just monumentally absurd.

[Hawkstar]

Of course Lucky turns Disadvantage into Super Advantage.
Just think of it as a Million To One Chance!

Without disadvantage on the roll, it's pretty much Almost a Sure Thing. How many people have you heard say "It's almost a sure thing, but it just might work!"?

As for the "Rolling a 1 is an autofail" issue that started this whole thread - If, through Advantage or Lucky you end up rolling a non-1 number, the 1 might as well not exist.

[CNagy]

I disagree. The Lucky Feat says when "you make a roll... " I interpret this as meaning a roll with advantage/disadvantage has already resolved which of the higher/lower die is used. Thus, you end up choosing between two dice.

The word "additional" shows that the lucky die is part of the roll, not a second roll after the fact. If they wanted the rolls to be separate, it would say "spend one luck point to roll another d20, you may choose which roll is used for the attack, saving throw, or ability check." The description of how you use Lucky against an opponent's attack roll says almost exactly that.


...why is it better...?

It's inexplicable. Ours is not to reason why, to misquote a poet.


...it is just monumentally absurd.

It's actually monumentally meta. I would require the player to roleplay his fumble to glory, because the character does not know when his luck will strike or that it is in limited amount (or that it even actually exists) and so choosing to go to ground for a better chance is a breach of character knowledge. This where the fighter attempts to attack the orc, but slips and falls on a stray bit of gravel. As he picks himself up off the ground, he realizes that he somehow managed to stab the creature in the throat during his flailing.

[KorvinStarmast]

The word "additional" shows that the lucky die is part of the roll, not a second roll after the fact.
Respectfully disagree.
Per this language:


You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined.

That leads me to believe that Lucky Feat is a separate roll, contingent upon the number you roll, be it a regular roll, and advantage roll or a disadvantage roll.

Scenario one: you roll a single die to hit, and it comes up a low number. Before the roll is judges a hit or miss, you choose to expend a lucky feat point and you roll another.

Scenario two: you roll two dice, and you are at disadvantage. One roll is higher, the other quite low. You burn a lucky point and roll that third die, hoping to overcome that low disadvantage roll. Some of the discussion here had me thinking that when rolling your lucky feat die, you then took the hightest of the three even if you had disadvantage ... which doesn't make sense to me.

Third scenario: you roll two dice, and have advantage, but you roll a 2 and a 3. (Not your day for dice). You choose to roll a third die using that Lucky feat.

That seems logical, two separate rolls, and yes it is meta. That appears to be by design.

I do not have a link to Mr Crawford's tweet, so perhaps I am missing something important.

The Sage advice article isn't any more clear then the language says to choose one of three: that makes sense if your roll was originally with advantage, but makes me puzzled if you began with disadvantage.
What Lucky does, if you read that post, is turn disadvantage into advantage.

The Lucky feat 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 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 disadvantage, since the feat doesn’t say it gets rid of it, but you do get to pick the die.

The Lucky feat is a great example of an exception to a general rule. The general rule I have in mind is the one that tells us how advantage and disadvantage work (PH, 173). The specific rule is the Lucky feat, and we know that a specific rule trumps a general rule if they conflict with each other (PH, 7).
If that was what was intended, a bit more care in how that rule was written in the book would have been nice.

[Steampunkette]

Lucky Supersedes disadvantage.

It turns disadvantage into a form of super advantage. That is the real "Power" of the Lucky feat, to make your character ridiculously lucky to overcome the odds.

[KorvinStarmast]

Lucky Supersedes disadvantage.

It turns disadvantage into a form of super advantage. That is the real "Power" of the Lucky feat, to make your character ridiculously lucky to overcome the odds.Subtitle:

"Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as a matter of habit."

[Steampunkette]

Exactly. It's second use is just as powerful.

Super Disadvantage.

If you get attacked you can roll 1d20 and choose whether the enemy uses your die or theirs. If they've got Advantage, that gives you 3 dice to choose from for the enemy's attack roll on you, and you're always going to pick the lowest as the die they rolled.

[CNagy]

That leads me to believe that Lucky Feat is a separate roll, contingent upon the number you roll, be it a regular roll, and advantage roll or a disadvantage roll.

The Sage advice article isn't any more clear then the language says to choose one of three: that makes sense if your roll was originally with advantage, but makes me puzzled if you began with disadvantage.
What Lucky does, if you read that post, is turn disadvantage into advantage.

If that was what was intended, a bit more care in how that rule was written in the book would have been nice.

Not to be a ****, but quoting things out of context can lead a person to believe a lot of things. The context right before that line is that when you make an attack, ability check, or saving throw, you can spend a point to roll an additional d20. What you quoted just clarifies the mechanics of when you can choose to roll that d20.

The fact that it uses the word additional is clear in showing that it is one roll with multiple dice. If you get an additional coke added to your order, it's still one bill. If you get an additional 30 minutes for your training session, it's still one session. In fact, getting to choose after you've rolled whether or not you want to roll an additional d20 goes out of the way to make the case: the roll isn't yet finished, has not been resolved, add another d20 to it and then pick the one you like.

Lucky turning disadvantage into advantage is a misunderstanding of what (dis)advantage is. It is like a tag added to the roll; the disadvantage tag says roll 2d20 and use the lower result. But beyond that it also has mechanical effects. It denies the disadvantaged person from using sneak attack, for example. Even if you change the rolling part of disadvantage to 3d20, pick your favorite, you haven't changed the fact that the attack is still tagged with disadvantage. If Lucky truly turned disadvantage into advantage, then a Rogue could use Lucky points at any time to qualify for a Sneak Attack. But he can't, because Lucky doesn't say anything about changing what the roll is called, just how many dice are used and how it is resolved.