Lucky Feat - when to use?

[hymer]

The disadvantage to extra advantage thing aside, how do you guys rule this aspect of Lucky:


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.

Is this like using luck points on your own rolls, so that you can choose to Luck away a crit you know has been rolled? Or do you announce it before you know what the roll is?

[Fflewddur Fflam]

You don't have to announce it before, that would make it pretty much worthless.

And yes, Lucky-ing out of getting crits against you is one of the best uses of it. Since you only get 3 uses/LR, I tend to only use it for really important rolls. Like a critical roll against me, or a high level spell attack that I really need to hit with, or a saving throw that I really need to make but just didn't, etc.

You don't want to waste it on just a missed attack or something. You'll get another turn for that. But if it's something that could really hurt you like a crit against you or a missed saving throw, yeah that's when you use Lucky.

[Plaguescarred]

The disadvantage to extra advantage thing aside, how do you guys rule this aspect of Lucky:



Is this like using luck points on your own rolls, so that you can choose to Luck away a crit you know has been rolled? Or do you announce it before you know what the roll is?You pick which die roll to keep after it's been rolled, wether it's yours or someone else.

[hymer]

You pick which die roll to keep after it's been rolled, wether it's yours or someone else.

But when do you choose to use a luck point?

[Specter]

But when do you choose to use a luck point?

After you've seen the roll. If you see your opponent rolling a 20 against you, it's pretty obvious that's one of the best times to Luck it out. Similarly, if you've rolled a 2 on your own attack, you can decide - after seeing the 2 - to roll again.

[hymer]

After you've seen the roll. If you see your opponent rolling a 20 against you, it's pretty obvious that's one of the best times to Luck it out. Similarly, if you've rolled a 2 on your own attack, you can decide - after seeing the 2 - to roll again.

Thanks for the opinion. May I ask what you base it on?

[BiPolar]

Thanks for the opinion. May I ask what you base it on?

This is from the description of the Lucky Feat (emphasis in bold added0:

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.

Also, if you ever have disadvantage, this is another great time to use Lucky. It gives you an extra die so you pick the best of 3 (confirmed by Jeremy Crawford (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/526089494177382401).)

[dropbear8mybaby]

I get why this is a popular feat. I get the math behind it. But damned if it ever plays out as anything other than a wasted feat at the table.

If I save it until I badly need it, I end up hardly ever using it and then tend to just use it willy-nilly when I think it's the last encounter for the day so that I use up all 3 for the day.

And even when I do badly need it, it almost never ends up saving me. I can think of only one time when it's done anything for me and that was to negate a crit that might've put me on 0.

Other feats are so much better at the table than Lucky, IMO.

[hymer]

This is from the description of the Lucky Feat (emphasis in bold added0:

That description is for the first way to use of Lucky, though. How do you get it to apply to the second way?

[BiPolar]

That description is for the first way to use of Lucky, though. How do you get it to apply to the second way?

THe language I quoted does state "When an attack roll is made against you". The intent of the lucky feat, as described when you use it on one of your own rolls, is to wait until the first die is rolled. While the language does not restate this, I see no reason to rule it differently and to utilize the mechanics described in the previous sentence.

Yes, I'm assuming that the mechanics don't change, but without it stating it DOES change, it makes more sense to continue it rather than say "well, it doesn't restate it, so it must be different" when nothing different is stated either.

edit: Crawford also supports. this. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/666460978318471168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Basically, the difference is Lucky vs Disadvantage. Disadvantage is when dice are rolled simultaneously. With lucky, the dice are rolled serially.

[hymer]

THe language I quoted does state "When an attack roll is made against you". The intent of the lucky feat, as described when you use it on one of your own rolls, is to wait until the first die is rolled. While the language does not restate this, I see no reason to rule it differently and to utilize the mechanics described in the previous sentence.

Yes, I'm assuming that the mechanics don't change, but without it stating it DOES change, it makes more sense to continue it rather than say "well, it doesn't restate it, so it must be different" when nothing different is stated either.

You could say that it changes in the sense that it describes the use differently. A single 'likewise' or 'unlike' would make it much clearer, but there isn't one.
Thanks, though!

[WereRabbitz]

Generally I used my Lucky roles on my Paladin for Anti-Crits and failures that might get my character killed.

If I start to climb a rope and fail and fall down i'm not going to waste a Lucky Roll on that.
Surrounded by armed gurads who seem really agitated and roll a 3 on my persuasion check? Yep might reroll that one.

[BiPolar]

You could say that it changes in the sense that it describes the use differently. A single 'likewise' or 'unlike' would make it much clearer, but there isn't one.
Thanks, though!

Please see my edit, too. Although many take umbrage with Crawford, he does support this reading. But yes, all they had to do was restate the mechanic, but on the flipside, why restate it if it isn't changing?

[hymer]

Please see my edit, too. Although many take umbrage with Crawford, he does support this reading. But yes, all they had to do was restate the mechanic, but on the flipside, why restate it if it isn't changing?

The link shows a question, though not the one I'm posing. Of course a luck point can counter a natural twenty, if the other die is anything other than a natural twenty. The question is whether you can react to the natural twenty with a luck point.
At the risk of adding perfidy to obscurity, I have to say I don't see the answer, just the question. Scratch that, the answer is of course above the question. :smallredface:
But thanks for hunting it up. I failed to find it myself.

[BiPolar]

The link shows a question, though not the one I'm posing. Of course a luck point can counter a natural twenty, if the other die is anything other than a natural twenty. The question is whether you can react to the natural twenty with a luck point.
At the risk of adding perfidy to obscurity, I have to say I don't see the answer, just the question. Scratch that, the answer is of course above the question. :smallredface:
But thanks for hunting it up. I failed to find it myself.

NP :) It's definitely a situational feat and doesn't always work (yes, i've rolled double 1s), but if you have a DM that uses critical failures as well as critical hits, this can be a life saver.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I get why this is a popular feat. I get the math behind it. But damned if it ever plays out as anything other than a wasted feat at the table.

If I save it until I badly need it, I end up hardly ever using it and then tend to just use it willy-nilly when I think it's the last encounter for the day so that I use up all 3 for the day.

And even when I do badly need it, it almost never ends up saving me. I can think of only one time when it's done anything for me and that was to negate a crit that might've put me on 0.

Other feats are so much better at the table than Lucky, IMO.

Can't disagree more. Lucky makes your character unkillable most of the time if you use it right. I don't ever get a crit on me or lose saves with Lucky. Lucky is also a great way to get crits when you have disadvantage. You rolled a 20 with disadvantage? Great. Now roll a third die with Lucky and pick whatever die roll you want.... Hmmm, I think I will pick the 20!

[dropbear8mybaby]

Can't disagree more. Lucky makes your character unkillable most of the time if you use it right. I don't ever get a crit on me or lose saves with Lucky. Lucky is also a great way to get crits when you have disadvantage. You rolled a 20 with disadvantage? Great. Now roll a third die with Lucky and pick whatever die roll you want.... Hmmm, I think I will pick the 20!

The thing is that crits generally aren't killers. Sure, they can sometimes result in a lot of damage, but generally speaking I find they're not that big a deal. I've been playing 2-4 times a week in 2-4 different groups since 5e came out and the trend I've seen is that crits are fun, but hardly ever player killers.

The real threats come from failing saving throws. I'm yet to see Lucky save a character from a failed save, especially when the character is often failing originally because they have a low or negative save bonus, and the DC on the save is quite high.