Lucky feat question

[Rhaegar]

Lucky:
You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment.
You have 3 luck ppoints. 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.
You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours.
If more than one creature spends a luck point to influence the outcome of a roll, the points cancel eachother out; no additional dice are rolled.
You regain your expended luck points when you finish a long rest.

At my last session we had a bit of a debate on how to handle the lucky feat in regards to using it on an enemy attacking the player. At our table we use hidden dice in regards the enemies attack rolls.

Player A: He first argued that the attackers dice should be able to be seen to determine whether luck should even be used, I completely shot that down, as if you're using hidden monster dice at the table, that allows the lucky person to see virtually every attack, and than just not use luck. He then argued that the person with Lucky should at least be able to see the monsters die roll after luck is used, so that the player can at least choose the more optimal roll, and not inadvertently pick the enemies crit over the players 19 roll for instance. Arguing that getting crit when you used lucky when you could have not been crit isn't very lucky.

Player B: Says that Rules as written it doesn't say anything about having any extra insight on what the monster rolls just that you choose whether you want the enemies attack roll or your luck roll. If the enemy happened to crit and you chose that crit, you aren't any worse off than if you hadn't used the crit. If were using hidden dice at the table than dice stay hidden.

Player C: The person who has Lucky, and the wife of player A. "I'll probably never use it on an enemies attack against me anyways so lets just move on."

Now the situation never actually came up, and may never come up. I was just curious as to exactly how other DMs who use hidden monster attack dice handle the lucky feat. Do you let the player know what the monster rolled? Do you automatically give the player the best die result? Or do you let them choose with the one die hidden, possibly choosing the worse result?

RAW seems to imply that they choose despite the monsters die hidden. I'm not opposed to letting the player have the best die option though. I also thought it would be funny if the enemy crit, but the player chose to use their luck, but kept the enemies roll, I could have the monster stumble miss the intended player completely but end up critting a nearby ally. Perhaps way off RAW but Rules as Funny.

[Oramac]

Do you automatically give the player the best die result?

I'm no expert by any stretch, but were I running it, this is what I would do. I just wouldn't tell the player what was rolled on the monster side.

[coredump]

There is no RAW was to do it, or rather, all of those options are acceptable based on RAW.

I'm not positive what I would do..... Likely I would be somewhat lenient.

[Talamare]

This game has quite a few features that rely on public DM combat rolls. So my first suggestion right off the bat is to just make it freaking public...

Otherwise, RAW is technically B. However you're really making the feat a lot less attractive. Since there is a fair chance that he's actually converting misses into hits
Which is NOT the intention

Seriously tho, make combat rolls freaking public

tldr? Make combat rolls public

[The DS Acolyte]

As a DM I keep my rolls hidden but I announce when a creature is making an attack or a saving throw etc and allow my players to burn a point of lucky to give the monster disadvantage which I roll and keep secret

[Alejandro]

There are several luck mechanics, not just Lucky. Halflings, for example. Really, I think the issue here is the hidden GM rolls. I'd just make the attack rolls in full view of the players. After all, they have to do that for you...

[Icewraith]

You need to spend the luck point to even make the roll, the way the feat is written.

A player that uses a luck point and gets critted anyways because they can't see the DM's roll is worse off than if they had not used the luck point or had taken a different feat or ASI.

Note however that the prohibition on using the luck point after the roll's outcome has been determined can be read to only apply when the player is using the luck point on their own rolls. You have to actually roll dice to make an attack roll, so the player can clearly declare use of lucky after the DM rolls to hit them.

The feat also states that the player chooses which roll is used.

If using the hidden dice rule, I'd say the player probably gets to use lucky after the DM announces the result (hit, miss, or crit) but before damage is determined.

If the DM rolls in the open (and rolls attack and damage dice together), the player will have a good idea of how much the attack will hurt them but will not know whether or not the roll is a hit or miss. The monster may have a very high or very low to hit bonus. The potential to "waste a roll" turning a miss into even more of a miss is there. However, the player may see the damage dice come up ones and choose not to use Lucky. The player will probably always use lucky if they see a 20.

If the DM rolls in secret, using this method, the player can try to roll to negate hits and crits, but without any clue as to how bad the hit will be. They may "waste a roll" trying to prevent a hit where the damage die came up a 1 (which might not happen if the DM is rolling openly), or if a hit is declared they will choose their own dice without knowing whether or not the die would actually help (if the DM were rolling openly the player would choose the lower of the two die).

[Rhaegar]

In regards to those who state, "just do open rolls" All the players and I discussed this before we started the campaign, and the subject has come up at other times along the way, and all the players are either in favor of keeping the dice hidden, or don't care one way or the other. As such the dice are going to stay hidden. They like the option that I might potentially be able to save them from obscenely terrible luck, or use small dice adjustments to guide the story along.

I'm leaning towards keeping the dice hidden but giving them the best die result.

[bid]

I was just curious as to exactly how other DMs who use hidden monster attack dice handle the lucky feat. Do you let the player know what the monster rolled? Do you automatically give the player the best die result? Or do you let them choose with the one die hidden, possibly choosing the worse result?
Which option in there gives the most fun?

I agree that seeing the rolls is too much, but the player must feel that she is in control. Otherwise the DM starts to look adversarial and we don't want that, don't we?

- "Looks like it's going to be painful."
- "Looks like you can't avoid that one."
- "OMG, I think that's a crit!"

Give her some control, follow sage advice and interpret RAW as "rule as fun".


And no, lucky aint called "jinx": don't transfer damage to another player.

[MaxWilson]

In regards to those who state, "just do open rolls" All the players and I discussed this before we started the campaign, and the subject has come up at other times along the way, and all the players are either in favor of keeping the dice hidden, or don't care one way or the other. As such the dice are going to stay hidden. They like the option that I might potentially be able to save them from obscenely terrible luck, or use small dice adjustments to guide the story along.

I'm leaning towards keeping the dice hidden but giving them the best die result.

It's fine for you guys to play with hidden dice, but allow me to draw an analogy for a second to another rule variant:

The bard and the monk both have high-level abilities which give them back resources (Inspiration and ki respectively) whenever initiative is rolled. Normally this would be once per combat, but there is a variant rule in the DMG called Speed Factor Initiative which makes initiative be rolled once per round. Going strictly by RAW, this would make the bards' and monks' abilities incredibly strong when you're using Speed Factor Initiative--so of course, any sane DM will take care to modify these abilities at the same time as he modifies the initiative system.

I think you're in the same boat. From reading the PHB rules including the rules for Lucky, I get the impression that the designers had assumed that rolls would be made out in the open (or it would be stupid and pointless to say that you can choose to use Lucky "after the die is rolled"). Since you've modified the way the die is rolled, I think you need to modify Lucky too (and also features like Cutting Words and Bend Luck). Modify it so that your variant rule of "hide the die rolls" feels fair to everyone who is concerned about Lucky. One simple way to do this would be for the players to indicate (via verbal announcement or written on a notecard or something) when they want to enable Lucky ("right now I'm rerolling any attacks between 12 and 15, and also any natural 20s") and then the DM applies Lucky whenever the condition applies, and charges the player one Luck point per usage.

Or, you could play things out exactly the way you have been doing it, but only charge the player half a Luck usage to use it on an enemy attack roll, because it's useful only half the time. (As you say, she probably won't do it anyway.)

[MeeposFire]

Honestly if you are going to use hidden rolls for these sort of abilities you really should describe what is happenning to give the player a good idea about whether they should considre using an ability or not. For instance when using using an ability that keys off an attack if the attack roll is a 3 then you might consider telling the player that the attack "is wild and uncontrolled" and describe it likely being a miss, if a 19 you might talk about how precise it is. If the player asks you might consider describing it. Now if the attack roll will be close to being a hit or a miss (say a 12 at times) then you might describe it as an attack that could be dangerous but could also be deflected thus then they have to make a choice.

[Segev]

Since luck points are spent without knowing what the opponent's die will be in the first place, and you're doing hidden rolls, roll the player's luck die for him, just as hidden as the other dice the attacker might use. Ask the player what his ideal result would be, and choose the die roll that comes closest to granting it. It's probable that he wants the guy to miss, but since technically he can choose to go with the attacker's better die, if he wants the attacker to hit (or crit) against him, he absolutely should have the option of telling you to choose the higher die.

It's not like he needs to know what the actual results are to tell you whether to take the high or low die.

[LordVonDerp]

You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours.


At my last session we had a bit of a debate on how to handle the lucky feat in regards to using it on an enemy attacking the player. At our table we use hidden dice in regards the enemies attack rolls.


RAW seems to imply that they choose despite the monsters die hidden. I'm not opposed to letting the player have the best die option though.

RAW is that the player gets to choose, which of course means they have to know both rolls.
But if you want you can just have it be the better outcome for the player.

The real question is this: when does the player decide to use the luck point? The book doesn't specify but in most cases the plate won't have the chance to say/decide anything until after the DM has already said what the monster rolled.

[Belac93]

Tell them whether the monsters would be a crit, hit, miss, or fumble. Then let them decide if they want to use lucky.

[LordVonDerp]

Since luck points are spent without knowing what the opponent's die will be in the first place, and you're doing hidden rolls, roll the player's luck die for him, just as hidden as the other dice the attacker might use.


Actually, luck points can be used "when an attack roll is made against you" with no mention of not knowing if it will hit.

[coredump]

RAW is that the player gets to choose, which of course means they have to know both rolls. No it doesn't. He is perfectly capable of choosing without knowing both. It may not be optimal, but they certainly don't "have to" know both rolls.

[LordVonDerp]

No it doesn't. He is perfectly capable of choosing without knowing both. It may not be optimal, but they certainly don't "have to" know both rolls.

That would not qualify as a choice

[coredump]

That would not qualify as a choice

That is absurd, of course it is a choice. You can take the '13' that you rolled, *OR* whatever is behind the screen.

That 'or' indicates that a choice is to be made.

[Segev]

It is technically true that it's a choice. It is, however, far less useful of a choice than is assumed to be in the design of the feat.

[Fishybugs]

I see it not so much of a 'choice' as it is a guess. The player should be allowed some information....as the other's said, "rule of fun" should apply, and it's not fun to waste a feat, which were made more useful in this edition, on useless rolls.

[LordVonDerp]

That is absurd, of course it is a choice. You can take the '13' that you rolled, *OR* whatever is behind the screen.

That 'or' indicates that a choice is to be made.

I have two objects, you can take either one but you have no way of knowing what either of them are or what effect picking one will have compared to picking the other.
Is this a choice?
No. Of course not, you lack the information needed to make any meaningful decision, thus it does not qualify as a choice.

Now, you could certainly define choice in a way that includes things that you can't influence, but then things like flipping a coin, breathing, or basically anything you do becomes a choice an the word ceases to have any meaning.

[coredump]

It is technically true that it's a choice. It is, however, far less useful of a choice than is assumed to be in the design of the feat. Could you please give us the link where the designers clarify exactly what they 'assumed' when writing the rules?


I have two objects, you can take either one but you have no way of knowing what either of them are or what effect picking one will have compared to picking the other.
Is this a choice?
No. Of course not, you lack the information needed to make any meaningful decision, thus it does not qualify as a choice.

Now, you could certainly define choice in a way that includes things that you can't influence, but then things like flipping a coin, breathing, or basically anything you do becomes a choice an the word ceases to have any meaning.

Could you please stop making things up just to try and justify your non-sensical assertions?

You *do* know exactly what you rolled on your D20. And you have a *choice* between taking what you rolled, or taking what is 'behind screen #1'. You have a *choice* between taking what you know, or taking a chance. That *is* a choice.

The rest of the post, about 'breathing' and flipping a coin, have no bearing on the situation. Please stop trying to muddle the discussion with such arbitrary comments

[Halinn]

One thing you could do is try just telling them whether it's a hit, miss or crit, and asking if they want to use Lucky. Hide numbers, and if they use Lucky, you roll the die for that as well and just pick the die that's best for the player.

[LordVonDerp]

Could you please stop making things up just to try and justify your non-sensical assertions?

You *do* know exactly what you rolled on your D20. And you have a *choice* between taking what you rolled, or taking what is 'behind screen #1'. You have a *choice* between taking what you know, or taking a chance. That *is* a choice.

The rest of the post, about 'breathing' and flipping a coin, have no bearing on the situation. Please stop trying to muddle the discussion with such arbitrary comments

If mentioning the meaning of the word "choice" is nonsensical in a discussion that hinges on someone making a choice, then any rational discussion is impossible. Now if you wish to ignore the meaning of the word "choice" you are free to do so, but then your statements have little weight to them.

However, given the fact that picking between a mostly unknown die roll and a completely unknown die roll is functionally identical to flipping a coin, the comparison is entirely valid.

[LordVonDerp]

At my last session we had a bit of a debate on how to handle the lucky feat in regards to using it on an enemy attacking the player. At our table we use hidden dice in regards the enemies attack rolls.

What exactly are you hiding? Is it just the monster's die roll, or are you hiding the whole process of the monster trying to hit the player?

That seems important to the discussion, since people seem to be in part be basing their answers on their own assumptions about how much info is being hidden from the player.

[Segev]

Could you please give us the link where the designers clarify exactly what they 'assumed' when writing the rules?Hidden dice rolls are not the assumed default in 5e. Introducing the house rule and then demanding that I prove the assumptions of the designers were that you would be running as the rules are presented is disingenuous.




Could you please stop making things up just to try and justify your non-sensical assertions?

You *do* know exactly what you rolled on your D20. And you have a *choice* between taking what you rolled, or taking what is 'behind screen #1'. You have a *choice* between taking what you know, or taking a chance. That *is* a choice.

The rest of the post, about 'breathing' and flipping a coin, have no bearing on the situation. Please stop trying to muddle the discussion with such arbitrary comments

From how he's writing, he seems to think that the "lucky" die is also being hidden. I assume, from your reaction, that he's wrong.

Therefore, the limited information on which the player rolling the luck die acts is whether or not he thinks his die is "good" or "bad." It still is a guess, and could lead to unfortunate situations where expending a luck point and choosing your own die (because it's an 8, and thus "low") could turn what would've been a miss into a hit (because 8 on the die is enough, it turns out, for the monster to hit the PC who spent the luck point, but the monster had rolled a 2 on the die). This should never happen; expending a resource should not make things worse for you unless the resource is explicitly designed to increase risk in order to try for higher reward. Luck dice are not; they're meant to make you more consistently successful. Hiding whether or not the luck die rolled better than the adversary's die defeats this purpose.

[LordVonDerp]

From how he's writing, he seems to think that the "lucky" die is also being hidden. I assume, from your reaction, that he's wrong.

Therefore, the limited information on which the player rolling the luck die acts is whether or not he thinks his die is "good" or "bad." It still is a guess, and could lead to unfortunate situations where expending a luck point and choosing your own die (because it's an 8, and thus "low") could turn what would've been a miss into a hit (because 8 on the die is enough, it turns out, for the monster to hit the PC who spent the luck point, but the monster had rolled a 2 on the die). This should never happen; expending a resource should not make things worse for you unless the resource is explicitly designed to increase risk in order to try for higher reward. Luck dice are not; they're meant to make you more consistently successful. Hiding whether or not the luck die rolled better than the adversary's die defeats this purpose.

I have neither said nor implied that the lucky die is hidden. I have, however, assumed that the player does not know the monsters attack bonus and thus lacks the information needed to make an actual choice.

[coredump]

Hidden dice rolls are not the assumed default in 5e. Introducing the house rule and then demanding that I prove the assumptions of the designers were that you would be running as the rules are presented is disingenuous.

That is a pretty confidant assertion. Can you provide any rule support for your claim? Or are you just making assumptions?

[coredump]

However, given the fact that picking between a mostly unknown die roll and a completely unknown die roll is functionally identical to flipping a coin, the comparison is entirely valid.


I have neither said nor implied that the lucky die is hidden. I have, however, assumed that the player does not know the monsters attack bonus and thus lacks the information needed to make an actual choice.

Thats why I say your assertions are non-sensical. Even those trying to support you are confused by what you are saying...

First you say "mostly unknown die roll", then you say the 'lucky die is not hidden'. So....which is it? How is a non-hidden die roll 'mostly unknown'??

As I have stated several times... you *know* what one die roll is, so you have the *choice* of using that die, or taking a chance on the original die.
It is absurd that you keep insisting that such a choice is 'not really' a choice.


Trying to bring up the attack modifiers is just more obfuscation.... even if both dice are in the open, you don't get that info. So according to your 'logic' you will never get a 'real choice' when choosing the roll.
Which, is obviously, also absurd. Just because you don't know the definite outcome, does not mean you do not have a choice.

[Occasional Sage]

That is a pretty confidant assertion. Can you provide any rule support for your claim? Or are you just making assumptions?

RAW is strictly neutral on this issue. Page 235 of the DMG offers pros and cons of both methods for weighing.

That said, a "choice" between a known and an unknown is more accurately a "gamble". In my eyes a plain-English reading supports full knowledge.

[georgie_leech]

I have neither said nor implied that the lucky die is hidden. I have, however, assumed that the player does not know the monsters attack bonus and thus lacks the information needed to make an actual choice.

No, but you can still make choices along the lines of 'Hm, got a 15 on my lucky die, that's a pretty good result so I'll take a chance on whatever the DM rolled,' 'Awesome, a 2! That's almost certainly a miss so I'll take it!' Or 'A 10 is pretty close to the middle, based on how often the target has hit me, do I think it has a high attack bonus, or not?' Perfect information is not a prerequisite for a choice, even if it's weaker or less reliable than the default state.

[MeeposFire]

RAW is strictly neutral on this issue. Page 235 of the DMG offers pros and cons of both methods for weighing.

That said, a "choice" between a known and an unknown is more accurately a "gamble". In my eyes a plain-English reading supports full knowledge.

Something being a gamble or not does not prohibit an action from being a choice. They are not diametrically opposed terms (and in fact even if you can see the rolls you can still be gambling on the outcome unless you also happen to know the outcome before hand which you don't always even with seen rolls you just get to know your odds much better). IN poker (depending on type) you have to choose what hand to go for without potentially knowing ANYTHING about what other plays have and that is certainly a choice (and a gamble).

I would play with open rolls with the lucky feat because I think my players would like that better but even so I cannot agree that you cannot make a choice with missing information. Gambling is not the opposite of choice.

As for a really simple example here is a question...

You stand at a crossroads do you go

A. Left

B. Right

C. Neither


Note that refusing to answer is the same as saying C as not doing anything is not going left or right which means neither. At the same time I have given you no context so you have no information to base your answer upon. If I put a reward/wager on this question it also becomes a gamble along with a choice (though if we take that away then it really is no longer a gamble but still is a choice). This is certainly choice but just like having the die rolls hidden you cannot know that outcome in any way of your choice.

Remember a gamble requires something to be wagered a choice does not intrinsically have to have that.

[Mrmox42]

Since luck points are spent without knowing what the opponent's die will be in the first place, and you're doing hidden rolls, roll the player's luck die for him, just as hidden as the other dice the attacker might use. Ask the player what his ideal result would be, and choose the die roll that comes closest to granting it. It's probable that he wants the guy to miss, but since technically he can choose to go with the attacker's better die, if he wants the attacker to hit (or crit) against him, he absolutely should have the option of telling you to choose the higher die.

This is how I do it.

[MaxWilson]

If you're going to make players choose without seeing both alternatives, you should go with the alternate reading of the Lucky feat. Lucky specifies that you can choose to spend the luck point "after you roll the die" but before the outcome is declared. The sentence prior to that seems to indicate that you have to spend the luck point to even roll the die in the first place, but with hidden rolls that would be punishing.

So under the alternate interpretation, you roll the die whenever you feel like it, but you don't get to see what the DM rolled. If you like the die you rolled, you spend a luck point and use it, and the DM's result gets thrown away. Otherwise you use the DM's result. This makes Lucky play out very much like Portent.

[LordVonDerp]

Thats why I say your assertions are non-sensical. Even those trying to support you are confused by what you are saying...

First you say "mostly unknown die roll", then you say the 'lucky die is not hidden'. So....which is it? How is a non-hidden die roll 'mostly unknown'??

As I have stated several times... you *know* what one die roll is, so you have the *choice* of using that die, or taking a chance on the original die.
It is absurd that you keep insisting that such a choice is 'not really' a choice.


Trying to bring up the attack modifiers is just more obfuscation.... even if both dice are in the open, you don't get that info. So according to your 'logic' you will never get a 'real choice' when choosing the roll.
Which, is obviously, also absurd. Just because you don't know the definite outcome, does not mean you do not have a choice.

Unless you know the enemy attack modifier, the 13 you rolled is meaningless.

[JackPhoenix]

Unless you know the enemy attack modifier, the 13 you rolled is meaningless.

Not really...you know it's above average roll, and you know what's your AC. If you're a wizard with AC 14, you've got nothing to lose by reroll. If you know from a previous turn that the enemy attack roll of 15 missed your 22 AC, you know that you're safe and you'll be wasting the use of the feat, it doesn't matter if the enemy's attack modifier was +1 or +6.

[georgie_leech]

Unless you know the enemy attack modifier, the 13 you rolled is meaningless.

Or, you can make an educated guess. 'Well, my AC is 18, and we're level 10, so they will probably have an attack bonus great enough to hit my AC since PC's hit +5 at first level easily.' What you're looking for isn't a choice but a calculation. Anyone with the basics in math needed to tell which of two numbers is smaller is able to do so with a 100% success rate. Said success rate is not a requirement for all choices, otherwise your characters never 'choose' to attack because there's always that unknown factor of how the dice will fall.

[LordVonDerp]

Or, you can make an educated guess.

You can absolutely make such a guess.

[Rhaegar]

I'm a fairly new DM, running my first campaign, so I appreciate all the discussion on the topic. My players are all level 4 and 4/5 of them picked up feats vs stats.
I do like the idea of giving hints to the enemies attack, such as it looks like a slow/clumsy swing, a balanced strike, a precise strike, a devastating attack, something along those lines. This way I could differentiate between an obvious miss, a possible hit +-3, an obvious hit, and a critical hit. while the dice may be hidden from the player the character would have a small hint of how precise the enemies strike is. This way the player can have a little bit of knowledge without removing the hidden dice. Without any tweaking the feat is obviously much stronger with open dice vs hidden dice.

[Typewriter]

Or, you can make an educated guess. 'Well, my AC is 18, and we're level 10, so they will probably have an attack bonus great enough to hit my AC since PC's hit +5 at first level easily.' What you're looking for isn't a choice but a calculation. Anyone with the basics in math needed to tell which of two numbers is smaller is able to do so with a 100% success rate. Said success rate is not a requirement for all choices, otherwise your characters never 'choose' to attack because there's always that unknown factor of how the dice will fall.

If a combat lasts longer than a couple turns there is not even any guesswork involved.

Round 1 - The enemy hits Jimmy with a roll of 12 against Jimmies AC of 17.
Round 2 - The enemy just rolled a 13 against me and I have an AC of 18 - this attack is going to hit me!

Lucky should give the players options in how to tweak the rolls against them, but open rolls make provide players with a great deal of information in just a short period of time. I roll behind a screen and my players have been making pretty good use of the lucky feat despite that fact - I don't know why people think that it somehow neuters the feat (especially when many people seem to think/feel that it's already the best feat).

[MeeposFire]

You can absolutely make such a guess.

And if you choose to act upon your guess you have just made a choice. It might be more of a gamble than you might otherwise like but it is certainly a choice you have made.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

If a combat lasts longer than a couple turns there is not even any guesswork involved.

Round 1 - The enemy hits Jimmy with a roll of 12 against Jimmies AC of 17.
Round 2 - The enemy just rolled a 13 against me and I have an AC of 18 - this attack is going to hit me!

The whole point of this discussion is the rolls are hidden. You can't deduce these things without first getting the information.

Edit: Now if combat was extremely long, knowing that the DM is using a d20 and your own AC, you could tally all of the hits and misses and eventually work out the hit/miss probability, and therefore the to-hit bonus. But there would need to be a very large number of rolls made to do that with certainty.

[Rhaegar]

The whole point of this discussion is the rolls are hidden. You can't deduce these things without first getting the information.

Edit: Now if combat was extremely long, knowing that the DM is using a d20 and your own AC, you could tally all of the hits and misses and eventually work out the hit/miss probability, and therefore the to-hit bonus. But there would need to be a very large number of rolls made to do that with certainty.

A better way to deduce an enemies +hit would be based on how much damage he does. If you are being attacked by a melee enemy, if you know the damage range of the weapon, you can determine their +damage modifier by how hard they hit you, and from a damage modifier you can back out their to hit from that. For casters if they cast a saving throw spell on you, you can even easier determine their +hit with spells as it's usually tied directly to their spell save.

[Grey Watcher]

Given that Lucky used on your own rolls is pseudo-advantage, I think that just automatically taking the worse (ie most favorable to the Lucky PC) result when Lucky's used on a hidden roll seems like the most straightforward solution in this case. Yes, it means that using Lucky to influence a monster's attack or other hidden roll is riskier than using it on your own rolls (since you don't know if the monster's roll already sucks on its own), but if the player wants to take that risk, it's her prerogative.

[coredump]

RAW is strictly neutral on this issue. Page 235 of the DMG offers pros and cons of both methods for weighing.

That said, a "choice" between a known and an unknown is more accurately a "gamble". In my eyes a plain-English reading supports full knowledge.
Yeah, I agree that RAW is strictly neutral on this, which is why I was kind of intrigued when he made the claim that "in the open is the default".

More accurately, it is a *choice* (which is the important part here...) between taking a known entity, or gambling that a different die has a more advantageous outcome.


Unless you know the enemy attack modifier, the 13 you rolled is meaningless.
I see you have finally dropped your "mostly unknown die roll" assertion, and are now trying a new justification.
As has been pointed out to you, the '13' is most certainly *not* meaningless. You immediately know there is only a 35% chance that the other die is higher. You may also know that 13 is enough to hit, or you may know that it is not enough to hit. (or save, or whatever) Therefore you have enough information to make a *choice* as to which is better....sticking with this result, or taking the other result.
And lets again address the other issue you keep skipping over.... even if it is rolled in the open, you don't know the attack modifier.... so according to you, Lucky *never* gives you a 'real choice'.

In Review, you claim:
1) Knowing the result of the D20 roll is still a "mostly unknown die roll"
2) Getting a choice between a known die result and an unknown die result, is "not a choice" (Websters disagrees, but okay)
3) If you don't know the attack bonus, the die result is 'meaningless'..... which means it doesn't matter if the rolls are hidden or not, since they will always be "meaningless" and "mostly unknown"


Your entire premise seems to be that unless you know every possible result, and the *exact* result, nothing is a 'choice'. Which is why I call it non-sensical. Your PC has a *choice* to attack or not. But you have no way of knowing what the results will be. Your PC has a *choice* to cast a spell, but you dont' know what the results will be.
A Choice is only that, a choice between two options...... your insistence that the final result be known is some fabrication you have created....

[Segev]

The point that is being made, which seems to get some people defensive, is that if you do not know what the "other" roll is, your luck point is less useful than if you do.

If you know both rolls' value-on-the-die, you can be guaranteed never to have spent a luck point to get a result that is WORSE for you than if you hadn't. If you do not, there will arise circumstances where you will guess wrong and therefore choose the result that would be worse for you. If that worse result is your own luck die, you have actively spent a resource - the luck point (and the lucky feat itself) - for worse results.

There is no greater reward to compensate for that greater risk, either. It is simply a worse feat.

My advice would be to simply give the player the better result for the player's character. You preserve your secret die rolls that way, and he never has to spend extra time doing complex probability calculations in his head to determine the "real" odds that his die roll would hit him or not, and thus whether to gamble on the hidden die roll being lower.

Given that "hidden die rolls" only appear as even an option in the DMG, whereas the Lucky feat is presented to the players in the PHB where no mention of dice ever being secret comes up (at least, not for combat rolls such as we're discussing), if the Lucky feat was intended to interact specifically with hidden to-hit rolls such that the use of a Luck point could possibly make you worse off than if you hadn't used it, then the Lucky feat is a bait-and-switch trap. I doubt that is the intent, as it seems unlikely that the writers of the PHB cackled over their ability to design things to trick some players into making bad build choices.

[Vogonjeltz]

In regards to those who state, "just do open rolls" All the players and I discussed this before we started the campaign, and the subject has come up at other times along the way, and all the players are either in favor of keeping the dice hidden, or don't care one way or the other. As such the dice are going to stay hidden. They like the option that I might potentially be able to save them from obscenely terrible luck, or use small dice adjustments to guide the story along.

I'm leaning towards keeping the dice hidden but giving them the best die result.

If you're intent on not doing open rolls, I'd advise that you change it as such:

Change Lucky such that you tell the lucky player they're going to be hit. Let them use the luck die AFTER knowing that and have the opportunity to not be hit. Otherwise you're kind of screwing them out of 50% of the utility (using it on opponents).

[newsman77]

Could you please give us the link where the designers clarify exactly what they 'assumed' when writing the rules?

Could you please stop making things up just to try and justify your non-sensical assertions?

You *do* know exactly what you rolled on your D20. And you have a *choice* between taking what you rolled, or taking what is 'behind screen #1'. You have a *choice* between taking what you know, or taking a chance. That *is* a choice.



This should be D&D, not Let's Make A Deal with Wayne Brady.

I agree with the other posters. If rolling in the open is not an option, then you should be upfront and honest with the player. Let them know that they're going to be hit and ask if they want to use Lucky before you assign damage. I'd also let him know if it's critical hit as well.

[Icewraith]

Remember, the prohibition on using lucky once the results of the roll have been determined is only written in the instructions for when the player is using lucky on their own rolls.

Even in an open rolled game it would not be violating the way the feat is written to declare a use of lucky once you have been hit with a melee attack, hidden dice or no. However, you should probably work this out with the DM before it comes up.

[Typewriter]

The whole point of this discussion is the rolls are hidden. You can't deduce these things without first getting the information.

Edit: Now if combat was extremely long, knowing that the DM is using a d20 and your own AC, you could tally all of the hits and misses and eventually work out the hit/miss probability, and therefore the to-hit bonus. But there would need to be a very large number of rolls made to do that with certainty.

I think I was unclear, what I meant was that if you're rolling in the open it's only a matter of time before the guesswork is removed and you always know whether or not to use the Lucky feat.

[newsman77]

I think I was unclear, what I meant was that if you're rolling in the open it's only a matter of time before the guesswork is removed and you always know whether or not to use the Lucky feat.

Does it really matter? Won't you know to use the lucky feat if a dm tells you a hidden rolls hits you or crits you?

The player only gets 3 uses a day. It is strong, but they can't turn everything into their advantage. Resources run out.

[Typewriter]

Does it really matter? Won't you know to use the lucky feat if a dm tells you a hidden rolls hits you or crits you?

The player only gets 3 uses a day. It is strong, but they can't turn everything into their advantage. Resources run out.

I don't have my book in front of me so I've been making an assumption about the wording based off of previous versions, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it supposed to be a, "Before you know the result" sort of thing? That's the problem with rolling in the open - eventually the result is known as soon as the die is cast. Rolling behind a screen is just as bad here if the player is allowed to know the result of an attack roll before being allowed to choose whether or not you use the ability. The only way to enforce a 'before you know the result' ruling would be by telling the player, "Enemy X is going to attack you" and you saying, "Enemy X is the biggest bad guy here and I don't want to die, so I'm going to use my lucky feat against him" - at which point the DM simply uses whichever result is the worst.

Now, truth be told, I don't care how my players use it - I'm a fairly lax DM. I roll behind a screen and get a crit, then my player says he's using Lucky to force a reroll - OK, doesn't bother me. But I can understand the idea that gameplay shouldn't be completed in such a way that it makes a feat more powerful ( especially when that feat is already considered the most OP feat of 5E from my understanding).

[MadBear]

I'm firmly in the camp that a feat shouldn't have a chance to make your character actively worse in some situations, and not telling the player the roll does exactly that.

DM: The Giant attacks you (rolls a 2)
Player: I use lucky (rolls 8)
Player: I guess I'll take the 8 since it's below average
DM: HA, you just turned a miss into a hit SUCKA. Guess the giants lucky now (rolls damage)
(In this scenario the player spent a resource to make himself worse, without having any way to know that his made a bad decision)

DM: The giant attacks (rolls 20)
Player: I use Luck (rolls 19)
Player: I guess I'll use the DM roll since I'm sure it's worse
DM: Should have trusted your luck, because I just rolled a crit SUCKA! (rolls damage)
(In this scenario the player wasted a resource and gained no benefit)

Now, are there likely to be scenario's where the roll is absolutely better? of course. If the player rolls a 1-5, he'll pick it. But in this case we're taking a feat and making it only work some of the time.

If you absolutely need to keep the rolls hidden, then I'd make lucky 1/2 feat, and let the player take a +1 stat of choice. This way the feat mirrors the fact that it's only half as useful as an open roll version.

[Segev]

But I can understand the idea that gameplay shouldn't be completed in such a way that it makes a feat more powerful ( especially when that feat is already considered the most OP feat of 5E from my understanding).

The trouble is that if you make him guess based solely on his own roll, you're making the feat LESS powerful than intended.

If you want to preserve the power of the feat at the level assumed in the PHB, where the notion that the player won't know what the d20 roll to which he's comparing his own came up to be is not present, then what you do is tell him if his roll is higher or lower than the one you rolled, and let him choose based on that.

[Typewriter]

I'm firmly in the camp that a feat shouldn't have a chance to make your character actively worse in some situations, and not telling the player the roll does exactly that.

DM: The Giant attacks you (rolls a 2)
Player: I use lucky (rolls 8)
Player: I guess I'll take the 8 since it's below average
DM: HA, you just turned a miss into a hit SUCKA. Guess the giants lucky now (rolls damage)
(In this scenario the player spent a resource to make himself worse, without having any way to know that his made a bad decision)

DM: The giant attacks (rolls 20)
Player: I use Luck (rolls 19)
Player: I guess I'll use the DM roll since I'm sure it's worse
DM: Should have trusted your luck, because I just rolled a crit SUCKA! (rolls damage)
(In this scenario the player wasted a resource and gained no benefit)

Now, are there likely to be scenario's where the roll is absolutely better? of course. If the player rolls a 1-5, he'll pick it. But in this case we're taking a feat and making it only work some of the time.

If you absolutely need to keep the rolls hidden, then I'd make lucky 1/2 feat, and let the player take a +1 stat of choice. This way the feat mirrors the fact that it's only half as useful as an open roll version.

Or:

M: The giant attacks (rolls 14 (which would be a hit))
Player: I choose to use my Luck (rolls 11 which would be a miss)
DM: "OK you miss"
(In this scenario the player made a choice, the choice being to use the luck feat. The DM isn't an idiot and knows the player would use the lower result if he knew what it was so that's what he used. By doing so in this way the player doesn't learn any metagame information)


The trouble is that if you make him guess based solely on his own roll, you're making the feat LESS powerful than intended.

If you want to preserve the power of the feat at the level assumed in the PHB, where the notion that the player won't know what the d20 roll to which he's comparing his own came up to be is not present, then what you do is tell him if his roll is higher or lower than the one you rolled, and let him choose based on that.

I didn't say the player has to guess - all the player has to do is choose whether or not to use the feat. Once he's chosen to use the feat to inhibit an enemy it should be a given that the lower option is selected.

[Segev]

I didn't say the player has to guess - all the player has to do is choose whether or not to use the feat. Once he's chosen to use the feat to inhibit an enemy it should be a given that the lower option is selected.

Also valid. I only advocate letting the player choose because he MIGHT, under strange circumstances, want to help the attacker hit him.

[coredump]

This should be D&D, not Let's Make A Deal with Wayne Brady.
With "Wayne Brady"...??!!?? Oh noess... there goes the death of one of the oldest DnD tropes...



I agree with the other posters. If rolling in the open is not an option, then you should be upfront and honest with the player. Let them know that they're going to be hit and ask if they want to use Lucky before you assign damage. I'd also let him know if it's critical hit as well.

Look, you are completely missing my point. I have never commented on what you *should* do, or what the best practice would be. There have been two provably wrong assertions made that I am pushing back against.

1) If you know what you rolled, but don't know what the DM rolled, then you have no 'choice' in the matter.
This is false.

2) The designers made the game with the assumption that the DM rolls will be in the open.
This is false. (Or at least, cannot be proven.)

All I have said, is that by the rules, it is perfectly legal for a DM to hide his roll, and the Feat still works as written. That one aspect of it does not work as well, but it doesn't break anything rulewise.

Thats it.

Whether the DM should or should not roll hidden/open; whether or not the DM should give information or guidance if they roll hidden, etc.... are not topics I have addressed, so they are not topics you can 'disagree' with me about.

[Typewriter]

Also valid. I only advocate letting the player choose because he MIGHT, under strange circumstances, want to help the attacker hit him.

Agreed, but I think a player could dictate whenever he uses the ability. I don't want this guy to hit me so I inhibit him. I do want my ally to hit so I help him.

[coredump]

Given that "hidden die rolls" only appear as even an option in the DMG, whereas the Lucky feat is presented to the players in the PHB where no mention of dice ever being secret comes up (at least, not for combat rolls such as we're discussing), if the Lucky feat was intended to interact specifically with hidden to-hit rolls such that the use of a Luck point could possibly make you worse off than if you hadn't used it, then the Lucky feat is a bait-and-switch trap. I doubt that is the intent, as it seems unlikely that the writers of the PHB cackled over their ability to design things to trick some players into making bad build choices.

Please stop making things up. Realize we also have the DMG and know what it says. The topic is broached on p.235 DMG, where it asks
"What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen? "

It then goes on to detail 1 benefit from rolling in the open, and 4 benefits of hidden rolls.

But it is *always* presented as two equally valid options based on how the DM wants to play. I don't know why you keep trying to portray it as some 'alternative option' ruile....

[MadBear]

This makes me wonder how the interaction with advantage/disadvantage works.

It's already noted in Sage advice, that if you have disadvantage and use luck, you get to pick which dice you use.

So if your opponent has advantage and you use luck, do you:

1. Use your roll, or his advantage roll.

2. Use your roll, or tell the DM to use the lower of the advantage roll

3. something else.

[Segev]

Please stop making things up. Realize we also have the DMG and know what it says. The topic is broached on p.235 DMG, where it asks
"What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen? "

It then goes on to detail 1 benefit from rolling in the open, and 4 benefits of hidden rolls.

But it is *always* presented as two equally valid options based on how the DM wants to play. I don't know why you keep trying to portray it as some 'alternative option' ruile....

I don't know why you're so up in arms about this. Or why you keep missing that I'm pointing out that the Lucky feat is provided in the PHB, which came out first, and wherein no such "hidden die roll" rules are presented.

If you run Lucky as written then introduce the DMG's option - which it is an OPTION, not the default assumption (even if there is no default according to the DMG and you HAVE to pick one of two options) - without adapting how Lucky works so that it keeps the same odds as what would have been assumed from reading the PHB alone - that is, that Lucky lets you operate on knowledge of both rolls - then you are weakening the Lucky feat and potentially turning it into a trap, unless you tell your player before he takes it that it will face this consequence.

Adapting Lucky isn't hard: just ask the player what he wants to happen, and choose the result FOR him which results in it. If such is an option.

[Segev]

This makes me wonder how the interaction with advantage/disadvantage works.

It's already noted in Sage advice, that if you have disadvantage and use luck, you get to pick which dice you use.

So if your opponent has advantage and you use luck, do you:

1. Use your roll, or his advantage roll.

2. Use your roll, or tell the DM to use the lower of the advantage roll

3. something else.

I believe Advantage explicitly says you get the higher of the two rolls, which means that the Lucky player chooses dice after the higher of the two Advantage-rolled dice is determined.

[coredump]

I'm firmly in the camp that a feat shouldn't have a chance to make your character actively worse in some situations, and not telling the player the roll does exactly that.
.

Both Sharpshooter and GWM have many situations where using that feat makes your character "actively worse" than not using them.
In all cases, the -5 could make you miss when you should have hit.
In some cases, (high enough AC) even your average damage done will be 'actively worse' than not using them.

GWF lets you reroll a die.... if you rolled a 2, then a 1; that is 'actively worse'.

There are other features that allow you to reroll but keep the second one.... always a chance to be 'actively worse'

Sentinel: There are situations where you want to OA, but don't want to stop them from moving away from you. In those situations, the feat is 'actively worse'.


Not every aspect of every benefit is always a boost in every situation. They are an 'overall' improvement.



The trouble is that if you make him guess based solely on his own roll, you're making the feat LESS powerful than intended.

If you want to preserve the power of the feat at the level assumed in the PHB, where the notion that the player won't know what the d20 roll to which he's comparing his own came up to be is not present, then what you do is tell him if his roll is higher or lower than the one you rolled, and let him choose based on that.
You are making a lot more assumptions here...

You do not know what was 'intended'. You do not know the power lever of the feat 'assumed in the PHB'. The notion that the players *will* know the D20 roll is also not present in the PHB.....you just keep making that up.

Opinions are great, just stop portraying them as known facts.

[coredump]

I don't know why you're so up in arms about this. Or why you keep missing that I'm pointing out that the Lucky feat is provided in the PHB, which came out first, and wherein no such "hidden die roll" rules are presented. And exactly where in the PHB is the 'open die roll" rules presented??


If you run Lucky as written then introduce the DMG's option - which it is an OPTION, not the default assumptionIt is *not* listed as an option. Please. Stop. Lying. You are making things up because you *want* them to be that way....

The PHB and the DMG are both completely agnostic as to which method you use....... neither one is 'assumed' neither one is an 'option'.
(If anything, the DMG seems to indicate that hidden is better.... or at least as more advantages.)




(even if there is no default according to the DMG and you HAVE to pick one of two options) - without adapting how Lucky works so that it keeps the same odds as what would have been assumed from reading the PHB alone - that is, that Lucky lets you operate on knowledge of both rolls - then you are weakening the Lucky feat and potentially turning it into a trap, unless you tell your player before he takes it that it will face this consequence. No. *YOU* keep assuming that the PHB 'assumption' is rolling in the open. I have asked you to provide any evidence to support that..... and you continually 'just happen' to never supply it. (Hint: it does not exist)

So the 'assumed power level' is actually 'YOUR assumed power level"....

Or....please indicate where in the PHB it gives the assumption that DM rolls are in the open...

[Segev]

*YOU* keep assuming that the PHB 'assumption' is rolling in the open. I have asked you to provide any evidence to support that..... and you continually 'just happen' to never supply it. (Hint: it does not exist)

So the 'assumed power level' is actually 'YOUR assumed power level"....

Or....please indicate where in the PHB it gives the assumption that DM rolls are in the open...

Right. Because in a book that talks about rolling dice, comparing numbers, and finding results, if it doesn't explicitly say that the dice are in the open, it obviously means that you should assume they're kept secret. Especially with feats which say you can choose between two dice, without any mention that one of them might be hidden.

You seem to be extremely offended that anybody would suggest that the feat, as presented in the PHB, gives no reason to believe you would not know the number on both dice before you have to choose one. And that, therefore, introducing the fact that one of them is hidden later represents a change in the power of the feat compared to what it is most likely to be perceived to be.

[MadBear]

After spending some time looking through the books I must admit that Coredump is right on this one. I'd still argue that a limited use feat shouldn't have such a high potential to make you worse, but that has little to do with whats intended. The book never mentions one way or another if the DM has to show their rolls. It's been common in D&D history for ages for it to be ran both ways (or at least from my memory that's how it had been). With no clear president, there isn't a guarantee for it to be one over the other.

This just leads to the result that the design team did a poor job with this feat. This feat's power is extremely swingy. If you can see the DM rolls, this feat is a great pickup and maybe OP. If you can't see the DM's roll, then this feat is underpowered.

[newsman77]

I believe Advantage explicitly says you get the higher of the two rolls, which means that the Lucky player chooses dice after the higher of the two Advantage-rolled dice is determined.

Not quite, according to the designers. You roll your disadvantage, then roll your lucky dice, and get a choice of any one of the three. The fact that they asked a question specifically mentions "choice of all three DICE" and Jeremy Crawford says "That's how it works."

Link: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/21/how-lucky-feat-works/

So one can deduce from that, that the designers intended players to be able to see the dice roll despite what the DMG may or may not say. Notice that it says choice of dice, not choice of result (which would be succeed or fail, hit or miss) not choice of outcome, but specifically the word dice. Just sayin'.

[Segev]

After spending some time looking through the books I must admit that Coredump is right on this one. I'd still argue that a limited use feat shouldn't have such a high potential to make you worse, but that has little to do with whats intended. The book never mentions one way or another if the DM has to show their rolls. It's been common in D&D history for ages for it to be ran both ways (or at least from my memory that's how it had been). With no clear president, there isn't a guarantee for it to be one over the other.

This just leads to the result that the design team did a poor job with this feat. This feat's power is extremely swingy. If you can see the DM rolls, this feat is a great pickup and maybe OP. If you can't see the DM's roll, then this feat is underpowered.
I contend that you have to consider the feat and the PHB as written without resorting to "prior editions" for assumptions, since it is perfectly plausible for 5e's PHB to be the first book a new player ever cracks open. From that book alone, it would be unreasonable to assume that the player who chooses Lucky as a feat in any way expects that he would not be able to see both dice any time he uses the feat.

I'm not trying to measure "intention" of the writers, here. I'm saying that, compared to what the feat looks like to somebody reading the PHB in good faith without any preconceptions based on other games, making him have to choose his die or the hidden die when he didn't know there would BE a hidden die is a diminishment of the power of the feat compared to what the player who chose it in good faith believed he was buying.

[Rhaegar]

The PHB doesn't talk about the DMs rolls being open or hidden, the reason being that the PHB only covers as much as the player needs to play the game, and the player doesn't need to know the DMs dice rules in order to play the game. Also by the time someone picks up feats they'll know whether their table is playing with open or hidden dice. Neither way is so common that we can assume the feat was balanced around hidden vs open, without asking the creators their intent directly.

If it is balanced around open dice, than obviously it'll be relatively weak with hidden dice, but if it's balanced around hidden dice, it would be assumed to be overpowered with open dice. Looking at all the feats, there are some that are much stronger than others, they are not as strict about game balance as some video games are.

While other feats do have some risk that you may be worse off using them vs not, however a feat named Lucky seems to imply that at the very least you should be no worse off. It does seem counter to the intent of the feat if you end up getting hit where you otherwise wouldn't have because you thought your own dice roll wouldn't hit you, but did, where the DMs wouldn't have to begin with. That is definitely not 'lucky'.

[pwykersotz]

This seems relevant.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q7ECX5FaX0

[MadBear]

I contend that you have to consider the feat and the PHB as written without resorting to "prior editions" for assumptions, since it is perfectly plausible for 5e's PHB to be the first book a new player ever cracks open. From that book alone, it would be unreasonable to assume that the player who chooses Lucky as a feat in any way expects that he would not be able to see both dice any time he uses the feat.

I'm not trying to measure "intention" of the writers, here. I'm saying that, compared to what the feat looks like to somebody reading the PHB in good faith without any preconceptions based on other games, making him have to choose his die or the hidden die when he didn't know there would BE a hidden die is a diminishment of the power of the feat compared to what the player who chose it in good faith believed he was buying.

couple of things.

1. I agree with you in spirit. When I read the feat, I think you should be seeing results, and that's how I read it.

2. While that's how I read it, that isn't what it says. That fact alone, means that someone else could interpret it differently and not be necessarily wrong.

3. I wasn't saying prior editions was needed. I merely pointed out that we've seen both in prior editions.

4. I completely agree that the feat's power varies completely under the method you use.

[Typewriter]

I contend that you have to consider the feat and the PHB as written without resorting to "prior editions" for assumptions, since it is perfectly plausible for 5e's PHB to be the first book a new player ever cracks open. From that book alone, it would be unreasonable to assume that the player who chooses Lucky as a feat in any way expects that he would not be able to see both dice any time he uses the feat.

I'm not trying to measure "intention" of the writers, here. I'm saying that, compared to what the feat looks like to somebody reading the PHB in good faith without any preconceptions based on other games, making him have to choose his die or the hidden die when he didn't know there would BE a hidden die is a diminishment of the power of the feat compared to what the player who chose it in good faith believed he was buying.

And if a completely new DM sits down and reads the 5E DMG before running a game he'd likely come away from it feeling that the rules leave it to him to decide on whether or not to use a screen, but with an indication that it's recommended. Or maybe he doesn't even have a DMG but he sees one of these (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Masters-Screen-Accessory/dp/0786965630)at the game store and picks it up.

These aren't variant mechanics or 'weird' rules. They're, at best, play style differences. A player coming to the table with the expectation that he gets to see the DMs dice isn't somehow right or wrong in believing that nor does it make using the screen some sort of variant rule. If the player and the DM can't come to some sort of agreement regarding this sort of subject then frankly neither of them should be playing any sort of game with other people.

[Segev]

And if a completely new DM sits down and reads the 5E DMG before running a game he'd likely come away from it feeling that the rules leave it to him to decide on whether or not to use a screen, but with an indication that it's recommended. Or maybe he doesn't even have a DMG but he sees one of these (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Masters-Screen-Accessory/dp/0786965630)at the game store and picks it up.

These aren't variant mechanics or 'weird' rules. They're, at best, play style differences. A player coming to the table with the expectation that he gets to see the DMs dice isn't somehow right or wrong in believing that nor does it make using the screen some sort of variant rule. If the player and the DM can't come to some sort of agreement regarding this sort of subject then frankly neither of them should be playing any sort of game with other people.

Not disagreeing. My point is that the player is going to feel bait-and-switched if you try to run it with hidden dice and demand he make a choice based on dice he cannot see. The player's most likely assumption, based on the rules available to him (and intended to be available to him, since it's called the "Player's Handbook" and the other one is the "Dungeon Master's Guide," clearly defining for whom the books are intended), should be considered as the situation assumed when options taken by the player are chosen.

Therefore, regardless of whether you can claim you were "right" under the RAW to assert that the feat is "intended" to have that level of ambiguity to it, it still is a bit of a jerk move to engage in that kind of rug-pulling on a player.

Hence why I recommend letting him know which roll was higher, or simply letting him tell you what result he'd prefer (usually likely to be "whatever gets me hurt the least) and choosing the die roll that comes closest to that on his behalf.

[Typewriter]

Not disagreeing. My point is that the player is going to feel bait-and-switched if you try to run it with hidden dice and demand he make a choice based on dice he cannot see. The player's most likely assumption, based on the rules available to him (and intended to be available to him, since it's called the "Player's Handbook" and the other one is the "Dungeon Master's Guide," clearly defining for whom the books are intended), should be considered as the situation assumed when options taken by the player are chosen.

Therefore, regardless of whether you can claim you were "right" under the RAW to assert that the feat is "intended" to have that level of ambiguity to it, it still is a bit of a jerk move to engage in that kind of rug-pulling on a player.

Hence why I recommend letting him know which roll was higher, or simply letting him tell you what result he'd prefer (usually likely to be "whatever gets me hurt the least) and choosing the die roll that comes closest to that on his behalf.

Exactly - compromise between DM and player is usually the best way to make everyone happy. My comment was largely intended to identify the problem coredump had with your posts where he seemed to feel you were referring to one set of rules a variant when that's not exactly right. Neither methodology of playing is a 'variant' but referring to one as such sort of implies that the other way is the 'correct' way.

[Rhaegar]

Not disagreeing. My point is that the player is going to feel bait-and-switched if you try to run it with hidden dice and demand he make a choice based on dice he cannot see. The player's most likely assumption, based on the rules available to him (and intended to be available to him, since it's called the "Player's Handbook" and the other one is the "Dungeon Master's Guide," clearly defining for whom the books are intended), should be considered as the situation assumed when options taken by the player are chosen.

Therefore, regardless of whether you can claim you were "right" under the RAW to assert that the feat is "intended" to have that level of ambiguity to it, it still is a bit of a jerk move to engage in that kind of rug-pulling on a player.

Hence why I recommend letting him know which roll was higher, or simply letting him tell you what result he'd prefer (usually likely to be "whatever gets me hurt the least) and choosing the die roll that comes closest to that on his behalf.

Things like hidden dice vs. open dice should be something that is discussed between DM and players before people start playing to make sure everyone is on the same page so that there isn't any 'rug pulling' as you put it. And if the players are starting at lv1, it would only be variant humans that could end up surprised.

[coredump]

Not disagreeing. My point is that the player is going to feel bait-and-switched if you try to run it with hidden dice and demand he make a choice based on dice he cannot see. The player's most likely assumption, based on the rules available to him (and intended to be available to him, since it's called the "Player's Handbook" and the other one is the "Dungeon Master's Guide," clearly defining for whom the books are intended), should be considered as the situation assumed when options taken by the player are chosen.

You keep making the same claim, and yet you *NEVER* provide any evidence to support your opinion. (An opinion that you keep presenting as a 'fact')

Okay, lets just look at the PHB.... Nowhere in the PHB, **NOWHERE** does it say that rolls are made in the open. Nowhere does it indicate that this is the 'default' or 'expectation' or anything of the sort. So just because *YOU* think of it that way, does not mean the PHB thinks of it that way, does not mean the designers think of it that way, and does not mean the players think of it that way.
There are places where the book discusses the DM determining something via a secret die roll.... so at the the concept of hidden rolls is presented. (I don't know of any place where the explicitly mention an 'open' DM roll....)
So the short is.... you are making stuff up, and pretending like its reality. Please stop. (or finally provide some evidence...)


You also made the assertion that the "designer's intent" was that rolls were to be in the open. Once again, you provided *nothing* to support your wild guess. OTOH, I and others have shown that the DMG does a pretty good job indicating the designers intent.... so it looks like you were wrong on that one too.


Therefore, regardless of whether you can claim you were "right" under the RAW to assert that the feat is "intended" to have that level of ambiguity to it, it still is a bit of a jerk move to engage in that kind of rug-pulling on a player. Again, you make a lot of assumptions and pretend they are reality..... And even if a player *does* make the wrong assumption about a rule, does not mean it is true. A player could read the PHB and assume cantrips only scale with spellcaster levels, or that Crossbow Expert allows for 2 handbows at once, or the MC ability requirement is only for the new class.....
So if a player jumped to the conclusion that he could have a 12 Wis and 16 Dex, and could MC out of Cleric and into Rogue.... would it be a 'jerk move' to claim that you were 'right' under the RAW??

The PHB says what it says, and it does *NOT* say anything about hidden or open DM rolls, it does not say anything about the designers intent about DM rolls, it does not say what the 'intended' power level of Lucky is..... all of those are *your* assumptions about how *you* want them to be.


Hence why I recommend letting him know which roll was higher, or simply letting him tell you what result he'd prefer (usually likely to be "whatever gets me hurt the least) and choosing the die roll that comes closest to that on his behalf.Hey, recommend all you want, just stop making things up and pretending that they are real.....

[Typewriter]

SNIP

As someone who mostly agrees with you... I think you're getting a bit worked up and over-reacting. I don't think Segev is trying to define the rules as being defined one way with other people doing it incorrectly if they're doing something different. He's talking about the fact that the PHB, which is what most players use, doesn't really go into a lot of detail about dice rolls but that the wording of the Lucky feat could lead players to a certain expectation - an expectation that could be met with disappointment if their DM fails to work with them on the issue.

Segev - not trying to put words into your mouth, please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect.

[Segev]

Coredump, I'm not making things up, and your accusations that I am are irritating. I have stated quite clearly where I'm coming from. The fact that I refuse to defend the straw man you erect and put an "I am Segev" sign on may irritate you, but I ask that you accept victory over it and stop trying to get me to burn with it in effigy.

I do not know how I can state what I am trying to get across more clearly. At this point, I can only conclude that you want an argument that ends with you "winning." Therefore, I concede on behalf of the straw man. Nowhere in the PHB does it say that dice are not hidden.

Just like nowhere in the PHB does it say that dice are visible to the players at any point in time. Even their own. They could, in fact, be required to choose the lucky die without any knowledge about what value any dice rolled take on.

I also concede that the DMG does explicitly offer hidden dice as an option, and that players should consult with their DMs, and that DMs should ideally know everything in both the PHB and DMG sufficiently to give warning about anything that is only in the DMG which might impact assumptions made based on the PHB.

I concede all of this, on behalf of the straw man that you have insisted is apparently arguing otherwise.

[newsman77]

Okay, lets just look at the PHB.... Nowhere in the PHB, **NOWHERE** does it say that rolls are made in the open. Nowhere does it indicate that this is the 'default' or 'expectation' or anything of the sort. So just because *YOU* think of it that way, does not mean the PHB thinks of it that way, does not mean the designers think of it that way... You also made the assertion that the "designer's intent" was that rolls were to be in the open. Once again, you provided *nothing* to support your wild guess.

Except, Segev is correct. The designer's intent was to have open rolls.

How do we know this? The official Sage Advice column. Link: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/21/how-lucky-feat-works/

Q: "So, if I have disadvantage and I’m lucky, I get choice of all three dice? "
A: "That's how the feat works. It's long been on our radar as a potential problem. But SA is for clarification, not redesign."

Crawford is usually very careful with his wording and clarifications. Here is clear he's saying you get a choice of the DICE. Not a choice of results, not a choice of outcomes, but a choice of the dice. That's apparent that the intent of the designers, as given by the designers, meant for the player to see the dice.

[Typewriter]

Except, Segev is correct. The designer's intent was to have open rolls.

How do we know this? The official Sage Advice column. Link: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/21/how-lucky-feat-works/

Q: "So, if I have disadvantage and I’m lucky, I get choice of all three dice? "
A: "That's how the feat works. It's long been on our radar as a potential problem. But SA is for clarification, not redesign."

Crawford is usually very careful with his wording and clarifications. Here is clear he's saying you get a choice of the DICE. Not a choice of results, not a choice of outcomes, but a choice of the dice. That's apparent that the intent of the designers, as given by the designers, meant for the player to see the dice.

That's the designers opinion on how a feat works, not on hiding dice rolls.

The question asked was specifically about a player with disadvantage using lucky, not about a DM rolling dice.

The question specifically asked about dice but the answer didn't mention dice - just sort of agreed - I don't know how you can say that's careful wording.

My personal opinion on this disagreement is that coredump is grossly misunderstanding Segevs viewpoint and taking offense at what he perceives as an implication that one option is fundamentally 'right'. If you're going to attempt to make the definitive statement, "The designer's intent was to have open rolls.", then I am going to disagree with you and we can debate that because I believe 100% that it is patently false - the intent is how it's always been - for people to play however they want to play. No team in the world would design a system with the intent of promoting open roles then turn around and sell a product (DM screen) that specifically mentions hiding dice rolls from players.

[newsman77]

That's the designers opinion on how a feat works, not on hiding dice rolls.

This entire thread started with the basic question: Should a player using the Lucky feat be able to see the dice rolls? There's the answer.

Apparently the answer the game designers had in mind is YES. You can debate semantics about the meaning of particular words all you like, but as shown by the games designers, the player using the Lucky feat should be have a CHOICE of any of the three DICE. That's how it works.

I said Crawford is usually careful with this wording. IE: When he usually clarifies something, he is very careful with the terms he uses.

You can play the game however you like, Crawford is clear SA is about clarification... not rules. Each table is different and you can choose to use the rules, adjust them or throw them out the window.

[MadBear]

This entire thread started with the basic question: Should a player using the Lucky feat be able to see the dice rolls? There's the answer.

Apparently the answer the game designers had in mind is YES. You can debate semantics about the meaning of particular words all you like, but as shown by the games designers, the player using the Lucky feat should be have a CHOICE of any of the three DICE. That's how it works.

I said Crawford is usually careful with this wording. IE: When he usually clarifies something, he is very careful with the terms he uses.

You can play the game however you like, Crawford is clear SA is about clarification... not rules. Each table is different and you can choose to use the rules, adjust them or throw them out the window.

To be fair, that SA clarification is about the dice rolls that the players makes. Not the dice rolls that the DM makes. The fact is that it can be argued either way makes the intent unclear.

[newsman77]

It still applies. Why would the feat fundamentally change the way it works because you choose to use it on an enemies attack vs your own attack?

[Typewriter]

This entire thread started with the basic question: Should a player using the Lucky feat be able to see the dice rolls? There's the answer.

Apparently the answer the game designers had in mind is YES. You can debate semantics about the meaning of particular words all you like, but as shown by the games designers, the player using the Lucky feat should be have a CHOICE of any of the three DICE. That's how it works.

I said Crawford is usually careful with this wording. IE: When he usually clarifies something, he is very careful with the terms he uses.

You can play the game however you like, Crawford is clear SA is about clarification... not rules. Each table is different and you can choose to use the rules, adjust them or throw them out the window.

1. Your interpretation is not a direct interpretation of what was said. What seems obvious to me was that the question was more geared towards: "If I have disadvantage I roll 2 dice and choose the worst. With luck I get to roll an additional D20 and choose between that and my normal roll. If I have both do I roll 3D20 and get to choose my result from the three or do I have to roll 2d20, select the worst, then roll my lucky D20 and choose between the worst from the first set and my lucky D20?".

That, however, is an interpretation of the question and the answer - mine is fundamentally different than yours.

2. Choosing between three results and knowing the three results are two different things. There are three numbers and you get to pick one. There are multiple ways to do this. I could tell you that they are 8, 11, and 16 and let you pick OR instead of me telling you what they are you could just say, "I pick the highest" or "I pick the lowest". You have your choice, which is what the Q&A you posted said you get. You're creating a false correlation between 'choice' and seeing the results that was never implied anywhere.

3. The Q&A has NOTHING to do with hiding dice rolls. Not only is it specifically referring to a player rolling dice it is dealing with the rules regarding a feat, NOT the designers intent behind rolling in the open. You're taking a Q&A that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand and trying to force it into the position of some sort of official ruling.

4. You're arguing dishonestly. You're accusing me of semantics and ignoring points and clarifications that disagree with you while using the following terms in regards to your own opinions and interpretation to make them appear factual; "There's the answer", "That's how it works".

In summary, you've taken a Q&A unrelated to the topic at hand - interpreted it in such a way that benefits your argument, extrapolated that interpretation so that it is about far more than what the Q&A was actually about, and then stated that it is all fact with no room for further interpretation.

[newsman77]

I disagree with our assessment. You're choosing to re-define the meaning of certain words in order to get it to fit your opinion, and that's good for your table. It does not necessarily work for others.

[Rhaegar]

It still applies. Why would the feat fundamentally change the way it works because you choose to use it on an enemies attack vs your own attack?

Why would the feat work differently for DM rolls vs Player rolls, maybe because the DM rolls might be hidden, that's the whole reason I started this thread, to see how others handle this feat while using hidden DM dice.

[Typewriter]

I disagree with our assessment. You're choosing to re-define the meaning of certain words in order to get it to fit your opinion, and that's good for your table. It does not necessarily work for others.

My point this entire time has been that the rules are open so that people can play the way they want. Your point seems to be that there is one 'correct' way to play and that others (like myself) are free to do what we want, but instead of just leaving it at that you are going out of your way to selectively read the rules and misconstrue unrelated topics of discussion from the designer so that you can pretend your way is the 'correct'. On top of all that you're doing so in an incredibly arrogant manner - pretending that some of the opinions and interpretations you have are somehow factual to hide the fact that there is no legitimacy to them.

[MadBear]

I disagree with our assessment. You're choosing to re-define the meaning of certain words in order to get it to fit your opinion, and that's good for your table. It does not necessarily work for others.

what words are being re-defined?

[coredump]

How do we know this? The official Sage Advice column. Link: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/21/how-lucky-feat-works/

Q: "So, if I have disadvantage and I’m lucky, I get choice of all three dice? "
A: "That's how the feat works. It's long been on our radar as a potential problem. But SA is for clarification, not redesign."
.

This passage deals with the *player* rolling dice, and then the player using Lucky. No one has ever claimed the player could not see his own rolls. All you have done is support the idea that a player is allowed to see his *won* dice rolls.



This entire thread started with the basic question: Should a player using the Lucky feat be able to see the dice rolls? There's the answer. No.... the question was: Should a player using the Lucky feat be able to see the dice rolls *that the DM rolls behind his screen*?"
That is a *very* different question, and one that your SA quote does not address in any way, shape, or form.


as shown by the games designers, the player using the Lucky feat should be have a CHOICE of any of the three DICE. That's how it works. Of course.... assuming the *player* rolled all three dice.



I said Crawford is usually careful with this wording. IE: When he usually clarifies something, he is very careful with the terms he uses.
.Then why are you now claiming he meant something he never actually said? He "carefully" addressed the situation where the *player* rolled all three dice.... now you want to claim he wasn't being careful... huh...??


Why would the feat fundamentally change the way it works because you choose to use it on an enemies attack vs your own attack?Um..... because there is a *very* fundamental difference between a player making a roll, and a DM making a roll behind a screen.


You say that JC is 'very careful' with his wording.... well he was the main guy writing the rules for the PHB.... was he just 'careless' when he wrote *every* *single* rule in a way that would work for both an open and hidden DM style? Is that just happenstance? And further coincidence that the DMG provides both ways as a simple DM choice. (Though, if anything, they make Hidden seem preferable...)

So which is it.... he is 'careful' or 'careless'..... it doesn't work both ways...

[BiPolar]

Everyone in this thread seems to be forcing their own personal play style over others.

As previously stated, the main issue here is how to handle hidden DM roles and this feat. With open rolls, and after a few hits when a player understands what roll will result in a hit, the Lucky feat is very powerful. Without knowing if a roll is a hit before hand, the lucky feat becomes problematic.

The specific language of the feat states that luck must be used only "before the outcome is determined".

Even with open rolls, you can't use Luck after a DM says whether it is a hit or miss. The only difference is that you have some additional information of previous rolls and players AC to determine what the hit modifiers are and use that in determining luck.

However, it seems to me that the intent here is to not know the outcome. So a hidden roll should really have no bearing on Luck. Luck is meant ot be used in a situation where you either are trying to do something where you need an extra push (treating it like Advantage) or when you want to impose disadvantage on your assailant.

The hard part comes in choosing which die. However, you know what your roll is. You know what your AC is. You don't know their modifier, but you can give a best guess.

Yes, it's not as powerful as a full knowledge of hit modifiers, but that's kind of metagaming anyway.

[Segev]

The hard part comes in choosing which die. However, you know what your roll is. You know what your AC is. You don't know their modifier, but you can give a best guess.

Yes, it's not as powerful as a full knowledge of hit modifiers, but that's kind of metagaming anyway.

The DM telling you if he rolled higher or lower than you did gives you the missing information, closing the gap that would allow you to possibly screw up and make yourself get hit when the DM's roll would have been a miss, just because you THOUGHT you'd rolled low but had misguessed the to-hit bonus of the enemy.

You telling the DM your desired result and having the DM pick the roll that comes closest to making this happen would also work.

[BiPolar]

The DM telling you if he rolled higher or lower than you did gives you the missing information, closing the gap that would allow you to possibly screw up and make yourself get hit when the DM's roll would have been a miss, just because you THOUGHT you'd rolled low but had misguessed the to-hit bonus of the enemy.

You telling the DM your desired result and having the DM pick the roll that comes closest to making this happen would also work.

Absolutely. If the DM is willing to do this, that's an excellent compromise. If they aren't, that's kinda dickish, but still gives you the ability to 'roll' for your opponent.

[Segev]

Absolutely. If the DM is willing to do this, that's an excellent compromise. If they aren't, that's kinda dickish, but still gives you the ability to 'roll' for your opponent.

But not really enough information to be sure that you haven't just bought a feat, then spent a resource that doesn't come back that day, to actively make you take more damage than you otherwise would have. Which...probably isn't all that corner of a case, since bounded accuracy means the majority of possible values should be reasonably in range since you don't know precisely what the enemy's to-hit bonus is. It turns the expenditure into too high a gamble to be worth ever making.

[Typewriter]

Agreed. The important thing is that the DM and player have ways to make the feat work regardless of what DMing style is in play. My peeve, at this point, is the idea that the game is designed to lean one way or another in regards to hiding dice rolls. Like all of 5E I feel as if it's left ambiguous so that people can choose whatever style is best for them.

[BiPolar]

But not really enough information to be sure that you haven't just bought a feat, then spent a resource that doesn't come back that day, to actively make you take more damage than you otherwise would have. Which...probably isn't all that corner of a case, since bounded accuracy means the majority of possible values should be reasonably in range since you don't know precisely what the enemy's to-hit bonus is. It turns the expenditure into too high a gamble to be worth ever making.

Well, you're lucky. You've got a slightly better inspiration that can be used 3x/day. That feat is still pretty good. But given that understanding the hit modifier is metagaming, then this issue isn't really an in-game issue. It's that you aren't able to metagame the result. Yes, it's a bummer, but it doesn't entirely negate the power of the feat. Having the ability to force a new roll for either yourself or an enemy is still a VERY big thing.

And I've only rarely used Lucky on enemy rolls. For me, it's mostly fumble protection. But that's also because fumbles in my group can be devastating.

[BiPolar]

Agreed. The important thing is that the DM and player have ways to make the feat work regardless of what DMing style is in play. My peeve, at this point, is the idea that the game is designed to lean one way or another in regards to hiding dice rolls. Like all of 5E I feel as if it's left ambiguous so that people can choose whatever style is best for them.

Absolutely - the game isn't designed to hide or show rolls. The game is designed for rolling. How you want to roll as a DM is entirely up to the DM and the group. Both ways can work and be fun. Both have pros and cons. But you need to make your system work with the greater system, and most importantly, for the fun of everyone involved.

[Segev]

Well, you're lucky. You've got a slightly better inspiration that can be used 3x/day. That feat is still pretty good. But given that understanding the hit modifier is metagaming, then this issue isn't really an in-game issue. It's that you aren't able to metagame the result. Yes, it's a bummer, but it doesn't entirely negate the power of the feat. Having the ability to force a new roll for either yourself or an enemy is still a VERY big thing.

And I've only rarely used Lucky on enemy rolls. For me, it's mostly fumble protection. But that's also because fumbles in my group can be devastating.

By that logic, choosing the better die when you roll both of them is also "meta-gaming." The point of the feat is to make you succeed more often and your enemies fail (at least to hit you) more often. Claiming that wanting enough information to use it for that purpose is meta-gaming, when you wouldn't even NEED the estimated to-hit bonus of the monster if you were given the information that, having read only the PHB, you would be well within reasonability to assume you were going to get when you selected the feat, is ludicrous, insulting, and an attempt at ad hominem.

And it's not so big a thing when you have to choose to "force" a new roll for your enemy without knowing if the enemy would have succeeded or failed without it, and no way of knowing if your choice isn't making them more likely to succeed.

That's the rub: if you use hidden dice, the Lucky feat isn't making the PC "lucky" anymore when used on enemy rolls; it's testing the PLAYER'S luck. Or his ability to run statistics in his head. Which is apparently meta-gaming because wanting to effectively use abilities you have spent resources on makes you a bad person.

[BiPolar]

By that logic, choosing the better die when you roll both of them is also "meta-gaming." The point of the feat is to make you succeed more often and your enemies fail (at least to hit you) more often. Claiming that wanting enough information to use it for that purpose is meta-gaming, when you wouldn't even NEED the estimated to-hit bonus of the monster if you were given the information that, having read only the PHB, you would be well within reasonability to assume you were going to get when you selected the feat, is ludicrous, insulting, and an attempt at ad hominem.

And it's not so big a thing when you have to choose to "force" a new roll for your enemy without knowing if the enemy would have succeeded or failed without it, and no way of knowing if your choice isn't making them more likely to succeed.

That's the rub: if you use hidden dice, the Lucky feat isn't making the PC "lucky" anymore when used on enemy rolls; it's testing the PLAYER'S luck. Or his ability to run statistics in his head. Which is apparently meta-gaming because wanting to effectively use abilities you have spent resources on makes you a bad person.

Segev, take a breath. It is sounding more like you are frustrated about the ruling at your table and any justification for that ruling is an insult to you. It isn't. The fact that the Feat language states that you have to make a decision before the outcome is determined does imply that you don't know the outcome. That's the whole point. A hidden roll you don't know the outcome. The first roll of an encounter, you don't know the outcome. You are wanting to know (and very fairly!) if the attack is going to hit before wanting to be lucky. It's a reasonable request, but it is not a requirement.

I think you just need to reframe what lucky means. It doesn't mean you ALWAYS escape a hit. You don't. Even if you know the outcome because you've figured out the hit modifier. You could still roll higher than the original DM roll and it's going to hit. Lucky, especially in the instance of using on an attack roll against you, is basically disadvantage. And to be able to give an assailant disadvantage on you 3x day is still a damned good feat. Especially when you can use it yourself to hit a monster, make a saving throw, or pass an ability check. Still very powerful.

[Rhaegar]

How about everyone just take a step back and take a deep breath. Let's stop beating the dead horse. I know a lot of people prefer open dice, many others prefer hidden dice, and no one is going to convince anyone here to change the open/hidden dice rules at their table.

This thread, at least originally, was not questioning using hidden dice or open dice, or the intent of the feat, my table uses hidden dice, everyone wanted to use hidden dice. The player new hidden dice were being used when she picked up the feat, nothing was being pulled over on her. My original post assumes hidden dice posing the question of how to handle the feat with hidden dice.

[Typewriter]

Segev, take a breath. It is sounding more like you are frustrated about the ruling at your table and any justification for that ruling is an insult to you. It isn't. The fact that the Feat language states that you have to make a decision before the outcome is determined does imply that you don't know the outcome. That's the whole point. A hidden roll you don't know the outcome. The first roll of an encounter, you don't know the outcome. You are wanting to know (and very fairly!) if the attack is going to hit before wanting to be lucky. It's a reasonable request, but it is not a requirement.

I think you just need to reframe what lucky means. It doesn't mean you ALWAYS escape a hit. You don't. Even if you know the outcome because you've figured out the hit modifier. You could still roll higher than the original DM roll and it's going to hit. Lucky, especially in the instance of using on an attack roll against you, is basically disadvantage. And to be able to give an assailant disadvantage on you 3x day is still a damned good feat. Especially when you can use it yourself to hit a monster, make a saving throw, or pass an ability check. Still very powerful.

What Segev is talking about though is that spending a feat to roll an extra dice is pointless if there is a chance that your situation will be worse off.

We're talking about three scenarios:

1. Dice are rolled in the open

2. Dice rolls are hidden but the player gets to make a choice regarding what they want ("I want the bad guy to use the worst of the two rolls")

3. Dice rolls are hidden and the player had to make a choice with minimal knowledge ("I have to choose between my 18 and whatever the DM rolled, better go with the 18 to be safe. Oh, apparently the DM crits me because he rolled a 20" or "I rolled a 9 and have 15 AC - I doubt this monster will have a +6 so I'll take the 9. Oh, apparently the DM rolled an 8+6 but because I chose to use the 9 I am hit anyways").

3 would be pretty BS. In order to provide some reliable benefit the feat needs to have SOME measure of reliability - even if that reliability is not completely determinant.

[coredump]

Everyone in this thread seems to be forcing their own personal play style over others.
.

"Everyone"? Nope, not quite.

[Segev]

Segev, take a breath. It is sounding more like you are frustrated about the ruling at your table and any justification for that ruling is an insult to you. It isn't. The fact that the Feat language states that you have to make a decision before the outcome is determined does imply that you don't know the outcome. That's the whole point. A hidden roll you don't know the outcome. The first roll of an encounter, you don't know the outcome. You are wanting to know (and very fairly!) if the attack is going to hit before wanting to be lucky. It's a reasonable request, but it is not a requirement.
I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. Typewriter does a decent job, here:


What Segev is talking about though is that spending a feat to roll an extra dice is pointless if there is a chance that your situation will be worse off.

We're talking about three scenarios:

1. Dice are rolled in the open

2. Dice rolls are hidden but the player gets to make a choice regarding what they want ("I want the bad guy to use the worst of the two rolls")

3. Dice rolls are hidden and the player had to make a choice with minimal knowledge ("I have to choose between my 18 and whatever the DM rolled, better go with the 18 to be safe. Oh, apparently the DM crits me because he rolled a 20" or "I rolled a 9 and have 15 AC - I doubt this monster will have a +6 so I'll take the 9. Oh, apparently the DM rolled an 8+6 but because I chose to use the 9 I am hit anyways").

3 would be pretty BS. In order to provide some reliable benefit the feat needs to have SOME measure of reliability - even if that reliability is not completely determinant.

I'm not asking to know whether I was hit or not before spending the luck point. In fact, you have to - per the feat - spend the luck point knowing only the result of the original die roll (if that; arguably, you have to spend it before the other die is even rolled). I'm okay with this.

I'm not okay with having to decide which die to use without knowing which one is better for me. I don't have to know whether the DM's die hit me or not; I only have to know if the DM's die has a higher or lower chance of hitting me than the one I rolled. That can be given by telling me if my die is higher or lower than the DM's. Or the same result can be achieved by me simply telling the DM, "I rolled a 9 on my luck die; I choose whichever die - yours or mine - has the lower value on-the-die."

That's all I'm saying needs to happen to avoid having the feat become a much worse choice to buy and use than otherwise.


I think you just need to reframe what lucky means. It doesn't mean you ALWAYS escape a hit. You don't. Even if you know the outcome because you've figured out the hit modifier. You could still roll higher than the original DM roll and it's going to hit. Lucky is not going to guarantee you're not hit. What I'm stating is that you should make sure you run it in such a way that you're guaranteed that, by having spent the luck point, you are not actually hitting situation 3 in Typewriter's post. You're not spending a luck point and turning a miss into a hit, causing you to take damage you wouldn't have if you didn't spend the luck point.

Of COURSE Lucky is not a guarantee you won't be hit. Even if you had 100% complete information, you chose to spend the luck point before you knew whether the other guy would hit you or not on his roll. Moreover, you don't know what you'll roll before you spend the luck point. If both dice (or all three dice; maybe your opponent has Advantage or Disadvantage) roll sufficiently high to hit you, you're hit. Lucky just made the odds of that happening smaller by introducing another die which you can choose from to try to avoid this.


Lucky, especially in the instance of using on an attack roll against you, is basically disadvantage. And to be able to give an assailant disadvantage on you 3x day is still a damned good feat. Especially when you can use it yourself to hit a monster, make a saving throw, or pass an ability check. Still very powerful.Except that it isn't disadvantage if the DM's die is hidden and you are given no means of ensuring that the die you choose - your luck die or the DM's die - is the lower one. If Lucky just imposed disadvantage, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Disadvantage is (almost) always good for the person being attacked by the guy who suffers it. The lower result is always taken. No need to disclose anything to the player nor for the player to make a choice based on insufficient information.

[coredump]

What Segev is talking about though is that spending a feat to roll an extra dice is pointless if there is a chance that your situation will be worse off.

We're talking about three scenarios:

1. Dice are rolled in the open

2. Dice rolls are hidden but the player gets to make a choice regarding what they want ("I want the bad guy to use the worst of the two rolls")

3. Dice rolls are hidden and the player had to make a choice with minimal knowledge ("I have to choose between my 18 and whatever the DM rolled, better go with the 18 to be safe. Oh, apparently the DM crits me because he rolled a 20" or "I rolled a 9 and have 15 AC - I doubt this monster will have a +6 so I'll take the 9. Oh, apparently the DM rolled an 8+6 but because I chose to use the 9 I am hit anyways").

3 would be pretty BS. In order to provide some reliable benefit the feat needs to have SOME measure of reliability - even if that reliability is not completely determinant.

We are talking about *one* aspect of a feat that *may* have a detrimental effect.... Earlier I provided a list of various feats and features that carried a similar *chance* to be detrimental in certain situations.
They are a natural part of the game.....

The feat doesn't have 'some' measure of reliabilty, it has a *lot* of reliability. Most people I know use it mostly on their own rolls, and even on enemy rolls, you will usually have a pretty good idea if you should keep your roll or not. Yes, there are very specific roll combinations that can lead to a worse outcome, but as above.... that is true of other feats and features too.

Yes the feat would be more powerful if you know both die rolls..... shield is more powerful that way too.... doesn't mean it is a requirement. Doesn't mean it isn't still a very useful feat.

But hey, if you want to roll in the open, or give out more info.... go crazy.

[Typewriter]

How about everyone just take a step back and take a deep breath. Let's stop beating the dead horse. I know a lot of people prefer open dice, many others prefer hidden dice, and no one is going to convince anyone here to change the open/hidden dice rules at their table.

This thread, at least originally, was not questioning using hidden dice or open dice, or the intent of the feat, my table uses hidden dice, everyone wanted to use hidden dice. The player new hidden dice were being used when she picked up the feat, nothing was being pulled over on her. My original post assumes hidden dice posing the question of how to handle the feat with hidden dice.

To your original point/question - I would say that you tell the player should be told if they're targeted and then allowed to choose whether or not to use the feat based off of that knowledge. You then choose which result to use based off of their preference.

If that's not enough you could have a bit of extra info. You could tell them whether you rolled 'hi' (16-20), 'lo' (1-5) or 'mid' (6-15). That would help them choose when to use the feat a bit more carefully but prevent outright learning mechanical bonuses or penalties that you may wish to keep hidden. The mid range is nice and big, but not unreasonably so.


We are talking about *one* aspect of a feat that *may* have a detrimental effect.... Earlier I provided a list of various feats and features that carried a similar *chance* to be detrimental in certain situations.
They are a natural part of the game.....

The feat doesn't have 'some' measure of reliabilty, it has a *lot* of reliability. Most people I know use it mostly on their own rolls, and even on enemy rolls, you will usually have a pretty good idea if you should keep your roll or not. Yes, there are very specific roll combinations that can lead to a worse outcome, but as above.... that is true of other feats and features too.

Yes the feat would be more powerful if you know both die rolls..... shield is more powerful that way too.... doesn't mean it is a requirement. Doesn't mean it isn't still a very useful feat.

But hey, if you want to roll in the open, or give out more info.... go crazy.

The thing is though that most feats have potentially detrimental effects that are independent of how the DM manages their dice. A feat shouldn't have two binary modes based off of the DMs preferred playstyle in regards to hiding dice.

EDIT: You also keep mentioning the player knowing both rolls, but that's not what I was saying in scenario 2. The player chooses to take the good roll and the DM enforces that - not the DM tells the player 'I got a 7 and you got a 13' then the player choosing.

Scenario 3 is nerfing the feat based off of his play style and is not fair to the player.

[bid]

Nice nitpicking work everybody.

Can you stop hiding behind words and answer the real issue?
- what brings the most fun to the table?
- should the DM be adversarial?

[BiPolar]

Nice nitpicking work everybody.

Can you stop hiding behind words and answer the real issue?
- what brings the most fun to the table?
- should the DM be adversarial?

Whatever is fun for that table.

No.

Yes, we're arguing Semantics, intent, and interpretation. Explaining ones interpretation is part of that.

[Typewriter]

Nice nitpicking work everybody.

Can you stop hiding behind words and answer the real issue?
- what brings the most fun to the table?
- should the DM be adversarial?

Not that you jumping into a conversation that's already been going on for four pages to try and shut everyone down isn't suuuuuper cool or anything, but most of those things have already been agreed upon by everyone.

Words are used to communicate with one another which is what everyone has been doing.

DM and player need to work together to figure out what works for them.

Why would the DM be adversarial? Did I miss something or are you just bringing up random stuff now?

Now if you want to join the conversation at hand (or OP wants to get the thread closed because he's happy with the on-topic answers he's been given) feel free to contribute something worthwhile.

[bid]

Now if you want to join the conversation at hand
Page 1, 9th post.

[Typewriter]

Page 1, 9th post.

Yes, you contributed 100 posts ago. Since then everyone involved in the conversation has offered their opinion on how to handle the situation, disagreements have broken out over the interpretation of certain rules and the intent of the designers. Currently we are all using our words to convey why we feel the game should be balanced one way or the other. At this point there seem to be two camps - one camp feels that the player should not be told the results of the die roll but should have choice in what sort of result should be used (high or low) while at least one other person feels that the ability to force an extra roll is enough.

And... go!

[MeeposFire]

Speaking of the meta game if you use visible rolls and the DM rolls a 20 on an attack can you ever use lucky? I mean before you technically have it declared a success by the DM. When is a 19 not a hit and what if you know before hand that a certain number is a hit beforehand for any reason can you not use it technically?

Just some fun food for thought. Remember you KNOW (one way or another) that the ability is a hit just from the die roll but the DM has not actually declared it yet.

[Segev]

Speaking of the meta game if you use visible rolls and the DM rolls a 20 on an attack can you ever use lucky? I mean before you technically have it declared a success by the DM. When is a 19 not a hit and what if you know before hand that a certain number is a hit beforehand for any reason can you not use it technically?

Just some fun food for thought. Remember you KNOW (one way or another) that the ability is a hit just from the die roll but the DM has not actually declared it yet.

As I've been saying, you can make a very solid argument that "before results are determined" means "before dice are rolled."

[BiPolar]

Yes, you contributed 100 posts ago. Since then everyone involved in the conversation has offered their opinion on how to handle the situation, disagreements have broken out over the interpretation of certain rules and the intent of the designers. Currently we are all using our words to convey why we feel the game should be balanced one way or the other. At this point there seem to be two camps - one camp feels that the player should not be told the results of the die roll but should have choice in what sort of result should be used (high or low) while at least one other person feels that the ability to force an extra roll is enough.

And... go!

If i'm the "at least one other person" I'd like to say that I'm not :) I'm in that first camp, but I do understand the argument for the other camp. Ultimately, as has been stated, this game is about fun. If the rules are set up in a particular situation that are taking away that fun, then it is up to the player and DM to work it out so both parties feel that it works for them.

But to go back to my use of advantage/disadvantage as a suggestion as to how this works in this case of attackers and hidden DM rolls, I think it does still work. It's not optimal, but giving disadvantage is a HUGE thing. Yes, you don't know the roll, but you do know that he has to make two rolls and take the lowest one. While not quite the same thing, it still makes you lucky by letting you impose that disadvantage mechanic at will up to 3x/day.

Again, I do prefer that those with the lucky feat have open rolls against them, but if the DM is adamant about not doing that, and potentially not even giving guidance, then the feat still has a strong use case with it's primary use of rerolling your own dice and the secondary use of Inspiration on demand.

[Rhaegar]

As I've been saying, you can make a very solid argument that "before results are determined" means "before dice are rolled."

You can only make that argument if you take parts of the feat completely out of context. The full sentence is: "You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined." You conveniently left out the part about "you can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die." When you read the entire text of the feat, it is quite clear the you decide whether or not to use luck after the dice are rolled.

[BiPolar]

You can only make that argument if you take parts of the feat completely out of context. The full sentence is: "You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined." You conveniently left out the part about "you can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die." When you read the entire text of the feat, it is quite clear the you decide whether or not to use luck after the dice are rolled.

Exactly, dice must be rolled first. The question is what are hidden rolled dice? One could argue that hidden rolled dice are basically unrolled dice. They're the Schroedinger's Cat of dice.

[Segev]

You can only make that argument if you take parts of the feat completely out of context. The full sentence is: "You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined." You conveniently left out the part about "you can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die." When you read the entire text of the feat, it is quite clear the you decide whether or not to use luck after the dice are rolled.Hm, true, I'd forgotten that line (and wasn't reading the feat as I typed that last night). However, such things have always puzzled me: what is the point at which "outcome is determined?" If you know your bonuses and your DC, you know the outcome as soon as the die is rolled. Heck, if a 1 or 20 is rolled, you know the outcome just based on that alone.

I suppose the point is meant to be "when the DM declares the outcome," regardless of whether you, the player, know what the DM is going to declare. But the reason I said a strong case could be made is simply that: you are able to determine the outcome just by seeing the die result, a lot of the time.

Come to think of it, it seems that a certain amount of hidden information is assumed by the feat. Not the die roll, but the target number and/or bonuses are likely "hidden," as that's the only way that it's possible to have a known die roll without a determined result.


Exactly, dice must be rolled first. The question is what are hidden rolled dice? One could argue that hidden rolled dice are basically unrolled dice. They're the Schroedinger's Cat of dice.

Precisely.

The intent of the feat is pretty clear: the player is meant to operate on knowledge of whether the initial roll is "good" or "bad," at least by the time he is deciding whether to use the luck die or the original die. (It actually seems that he's allowed to choose whether to spend the luck point after the die is rolled, which only makes sense if he knows if the die rolled well or not.)

[BiPolar]

Hm, true, I'd forgotten that line (and wasn't reading the feat as I typed that last night). However, such things have always puzzled me: what is the point at which "outcome is determined?" If you know your bonuses and your DC, you know the outcome as soon as the die is rolled. Heck, if a 1 or 20 is rolled, you know the outcome just based on that alone.

I suppose the point is meant to be "when the DM declares the outcome," regardless of whether you, the player, know what the DM is going to declare. But the reason I said a strong case could be made is simply that: you are able to determine the outcome just by seeing the die result, a lot of the time.

Come to think of it, it seems that a certain amount of hidden information is assumed by the feat. Not the die roll, but the target number and/or bonuses are likely "hidden," as that's the only way that it's possible to have a known die roll without a determined result.



Precisely.

The intent of the feat is pretty clear: the player is meant to operate on knowledge of whether the initial roll is "good" or "bad," at least by the time he is deciding whether to use the luck die or the original die. (It actually seems that he's allowed to choose whether to spend the luck point after the die is rolled, which only makes sense if he knows if the die rolled well or not.)

I think it might be fair to ask the DM to provide you with some basic information. Did it crit? Did it Fumble? Is the roll high, mid, low. I think that's enough to give you the information for the feat as intended. If he refuses and you refuse to accept it, ask if you can change your feat. But remember, at-will forcing of disadvantage, even if you don't know the original die, is still pretty powerful.

[newsman77]

I think it might be fair to ask the DM to provide you with some basic information. Did it crit? Did it Fumble? Is the roll high, mid, low. I think that's enough to give you the information for the feat as intended. If he refuses and you refuse to accept it, ask if you can change your feat. But remember, at-will forcing of disadvantage, even if you don't know the original die, is still pretty powerful.

It's not really at-will forcing disadvantage. At-will is usually something like a cantrip, something a player can do over and over without really expending resources. However, a no action re-roll is very nice.

Lucky is 1 roll, 3 times per long rest. If you go by the standard encounters per day, that's a fraction of the attacks, skill checks and/or saving throws you'll make.

The most practical applications at our table is you use lucky for when you're critted by the bad guy, when you really need to land one of your attacks or to pass a saving throw that's really detrimental (like action denial). Very, very few times do I see players use it on an regular monster attack. There are better ways to mitigate that damage.

[Typewriter]

If i'm the "at least one other person" I'd like to say that I'm not :)

The 'at least one other' I was mentioning was Coredump but I wasn't sure who else, if anyone, agreed with him.


Exactly, dice must be rolled first. The question is what are hidden rolled dice? One could argue that hidden rolled dice are basically unrolled dice. They're the Schroedinger's Cat of dice.

I think the 'before dice roll' thing is more to ensure a commitment to an action. If the DM says "I'm going to attack you" and you says "I'm going to use my luck feat" the DM could change his mind at that point because he hasn't rolled dice. I think doing so would be messed up and most DMs wouldn't actually do that, but telling people they have to wait until after the roll sort of offers that layer of BS protection.

[BiPolar]

It's not really at-will forcing disadvantage. At-will is usually something like a cantrip, something a player can do over and over without really expending resources. However, a no action re-roll is very nice.

Lucky is 1 roll, 3 times per long rest. If you go by the standard encounters per day, that's a fraction of the attacks, skill checks and/or saving throws you'll make.

The most practical applications at our table is you use lucky for when you're critted by the bad guy, when you really need to land one of your attacks or to pass a saving throw that's really detrimental (like action denial). Very, very few times do I see players use it on an regular monster attack. There are better ways to mitigate that damage.

Yes, I understand the mechanics of lucky. The at-will is up to 3x per long rest. Having the ability to do that is really powerful even at that limitation.

[Rhaegar]

Hm, true, I'd forgotten that line (and wasn't reading the feat as I typed that last night). However, such things have always puzzled me: what is the point at which "outcome is determined?" If you know your bonuses and your DC, you know the outcome as soon as the die is rolled. Heck, if a 1 or 20 is rolled, you know the outcome just based on that alone.

I suppose the point is meant to be "when the DM declares the outcome," regardless of whether you, the player, know what the DM is going to declare. But the reason I said a strong case could be made is simply that: you are able to determine the outcome just by seeing the die result, a lot of the time.

Come to think of it, it seems that a certain amount of hidden information is assumed by the feat. Not the die roll, but the target number and/or bonuses are likely "hidden," as that's the only way that it's possible to have a known die roll without a determined result.

I believe the important part about after the die is rolled but before the outcome is determined comes down to how it will interact with other spells and abilities, and the order in which the are calculated. The spell Shield for instance is cast as a reaction after the result is determined and a hit is declared.

[Segev]

I believe the important part about after the die is rolled but before the outcome is determined comes down to how it will interact with other spells and abilities, and the order in which the are calculated. The spell Shield for instance is cast as a reaction after the result is determined and a hit is declared.

Ah! I hadn't thought of that, but it's a good observation!

[coredump]

The thing is though that most feats have potentially detrimental effects that are independent of how the DM manages their dice. A feat shouldn't have two binary modes based off of the DMs preferred playstyle in regards to hiding dice.
I understand that you feel this way, and I don't think anyone has a problem with you playing that way at your table for that reason. But you can't just assume that is a tenet of the design philosophy. There are a *lot* of things in the game that are stronger or weaker based on the DM"s preferred playstyle. This is just one of many....


Scenario 3 is nerfing the feat based off of his play style and is not fair to the player.Here you are simply, factually, incorrect. You can only 'nerf' something if it starts one way and you *change* it to something else. Lucky is what it is, and always has been.... and the PHB has never assumed rolls would be open (or hidden). Thus it is no more being 'nerfed' by using closed rolls than it is 'buffed' by using open rolls.

The simple reality is that Lucky is a feat, and it operates differently depending on the DM playstyle.... thats it. There is no 'nerf', there is no 'buff'..... its just 'different'. (Again, there are a lot of things that operate this way.)


Exactly, dice must be rolled first. The question is what are hidden rolled dice? One could argue that hidden rolled dice are basically unrolled dice. They're the Schroedinger's Cat of dice.
No, there is no such question. Once you roll the die, it is a rolled die. Trying to play games like this makes no sense and do not apply to the situation in any way. The rules are clear, its after the die is rolled. So when the DM rolls the die...... that is "after the die is rolled".


Hm, true, I'd forgotten that line (and wasn't reading the feat as I typed that last night). However, such things have always puzzled me: what is the point at which "outcome is determined?" If you know your bonuses and your DC, you know the outcome as soon as the die is rolled. Heck, if a 1 or 20 is rolled, you know the outcome just based on that alone. No, you don't. You don't *know* until the DM tells you the result, because thats how the game works. First, the DM has the authority/power to overrule any die roll. Second, only the DM knows all of the variables that might apply. Perhaps a spell was cast, perhaps they are going to cast shield, perhaps their AC has improved for some reason, etc etc..... You may *think* you know, and you may usually be right..... but you don't *know* until the DM says so...


The intent of the feat is pretty clear: the player is meant to operate on knowledge of whether the initial roll is "good" or "bad," at least by the time he is deciding whether to use the luck die or the original die. (It actually seems that he's allowed to choose whether to spend the luck point after the die is rolled, which only makes sense if he knows if the die rolled well or not.)
That is not at all what the feat says.... and they *could* have very easily put that into the rule. "After the DM tells you the die roll, but before declaring the result, you may...." See how easy that would have been?? But they *didn't* to that..... likely because that was *NOT* the intent of the feat.

This feat, like *every* other feat and spell and feature in the game, was written so that the rules would still work with an open *or* closed rolling paradigm. What that a 'accident'?? Did that 'just happen'??

If they intended for the player to always have certain information, it would have been trivial to make that part of the various feats, spells, and features in the game... so to claim that was their 'intent' seems like you are grasping at straws.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to provide the evidence for the PHB 'assuming' all DM rolls will be in the open.... you are still refusing to supply it.... do you finally retract your assertion?


The 'at least one other' I was mentioning was Coredump but I wasn't sure who else, if anyone, agreed with him.
Then you should check your reading comprehension. I have never voiced an opinion on how a DM 'should' deal with the situation. What I have pushed back on are the various absurd claims that people keep making trying to justify their insistence that *their* opinion is the 'real intent' of the designers.
"If you don't know both rolls, there is no choice"
"The Game assumes all DM rolls will be open"
"The PHB assumes all DM rolls will be open"
"Since JC assumes players will know their own rolls, of course that means they assume all DM rolls are open"
"If a die is rolled, but not everyone gets to see it, it was not really rolled."
"No other feat in the game has a potential downside"
etc
etc

Its these kinds of absurd statements that I am pushing back on.

Any statement along the lines of "Well, as a DM I would do ........... because I think that would be more fun for me and my players" Is not something I am overly concerned about. I'm not even sure how I would deal with it, none of my players have taken it.

I just get tired of the random BS claims that people make up, and then never back up.






I think the 'before dice roll' thing is more to ensure a commitment to an action. If the DM says "I'm going to attack you" and you says "I'm going to use my luck feat" the DM could change his mind at that point because he hasn't rolled dice. I think doing so would be messed up and most DMs wouldn't actually do that, but telling people they have to wait until after the roll sort of offers that layer of BS protection.Seems highly unlikely. Its just making the feat more useful. Normally you will know the die roll before determining if you want to use the resource. The game doesn't really have any 'Bad DM' protection.....it would be a waste of effort.

[BiPolar]

Lucky:
You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment.
You have 3 luck ppoints. 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.
You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours.
If more than one creature spends a luck point to influence the outcome of a roll, the points cancel eachother out; no additional dice are rolled.
You regain your expended luck points when you finish a long rest.

At my last session we had a bit of a debate on how to handle the lucky feat in regards to using it on an enemy attacking the player. At our table we use hidden dice in regards the enemies attack rolls.

Player A: He first argued that the attackers dice should be able to be seen to determine whether luck should even be used, I completely shot that down, as if you're using hidden monster dice at the table, that allows the lucky person to see virtually every attack, and than just not use luck. He then argued that the person with Lucky should at least be able to see the monsters die roll after luck is used, so that the player can at least choose the more optimal roll, and not inadvertently pick the enemies crit over the players 19 roll for instance. Arguing that getting crit when you used lucky when you could have not been crit isn't very lucky.

Player B: Says that Rules as written it doesn't say anything about having any extra insight on what the monster rolls just that you choose whether you want the enemies attack roll or your luck roll. If the enemy happened to crit and you chose that crit, you aren't any worse off than if you hadn't used the crit. If were using hidden dice at the table than dice stay hidden.

Player C: The person who has Lucky, and the wife of player A. "I'll probably never use it on an enemies attack against me anyways so lets just move on."

Now the situation never actually came up, and may never come up. I was just curious as to exactly how other DMs who use hidden monster attack dice handle the lucky feat. Do you let the player know what the monster rolled? Do you automatically give the player the best die result? Or do you let them choose with the one die hidden, possibly choosing the worse result?

RAW seems to imply that they choose despite the monsters die hidden. I'm not opposed to letting the player have the best die option though. I also thought it would be funny if the enemy crit, but the player chose to use their luck, but kept the enemies roll, I could have the monster stumble miss the intended player completely but end up critting a nearby ally. Perhaps way off RAW but Rules as Funny.

Coredump, I feel at this point you are being purely adversarial to refute points by others. You just stated that you haven't suggested a ruling...why not do so? Or is your point that every table is different and every ruling acceptable - especially considering that the DM can do whatever they want anyway.

Going back to Rhaegar's original question, he was asking what others DMs do (knowing that this is a squishy ruling.) I'm fairly new to this, but if I employed hidden monster dice, I'd likely go with the option of Crit/High(15-20)/Mid(10-15)/Low(10 below)/Fumble description and let them decide if they want to use Lucky and decide which die. It's not open rolling, it's giving enough information to be useful and it's making the Lucky feat enjoyable for the person using it.

[Typewriter]

I understand that you feel this way, and I don't think anyone has a problem with you playing that way at your table for that reason. But you can't just assume that is a tenet of the design philosophy. There are a *lot* of things in the game that are stronger or weaker based on the DM"s preferred playstyle. This is just one of many....

Here you are simply, factually, incorrect. You can only 'nerf' something if it starts one way and you *change* it to something else. Lucky is what it is, and always has been.... and the PHB has never assumed rolls would be open (or hidden). Thus it is no more being 'nerfed' by using closed rolls than it is 'buffed' by using open rolls.

The simple reality is that Lucky is a feat, and it operates differently depending on the DM playstyle.... thats it. There is no 'nerf', there is no 'buff'..... its just 'different'. (Again, there are a lot of things that operate this way.)


I never said the design philosophy was one way or the other, I said it was open to either way but that the feat should be expected to work the same way regardless.

And Lucky is fundamentally different in comparison to other feats in regards to how it's affected by the DMs play style.

Let's say you have a feat that makes you good against mages, but your DM never sends mages against you. That feat is situational and the lack of mages makes it worthless. That sucks, it's a DM choice, but the fact that the feat was situational is the 'problem' not the DMs choice.

Lucky isn't situational. Lucky makes your character Lucky. When the DM makes choices that create the opportunity for you being Lucky to be a bad thing the DM is nerfing the feat. Especially when we've already established that there are ways for him to keep his die rolls hidden but still keep the feat purely beneficial and never harmful. That is the DM actively going out of his way to make the feat worse.



No, you don't. You don't *know* until the DM tells you the result, because thats how the game works. First, the DM has the authority/power to overrule any die roll. Second, only the DM knows all of the variables that might apply. Perhaps a spell was cast, perhaps they are going to cast shield, perhaps their AC has improved for some reason, etc etc..... You may *think* you know, and you may usually be right..... but you don't *know* until the DM says so...

Players generally make the assumption that the DM isn't going to pull random 'rule 0' BS out in the open, so is this actually relevant to discussion about actual gameplay or is this just a tangent?



This feat, like *every* other feat and spell and feature in the game, was written so that the rules would still work with an open *or* closed rolling paradigm. What that a 'accident'?? Did that 'just happen'??

And everyone here besides you has already agreed on that - combined with the fact that it's possible to preserve the usefulness of the feat with hidden rolls. You're the only person continuing to argue against that and I'm not even sure why.



BTW, I am still waiting for you to provide the evidence for the PHB 'assuming' all DM rolls will be in the open.... you are still refusing to supply it.... do you finally retract your assertion?


Segev never said that and you've been freaking out about it for 3 pages. You should re-read the thread because he specifically addressed you on this point a page or two ago.



Then you should check your reading comprehension. I have never voiced an opinion on how a DM 'should' deal with the situation. What I have pushed back on are the various absurd claims that people keep making trying to justify their insistence that *their* opinion is the 'real intent' of the designers.
"If you don't know both rolls, there is no choice"
"The Game assumes all DM rolls will be open"
"The PHB assumes all DM rolls will be open"
"Since JC assumes players will know their own rolls, of course that means they assume all DM rolls are open"
"If a die is rolled, but not everyone gets to see it, it was not really rolled."
"No other feat in the game has a potential downside"
etc
etc

Its these kinds of absurd statements that I am pushing back on.

Any statement along the lines of "Well, as a DM I would do ........... because I think that would be more fun for me and my players" Is not something I am overly concerned about. I'm not even sure how I would deal with it, none of my players have taken it.

I just get tired of the random BS claims that people make up, and then never back up.

I am bothered by arrogance and there have been times in this thread I've lost my temper because someone was doing as you say - projecting their opinions and interpretation as fact. You seem to agree with that ideal and have been trying to do the same thing as I - prove that the game is open to interpretation - problem is you've been doing it by freaking out and misinterpreting people. You're not looking for a solution or neutral ground, you're simply over-reacting to everything everyone says. You're causing far more harm than good to your own argument by behaving this way. I can think of a comment or two I've made in this thread where the same could also be said of me, to be fair.

[Vogonjeltz]

You say that JC is 'very careful' with his wording.... well he was the main guy writing the rules for the PHB.... was he just 'careless' when he wrote *every* *single* rule in a way that would work for both an open and hidden DM style? Is that just happenstance? And further coincidence that the DMG provides both ways as a simple DM choice. (Though, if anything, they make Hidden seem preferable...)

So which is it.... he is 'careful' or 'careless'..... it doesn't work both ways...

Not every single rule, cutting words for example strictly assumes open attack rolls by all parties.

[Rhaegar]

Not every single rule, cutting words for example strictly assumes open attack rolls by all parties.

Why do you think that cutting words assumes open attack roles. Cutting words can work quite easily with closed roles. As I read it there would be less imbalance between open/hidden roles with cutting words compared to lucky.

All cutting words does is say that you can roll one of your bardic inspiration dice to subtract that result from the enemies attack roll, ability check, saving throw or damage roll. While this ability would obviously be stronger if you could see the attackers dice, it is still quite powerful without seeing the enemies dice. If you know an enemy is going to do damage greater than your bardic die with an attack, you can be certain that if you use it on damage you'll get full effect. As with lucky if you use hidden dice roles, you may be more likely to use your bardic inspiration dice to inspire allies vs cutting words your enemies. Regardless it still doesn't say anywhere that open dice are assumed.

[ryan92084]

Since the original question was about how other DM's handle lucky against a hidden roles monster I'll answer that since I am a hidden roles DM.

1) I indicate the Big Bad is swinging his mighty axe against Player 1
2a) I begin rolling dice
2b) I might have an evil grin if it would be a crit
2c) I don't try to be an ass and rush to declare the hit
3) P1 indicates they'd like to use their feat and roll an opposing die
4a) I say " I assume you'd like the choose lowest roll"
4b) Possibly make a joke if P1's roll was a high
5a) BB uses the lowest roll and hits/misses accordingly
5b) Use narrative to describe the (un)luckiness of said axe swing

[Segev]

Since the original question was about how other DM's handle lucky against a hidden roles monster I'll answer that since I am a hidden roles DM.

1) I indicate the Big Bad is swinging his mighty axe against Player 1
2a) I begin rolling dice
2b) I might have an evil grin if it would be a crit
2c) I don't try to be an ass and rush to declare the hit
3) P1 indicates they'd like to use their feat and roll an opposing die
4a) I say " I assume you'd like the choose lowest roll"
4b) Possibly make a joke if P1's roll was a high
5a) BB uses the lowest roll and hits/misses accordingly
5b) Use narrative to describe the (un)luckiness of said axe swing

This is a very good way of handling it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Why do you think that cutting words assumes open attack roles. Cutting words can work quite easily with closed roles. As I read it there would be less imbalance between open/hidden roles with cutting words compared to lucky.

All cutting words does is say that you can roll one of your bardic inspiration dice to subtract that result from the enemies attack roll, ability check, saving throw or damage roll. While this ability would obviously be stronger if you could see the attackers dice, it is still quite powerful without seeing the enemies dice. If you know an enemy is going to do damage greater than your bardic die with an attack, you can be certain that if you use it on damage you'll get full effect. As with lucky if you use hidden dice roles, you may be more likely to use your bardic inspiration dice to inspire allies vs cutting words your enemies. Regardless it still doesn't say anywhere that open dice are assumed.

Yes, from the roll. Not the total, the roll.

"You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage."

So you must be informed of the roll value.

Incidentally, the rules specify in situations where a roll is hidden, PHB 175:
"A passive check is a special kind o fability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

The basic assumption is that things aren't secret. You're overshooting the mark by claiming that because the die rolls theoretically could be made in secret, they necessarily are. There has been no evidence to suggest this anywhere. The rules assume open rolls and they break down when total secrecy is instituted, which is why we are having this discussion at all.

[Typewriter]

Yes, from the roll. Not the total, the roll.

"You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage."

So you must be informed of the roll value.

Incidentally, the rules specify in situations where a roll is hidden, PHB 175:
"A passive check is a special kind o fability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

The basic assumption is that things aren't secret. You're overshooting the mark by claiming that because the die rolls theoretically could be made in secret, they necessarily are. There has been no evidence to suggest this anywhere. The rules assume open rolls and they break down when total secrecy is instituted, which is why we are having this discussion at all.

You're overshooting by pretending that this system was designed like 3.5 where there is a hard and fast rule for every little thing. Finding a line in a book that sort of, kind of supports an argument is pointless. The system is designed so that groups can forge their own paths ahead - hide or don't hide rolls - it doesn't matter and the system really seems, to me, to go out of it's way to be as neutral on the subject as possible.

The fact of the matter is that the ability you're now hung up on works regardless of whether or not the *player* knows the roll. The player is not supposed to know the outcome but almost certainly will if he knows the roll. All the player has to do is choose to use the ability and the DM will subtract the value accordingly. Does this mean that it's intended to be that way? No, it's intended to be used by players who want to use - period. It can be handled either way without problem.

[Rhaegar]

Yes, from the roll. Not the total, the roll.

"You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage."

So you must be informed of the roll value.

Incidentally, the rules specify in situations where a roll is hidden, PHB 175:
"A passive check is a special kind o fability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

The basic assumption is that things aren't secret. You're overshooting the mark by claiming that because the die rolls theoretically could be made in secret, they necessarily are. There has been no evidence to suggest this anywhere. The rules assume open rolls and they break down when total secrecy is instituted, which is why we are having this discussion at all.

Certainly some rolls have to be secret to make sense. But you can't assume that saying that some rolls are hidden that by default other rolls are open. The DMG gives both open and hidden dice as 2 options, and even gives more advantages for hidden attack dice than open attack dice.

I still don't see where the player has to be informed of the roll value, no where in the ability does it say the player has to know the value of the die roll, the DM can easily handle all of the math. The ability still works quite well with hidden rolls as well as open rolls. It is obviously a stronger ability with open rolls, but no where in what you quote does it say that the rolls must be open, nor does it even imply that they are to be open. The DM rolls attack, saving throw, ability check, damage dice hidden. The Bard wants to reduce damage or increase the likelihood that the monster fails so he chooses to use his cutting words, he rolls his die, the DM then in secret subtracts away the cutting word die from the hidden monsters die, and reports the result. At least with cutting words and hidden dice you are guaranteed a beneficial result, unlike lucky where if the DM handles it in a strict RAW way you could end up worse off than if you hadn't used it at all.

But we've had this exact same discussion with Lucky over the last 5 pages, Lucky works very similarly to cutting words, just another ability that is much stronger with open rolls, but works quite well both ways, and in no way requires or even assumes one vs the other.

[Segev]

You're overshooting by pretending that this system was designed like 3.5 where there is a hard and fast rule for every little thing. Finding a line in a book that sort of, kind of supports an argument is pointless. The system is designed so that groups can forge their own paths ahead - hide or don't hide rolls - it doesn't matter and the system really seems, to me, to go out of it's way to be as neutral on the subject as possible.

He's responding to a demand to present a fiddly little point of exactly the sort you're saying he's overshooting by trying to provide, so... such overshooting is being asked for.

I do think you're right, overall. 5e is a very loose system in that sense, by design. And it serves it well, for the most part. It just doesn't serve the usual forum effort to figure out the exact "right" way to run things "by default."

[Typewriter]

He's responding to a demand to present a fiddly little point of exactly the sort you're saying he's overshooting by trying to provide, so... such overshooting is being asked for.

I do think you're right, overall. 5e is a very loose system in that sense, by design. And it serves it well, for the most part. It just doesn't serve the usual forum effort to figure out the exact "right" way to run things "by default."

I guess that's fair to an extent. The problem with this particular attempt at an answer, in my opinion, is that the wording is again ambiguous and, what's more, requires analyzing the book for details that I feel weren't intended. Even if this spell had the words, "The player looks at the DMs dice roll before making his decision", I would still argue against using it as evidence for a blanket rule regarding hidden dice. 3.5 was full of this sort of thing - you had to find and compare minute sections of the book for details that were hidden away to find exact rulings for stuff. 5E is different though - finding a spell or ability that handles an ability a certain way is not indicative of the game being played that way because they intentionally left the majority vague so that DMs could come up with things that work for that group. Basically, again - in my opinion,3.5 was rules focused so finding a 'rule' for something was definitive, but 5E is more free flow so finding a 'rule' for something doesn't mean that it's as definitive.

[Segev]

I guess that's fair to an extent. The problem with this particular attempt at an answer, in my opinion, is that the wording is again ambiguous and, what's more, requires analyzing the book for details that I feel weren't intended. Even if this spell had the words, "The player looks at the DMs dice roll before making his decision", I would still argue against using it as evidence for a blanket rule regarding hidden dice. 3.5 was full of this sort of thing - you had to find and compare minute sections of the book for details that were hidden away to find exact rulings for stuff. 5E is different though - finding a spell or ability that handles an ability a certain way is not indicative of the game being played that way because they intentionally left the majority vague so that DMs could come up with things that work for that group. Basically, again - in my opinion,3.5 was rules focused so finding a 'rule' for something was definitive, but 5E is more free flow so finding a 'rule' for something doesn't mean that it's as definitive.

Again, probably wouldn't be looking so "hard" for a rule if it wasn't being demanded just to allow people to make the common-sense assertion that something not mentioned in the PHB as an option that changes how a particular feat a player may choose functions so dramatically was, in fact, not something that is reasonable to use as a "baseline" to insist that shift from what a player would reasonably expect from what he's seeing in the PHB as he makes the choice is a "nerf."