Is Lucky OP

[Creyzi4j]

I see a lot of DMs banning the feat.
Is it OP? Should Lucky be banned or allowed in a game?

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I don't think it is. You get a feat anyway and most people spend it to make themselves able to sometimes do really amazing things. People who choose lucky are spending their feat to continue doing their normal level of success more often.

(However if your campaign only typically has a few rolls per game day, I'd say it's OP just because you basically have unlimited advantage then.)

[ad_hoc]

It is certainly very good. I can get behind the idea that it is OP.

I ban it because I think is a very poorly designed feat.

It doesn't add anything thematically to the game. In fact, it has the opposite flavour of what it should.

It doesn't feel like the character is luckier. It is an ability that is used tactically to make the character much better at very important things.

Also, mechanically, it's just bad that disadvantage becomes super advantage.

It is also a broad power boost and I feel like for feats to be balanced they need to increase the character's abilities in a narrow scope. Broad power is what the +2 ASI is for.

[JellyPooga]

It doesn't add anything thematically to the game. In fact, it has the opposite flavour of what it should.

I disagree on this point. In theory, it does make thematic sense that a character can pull off these unbelievably fortuitous stunts by turning disadvantage into super-advantage and generally being able to make the odds more favourable is a pretty decent way to make a character feel fortunate.


It doesn't feel like the character is luckier. It is an ability that is used tactically to make the character much better at very important things.

This, as with Portent, is where the theme starts falling apart if you look at it in the wrong light. At first blush, yeah, it doesn't seem very "lucky" to be choosing when to use it and only using it when you need it for important things. But think about it; when do you use Lucky? It's not when you've rolled well...your character was "lucky" that time anyway. It's when you've rolled poorly, right? And in order to turn than poor roll into a good one, it needs a little help (i.e. the super-advantage).

Now, here's the kicker; unlike many character abilities, Lucky uses metagame conceit, not in-character choice. A Fighter using Extra Attack is making that choice both in- and out-of-character. A Player choosing to use Lucky is doing so out-of-character only. All the character knows is that he tends to succeed. A lot. Especially when the chips are down and things really shouldn't be going his way. He's just lucky that way.

As for the OP; is it overpowered? No. Is it very good? Yes. Is it better than other Feats? Not really. Unlike many Feats, Lucky doesn't let you do anything you can't already; it just makes you better at stuff you can already do. Further, it's entirely possible that you will never use it once you have it; it's unlikely, but if you're a lucky player and consistently roll well, or don't make many rolls in the first place, your Feat may never come into play, especially if you're using it tactically and only using it in the most dire circumstances.

[Citan]

I disagree on this point. In theory, it does make thematic sense that a character can pull off these unbelievably fortuitous stunts by turning disadvantage into super-advantage and generally being able to make the odds more favourable is a pretty decent way to make a character feel fortunate.



This, as with Portent, is where the theme starts falling apart if you look at it in the wrong light. At first blush, yeah, it doesn't seem very "lucky" to be choosing when to use it and only using it when you need it for important things. But think about it; when do you use Lucky? It's not when you've rolled well...your character was "lucky" that time anyway. It's when you've rolled poorly, right? And in order to turn than poor roll into a good one, it needs a little help (i.e. the super-advantage).

Now, here's the kicker; unlike many character abilities, Lucky uses metagame conceit, not in-character choice. A Fighter using Extra Attack is making that choice both in- and out-of-character. A Player choosing to use Lucky is doing so out-of-character only. All the character knows is that he tends to succeed. A lot. Especially when the chips are down and things really shouldn't be going his way. He's just lucky that way.

As for the OP; is it overpowered? No. Is it very good? Yes. Is it better than other Feats? Not really. Unlike many Feats, Lucky doesn't let you do anything you can't already; it just makes you better at stuff you can already do. Further, it's entirely possible that you will never use it once you have it; it's unlikely, but if you're a lucky player and consistently roll well, or don't make many rolls in the first place, your Feat may never come into play, especially if you're using it tactically and only using it in the most dire circumstances.
I agree with 100% of your post.

A note on potential overpowereness: I see Lucky as being great mainly to influence a VERY nasty spell, either on you (avoid) or on an enemy (affect).

Defense
At low levels it's in fact a boon for the DM if players are smart because he can risk a few nasty effects to "teach" the players about upcoming nastyness, without risking a character kill or otherwise crippling too much the party.

At mid-levels, there are enough creatures with different abilities that Lucky just proves good enough to make some interesting turns and cliffhangers for everyone around the table.

At high-levels (against the most powerful creatures), there are so many ways to put characters against very high DC, several of which they will be weak again, that Lucky is basically just an Indomitable, except potentially better.

Offense
At low levels, you don't have that many spell slots even as a fullcaster, and there are not game-changer at all. So it's not a problem normally.
Maybe it will allow a successful Hold Person on the BBEG followed by a whole party ganging up, or other kind of "win-button" trick. Well, lesson learned for DM, and great moment of glory for the party. Is normally a very fun session for all.

At mid-levels, it may provide some bad surprises to the DM if he isn't prepared enough, but I don't see how because he KNOWS all the players and their spells and tactics, so he should be able to prepare: either anticipate differents ways of party winning with their spells just to know what to do next to avoid akward situations ("well, erm, guys, let's take a pause shall we? I totally didn't expect you to Disintegrate/Dominate/Banish/Polymorph-squish my big boss that easily and I'm totally lost on how to unravel the situation") or, if he really wants to "preserve" the storyline he prepared, he can put up some encounters along that would stronly incite the player to "waste" his Lucky on its.

At high level, the most dangerous creatures have so many immunities/resistances, Legendary Actions and high saves in the first place that Lucky is just a way to "gain advantage" on a spell as with a Heightened, albeit more efficient because you already know the result.

[Creyzi4j]

Lucky has three charges..which is where the insane part comes in.

If an enemy tries to hit you with a charm ability and you fail like 3 times on that first save...then you can still have one more try...kinda insane how many rerolls you get.

Personally..I think the number of xharges should be nerfed. Like maybe two instead of three



At high level, the most dangerous creatures have so many immunities/resistances, Legendary Actions and high saves in the first place that Lucky is just a way to "gain advantage" on a spell as with a Heightened, albeit more efficient because you already know the result.
Does Lucky affect the save throw of your target? It doesn't seem to say on the PHB


Lucky

"You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment.
You have 3 luck points. 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 each other out; no additional dice are rolled. You regain your expended luck points when you finish a long rest."

It doesn't say that you can let the opppnent reroll his saving throw against your spell

[Coffee_Dragon]

I ban it because I think is a very poorly designed feat.

I agree it's very poorly designed. In addition to what you noted, it creates a pipeline where the DM needs a player to OK every attack roll made against them.

I didn't ban it, but house ruled away the super advantage, and nobody took it in our games so far.

[Theodoxus]

Honestly, I wish it granted the Halfling Lucky ability instead. I love me some halflings, but sometimes you want to play something different, you know? But getting to reroll 1's has been a lifesaver - literally in a game I was in with really harsh fumble rules... I'd love for that to be an option.

Heck, I'd go so far as to make it an 'either or' feat, thus letting everyone get the version they prefer.

LUCKY
You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment.
When you choose this feat, you choose which type of luck you possess:
Unlimited Luck: When you roll a 1 on an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll.
or
Luck Points: Potent Luck
You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check. ar 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. RolI 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 each other out; no additional dice are rolled.
You regain your expended luck points when you finish a long rest.

[Citan]

Lucky has three charges..which is where the insane part comes in.

If an enemy tries to hit you with a charm ability and you fail like 3 times on that first save...then you can still have one more try...kinda insane how many rerolls you get.

Personally..I think the number of xharges should be nerfed. Like maybe two instead of three


Does Lucky affect the save throw of your target? It doesn't seem to say on the PHB


Lucky

"You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment.
You have 3 luck points. 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 each other out; no additional dice are rolled. You regain your expended luck points when you finish a long rest."

It doesn't say that you can let the opppnent reroll his saving throw against your spell
Oh, right my bad, you are totally right it doesn't affect saving throws from enemies.
I totally swapped Lucky and Portent mechanics in my mind, sorry.
So that's one more point against Lucky's supposed "OPness": you just roll one additional die, but you can luck out on this one too. :/

I better understand now why several here say it's poorly designed. Because in the worst case, you just spent a precious resource to fail again, so I "fail" to see where the luck is then. XD

[Corran]

I dont think that lucky is OP.

I think it is very useful for (mc) assassins, as they usually need consecutive good/decent rolls in stealth/deception, initiative and surprise attack, for assassinate to work, so failling one of these can hinder their assassinations, and that's where lucky comes in.

[JellyPooga]

Something to consider; as good as Lucky is, how often do you see builds that actually include it? How often do you see players taking it before, say, Polearm Master, Alert or Magic Initiate? Or getting their primary Ability Score to 20? At the end of the day, it's a great Feat, no doubt, but nerfing it makes it all but worthless; it's already quite limited in an action-heavy campaign. 3/long rest is a very ow number for a game where you're making dozens of rolls in that same time span. It's by no means an auto-include and I think the knee-jerk reaction of "it's so OP! Nerf-bat!" likely comes from 5-minute-workday campaigns where it's impact is more pronounced.

[Dudewithknives]

I ban Lucky, in its original form, because it uses completely different mechanics than every other rule and ability in the game.

It turns having disadvantage into roll 3 dice and pick the best. We had a character who took lucky just so he could have his character close his eyes and attack so he would have disadvantage, spend a lucky point and then roll 3 dice to keep the best.

In my game lucky let's you give yourself advantage on a roll, 3 times per short rest.

That us what it should have done in the first place.

[Pex]

I can only say from personal experience that the only time someone had Lucky was an NPC for one encounter as an in character in game party training exercise. For personal taste it's not a high priority feat choice. It could be a personality thing where I prefer specified benefits from a feat that enhances my play rather than chuck it up to the roll of the dice, pun intended.

I have experienced the power of Portent and recognize how strong it is. It saves the day that one time (alright two times), but it hasn't made the game. I would agree Lucky provides that great shining moment but not to the point of making the game not work.

If it means anything it's probably parcel to why the Big Boss Monsters have Legendary Saves. For the run of the mill BBEGS let the players have their shining moments of glory. When it comes to the Big Boys, you need everything, the kitchen sink, and more.

[Glorthindel]

I consider it ok as long as you completely ignore the Sage Advice comments about how Lucky should turn Disadvantage into Super Advantage.

I houserule it as Lucky just negates Disadvantage if used on the same roll (so straight one dice).

[Lombra]

I ban Lucky, in its original form, because it uses completely different mechanics than every other rule and ability in the game.

It turns having disadvantage into roll 3 dice and pick the best. We had a character who took lucky just so he could have his character close his eyes and attack so he would have disadvantage, spend a lucky point and then roll 3 dice to keep the best.

In my game lucky let's you give yourself advantage on a roll, 3 times per short rest.

That us what it should have done in the first place.

I like that variant a lot. It shouldn't be more powerful than the sercerer's tides of chaos feature.

[Coffee_Dragon]

In my game lucky let's you give yourself advantage on a roll, 3 times per short rest.

Problem is if you do that it's a god feat for rogues.

[Lombra]

Problem is if you do that it's a god feat for rogues.

three free sneak attacks / day don't really feel that bad

[Laurefindel]

It's fine in itself IMO. It's annoying when combined with portent and halfling lucky ability.

The "turn disadvantage into super-advantage" part is a bit over the top if you ask me. That's the only thing I would consider houseruling.

[ghost_warlock]

Problem is if you do that it's a god feat for rogues.

A rogue is pretty awful if they can't get sneak attack on nearly every attack anyway. The required conditions aren't that hard to meet.

[JellyPooga]

The "turn disadvantage into super-advantage" part is a bit over the top if you ask me. That's the only thing I would consider houseruling.

It's the super-advantage from disadvantage that makes the feat "lucky", for me, as opposed to just "better at stuff". To compare to another game; in Bloodbowl there's a skill called Pro, which allows a player to re-roll any action if he can roll 4+ on a d6. It represents him just being a good all-round player (as opposed to other skills, which are much more focused, e.g. Dodge or Sure Hands). For the Lucky Feat to do what it says on the tin, it needs to emphasise that the character with it isn't just good at doing things, he's good at doing things despite the odds, because he's fortunate. He frequently beats the odds by random chance; the richochet shot that should have missed because of cover, but nailed his target, the literal stab in the dark that skewered the bad-guy in the heart, the random branch that broke your fall and so forth.

Just having Lucky grant Advantage isn't lucky...it's proficiency, skill, just plain better. Granting Advantage from Disadvantage is what being lucky is about. Thematically speaking.

[Laurefindel]

It's the super-advantage from disadvantage that makes the feat "lucky", for me, as opposed to just "better at stuff". To compare to another game; in Bloodbowl there's a skill called Pro, which allows a player to re-roll any action if he can roll 4+ on a d6. It represents him just being a good all-round player (as opposed to other skills, which are much more focused, e.g. Dodge or Sure Hands). For the Lucky Feat to do what it says on the tin, it needs to emphasise that the character with it isn't just good at doing things, he's good at doing things despite the odds, because he's fortunate. He frequently beats the odds by random chance; the richochet shot that should have missed because of cover, but nailed his target, the literal stab in the dark that skewered the bad-guy in the heart, the random branch that broke your fall and so forth.

Just having Lucky grant Advantage isn't lucky...it's proficiency, skill, just plain better. Granting Advantage from Disadvantage is what being lucky is about. Thematically speaking.

I get what you mean. I'm debating super-advantage from a purely mechanical over-powerness perspective only.

I'd say however that advantage is about favourable conditions, not necessarily proficiency. Luck is already factored in (part of) the die roll when a skill/attack/save is made, so it does make sense to me that a lucky feat affects the "rolling the dice" part.

But I agree with you insofar that when I think about luck, "opportunities" comes to mind more than "success".

[JellyPooga]

I get what you mean. I'm debating super-advantage from a purely mechanical over-powerness perspective only.

From a purely mechanical perspective, turning Disadvantage into super-Advantage 3/long rest is probably not as awesome as you might think. Consider sources of Disadvantage (or indeed Advantage) on things you'll want to use Lucky on; it's not going to be a Saving throw, because off the top of my head I can think of...what? Bestow Curse...err...and that's about it. For Ability Checks, the most common of these is Skill checks and these are rarely taken a) in combat and b) alone. A simple Help action grants Advantage, or negates Disadvantage, limiting the "OP-ness" of Lucky. So that pretty much leaves your own attack rolls. As a Player Character, you're much more likely to have Advantage on these things than Disadvantage (in my experience), whether it's be from good tactical planning, a beneficial spell or what have you. If you don't, then either your GM is running a difficult game or you, as players, are probably doing something wrong.


I'd say however that advantage is about favourable conditions, not necessarily proficiency.

Advantage is certainly gained from circumstance frequently enough that it could be considered that way, on the whole. Having said that, there are other sources of advantage; one that comes to mind is the 9th level Thief ability granting Advantage on Stealth checks. Clearly a case of proficiency rather than circumstance.

[GlenSmash!]

I don't think it's OP. As a DM I do find it annoying because it slows down the game. I dislike thinks that slow down the game.

As a player I like it because the "lucky" hero is well supported in fiction and I tend to base my characters on fictional characters I like.

I see these two things as canceling each other out, so I play with the feat as it is.

[Galadhrim]

I had lucky on my cleric and it did not slow the game down at all. The dm just went ahead as normal unless i specifically asked for a reroll.

The super advantage is really what makes the character lucky. Yea someone can just close their eyes and swing and have a better chance to critical but that is what makes Dunsten the lucky lucky. He will try things other characters wouldn't because he trusts his luck. If you take lucky as a feat that means a significant investment to make your character have that luck feel. If you house rule away super advantage the feat is garbage and the pc does not have a chance to be Dunsten the lucky, he is just back to plain ole Dunsten.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

Lucky has three charges..which is where the insane part comes in.

If an enemy tries to hit you with a charm ability and you fail like 3 times on that first save...then you can still have one more try...kinda insane how many rerolls you get.

Personally..I think the number of xharges should be nerfed. Like maybe two instead of three...snip

3 times a day isn't really OP, so i don't think it needs to be cut. The OP comes in when they do it more than once at a time. I would house rule it to once per turn, this way there still Lucky but not the GOD of Luck lol.

[Armored Walrus]

three free sneak attacks / day don't really feel that bad

The post you quoted was referring to a poster that changed the feat to be grants advantage on three rolls per short rest. That's getting close to giving the rogue advantage on every attack roll.

Edit: That being said, still not necessarily OP. Just pointing out that per short rest is much more than per day.

[Coffee_Dragon]

A rogue is pretty awful if they can't get sneak attack on nearly every attack anyway. The required conditions aren't that hard to meet.

I think that "nearly" is significant. Speaking for myself, the near-certainty of landing SA at will, even when I've gone off on my own or my comrades have failed in their duty to provide me tactical support, even when I'm not playing a pop-up sniper or have to get up in people's face for some reason, even when the wizard isn't devoting concentration to buff or debuff, even when the owl has gone poofy poof, and even when I'm not playing some degenerate grapple/shove build, would be enough to make this a feat tax* for any rogues of mine. As a player I like to shore up weaknesses, even though as a DM/designer I dislike features that serve to render other pieces of design irrelevant. (Also see: Sharpshooter and cover.)

(I assume Knives meant per long rest, a feat giving up to nine inspiration equivalents per day without the DM having a say in the matter would be a tax for any character.)


* I hate this term though

[Specter]

As with all the things that recharge on a long rest, it depends on how many encounters your DM is doing a day.

8-6? Kinda good.
5-3? Very good.
2-1? Insanely good.

[Vogonjeltz]

I see a lot of DMs banning the feat.
Is it OP? Should Lucky be banned or allowed in a game

It's 3 advantage rolls per day.

By comparison, Savage Attacker is advantage on one damage roll per round with no limit. Do you now think Savage Attacker is overpowered?
How about Reckless Attack? It grants advantage to all attack rolls. Or Wolf Totem Spirit that grants friends advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature within 5 feet of you that is hostile to you? How about Tides of Chaos which has the potential to be used many more than 3 times per day?

No, it's not overpowered at all.


to make the character much better at very important things.

One might even say that they enjoy good fortune at opportune moments.

[Pex]

It's the super-advantage from disadvantage that makes the feat "lucky", for me, as opposed to just "better at stuff". To compare to another game; in Bloodbowl there's a skill called Pro, which allows a player to re-roll any action if he can roll 4+ on a d6. It represents him just being a good all-round player (as opposed to other skills, which are much more focused, e.g. Dodge or Sure Hands). For the Lucky Feat to do what it says on the tin, it needs to emphasise that the character with it isn't just good at doing things, he's good at doing things despite the odds, because he's fortunate. He frequently beats the odds by random chance; the richochet shot that should have missed because of cover, but nailed his target, the literal stab in the dark that skewered the bad-guy in the heart, the random branch that broke your fall and so forth.

Just having Lucky grant Advantage isn't lucky...it's proficiency, skill, just plain better. Granting Advantage from Disadvantage is what being lucky is about. Thematically speaking.

I agree with you.
:smallwink::smallbiggrin::smallcool:

Seriously.

[90sMusic]

I think part of the reason is people are so obsessed with the idea of "SUPER ADVANTAGE" and call it that as if it is some super powerful amazing thing. When you look at it like "omg, roll 3 dice, take the highest, WOW!" it sounds strong but that isn't really in practice how it works.

If you do a standard roll and get a 6, you know you failed, so you use luck to roll that extra die and hopefully do better.
If you roll with disadvantage and get a 6 and a 9, again, you know you failed because you have a 6, so you use luck to roll that extra die and hope you do better.

People need to stop looking at it like rolling 3 die and taking the best turning disadvantage into super advantage (which isnt a thing). It does the same thing it has always done regardless of how it is used, it just lets you roll an extra die and hope for a better outcome.

I also see people arguing that it doesn't make you "lucky" it just makes you good at specific tasks. I disagree. If you roll poorly and fail something, that is unlucky. Using the lucky feat can sometimes turn this around and turn a fail into a success, negating that bad luck. That is what makes you lucky, because your average luck increases and you're more likely to succeed than fail. That sounds like a perfect definition of luck to me.

Ultimately, I think too many DM's like for their players to fail and want them to. It's part of the bad illusion they dole out where they pretend it's up to the dice and not totally scripted, when in actuality you'll never get away with anything the DM doesn't want you to get away with. They like setting up a flimsy premise for something to happen, usually as the result of a bad dice roll, and they won't want you to have any means of bypassing that. They love making everyone roll where a low roll has something bad happen like the party gets noticed, or sets off a trap, or whatever because statistically at least one person is going to fail one of those rolls. And they despise the idea of you having a get-out-of-DM-BS-free card that you can play when bad luck and RNG screws you.

The Lucky feat definitely makes you more lucky. I've built an entire character around being a good luck charm once with halfling luck, the lucky beat, and bountiful luck feats. The party liked having them around largely because of their good luck.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If you do a standard roll and get a 6, you know you failed, so you use luck to roll that extra die and hopefully do better.
If you roll with disadvantage and get a 6 and a 9, again, you know you failed because you have a 6, so you use luck to roll that extra die and hope you do better.

That's not how it works. If you roll 6 and 20, you know you failed because you rolled a 6, but if you spend a luck point, you know you critted without having to reroll.

[Lombra]

That's not how it works. If you roll 6 and 20, you know you failed because you rolled a 6, but if you spend a luck point, you know you critted without having to reroll.

Lucky doesn't work like this, first you roll, if you feel like you failed, you can roll another d20 and choose to pick either result. If you roll with disadvantage you are comparing the lowest roll between the two that you normally roll, and the lucky dice. If you roll 1 and 20 with disadvantage you can make a lucky roll and coose to pick either the lucky roll or the 1. Super advantage exists if you use lucky with advantage, where you actually pick the highest of the three. The lucky roll can be worse than the original roll.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Lucky doesn't work like this, first you roll, if you feel like you failed, you can roll another d20 and choose to pick either result. If you roll with disadvantage you are comparing the lowest roll between the two that you normally roll, and the lucky dice. If you roll 1 and 20 with disadvantage you can make a lucky roll and coose to pick either the lucky roll or the 1. Super advantage exists if you use lucky with advantage, where you actually pick the highest of the three. The lucky roll can be worse than the original roll.

Check the Sage Advice compendium, and welcome to house rule country.

[Corran]

If you roll 1 and 20 with disadvantage you can make a lucky roll and coose to pick either the lucky roll or the 1.
... you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. .... You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.

I'd say you can pick the 20 in your example.

[Cybren]

Check the Sage Advice compendium, and welcome to house rule country.

Specifically: lucky says you can pick any of the dice rolled for the check. So regardless of disadvantage saying "roll twice and pick the worst", lucky supercedes the general rule by saying "roll an additional die and pick whichever"

[sightlessrealit]

I don't see what the problem is to be honest. It makes you Lucky & Mechanically that's what it does.

[solidork]

I don't see what the problem is to be honest. It makes you Lucky & Mechanically that's what it does.

I'm personally a little torn about characters deliberately giving themselves disadvantage to take advantage of this mechanic, but at the same time "character X shuts eyes as they attack yet strikes the killing blow" is totally a thing in fiction.

[Pex]

I'm personally a little torn about characters deliberately giving themselves disadvantage to take advantage of this mechanic, but at the same time "character X shuts eyes as they attack yet strikes the killing blow" is totally a thing in fiction.

"Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them."

[JellyPooga]

I'm personally a little torn about characters deliberately giving themselves disadvantage to take advantage of this mechanic, but at the same time "character X shuts eyes as they attack yet strikes the killing blow" is totally a thing in fiction.

Well they do say that 1 in a million chances come up 9 times out of 10[/Pratchett]

[Lombra]

Check the Sage Advice compendium, and welcome to house rule country.

Just checked. That's pretty dumb. RAI can be stupid sometimes I guess.

[sightlessrealit]

I'm personally a little torn about characters deliberately giving themselves disadvantage to take advantage of this mechanic, but at the same time "character X shuts eyes as they attack yet strikes the killing blow" is totally a thing in fiction.

I still don't see that as a problem. Flavor wise it's pretty cool. :)

[BB944]

re-read Sage advice.

Sorry, but the way I read it was:

I rolled a 8 and 14 on a disadvantage. I roll a third die and get a 15. I 'choose' to use the 15 and 14. So I got a 14. Not a 15.

But maybe others read it different.

I consider the Feat a great flavor to the campaign as it is always a great moment to see the Rouge roll a 1 on his sneak and immediately call for some luck! :)

[lperkins2]

Specifically: lucky says you can pick any of the dice rolled for the check. So regardless of disadvantage saying "roll twice and pick the worst", lucky supercedes the general rule by saying "roll an additional die and pick whichever"

Jeremy Crawford simply screwed up the Advantage/Disadvantage rule when he claimed that. He doesn't actually review the rules every time he replies to someone's tweet, so what you are getting is basically how he would rule it at his table, on the fly. Just look at his tweets about the tiny hut, where he had to retract his earlier tweet because the range is listed as a hemisphere. When it gets published as errata, or at the very least, as more than a tweet, it might be worth taking seriously. In the mean time, here is the rule for dice rerolling with advantage and disadvantage.


When you have advantage or disadvantage and
something in the game, such as the halfling's Lucky
trait, lets you reroll the d20, you can reroll only one
of the dice. You choose which one. For example, if a
halfling has advantage on an ability check and rolls
a 1 and a 13, the halfling could use the Lucky trait to
reroll the 1.

Now, that section does only talk about rerolling, not rolling an extra d20, so you could argue that it has no impact on how the Luck Feat reads, but that seems a stretch. Usually, rerolling vs rolling extra dice will come down to how many dice the player physically has. Note that Halfling's lucky feature specifies you use the new roll. Similarly, damage rerolls specify you use the new rolls. Mechanically, the difference is that every place it says to reroll, you must use the new roll; when it says roll an extra it, it always lets you choose between the rolls. Of course, rerolls are also pretty much always on a 1, so you'd always use the second roll anyway.

The biggest problem with luck and disadvantage is rerolling just the lower dice is slow, especially when you have an electronic dice roller that can just spit out the disadvantage value.

And for general information, here's a comparison of how the luck feat interacts with advantage and disadvantage.
http://anydice.com/program/c057

[Sir cryosin]

I agree it's very poorly designed. In addition to what you noted, it creates a pipeline where the DM needs a player to OK every attack roll made against them.

I didn't ban it, but house ruled away the super advantage, and nobody took it in our games so far.

Why shouldn't the player ok every attack roll made against them. There are so many abilitys and spells were the player need to know what the DM rolled to use them like shield spell, rogues uncanny Dodge, just to name a few.

Also if people going to Dan lucky they should ban the divination wizard they do the same thing but better.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Why shouldn't the player ok every attack roll made against them. There are so many abilitys and spells were the player need to know what the DM rolled to use them like shield spell, rogues uncanny Dodge, just to name a few.

Shield doesn't come up on a miss. Uncanny Dodge is applied by the player in reaction to something the DM had to tell them either way, no OK-ing required at all.


Also if people going to Dan lucky they should ban the divination wizard they do the same thing but better.

I would at least discourage it, and wouldn't make one myself.

[coolAlias]

As a player, I think Lucky certainly feels OP, but in a good way. I love the feat, though I would only ever take it on a character that is supposed to be exceptionally lucky, perhaps someone that regularly prays to and provides offerings to the god(dess) of luck.

If every character you ever play or every character in a party takes it, then yeah I can totally see it getting annoying quickly. Every once in a while, though? Perfectly fun.

[DeAnno]

Lucky is strongest when:

You have short adventuring days. This is the most egregious case, but all full spellcasters also break the same case in a similar way simply by existing.
You have expensive single attacks that deal big damage and you need to make sure you hit. The most extreme case of this that comes to mind is a Mystic build stacking PP with Animate Weapon/Lethal Strike or something of that nature. It also applies to attacky builds that only attack once per turn, like many Rogues or Booming Blade users. These sorts of builds aren't dirt common, so I think this is fine.
You want some help with your saves. If you're taking it mostly for this then debateably you should have considered some kind of Resilient instead, though obviously they're going to play a lot differently.


Lucky dice aren't efficient for builds that make lots of attacks because each individual attack tends to be less important (take a Str/Dex ASI instead). Lucky dice can't affect enemy saves. Lucky dice are sub-par when used to defend your AC, because many enemies use multiattack (and individual attacks are rarely very important), because some DMs roll attacks in secret, because many things like Shield do it better, because lots of feats can already be used to raise up your AC, etc.

I think from a purely optimization perspective Lucky is fine as is. The most concerning issue is short days, and on that front I think something that helps martials more there is good, since it lets them catch up to short-day-casters.

[MadBear]

So what I'm hearing is that when Luke Skywalker turned off the targeting device to take his last shot, he was just abusing the lucky mechanics by purposefully giving himself disadvantage on his to-hit roll. Seems legit.

[Decstarr]

I don't ban it and don't really regard it as OP, BUT (and that's a big butt), in accordance to what others here said already: One thing about lucky is really annoying: It simply is at least 10d10 x 10 times better than any other feat in the game. Virtually ANY character will benefit from this no matter the setting, race or class. It is just flat out "too good" compared to other feats and that makes it stupid. If you ever DMed a table with several players who have that feat, you'll very soon learn to hate it since you have to pipeline virtually anything waiting for their responses which slows down general game play by a lot.

I think the whole concept of "if I want to play a strong PC" kind of forces players to pick Lucky, even though they don't like it either. It is simply THAT good. Moreover, it is probably the only thing in 5e which everyone agrees on being "the best" or "the strongest".

Now you might blame "poor design" for it, but I actually think the design is fine. I rather feel like the other feats are lacking too much compared to this. Some of the feats are super flavorful and amazing, but pretty much a waste of an ASI in terms of making a character stronger. And unfortunately, a majority of the players seems to prefer raw power over flavor.

[Cybren]

Lucky, being the kind of genetically good feat that helps players survive horrible botched circumstances, is probably "pushed" to be better for its cost than other feats. I don't think it's a problem that lucky is that good, I think the bigger problem is that Inspiration (not the bard kind) is a bad mechanic so the other native system for that purpose doesn't really work

[Ghatt]

So what I'm hearing is that when Luke Skywalker turned off the targeting device to take his last shot, he was just abusing the lucky mechanics by purposefully giving himself disadvantage on his to-hit roll. Seems legit.
Luke used the force, which would most likely be a class ability. Luck had nothing to do with it.

[Cybren]

Luke used the force, which would most likely be a class ability. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Allow me to help clarify your misunderstanding (https://www.google.com/search?q=analogy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS728US728&oq=analogy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1534j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=define:+analogy)

[Ghatt]

Allow me to help clarify your misunderstanding (https://www.google.com/search?q=analogy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS728US728&oq=analogy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1534j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=define:+analogy)

Except that it's not a very good analogy. Nice try though.

Han Solo on the other hand...

[Pex]

Now you might blame "poor design" for it, but I actually think the design is fine. I rather feel like the other feats are lacking too much compared to this. Some of the feats are super flavorful and amazing, but pretty much a waste of an ASI in terms of making a character stronger. And unfortunately, a majority of the players seems to prefer raw power over flavor.

They're trying to keep up with the monster Joneses. I'm of the opinion the flavorful feats would be taken more often if it didn't cost an ASI to do so. Once a player has the feat or two he wants the rest will go into ASI. Even in Bounded Accuracy the math of the game matters, and a +1 is a big deal which can be attained by increasing an ability score. They purposely chose to make a feat cost +2 to one score or two +1s to two scores. If the player doesn't need the feat it's not worth that cost.

Personal bias, another possible reason for the flavorful feats not being taken is Point Buy. Point Buy inherently limits your scores; players want them above that arbitrariness as soon as possible. With dice rolling there's a chance you'll be lucky enough you aren't going to need or want so many ASI. When the choice is +2 to a tertiary or lower score and a flavorful feat, the feat becomes more attractive. The feat is also more attractive if it only takes one ASI to get 20 because an 18 is good enough for a long while.

[MadBear]

Luke used the force, which would most likely be a class ability. Luck had nothing to do with it.

It's almost as if in this case I'm jokingly saying

The Force = Lucky Feat

maybe I should have put my text in blue....

[djreynolds]

Its a feat, and so it has a cost

You could've grabbed +2 con, for up to 20hp, or toughness for up to 40hp.

You could've grabbed resilient whatever, but you chose lucky. In a sense here it is the same as indomitable for a fighter, and if you have +0 or -1 for save... you are probably just wasting the luck dice as you are only going to fail it again.

Is lucky OP, it can turn a possible crit into a miss, you can reroll a persuasion check, etc.

I look to select this feat for every character I run.

What if.... only plain old humans could select this feat.... then someone might be more inclined to play a human.

[pwykersotz]

I ban the feat. I dislike die manipulation abilities. I think the game has enough ways to get advantage as-is, and overusing the mechanic trivializes it. I also don't take the feat as a player, even though one of my characters is literally named "Eadren the Lucky".

[hangedman1984]

I ban the feat. I dislike die manipulation abilities. I think the game has enough ways to get advantage as-is, and overusing the mechanic trivializes it. I also don't take the feat as a player, even though one of my characters is literally named "Eadren the Lucky".

Do you also ban halflings and diviner wizards?


Ooh, idea, halfing diviner with the lucky feat!

[Coffee_Dragon]

Do you also ban halflings and diviner wizards?

Halflings don't slow anything down (more than any other added roll) because the same player just picks up the die and rolls again. With diviners, the DM has to declare in advance the nature of every roll made on behalf of creatures within sight, and the player then has to process that information and make a decision. Even if we assume the player is really on the ball with respect to what gets foretold or not, that's not how I want to DM. The ability is flavourful, but really should have been restricted to the player's own rolls.

[pwykersotz]

Do you also ban halflings and diviner wizards?


Halflings don't slow anything down (more than any other added roll) because the same player just picks up the die and rolls again. With diviners, the DM has to declare in advance the nature of every roll made on behalf of creatures within sight, and the player then has to process that information and make a decision. Even if we assume the player is really on the ball with respect to what gets foretold or not, that's not how I want to DM. The ability is flavourful, but really should have been restricted to the player's own rolls.

Pretty much what Coffee_Dragon says.

I have heavily considered removing halflings, yes. Not really because of the ability, but because they don't have a place in my world.

To answer the question directly, no, the Halfling ability is fairly tame by comparison. And I haven't played with nor DM'd for a Diviner Wizard yet, so I won't rule until that point. I like to play the game as-is before I start changing things around.

[hangedman1984]

Mainly asked that because you specifically said you didn't like die manipulation abilities.

[MaxWilson]

As with all the things that recharge on a long rest, it depends on how many encounters your DM is doing a day.

8-6? Kinda good.
5-3? Very good.
2-1? Insanely good.

Depends very much on how big those encounters are. If the one or two encounters are quadruple-Deadly or greater (e.g. four 9th level PCs vs. fifteen githyanki and a young red dragon), Lucky won't have much effect. Too many die rolls.

After all, it's not like those githyanki get harder when you split them into separate short encounters instead of one big complex (and potentially long) one.