Lucky: The most overrated feat

[clash]

So a bit of a rant here but everywhere I look Lucky is very highly rated if not considered the most powerful and broken feat in the game, and I almost entirely disagree. It wouldn't even be in my top 5 list of power feats for any character except one focused on rerolls.

Lucky gives you 3 rerolls a day that can be used after you have already failed. That gives you the chance to change 3 instances of failure on rolls that are absolutely critical into success. That seems very powerful at first glance but let's dig into this a bit.

First of all, how many rolls does a character actually make that are absolutely critical? Save your character from dying maybe? Stop the bbeg from getting off his really big move? Sure. Succeeding at stealth when it is absolutely vital? Ya why not. But in reality you might see one of these rolls come up in an adventuring day. So in reality you end up either saving your 3 rolls for the entire day waiting for that absolutely critical roll or more realistically using 2 of them on just rolls where a reroll is useful and saving one for that important roll that may not come up.

So based on above, lucky gives you 2 rerolls on failed rolls that have little to no impact in the grand scheme of things and maybe 1 important roll per day.

Also important to note, it doesnt turn failure into success, it just lets you reroll. Which means if you didnt have a high chance at succeeding on that important roll to begin with you don't have a high chance on succeeding the second time you try it.

Lets compare this to other things you could spend the asi on:

ASI: A single asi gives you some subset of the following, +1 to hit and/or damage on every attack you make all day. +1 to a handful of skills checks. +1 to initiative. +1 to ac. +1 to a saving throw. In bounded accuracy that +1 can turn a lot more than 3 failed rolls in successes in a day and it applies all day every day. What's better than rerolling a failed roll? Not failing to begin with.
Alert: You get +5 to initiative, cant be surprised, and invisible targets dont have advantage against you. You want to know what sucks? Having all of your enemies attack you and not being able to do anything about it. This remedies that. If surprise and invisible enemies never come up it still gives you a whopping +5 to initiative again all day every day.
Weapon Feat: Polearm Master, Crossbow expert, Greatweapon master, Sentinal, sharpshooter. Any martial build can make use of at least one of them and generally more than one. And for that build it is going to pay out way more than that a few rerolls a day.
Magic Feat: Magic initiate and Ritual Caster can add a ton of utility and spell sniper can help make sure you dont miss on those vital attacks to begin with or are too far away to be targetted by that killing blow. Warcaster gives you straight up advantage every time you need to make that important concentration check among other benefits. At least one of these will provide more value in a day than lucky.
Resilient: This one is really only a half feat and it provides a +2-6 bonus on the selected save. For half a feat. The full feat when used on an odd stat can give +3-7 bonus on the save and all the benefits of asi above. You dont need to reroll a save that you dont fail to begin with.
Dungeon Delver: This one needs the right campaign but if traps are the real killer, then the always on advantage against traps lets you "reroll" every single trap save you encounter throughout the day. rather than just 3.

[Crgaston]

All true about the other feats. IDK why people rate Lucky so highly.


(Edit: it seems like you may be ignoring or unaware of the second paragraph, which lets you use it to alter Attack rolls against you.)


It’s best use that I have seen is for negating Crits (or other strong hits) on you, and, to be fair, that can be huge. Sometimes the difference between no damage and making death saves, which in turn imperils the rest of the party further and drains resources.

“Saving” the rolls doesn’t work as well, as you might end up just wasting them.

[EKruze]

Your analysis ignores half of the feat. Lucky also allows you to reroll attacks made against you. There's not a specific ruling on the timing of this action but most people seem to allow this after the attack roll is made, specifically allowing you to negate enemy critical hits. This is one of the more potent usages of this feat.

As a small bonus when you're the one making the roll Lucky allows you to turn Disadvantage into a kind of super advantage, rolling three dice and choosing the best die from the three.

I'm not sure I would go so far as to consider this broken but between negating crits, super disadvantage and also giving an extra roll when it really most matters I think it's very reasonable to place Lucky in the top tier of feats.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

To play Devil's Advocate, I approach Lucky like Gus Sorola approaches the Power Weapons in the Halo Campaigns (It might actually be Bernie Burns who does this). He uses these weapons almost immediately because they're so fun/effective rather than saving them in case he runs into a situation where he needs them (Hunters, Wraiths, etc.). This makes a lot of sense when you consider that if you save them you might never use them. Same thing you pointed out with Lucky. If you don't use it, it's really just an insurance policy that isn't effective day to day.

But, if you use the Lucky charges fairly liberally each session, your character will be more successful. This is true no matter what class you play, whereas the feats you listed with the exception of Alert are situational/character or build specific. Lucky is always good on every PC, making it one of the most versatile and effective feats in the game if you use it well.

Side note: Maybe it's just me, but I play a Wizard and there are some really critical roles either in combat or more often in social settings almost every single play session. Maybe they aren't campaign altering decisions or conversations, but that doesn't mean they aren't very significant for our current objectives/what we want to do as a party. Especially when it comes to intimidating or persuading someone.

Also, being able to practically gain advantage on 3 roles a day after you roll the first die is very significant. See the chart below for the math behind it. Being able to choose after you role makes this feat solid gold, because you'll rarely waste it by rolling high on both dice (this is far superior to normal advantage/disadvantage rules). Being able to apply this to enemy attacks and crits is just icing on the cake.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/WZXWx.png

[darknite]

I know some players who always take Lucky. I've got it on one PC and it's helped a bit but is in no way OP. For playing into the higher levels I think Resilient is a better choice. Saves become very clutch north of 15th level.

[Tubben]

Maybe it's my lack of english knowledge, but you cant use lucky, after you know the result of an roll.

If someone crits an attack, you cant use an luckpoint to let him reroll (reroll is wrong wording anyway :)..)


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

I use my luck to turn a disadvantage into double advantage or to get advantage. I never used it to alter an attack roll against me.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Maybe it's my lack of english knowledge, but you cant use lucky, after you know the result of an roll.

If someone crits an attack, you cant use an luckpoint to let him reroll (reroll is wrong wording anyway :)..)



I use my luck to turn a disadvantage into double advantage or to get advantage. I never used it to alter an attack roll against me.

So if it's after the die is rolled but before the outcome is determined, at what point are you allowed to spend the luck point in your mind? The general consensus is after the role the DM should give opportunity to use the luck point, then he/she determines if the attack hits and the damage. So even with a crit, the complete outcome (damage) has not been determined. You could get hit for as little as 4 or so damage on some crits, so depending on the enemy you'd need to decide if it's worth it. You also wouldn't be able to use it retrospectively if you get critted for 40+ damage and decide you want to then force a reroll.

All that being said, you can absolutely use it to reroll an enemy's crit.

[JackPhoenix]

Maybe it's my lack of english knowledge, but you cant use lucky, after you know the result of an roll.

If someone crits an attack, you cant use an luckpoint to let him reroll (reroll is wrong wording anyway :)..)

I use my luck to turn a disadvantage into double advantage or to get advantage. I never used it to alter an attack roll against me.

The way it works is that you roll, you (and the GM) see the result, and the GM declares what happened. With Lucky, you roll, see the roll, and use the feat before the GM declares the result. That doesn't mean you don't know the result: if you roll a 1, you know you've failed before the GM says anything (because if you can't fail even on a 1, there's no point in rolling in the first place). Or you may have make an educated guess (the boss wears plate armor and shield, you know his AC is at least 20)

[GlenSmash!]

Lucky is a feat that can shore up a lot of weakness and has broad appeal to martial and caster, melee and ranged alike.

It's not OP, but it's good and broadly useful.

[MaxWilson]

All true about the other feats. IDK why people rate Lucky so highly.

Because it's kind of like Resilient (every attribute) and Skilled (every skill) all rolled into one, and can also be used to (probably) cancels crits against you. It's very versatile, and easy to use efficiently--it's better than advantage because you get to see the prior roll before making your reroll. So in practice it's kind of like getting to make 3-10 rolls per day with advantage, instead of only 3--and you can make sure it gets used only on important rolls instead of little things like goblin criticals or saves to avoid being frightened when you're actually a spellcaster with plenty of ranged and AoE options (and thus don't care much about the Frightened condition).

Of course it doesn't give you better DPR than GWM + PAM or Sharpshooter. It's not an offensive feat. It's a utility + defense feat.

Of course it can run out. If you burned Lucky on a Con save (for concentration when your Wall of Force was going to go down) and a Charisma save (for when you were going to get possessed by a Ghost) and to cancel a T-Rex's 8d12+7 crit against you then of course it's not available when you wish you could use it for your Charisma (Persuasion) check to persuade the dragon to let your party go without paying a ransom in magic items. Ultimately it's just a single feat, not a godlike I WIN button. And of course it can fail (your Wall of Force can fizzle anyway, despite Lucky, just like it can fizzle despite Resilient (Con) and despite magic resistance). But it's pretty good for a single feat, and a good choice for anyone who appreciates having options and wants to live to someday spend their gold after the adventure is over.

But of course, if your DM runs easy adventures such that staying alive is not much of a concern, Lucky won't be as good at your table, since everyone is already getting the benefits (survival) without paying for them. Mobile probably isn't much good at your table either for the same reason, and perhaps neither is Alert. Personally I don't see much point in even rolling dice at that kind of a table (why bother rolling all those attack rolls and saving throws if you already know there's no dramatic stakes? might as well just freeform roleplay it with no rules at all) but some people enjoy it, maybe because they like the physical sensation of rolling dice or something, and it makes perfect sense for those people not to value Lucky.

YMMV. Do what makes sense at your table.

[clash]

To answer some of the things addressed.

It's not that I don't often see rolls that matter, it is that I dont often see a single roll that will make or break an encounter. If that happened often then why are you even on a team? Just solo it. So for the most part it will just be used for your average run of the mill failed rolls, in which case the other feats that will improve every average run of the mill roll of a specif type seem more useful then a general feat that will probably run out in the first encounter or be saved and still only see use in one fight of the day or wasted at the end of the day.

As for it being generally useful for any build and class that is true, but most characters are only going to be one build and they know what class they are when taking feats. So it doesn't seem like a relevant point. I would again rather take a feat specifc to my build than one that will generally help any build. I'm not playing any build, I'm playing my build.

I understand it's benefits against critical hits that is totally legit, but seems to edge case. If you are worried about survival tough will increase your hp by between 2 and 40(which can be healed) depending on what level you are and even when the trex crits it only deals an additional 56 damage on average. Sure that's an improvement over tough, but tough is always going to help with survivabiliy whereas lucky will only really help under the right circumstances and only while you ahve uses remaining.

[mephnick]

It's definitely the most annoying, least fun, worst designed feat.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

It's definitely the most annoying, least fun, worst designed feat.

How does it annoy you? How is it poorly designed? What basis do you have for saying it's the least fun? This is all just very vague and I'm trying to understand your perspective.


To answer some of the things addressed.

It's not that I don't often see rolls that matter, it is that I dont often see a single roll that will make or break an encounter. If that happened often then why are you even on a team? Just solo it. So for the most part it will just be used for your average run of the mill failed rolls, in which case the other feats that will improve every average run of the mill roll of a specif type seem more useful then a general feat that will probably run out in the first encounter or be saved and still only see use in one fight of the day or wasted at the end of the day.

As for it being generally useful for any build and class that is true, but most characters are only going to be one build and they know what class they are when taking feats. So it doesn't seem like a relevant point. I would again rather take a feat specifc to my build than one that will generally help any build. I'm not playing any build, I'm playing my build.

1) Specific example: My PC is leading conversation with an NPC. Others are contributing, but our DM makes me roll persuasion because I'm the one offering up the argument I want the NPC to follow. This could be important for a quest, the acquisition of a reward, the collaboration to achieve a common goal, etc. My DM won't just let everyone roll persuasion until we finally succeed, so one roll can indeed make or break the encounter (at least as far as us getting our desired result). This might not be common in your games, but it has been in my experience through multiple campaigns. Different party members serve different purposes and have a better chance of persuading different NPCs based on context and background.

2) Perhaps I didn't communicate clearly about it being good for every class. I mean that Lucky is specifically beneficial in every single build because it can be applied to help you become better at what you're good at or cover over some of your weaknesses. In addition it has the rare capability to save your life or change the campaign on one of those really important rolls.

[Contrast]

I don't know who exactly you're arguing with. I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest you should take Lucky over ASIs to your important stats or build critical feats.

The reason Lucky is highly rated is because once you've got the ASIs and feats you want, you can slot Lucky into any literally build and it will provide good value for the investment. It shores up weaknesses or it reinforces strengths depending on what you need that moment. Plus its just super satisfying to turn that crit into a miss.

You've said Tough is better because you'll gain more HP than crits averted would save and Dungeon Delver is better because on trap heavy days it'll last much better than lucky will. But once you've made that choice, you've made it. Tough doesn't help you in a social encounter, Dungeon Delver does nothing to help you beat a giant. Lucky is always relevant - and while it isn't guaranteed to help, that's the game/statistics for you.

[Demonslayer666]

Lucky is a feat that can shore up a lot of weakness and has broad appeal to martial and caster, melee and ranged alike.

It's not OP, but it's good and broadly useful.

Very much this.

It's not OP in the terms of a specific application, but OP in the sense that it can be applied to such a broad range of things.

[Amdy_vill]

lucky is good not because of its ability. it is good because it can be used in every build. versatility in all ways trumps any other advantage. i may pick a feat that gives me a +2 to attack or something but the versatility of lucky in both use and access trumps that in most situations. i do think there are better feats but these feats take into account build and other things. there is no other feat i can think of that has versatility and accessibility of lucky making it the best feat for everyone.

i think the thing people miss on the is lucky over rated desiccation is that lucky is great for everyone unlike most feats.

[Pex]

I agree. It's a good feat but not OMG THE GAME FALLS APART MY CAMPAIGN IS RUINED BAN! BAN! BAN!

Why should it bother a DM so much a player has a chance to turn a failure into a success? It's not even a guaranteed success, just another chance. Why is the DM rooting for the player to fail or get hit by the monster to deny that reroll?

[Kane0]

The GitP forums have long valued versatility as a form and measure of 'power'. 3 free rerolls on any roll you make or is made against you, after it is made, is pretty damned versatile. You can always use a reroll somehow, no matter what character or DM you have. That's where the consensus on its value originates.

[Specter]

It's far from bad, but for me it's way up there as the most boring feat.

[Eric Diaz]

I agree with everyone saying the feat is a bit boring but very good since there are so many ways to use it.

It isn't overpowered, really, except for turning disadvantage into super-advantage, something I personally wouldn't allow.

[Segev]

Just to chime in on "after the roll, but before results are determined," that is a poor phrasing, because it can seem to mean that, if you can tell what the results will be, you can't use the feat. That is, however, not what is meant. What is meant is what others have said: after you see the roll, but before the GM announces the final results. Even if it's obvious that the assassin who just rolled a natural 20 is going to crit you for double damage, the GM hasn't yet announced the hit, so the lucky target can force a re-roll. Even though you know that the enemy's AC is 15, and that your total after bonuses on this roll was 11, you can still spend Luck to reroll as long as the GM hasn't said, "You miss," yet.

(You might know this because the GM let it slip, or because you'd previously rolled a 15 and a 14 in prior rounds and seen that the former hit while the latter missed, or you just might know that you rolled a 14 before and missed and therefore that 11 isn't going to cut it.)

The purpose isn't to eliminate ALL occasions where you know that refusing to use Luck will lead to failure, but rather to make it so that, except when you've rolled extremely poorly (or the enemy extremely well), it's a gamble to use Luck under most circumstances. It's a mechanic designed to encourage you to reserve Luck for extreme rolls (rather than specifically important situations), without forcing the issue too hard.

[mephnick]

How does it annoy you? How is it poorly designed? What basis do you have for saying it's the least fun? This is all just very vague and I'm trying to understand your perspective.

Two major reasons:

1.) Re-roll mechanics have to be used sparingly in general, but "After the roll, but before the result" is the worst re-roll mechanic you could possibly use in D&D. It either requires the DM to roll in the open and wait to see if someone wants to re-roll, or it requires the DM to announce "I rolled a 15................................................ .......(waits for Lucky)............................................ ..................................no? Ok 23." Since it's applications are so wide spread, it does this for almost every roll in the game. It slows the game down to a crawl. It's objectively horrible design for a game where the referee traditionally rolls behind a screen.

2.) It makes the game less interesting. Dramatic moments and turning points are literally the reason you play a game with random chance. Lucky has enough uses per day to eliminate almost all of these, even if it's only one player taking it. Failures and crits in important situations drive the pace of the game. Lucky turns what could be an epic campaign changing moment into "mmm..nah I'll use Lucky, ok that's better. Carry on. Everyone glaze your eyes over, nothing can happen while I still have Lucky uses."

[bid]

Because it's kind of like Resilient (every attribute) and Skilled (every skill) all rolled into one
That's about it.

Although GWM/SS are very strong, how often is that +10 damage critical?
How useful will that +10 damage be if you failed a save or sucks?
And how would to like to turn disadvantage into a trivantage, after you rolled 20 on your miss?

It is an enabler feat and one of the best non-combat one.
There's more than mere damage in roleplay.

[Willie the Duck]

Overall agreeing with the general consensus -- Lucky isn't something you do before getting your primary stats up to a tier-appropriate level or a build-defining feat, it is considered good because of its amazing versatility and broad applicability. But I just wanted to touch upon this:


But in reality you might see one of these rolls come up in an adventuring day. So in reality you end up either saving your 3 rolls for the entire day waiting for that absolutely critical roll or more realistically using 2 of them on just rolls where a reroll is useful and saving one for that important roll that may not come up.

There is a hidden value in having something in your back pocket even if you never have to use it. The assurance that you have the rerolls available allows you to take a slightly greater risk in your character actions, opening up the potential rewards that hinge upon those risks. Your melee combatant can hang around an extra round in combat, knowing that a crit from that ogre could drop them, but a normal hit couldn't, simply because they know they have a crit-negation ability in their back pocket. Same with facing enemy spellcasters (or medusa, or others with save-dependent powers). This is a nontrivial benefit of the feat.

[Glorthindel]

I agree. It's a good feat but not OMG THE GAME FALLS APART MY CAMPAIGN IS RUINED BAN! BAN! BAN!

Why should it bother a DM so much a player has a chance to turn a failure into a success? It's not even a guaranteed success, just another chance. Why is the DM rooting for the player to fail or get hit by the monster to deny that reroll?

I feel it is less the "player rerolling their own dice" element that is the issue, and more the "make me reroll my dice" that is the problem.

I want my players to succeed - I want them to plunge into the encounters I prepare, roll well, hit big, and claim skulls from the villains I set forward. But all that said, I do get a twinge of pleasure from giving a character a good hard slug to the face in the process. Them triggering a trap, falling for clever lie from an NPC, and yes, taking a solid crit to the face from the big monster, all give me a moment of pleasure.

But a good portion of Lucky is designed about denying me those moments.

Sure, the party would have healed up that crit a couple of minutes later, and the use of a Lucky charge is a use of their limited resources, so the crit has still had an effect, so whether I got a crit or not shouldn't matter, but it does. It takes a little wind out of my sails, and rightly or wrongly, gives a little bit of a bad feeling. And that is why some people have an issue with the feat - a part of it is designed to give another person at the table a bad feeling. And that's not great.

[GlenSmash!]

I feel it is less the "player rerolling their own dice" element that is the issue, and more the "make me reroll my dice" that is the problem.

I want my players to succeed - I want them to plunge into the encounters I prepare, roll well, hit big, and claim skulls from the villains I set forward. But all that said, I do get a twinge of pleasure from giving a character a good hard slug to the face in the process. Them triggering a trap, falling for clever lie from an NPC, and yes, taking a solid crit to the face from the big monster, all give me a moment of pleasure.

But a good portion of Lucky is designed about denying me those moments.

Sure, the party would have healed up that crit a couple of minutes later, and the use of a Lucky charge is a use of their limited resources, so the crit has still had an effect, so whether I got a crit or not *shouldn't* matter, but it does. It takes a little wind out of my sails, and rightly or wrongly, gives a little bit of a bad feeling. And that is why some people have an issue with the feat - a part of it is designed to give another person at the table a bad feeling. And that's not great.

I think this is a matter of perception.

I never feel like lucky is denying me those moments as much as the character is lucky. Even though they fail, or their enemy succeeds inexplicable luck saves them from the negative consequences.

It's a trope heavily used in the Fantasy fiction I base my game on.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Two major reasons:

1.) Re-roll mechanics have to be used sparingly in general, but "After the roll, but before the result" is the worst re-roll mechanic you could possibly use in D&D. It either requires the DM to roll in the open and wait to see if someone wants to re-roll, or it requires the DM to announce "I rolled a 15................................................ .......(waits for Lucky)............................................ ..................................no? Ok 23." Since it's applications are so wide spread, it does this for almost every roll in the game. It slows the game down to a crawl. It's objectively horrible design for a game where the referee traditionally rolls behind a screen.

2.) It makes the game less interesting. Dramatic moments and turning points are literally the reason you play a game with random chance. Lucky has enough uses per day to eliminate almost all of these, even if it's only one player taking it. Failures and crits in important situations drive the pace of the game. Lucky turns what could be an epic campaign changing moment into "mmm..nah I'll use Lucky, ok that's better. Carry on. Everyone glaze your eyes over, nothing can happen while I still have Lucky uses."

1) I think you're right that this would be a terrible way to play. Because that's generally agreed on, my DMs (and whenever I am DMing) have always just rolled any secret rolls and if it's an attack they allow us to reroll after he says it hits if we so choose. We do this specifically because of the poor wording so that the game only slows down when someone actually decides to use it. Oddly enough, this means that we often might forget to use a lucky point in combat if we have it. If we want to reroll our rolls, that's pretty much on us to make a quick decision when we see the result and begin adding relevant modifiers. So I agree with your premise, but I'd state that you can get around that pacing issue by just ruling the feat in a more streamlined way.

2) I'd say this can go both ways though. In my party for instance, we were working towards a big objective of digging a 200 mile canal and we invested a lot of time and resources into it. Ultimately, it still came down largely to a role. So I used advantage (though that's not quite as good as Lucky) from my inspiration to try to succeed in that critical moment and it worked. Good think I rolled advantage too. So if I had Lucky I could've effectively done the same thing if I hadn't saved my inspiration for like 3 sessions (our DM forgets to give it out even though he likes to reward us with it). So, I'm just curious if you feel the same way about Advantage in general/the Help action. It can be used to avoid all sorts of bad things, but I think it's much more interesting when PCs use it to advance the goals of the party towards what they've been working for over a long period of time.

[Angelalex242]

I feel it is less the "player rerolling their own dice" element that is the issue, and more the "make me reroll my dice" that is the problem.

I want my players to succeed - I want them to plunge into the encounters I prepare, roll well, hit big, and claim skulls from the villains I set forward. But all that said, I do get a twinge of pleasure from giving a character a good hard slug to the face in the process. Them triggering a trap, falling for clever lie from an NPC, and yes, taking a solid crit to the face from the big monster, all give me a moment of pleasure.

But a good portion of Lucky is designed about denying me those moments.

Sure, the party would have healed up that crit a couple of minutes later, and the use of a Lucky charge is a use of their limited resources, so the crit has still had an effect, so whether I got a crit or not shouldn't matter, but it does. It takes a little wind out of my sails, and rightly or wrongly, gives a little bit of a bad feeling. And that is why some people have an issue with the feat - a part of it is designed to give another person at the table a bad feeling. And that's not great.

My good luck is your bad luck. Sometimes, for me to have my fun, you the DM must suffer. Just how the game works.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I feel it is less the "player rerolling their own dice" element that is the issue, and more the "make me reroll my dice" that is the problem.

I want my players to succeed - I want them to plunge into the encounters I prepare, roll well, hit big, and claim skulls from the villains I set forward. But all that said, I do get a twinge of pleasure from giving a character a good hard slug to the face in the process. Them triggering a trap, falling for clever lie from an NPC, and yes, taking a solid crit to the face from the big monster, all give me a moment of pleasure.

But a good portion of Lucky is designed about denying me those moments.

Sure, the party would have healed up that crit a couple of minutes later, and the use of a Lucky charge is a use of their limited resources, so the crit has still had an effect, so whether I got a crit or not shouldn't matter, but it does. It takes a little wind out of my sails, and rightly or wrongly, gives a little bit of a bad feeling. And that is why some people have an issue with the feat - a part of it is designed to give another person at the table a bad feeling. And that's not great.

It's also worth noting that there are a lot of good ways to do what you're describing without allowing the players to make a roll and "defeat" you. Information is power in D&D and if they don't have enough meta knowledge of an NPC that's lying to them, they won't have a reason to roll insight or something like that. I can talk more to specific examples from my experiences as a player and DM if you want, but I'm guessing you already know what I'm talking about.

Because I totally get what you mean. You want the players to succeed, but you want it to be a struggle sometimes. Those are the best stories after all. Sometimes my DM will force us to go away from just rolling checks if he wants us to really interact intelligently with a puzzle or NPC or something. He'll allow us to roll to get more information or something, but he still forces us to think critically and we can potentially mess that up big time (or almost die [or get a bunch of curses]).

[Glorthindel]

I think this is a matter of perception.

Oh, definitely, I completely agree it will be different for some people. For some it will be no different than expending a reroll, fate point, or other consumable "luck token"

As an aside, I am an avid fan of WFRP, and a player expending a Fate Point in that system doesn't give me even remotely the same feeling as I get when a character with Lucky makes me reroll a dice. I suspect the difference in mechanic is that everyone in WFRP has Fate Points, so I expect them to be used when bad things happen, while in D&D one player might have Lucky, so you forget about it until it was used, and get hit by surprise. Perhaps it is the element of surprise that makes it feel worse.

[utopus]

Sure you may not end up using all the luck dice in a given day, but it's the idea that when you need to reroll a low saving throw against the bbeg, or just pass a critical saving throw, that's when it's most important

[Pex]

Two major reasons:

1.) Re-roll mechanics have to be used sparingly in general, but "After the roll, but before the result" is the worst re-roll mechanic you could possibly use in D&D. It either requires the DM to roll in the open and wait to see if someone wants to re-roll, or it requires the DM to announce "I rolled a 15................................................ .......(waits for Lucky)............................................ ..................................no? Ok 23." Since it's applications are so wide spread, it does this for almost every roll in the game. It slows the game down to a crawl. It's objectively horrible design for a game where the referee traditionally rolls behind a screen.

Not a guarantee only for this case, but a player has more interest in forcing a reroll of a Natural 20 against him than a normal hit. Even rolling behind a screen you would be telling the player you rolled a 20 in which case he'll say he wants to use Lucky. For game play there is no need to wait or roll in the open. Run the game. Leave it to the player's responsibility to interrupt to say he's using Lucky, even if a conditional such as "I use Lucky if you roll a 14 or higher". When you announce how much damage the PC takes that's too late.



2.) It makes the game less interesting. Dramatic moments and turning points are literally the reason you play a game with random chance. Lucky has enough uses per day to eliminate almost all of these, even if it's only one player taking it. Failures and crits in important situations drive the pace of the game. Lucky turns what could be an epic campaign changing moment into "mmm..nah I'll use Lucky, ok that's better. Carry on. Everyone glaze your eyes over, nothing can happen while I still have Lucky uses."

Alternatively, the player has his fun jollies precisely because he turns a failure into a success. The resource he spent on the feat paid off. The player takes a bigger risk because he has the feat as a back up for that second chance.


I feel it is less the "player rerolling their own dice" element that is the issue, and more the "make me reroll my dice" that is the problem.

I want my players to succeed - I want them to plunge into the encounters I prepare, roll well, hit big, and claim skulls from the villains I set forward. But all that said, I do get a twinge of pleasure from giving a character a good hard slug to the face in the process. Them triggering a trap, falling for clever lie from an NPC, and yes, taking a solid crit to the face from the big monster, all give me a moment of pleasure.

But a good portion of Lucky is designed about denying me those moments.

Sure, the party would have healed up that crit a couple of minutes later, and the use of a Lucky charge is a use of their limited resources, so the crit has still had an effect, so whether I got a crit or not shouldn't matter, but it does. It takes a little wind out of my sails, and rightly or wrongly, gives a little bit of a bad feeling. And that is why some people have an issue with the feat - a part of it is designed to give another person at the table a bad feeling. And that's not great.

I trust then you take away Legendary Resistances from the monsters that have them because it's equally unfair to players if not more so that a spellcaster's spell automatically doesn't work without even a roll.

[bobofwestgate]

I feel it is less the "player rerolling their own dice" element that is the issue, and more the "make me reroll my dice" that is the problem.

I want my players to succeed - I want them to plunge into the encounters I prepare, roll well, hit big, and claim skulls from the villains I set forward. But all that said, I do get a twinge of pleasure from giving a character a good hard slug to the face in the process. Them triggering a trap, falling for clever lie from an NPC, and yes, taking a solid crit to the face from the big monster, all give me a moment of pleasure.

But a good portion of Lucky is designed about denying me those moments.

Sure, the party would have healed up that crit a couple of minutes later, and the use of a Lucky charge is a use of their limited resources, so the crit has still had an effect, so whether I got a crit or not shouldn't matter, but it does. It takes a little wind out of my sails, and rightly or wrongly, gives a little bit of a bad feeling. And that is why some people have an issue with the feat - a part of it is designed to give another person at the table a bad feeling. And that's not great.

Man if Lucky gives you those feelings, you must hate battlemaster fighters with the Sentinal feat.

[Demonslayer666]

I agree. It's a good feat but not OMG THE GAME FALLS APART MY CAMPAIGN IS RUINED BAN! BAN! BAN!

Why should it bother a DM so much a player has a chance to turn a failure into a success? It's not even a guaranteed success, just another chance. Why is the DM rooting for the player to fail or get hit by the monster to deny that reroll?

Because the fate of the character is no longer hinging on a die roll and it may "go back" and change what happened. I have known many DMs that love to weigh heavily on it. 20 is a miracle and a 1 is world splitting doom. I once had a 1st level character sent to the ethereal plane for rolling a 1 on an Arcana check. :smalleek:

I personally don't feel the dice should determine a character's fate, it should mostly be their decisions.

[mephnick]

Not a guarantee only for this case, but a player has more interest in forcing a reroll of a Natural 20 against him than a normal hit. Even rolling behind a screen you would be telling the player you rolled a 20 in which case he'll say he wants to use Lucky. For game play there is no need to wait or roll in the open. Run the game. Leave it to the player's responsibility to interrupt to say he's using Lucky, even if a conditional such as "I use Lucky if you roll a 14 or higher". When you announce how much damage the PC takes that's too late.


I don't tell the player what I roll. I describe them getting hit and then tell them how much damage they take, generally rolling hit and damage at the same time to keep the pace of combat up. The DM should be using as little mechanical language as possible IMO. Lucky forces the DM to say the number out loud and then wait for a reaction which makes every attack twice as long. It just annoysthe crap out of me.

Edit: the conditional "14 or higher" trick is a good idea though

[Cybren]

I don't tell the player what I roll. I describe them getting hit and then tell them how much damage they take, generally rolling hit and damage at the same time to keep the pace of combat up. The DM should be using as little mechanical language as possible IMO. Lucky forces the DM to say the number out loud and then wait for a reaction which makes every attack twice as long. It just annoysthe crap out of me.

Edit: the conditional "14 or higher" trick is a good idea though

your opinion is wrong imo

[mephnick]

your opinion is wrong imo

It's how the game is meant to be run, but thank you for your opinion.

[MaxWilson]

Two major reasons:

1.) Re-roll mechanics have to be used sparingly in general, but "After the roll, but before the result" is the worst re-roll mechanic you could possibly use in D&D. It either requires the DM to roll in the open and wait to see if someone wants to re-roll, or it requires the DM to announce "I rolled a 15................................................ .......(waits for Lucky)............................................ ..................................no? Ok 23." Since it's applications are so wide spread, it does this for almost every roll in the game. It slows the game down to a crawl. It's objectively horrible design for a game where the referee traditionally rolls behind a screen.

I just wanted to point out that this isn't necessarily true, for a couple of reasons:

(1) Most Lucky rolls are player rolls, not DM rolls. The only DM rolls it affects are enemy attack rolls against the Lucky PC.

(2) If you're a DM who wants to roll behind a screen, without slowing the game down to a crawl when attacking Lucky PCs, require your Lucky PCs to declare a "Luck Policy" telling when they want rerolls.

E.g. "I'm Lucky against natural 20s on enemy attacks," or "I'm Lucky against crit-20s and against any attack roll above 13 against a boss" or even "Hey DM, I'm low on HP so for the remainder of this combat I'm going to use my Luck whenever the Hill Giant rolls a 9 or better."

Then the DM just folds that reroll into his narration. "Rob, the Hill Giant's club whistles through the air straight at your head, but luckily you stumble and fall to one knee just before it would have smashed your brains to flinders. Lose 1 Luck point." or "Rob, the Hill Giant's club whistles through the air straight at your head. You stumble and fall to one knee, and for a second you think it might miss you, but then it smashes into your head anyway. Lose 18 HP and 1 Luck point."

Other reasons to require a "Luck policy" include (1) trying to minimize the disruptive effects of Lucky as a dissociated mechanic, or (2) you're writing up 5E as a computer game and need a way to have Lucky not pop up a bunch of dialog prompts every time the user hits "End Turn."

[Citan]

I don't know who exactly you're arguing with. I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest you should take Lucky over ASIs to your important stats or build critical feats.

The reason Lucky is highly rated is because once you've got the ASIs and feats you want, you can slot Lucky into any literally build and it will provide good value for the investment. It shores up weaknesses or it reinforces strengths depending on what you need that moment. Plus its just super satisfying to turn that crit into a miss.

You've said Tough is better because you'll gain more HP than crits averted would save and Dungeon Delver is better because on trap heavy days it'll last much better than lucky will. But once you've made that choice, you've made it. Tough doesn't help you in a social encounter, Dungeon Delver does nothing to help you beat a giant. Lucky is always relevant - and while it isn't guaranteed to help, that's the game/statistics for you.
I think we have the best summary here. :)

To me, Lucky is the "default" feat...
Not "default" as in "the one I'll pick first before considering anything else".
Rather "default" as in "the one I'll pick if, and when, I really don't see any particular feat for my character concept".
Situation which for me rarely happens, except when going Fighter or Rogue who can spare ASIs even when you want 3 feats. ^^

It's arguably the least "powerful" feat one could ever grab for any character concept, but it's probably the one you'll always manage to fully use most, or every, day. Because let's be honest, how many dozens (hundreds?) of rolls does just one PC make in an adventuring day? :D
That's probably why it's so highly appreciated, or at least rated: rarely the best feat, but always a good fit if I may use this pun. :)

[MaxWilson]

I understand it's benefits against critical hits that is totally legit, but seems to edge case. If you are worried about survival tough will increase your hp by between 2 and 40(which can be healed) depending on what level you are and even when the trex crits it only deals an additional 56 damage on average. Sure that's an improvement over tough, but tough is always going to help with survivabiliy whereas lucky will only really help under the right circumstances and only while you ahve uses remaining.

I just want to note here that turning a T-Rex crit into a hit saves you 26 HP per Lucky usage (78 HP per day), and turning a T-Rex crit into an actual miss saves you 59 HP per Lucky usage (177 HP if you manage to do it three times). And the T-Rex is far from the biggest hitter out there--it's only CR 8, and Mordenkainen's Tomb of Foes is chock-full of monsters that will do as much or more damage than that.

An extra 22 HP or whatever from Tough is nice, I guess, and you're right that it's nice that they can be healed (despite pop-up healing being so good in 5E), but it's a pretty rare scenario that makes Tough a better survival feat than Lucky, even if you reserve Lucky strictly for crit-negating .

With high probability, but not guaranteed. Obviously you can still roll yet another 20 on the reroll.

P.S. I think there was a thread just the other week on "is it fair to send my players up against a bad guy with a vorpal sword when there is no defense against vorpal insta-kill?" and Lucky was one of the prime defenses against the vorpal sword, and the only one which stacked with other sources of disadvantage like invisibility and grapple/prone.

[GlenSmash!]

Oh, definitely, I completely agree it will be different for some people. For some it will be no different than expending a reroll, fate point, or other consumable "luck token"

As an aside, I am an avid fan of WFRP, and a player expending a Fate Point in that system doesn't give me even remotely the same feeling as I get when a character with Lucky makes me reroll a dice. I suspect the difference in mechanic is that everyone in WFRP has Fate Points, so I expect them to be used when bad things happen, while in D&D one player might have Lucky, so you forget about it until it was used, and get hit by surprise. Perhaps it is the element of surprise that makes it feel worse.

It's interesting how a similar mechanic presented differently has that much effect.

I recommend making a "Lucky" hat and having a player that has a character with the feat wear it. That way you're less likely to feel surprised. (I may or may not be joking I haven't joking. I can't tell.)

[Mellack]

I don't tell the player what I roll. I describe them getting hit and then tell them how much damage they take, generally rolling hit and damage at the same time to keep the pace of combat up. The DM should be using as little mechanical language as possible IMO. Lucky forces the DM to say the number out loud and then wait for a reaction which makes every attack twice as long. It just annoysthe crap out of me.

Edit: the conditional "14 or higher" trick is a good idea though

Lucky is far from the only power that works at the same timing. How do you handle the Bard's cutting words, Wizard's shield spell, Scout's combat superiority, Diviner's portent, Absorb Elements spell, etc? Wouldn't Lucky just be run the same way?

[MaxWilson]

Lucky is far from the only power that works at the same timing. How do you handle the Bard's cutting words, Wizard's shield spell, Scout's combat superiority, Diviner's portent, Absorb Elements spell, etc? Wouldn't Lucky just be run the same way?

Nitpick:

Diviner's portent doesn't work like Lucky/Battlemaster/etc. Portent replaces an attack roll/save/skill check entirely. If a die has been rolled, it's too late to use Portent.

Absorb Elements doesn't have the same timing. It works when you take damage. Nothing fancy there. It's straightforward for a player to use it in response to damage.

DM: Bob, the dragon incinerates you for 99 points of fire damage, Dex save DC 24 for half.

Bob: Not so fast! I can't make that save DC even if I roll a 20, so I won't bother rolling it, but fortunately I am, tada!, resistant to fire thanks to the Absorb Elements spell I am casting right now. 48 points of damage, oof, but I'm still alive. [rolls a Con save] Unsurprisingly though I have now lost concentration on Haste...

Shield works after you get hit. It's similar to Lucky/Battlemaster/etc., but it comes later in the cycle. In this case, the DM declares a hit, and Bob says, "Not so fast! I shield." and the DM either says, "It hits you anyway," or "Congratulations, it missed you now."

Lucky/Battlemaster/etc. are different because there's no narrative action which triggers them. Instead of happening when the dragon roasts you, or when the hill giant hits you, they happen when certain numbers are rolled on dice that no PC can ever see and which are not part of the story. Being pulled out of a story to make decisions about dice lying on the kitchen table is more disruptive than Shielding against a potential hit or Absorbing some dragon fire.

[Segev]

Nitpick:

Diviner's portent doesn't work like Lucky/Battlemaster/etc. Portent replaces an attack roll/save/skill check entirely. If a die has been rolled, it's too late to use Portent.

Ah, but Lucky+Portent can mean that you spend luck and a portentious roll on the same thing. "What? He critted? No, no, I'm too lucky for that; I foresaw that he'd roll a 6."

[Snails]

I personally don't feel the dice should determine a character's fate, it should mostly be their decisions.

RolePlaying Game means different things to different people. I tend to think of D&D PCs as protagonists in a story, where their success ultimately likely even if far from guaranteed. So I have no trouble with the idea that of a bunch of people chosen by Fate, one or two are weirdly even luckier than that.

Mind you, I have no problem with other styles of play, but it works out best if everyone at the gaming table should understand what style is being played.

[MaxWilson]

Ah, but Lucky+Portent can mean that you spend luck and a portentious roll on the same thing. "What? He critted? No, no, I'm too lucky for that; I foresaw that he'd roll a 6."

Not legal. Portent must be used "before the roll", but Lucky is used during the roll (after the die is rolled).

[mephnick]

Lucky/Battlemaster/etc. are different because there's no narrative action which triggers them. Instead of happening when the dragon roasts you, or when the hill giant hits you, they happen when certain numbers are rolled on dice that no PC can ever see and which are not part of the story. Being pulled out of a story to make decisions about dice lying on the kitchen table is more disruptive than Shielding against a potential hit or Absorbing some dragon fire.

Exactly. I like Portent. I think that's good design. It's really only Lucky, Cutting Words and Shield that bug me, but the last two aren't as prevalent. Shield only works on attack rolls and Cutting Words is on a single subclass I rarely see. I had 3 characters in one campaign take Lucky. So Lucky bears the brunt of my ire. It's just the best example of a bad mechanic.

[Pex]

I don't tell the player what I roll. I describe them getting hit and then tell them how much damage they take, generally rolling hit and damage at the same time to keep the pace of combat up. The DM should be using as little mechanical language as possible IMO. Lucky forces the DM to say the number out loud and then wait for a reaction which makes every attack twice as long. It just annoysthe crap out of me.

Edit: the conditional "14 or higher" trick is a good idea though

But the player knows in character the prowess of the opponent he's facing. He's right there fighting it. For the player to know he needs the number. Flowing words are great for flavor text fun, but they don't mean anything for play. Are spellcasters wasting spell slots casting Shield because you say the monster hits but still hits after casting because you refuse to tell them what you rolled or AC you hit? The numbers are need to know information. D&D is a game. The game mechanics is the game.

However, you answered the question on why you don't care for the feat. I can't make you like it and will leave it at that.

[mephnick]

Are spellcasters wasting spell slots casting Shield because you say the monster hits but still hits after casting because you refuse to tell them what you rolled or AC you hit?

Yep, they sure are. That's part of the gamble of the spell, just a little harsher with the way I play I'll admit. I never say what AC I hit because I don't have to, I know all their ACs so all I say is it's a hit or miss.

[Pex]

Yep, they sure are. That's part of the gamble of the spell, just a little harsher with the way I play I'll admit. I never say what AC I hit because I don't have to, I know all their ACs so all I say is it's a hit or miss.

That's an unfair advantage. Every NPC spellcaster is always successful casting Shield because you know what the player rolls, or do you roll a d20 to determine if an NPC casts Shield or not when you know it won't work or always cast it anyway upon a hit regardless.

Your playstyle is incompatible with mine. In my view players should not be denied information they're supposed to know. The DM is not the adversary.

[mephnick]

That's an unfair advantage. Every NPC spellcaster is always successful casting Shield because you know what the player rolls, or do you roll a d20 to determine if an NPC casts Shield or not when you know it won't work or always cast it anyway upon a hit regardless.


If my NPC has Shield he uses it on the first couple hits regardless of what the PC rolls. Same with Counterspell regardless of the spell being cast. Give me some credit, I don't metagame against my players as a DM. The amount of info players need is the amount the DM thinks they'd have. Some weird DMs announce the name of every spell an NPC casts instead of describing it. I never name any spell unless they've identified it before. Is that unfair lack of information? It isn't to me, but is to others.

Edit: it's been pretty obvious our playstyles don't match for quite awhile. You want players to never suffer any "unfair" (with a broad application of the word) setbacks and I consider those part of D&D.

[bid]

Not legal. Portent must be used "before the roll", but Lucky is used during the roll (after the die is rolled).
Not sure I agree.
After the attack roll, you decide to use a luck point to "roll" an exta dice. "Before the roll" of that extra dice, you replace it with your portent.

That interpretation makes perfect sense.


Small mind experiment: using portent with disadvantage, could roll the first 2d0 before you decide to replace the second roll with your portent?

[Zalabim]

Portent doesn't interrupt a d20. Portent interrupts a saving throw, attack roll, or ability check. Then the die result of that check, throw, or roll becomes the portent die. You can't use portent to determine your luck, and there's some debate on whether luck can be used after portent is used, or at least on what effect that has.

[Mordaedil]

I don't tell the player what I roll. I describe them getting hit and then tell them how much damage they take, generally rolling hit and damage at the same time to keep the pace of combat up. The DM should be using as little mechanical language as possible IMO. Lucky forces the DM to say the number out loud and then wait for a reaction which makes every attack twice as long. It just annoysthe crap out of me.

Edit: the conditional "14 or higher" trick is a good idea though

That is how you played in 3rd edition and earlier imo, a thing that changed with 4th and 5th edition. The players got a lot of interrupt abilities where they can declare power over the DM, which isn't something I like either, but it's kind of necessary for the game to work. You have to let players have this advantage.

[Cybren]

It's how the game is meant to be run, but thank you for your opinion.

how is the game "meant to be run with as little mechanical language as possible"? Mechanical language is clear. In heavily mechanized sections of the of the rules clarity of mechanics is important.

[Unoriginal]

That's an unfair advantage. Every NPC spellcaster is always successful casting Shield because you know what the player rolls, or do you roll a d20 to determine if an NPC casts Shield or not when you know it won't work or always cast it anyway upon a hit regardless.


This presuppose that the DM is either a douche or is unable to separate their knowledge from the NPC's.

No, NPC casters will sometime waste their Shield, because as a DM you can make NPCs take decisions with how much they know. Most people will use Shield if they're getting hit, regardless of if Shield is enough to protect them, because most people who get hit will try to protect themselves.

Honestly, this sounds like the complains people had about Counterspell being blind. Lot of people went "it's unfair, NPC casters won't ever use it on a PC's cantrip".



In my view players should not be denied information they're supposed to know.

Players aren't supposed to know by how much their AC was beaten or by how much they failed a save. They CAN know it, but there is no reason they should. Same reason why you don't have to tell them how much AC an enemy has or how high their save bonuses are.

[MaxWilson]

Not sure I agree.
After the attack roll, you decide to use a luck point to "roll" an exta dice. "Before the roll" of that extra dice, you replace it with your portent.

That interpretation makes perfect sense.

(I understand that you will not be persuaded, but I'm posting this for the benefit of other readers.)

Whether or not it makes perfect sense, it is not legal by Portent's definition, which requires you to declare Portent before the attack roll, saving throw, or skill check is made. Lucky does not replace an attack roll with another attack roll; it replaces one of the die rolled during the course of resolving the attack roll. See PHB text of Portent and the PHB definitions of the three types of rolls for further details.

[Segev]

Not legal. Portent must be used "before the roll", but Lucky is used during the roll (after the die is rolled).


(I understand that you will not be persuaded, but I'm posting this for the benefit of other readers.)

Whether or not it makes perfect sense, it is not legal by Portent's definition, which requires you to declare Portent before the attack roll, saving throw, or skill check is made. Lucky does not replace an attack roll with another attack roll; it replaces one of the die rolled during the course of resolving the attack roll. See PHB text of Portent and the PHB definitions of the three types of rolls for further details.

You're right that I'm not persuaded. Lucky gives you a "re-do" on the roll. You can use Portent "before" you roll the new die.

Portent's text indicates that you can't roll the die, THEN decide to replace it with the Portent roll. It doesn't indicate that you can't use the Portent roll on a second chance roll. Only that you can't use it as an additional chance, by itself.

[MaxWilson]

You're right that I'm not persuaded. Lucky gives you a "re-do" on the roll.

No, it doesn't. It lets you change one of the dice rolled during the course of resolving that roll, but it doesn't give you a fresh roll. Here's the wording of Lucky:


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.


Starting at 2nd level when you choose this school, glimpses of the future begin to press in on your awareness. When you finish a long rest, roll two d20s and record the numbers rolled. You can replace any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see with one of these foretelling rolls. You must choose to do so before the roll, and you can replace a roll in this way only once per turn.

In order for Portent to work, Lucky would have to be worded like the Fighter's Indomitable ability:


Beginning at 9th level, you can reroll a saving throw that you fail. If you do so, you must use the new roll, and you can't use this feature again until you finish a Long Rest.


Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw and don't like the result, you can spend one luck point to make an additional attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after the initial roll is made, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which attack roll, ability check, or saving throw to use.

Then you would just use Portent before the "additional attack roll, ability check, or saving throw".

But Lucky isn't written that way, so there is only one attack roll/ability check/saving throw, and you've already started resolving it by the time Lucky comes into play, so Portent cannot be used on that attack roll/ability check/saving throw because it's not "before the roll".

P.S. Huh, I never noticed it before, but Portent works through Clairvoyance/Scrying/Project Image. A hostile, remote diviner would be an extremely annoying foil for PCs; and a friendly, remote diviner would potentially be a great patron.

[mephnick]

how is the game "meant to be run with as little mechanical language as possible"? Mechanical language is clear. In heavily mechanized sections of the of the rules clarity of mechanics is important.

The DM should portray the world with description, not mechanics. You don't say a goblin is taking the Dodge action, you say "the goblin drops back into a defensive posture to avoid oncoming attacks." You don't say "the mage casts Cone of Cold." You say "You see the mage begin waving his arms in a circle as frost gathers around the tips of his fingers. Suddenly a vortex of swirling cold envelops all of you!"

This is BASIC DMing. Like..rule 2 of being a DM after "Don't be a ****." is "Describe the world, not mechanics." Dungeon World calls it "Don't name your moves." (Actually Dungeon World is a great training experience on how to pace a combat well if you're looking to start running any system.) Anyway, basic, basic stuff.

[Segev]

No, it doesn't. It lets you change one of the dice rolled during the course of resolving that roll, but it doesn't give you a fresh roll. Here's the wording of Lucky:





In order for Portent to work, Lucky would have to be worded like the Fighter's Indomitable ability:No, the Fighter's Indomitable ability and the Lucky terminology actually amount to the same thing. Lucky just gives you the option of using it before you roll (not that I would ever recommend anybody take that option).

You are choosing to use Portent on the die roll granted by Lucky. By Lucky's terminology, it explicitly is giving you a second die to roll for that attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. So the die roll granted by Lucky is such a roll. You have not yet rolled that die. You may use Portent on it to dictate the value of that die roll be the pre-determined one.

All Portent requires is that you have not yet rolled the die you will replace with it. Not that you have not yet rolled any dice.

Heck, you can use Portent on a die roll wherein you have Advantage or Disadvantage in order to replace one of the two dice with your portentious roll. Might even be able to replace both! Thus using up two Portents on one Disadvantage roll to try to control how bad it can be.

But the key here is that all Portent requires is that you not have made the roll you're going to replace it with yet. So roll, decide to spend Luck, and use Portent on the Luck-granted extra roll rather than making said roll.



But Lucky isn't written that way, so there is only one attack roll/ability check/saving throw, and you've already started resolving it by the time Lucky comes into play, so Portent cannot be used on that attack roll/ability check/saving throw because it's not "before the roll".You haven't "started resolving it." You've made one of two rolls you're allowed. Portent applies to a roll. You haven't made the roll to which you're applying it.

All Portent's wording does is prevent you from rolling, then deciding you don't like the roll and spending Portent to replace the roll you didn't like. i.e., you can't roll an attack, see it came up 2, and decide to use Portent to make it a 13. You absolutely CAN roll that attack, see it come up a 2, spend Luck for an additional die roll, and then, before you roll that additional die, use Portent to make the Luck-granted die a 13. What Portent is doing is saying you must not yet have rolled the die you're replacing. Not that you can't have rolled any dice at all.


P.S. Huh, I never noticed it before, but Portent works through Clairvoyance/Scrying/Project Image. A hostile, remote diviner would be an extremely annoying foil for PCs; and a friendly, remote diviner would potentially be a great patron.That's a good catch! Does Lucky also work through that?

[Pex]

This presuppose that the DM is either a douche or is unable to separate their knowledge from the NPC's.

No, NPC casters will sometime waste their Shield, because as a DM you can make NPCs take decisions with how much they know. Most people will use Shield if they're getting hit, regardless of if Shield is enough to protect them, because most people who get hit will try to protect themselves.

Honestly, this sounds like the complains people had about Counterspell being blind. Lot of people went "it's unfair, NPC casters won't ever use it on a PC's cantrip".

DMs aren't perfect. Even when they want to have NPCs waste their stuff in the heat of battle the DM may forget or instinct comes in not wanting to give the combat away similar to fudging. Players can misinterpret the move as the DM being too lenient. Or maybe not. There is no universal truth to the matter.



Players aren't supposed to know by how much their AC was beaten or by how much they failed a save. They CAN know it, but there is no reason they should. Same reason why you don't have to tell them how much AC an enemy has or how high their save bonuses are.

The character is right there fighting the creature. Its prowess is in character knowledge. That prowess is represented by the dice rolls. Players are allowed to know things.


The DM should portray the world with description, not mechanics. You don't say a goblin is taking the Dodge action, you say "the goblin drops back into a defensive posture to avoid oncoming attacks." You don't say "the mage casts Cone of Cold." You say "You see the mage begin waving his arms in a circle as frost gathers around the tips of his fingers. Suddenly a vortex of swirling cold envelops all of you!"

This is BASIC DMing. Like..rule 2 of being a DM after "Don't be a ****." is "Describe the world, not mechanics." Dungeon World calls it "Don't name your moves." (Actually Dungeon World is a great training experience on how to pace a combat well if you're looking to start running any system.) Anyway, basic, basic stuff.

That's how you do it. That's not the One True Way.

[Unoriginal]

DMs aren't perfect. Even when they want to have NPCs waste their stuff in the heat of battle the DM may forget or instinct comes in not wanting to give the combat away similar to fudging. Players can misinterpret the move as the DM being too lenient. Or maybe not. There is no universal truth to the matter.

DMs aren't perfect, but we're not talking about the honest mistakes, we're talking about what the players and DMs intended to do.



The character is right there fighting the creature. Its prowess is in character knowledge. That prowess is represented by the dice rolls. Players are allowed to know things.

Yes, they're allowed to know things. But they're not required to be told everything.

Let's say that a DM says "the Frost Giant's movements are more sluggish now, and he seems really hurt", and a player decide to use a Fireball against said Giant even if the giant actually only has 4 HPs left.

As a DM, would you interrupt them and say "actually, Player, the Giant only has 4 HPs left, you shouldn't waste a Fireball on it" ?

Or would you have said from the start how much HPs the giant had ?

A fight's interest is also in the tension coming from not knowing how tough the opponent is/how well you can handle them.

As a player I've no interest in a fight where I got my hand held all the way to make sure my PC doesn't get too hurt or waste too much of my ressources.

[MaxWilson]

No, the Fighter's Indomitable ability and the Lucky terminology actually amount to the same thing. Lucky just gives you the option of using it before you roll (not that I would ever recommend anybody take that option).

You're conflating logical rolls (the game jargon: saving throws, etc.) and the physical die rolls made as part of resolving those logical rolls. A given logical roll can have multiple d20s rolled in it due to advantage, disadvantage, or Lucky dice, but it's still just one logical roll according to the game jargon defined in the PHB. Some abilities grant you multiple logical rolls, which can result in five or more physical d20s being rolled before the final result of a saving throw is determined and play proceeds.

For example, an Eldritch Knight 11/Wild Sorc 1 with +7 to Con saves gets hit and needs to make a Concentration roll (DC 10) to keep his Haste spell up. He rolls a natural 1, oh no! Fortunately he's also Lucky. He spends a Luck dice, but disaster strikes--he rolls a 2! He just failed his Con saving throw.

But he's not out of tricks yet. He uses Indomitable and gets another Con save! Because he really, really doesn't want to lose Haste, he decides this is a good time to use Tides of Chaos to get advantage on his saving throw. He rolls a 1, and another 1. He spends another Luck die to roll an additional d20 as part of this Con save, and this time he rolls a 3. 3+7 = 10 = Success on his second Con save, which overrides the first failed Con save, so disaster is averted and he keeps Haste active.

If he'd also been a Diviner 2, he could have used Portent to replace the second Con save instead of rolling dice, but once he starts rolling d20s it is too late to use Portent on that Con save.

[Segev]

You're conflating logical rolls (the game jargon: saving throws, etc.) and the physical die rolls made as part of resolving those logical rolls. A given logical roll can have multiple d20s rolled in it due to advantage, disadvantage, or Lucky dice, but it's still just one logical roll according to the game jargon defined in the PHB. Some abilities grant you multiple logical rolls, which can result in five or more physical d20s being rolled before the final result of a saving throw is determined and play proceeds.

You're inventing the concept of the "logical roll" out of whole cloth, here. Nowhere do the rules define them.

Your examples explain your definition of a "logical roll" very well, but in no way support their existence as a rules term, let alone provide evidence that Portent refers specifically to "logical rolls" and specifically not to "physical rolls."

The rules only mention rolls, and Portent only says that you must apply it before you make the roll it is to substitute for. It in no way says that you must apply it before making any rolls that are potentially part of a "logical roll" (as you've defined it). This is entirely your own invention. It is a coherent concept, but it is not part of the RAW, and therefore cannot be held up as what Portent applies to.

[Cybren]

The DM should portray the world with description, not mechanics. You don't say a goblin is taking the Dodge action, you say "the goblin drops back into a defensive posture to avoid oncoming attacks." You don't say "the mage casts Cone of Cold." You say "You see the mage begin waving his arms in a circle as frost gathers around the tips of his fingers. Suddenly a vortex of swirling cold envelops all of you!"

This is BASIC DMing. Like..rule 2 of being a DM after "Don't be a ****." is "Describe the world, not mechanics." Dungeon World calls it "Don't name your moves." (Actually Dungeon World is a great training experience on how to pace a combat well if you're looking to start running any system.) Anyway, basic, basic stuff.

You do... both. Because D&D isn't Apocalypse World. Players not only need a clear understanding of the fictional positioning, but they need a clear understanding of the mechanical gamestate.

[strangebloke]

Because it's kind of like Resilient (every attribute) and Skilled (every skill) all rolled into one, and can also be used to (probably) cancels crits against you. It's very versatile, and easy to use efficiently--it's better than advantage because you get to see the prior roll before making your reroll. So in practice it's kind of like getting to make 3-10 rolls per day with advantage, instead of only 3--and you can make sure it gets used only on important rolls instead of little things like goblin criticals or saves to avoid being frightened when you're actually a spellcaster with plenty of ranged and AoE options (and thus don't care much about the Frightened condition).


Max hit the nail on the head.

Let's say you're a wizard. Between mirror image, mage armor, shield, and you generally not being on the front lines, you'll be taking very few hits. But because dropping concentration is a real pain in the neck, so most would agree that Resilient:CON is a good feat.

[Resilient:CON bonus] = proficiency

(proficiency is +3/+4 for most of the levels people play at.)

[Average Lucky Bonus] = 10.5-(your roll).

So having a lucky die is better than having resilient:CON whenever you roll a 7 or lower. In other words, for most rolls where you'd want either feat, a lucky die is better.

"But it's only limited to a few times a day!"

Yeah, but it covers every roll you ever make. All saving throws, all ability checks, and all attack rolls. It stacks with everything else your character has, whether advantage, a high ability mod, or proficiency. It works on things that are hard to buff, like counterspell checks, It also covers some rolls you don't make.

"But even then, over the course of a long adventuring day, it won't matter!"

...Which would be a somewhat valid point, if people actually ran long adventuring days. Since most people do the 1-2 deadly encounters, this feat is basically mandatory.

[MaxWilson]

You're inventing the concept of the "logical roll" out of whole cloth, here. Nowhere do the rules define them.

The rules frequently reference attack rolls/saving throws/ability checks, and in fact they're defined up front in the PHB as the three primary types of rolls in 5E. When you roll two dice during an attack roll, it doesn't suddenly become two separate attack rolls. The rules of 5E are very clear on this distinction. See for example "Advantage and disadvantage" in the PHB, or the rules that I already quoted for Indomitable, Lucky and Portent.


Your examples explain your definition of a "logical roll" very well, but in no way support their existence as a rules term, let alone provide evidence that Portent refers specifically to "logical rolls" and specifically not to "physical rolls."

The rules only mention rolls, and Portent only says that you must apply it before you make the roll it is to substitute for. It in no way says that you must apply it before making any rolls that are potentially part of a "logical roll" (as you've defined it). This is entirely your own invention. It is a coherent concept, but it is not part of the RAW, and therefore cannot be held up as what Portent applies to.

Support your view by quoting RAW, as I have done. Until you can do that, your assertion is baseless.

==============================


You do... both. Because D&D isn't Apocalypse World. Players not only need a clear understanding of the fictional positioning, but they need a clear understanding of the mechanical gamestate.

Yes. For example, in 5E you don't just say, "The wizard freezes you with an icy blast of cold." You have to communicate the HP damage and save DC to the players, too.

[strangebloke]

Yes. For example, in 5E you don't just say, "The wizard freezes you with an icy blast of cold." You have to communicate the HP damage and save DC to the players, too.

Actually you can.

You just keep track of their HP for them and don't tell them how much they have left.

...Probably not advisable, but I'm on Mephnick's page here in thinking that you want to minimize the amount of gamist terms you use.

"The wizard throws his palm forward, speaking in a fel tongue. You all make a dexterity save... *rolling* You feel the very blood in your veins coagulate and freeze as howling winds wash over you. Lucien, Vack, and Glimmereyes, you all take 37 damage. Karhold, you take 19."

vs.

"He's gonna to cast cone of cold at y'all. DC 15 Dexterity."

[Cybren]

Actually you can.

You just keep track of their HP for them and don't tell them how much they have left.

...Probably not advisable, but I'm on Mephnick's page here in thinking that you want to minimize the amount of gamist terms you use.

"The wizard throws his palm forward, speaking in a fel tongue. You all make a dexterity save... *rolling* You feel the very blood in your veins coagulate and freeze as howling winds wash over you. Lucien, Vack, and Glimmereyes, you all take 37 damage. Karhold, you take 19."

vs.

"He's gonna to cast cone of cold at y'all. DC 15 Dexterity."
Right but my position is you should do this: "The wizard throws his palm forward, speaking in a fel tongue, he is casting a spell.. You all make a dexterity save... *rolling* You feel the very blood in your veins coagulate and freeze as howling winds wash over you. Lucien, Vack, and Glimmereyes, you all take 37 damage. Karhold, you take 19."

My position is just that, if you're going to go out of your way to use descriptive language to narrate what action an enemy is taking, that means you want the players to know what action the enemy is taking, so, just like you might describe damage in a cool way, you still ultimately have to also give them concrete game terminology to be clear.
(additionally, if you don't want the players to be sure about what action the enemy is taking, you would both narrate it in a way that makes things seem off, and then tell them that directly in some fashion. Basically, my position is 'transparency is Good, Actually.')

[Segev]

The rules frequently reference attack rolls/saving throws/ability checks, and in fact they're defined up front in the PHB as the three primary types of rolls in 5E. When you roll two dice during an attack roll, it doesn't suddenly become two separate attack rolls. The rules of 5E are very clear on this distinction. See for example "Advantage and disadvantage" in the PHB, or the rules that I already quoted for Indomitable, Lucky and Portent.



Support your view by quoting RAW, as I have done. Until you can do that, your assertion is baseless.

You haven't supported your view via the RAW. You've attempted to claim that attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks are all "logical rolls," having defined "logical rolls" yourself, separately, but you have not actually shown where in the RAW it says that they are treated as you treat "logical rolls."

Rolling with advantage does, indeed, let you roll two dice for that attack roll, and use the higher one. Rolling with disadvantage does, in fact, require you to roll two dice for that attack roll, and use the lower one. You still are rolling two dice. Nothing in the rules says that both rolls count "logically" as one roll. You roll twice, then use one of them for the attack roll.

Using Portent on a roll with advantage doesn't mean you can't roll the other die and take it if it's higher. Using Portent on a roll with disadvantage doesn't let you avoid having to roll the second die and take it if it's lower. Nothing in the rules supports your assertion otherwise.

Portent replaces a die roll, not a "logical roll." There is no such thing in the RAW as a "logical roll." Even attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks do not actually specify that the "set of rolls" that goes into them is a unitary thing to be treated as such by dice-manipulating mechanics. Quite the contrary, in fact.

[mephnick]

Right but my position is you should do this: "The wizard throws his palm forward, speaking in a fel tongue, he is casting a spell.. You all make a dexterity save... *rolling* You feel the very blood in your veins coagulate and freeze as howling winds wash over you. Lucien, Vack, and Glimmereyes, you all take 37 damage. Karhold, you take 19."

Yes exactly. You use as much mechanical language as needed and no more. Of course you have to tell them how much damage they take, jesus you people sometimes..

My original point is that abilities like Lucky force me to use more mechanical language instead of adjudicating the natural flow of combat. Instead of describing what happens naturally, the only way I can convey the information is through mechanical terms, literally stopping the game to inform the players what my dice say. It slows down the game, it kills tension, pacing and narration and is bad design for a role-playing game in a way that forced rolls (Portent), damage reduction (Absorb Elements) and regular re-rolls (Indomitable) aren't.

[MaxWilson]

"The wizard throws his palm forward, speaking in a fel tongue. You all make a dexterity save... *rolling* You feel the very blood in your veins coagulate and freeze as howling winds wash over you. Lucien, Vack, and Glimmereyes, you all take 37 damage. Karhold, you take 19."

Are you conscious of how jarring "how all make a dexterity save" is in this context? If you're going for jargonless play, I could accept "You all hunch inward, hoping the cold will not penetrate your bones," but "you make a Dexterity save"?


Right but my position is you should do this: "The wizard throws his palm forward, speaking in a fel tongue, he is casting a spell.. You all make a dexterity save... *rolling* You feel the very blood in your veins coagulate and freeze as howling winds wash over you. Lucien, Vack, and Glimmereyes, you all take 37 damage. Karhold, you take 19."

My position is just that, if you're going to go out of your way to use descriptive language to narrate what action an enemy is taking, that means you want the players to know what action the enemy is taking, so, just like you might describe damage in a cool way, you still ultimately have to also give them concrete game terminology to be clear.
(additionally, if you don't want the players to be sure about what action the enemy is taking, you would both narrate it in a way that makes things seem off, and then tell them that directly in some fashion. Basically, my position is 'transparency is Good, Actually.')

I'm with Cybren on this for the most part. Description is fine, but it doesn't make sense to aim for pure description in practice. You need to convey some numbers to the players, and HP and save DCs are how you do that.


My original point is that abilities like Lucky force me to use more mechanical language instead of adjudicating the natural flow of combat. Instead of describing what happens naturally, the only way I can convey the information is through mechanical terms, literally stopping the game to inform the players what my dice say. It slows down the game, it kills tension, pacing and narration and is bad design for a role-playing game in a way that forced rolls (Portent), damage reduction (Absorb Elements) and regular re-rolls (Indomitable) aren't.

And I'm with mephnick on this. 5E's die-roll-manipulating abilities like Cutting Words and Lucky are aggravating from the perspective of gameflow. There are ways around it, but clearly WotC loves fiddly die-roll-changing mechanics more than I do.

[MaxWilson]

You haven't supported your view via the RAW. You've attempted to claim that attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks are all "logical rolls," having defined "logical rolls" yourself, separately, but you have not actually shown where in the RAW it says that they are treated as you treat "logical rolls."

Show one place where my argument relies upon the terminology "logical rolls."

I don't care what you call it, Portent can't be used on a saving throw once you've already started rolling dice for that saving throw. You make baseless assertions to the contrary but can't support your argument textually.


Rolling with advantage does, indeed, let you roll two dice for that attack roll, and use the higher one. Rolling with disadvantage does, in fact, require you to roll two dice for that attack roll, and use the lower one. You still are rolling two dice. Nothing in the rules says that both rolls count "logically" as one roll. You roll twice, then use one of them for the attack roll.

Using Portent on a roll with advantage doesn't mean you can't roll the other die and take it if it's higher.

Prove it. What in the text of the PHB supports your assertion that a physical d20 roll and a saving throw are the same thing, even when there is advantage or disadvantage? Where does the PHB ever authorize you to use Portent and a rolled d20 on the same saving throw? How do you reconcile that with the text of Portent which specifically forbids such a thing?

Enough already.

[Cybren]

Yes exactly. You use as much mechanical language as needed and no more. Of course you have to tell them how much damage they take, jesus you people sometimes..

My original point is that abilities like Lucky force me to use more mechanical language instead of adjudicating the natural flow of combat. Instead of describing what happens naturally, the only way I can convey the information is through mechanical terms, literally stopping the game to inform the players what my dice say. It slows down the game, it kills tension, pacing and narration and is bad design for a role-playing game in a way that forced rolls (Portent), damage reduction (Absorb Elements) and regular re-rolls (Indomitable) aren't.

Except you're pretending this is some kind of world where there's more mechanical language you could deliver but don't? That's not "as much" that's "literally all the mechanical information there is". I'm not suggesting you just start reciting out of context pages from the PHB?

[bid]

(I understand that you will not be persuaded, but I'm posting this for the benefit of other readers.)

Whether or not it makes perfect sense, it is not legal by Portent's definition, which requires you to declare Portent before the attack roll, saving throw, or skill check is made. Lucky does not replace an attack roll with another attack roll; it replaces one of the die rolled during the course of resolving the attack roll. See PHB text of Portent and the PHB definitions of the three types of rolls for further details.
Thank you.
Now others can evaluate if they consider your argument compelling enough.

Is an "attack roll" a monolithic event that starts when you decide to roll the first d20 and ends once the result is final?


BTW, you almost sounded as if deciding your own interpretation was legal was sufficient to call any other one invalid. "You're wrong because I'm right" is circular reasoning.

[bid]

Prove it. What in the text of the PHB supports your assertion that a physical d20 roll and a saving throw are the same thing, even when there is advantage or disadvantage? Where does the PHB ever authorize you to use Portent and a rolled d20 on the same saving throw? How do you reconcile that with the text of Portent which specifically forbids such a thing?

Enough already.
Wait, are you really arguing that portent negates disadvantage?

That's a novel interpretation.

[Pex]

DMs aren't perfect, but we're not talking about the honest mistakes, we're talking about what the players and DMs intended to do.



Yes, they're allowed to know things. But they're not required to be told everything.

Let's say that a DM says "the Frost Giant's movements are more sluggish now, and he seems really hurt", and a player decide to use a Fireball against said Giant even if the giant actually only has 4 HPs left.

As a DM, would you interrupt them and say "actually, Player, the Giant only has 4 HPs left, you shouldn't waste a Fireball on it" ?

Or would you have said from the start how much HPs the giant had ?

A fight's interest is also in the tension coming from not knowing how tough the opponent is/how well you can handle them.

As a player I've no interest in a fight where I got my hand held all the way to make sure my PC doesn't get too hurt or waste too much of my ressources.

Some DMs do exactly that, and they're not wrong for it. I'm not saying DMs should, but I appreciate it when they do. They won't give the exact hit point total, only that a Fireball isn't needed. The character knows its abilities. It is in character knowledge for the player to know that even if the player did not pick up on the verbal clues the DM gave.

[MaxWilson]

Wait, are you really arguing that portent negates disadvantage?

And advantage, yes.

If you use Portent to make a Dracolich roll a 1 on its save vs. Polymorph, it can use a Legendary Resistance (if it has any remaining) to overcome the failed saving throw, but it cannot use its Magic Resistance to roll an additional d20 in addition to the 1. Its saving throw total is 1 + mods, full stop.

[bid]

And advantage, yes.

If you use Portent to make a Dracolich roll a 1 on its save vs. Polymorph, it can use a Legendary Resistance (if it has any remaining) to overcome the failed saving throw, but it cannot use its Magic Resistance to roll an additional d20 in addition to the 1. Its saving throw total is 1 + mods, full stop.
Ok, I think this adds a nice flavor to the feature. I might steal it.

[strangebloke]

Are you conscious of how jarring "how all make a dexterity save" is in this context? If you're going for jargonless play, I could accept "You all hunch inward, hoping the cold will not penetrate your bones," but "you make a Dexterity save"?

I note in my post that jargonless play is kind of impractical in 5e. The part you quoted was what I view as the most reasonable level of jargon.

All I was adding is that you can get rid of HP specifically. HP is one of the few abstractions the the players keep track of but don't really use.

[Chaosmancer]

The DM should portray the world with description, not mechanics. You don't say a goblin is taking the Dodge action, you say "the goblin drops back into a defensive posture to avoid oncoming attacks." You don't say "the mage casts Cone of Cold." You say "You see the mage begin waving his arms in a circle as frost gathers around the tips of his fingers. Suddenly a vortex of swirling cold envelops all of you!"

This is BASIC DMing. Like..rule 2 of being a DM after "Don't be a ****." is "Describe the world, not mechanics." Dungeon World calls it "Don't name your moves." (Actually Dungeon World is a great training experience on how to pace a combat well if you're looking to start running any system.) Anyway, basic, basic stuff.

See my issue with this is confusion and different standards.

Lets hit different standards first. I'm not going to require my players to use flowery description on every action. I perfectly accept "I'm going to move 15ft into the room, cast spiritual weapon on the golem and take the dodge action." In fact, as much as I love descriptive narration, I find that very dry gamey text useful and quick to understand compared to "I dart into the room, a prayer to Kord on my lips and in my heart, calling forth his mighty blade to do battle this day, while bracing myself for the coming storm of steel and blood"

Sure, that second one is cool, but 3 hours into a gaming session I'm likely to follow that with a "so... What are you doing" as I am to follow along. Plus, almost none of my players are that comfortable with improv.

So, I as the DM will be using vague story language while my players are talking mechanics. Not so good.

In addition to that, I suspect that occassionally, using such narrative language will lead to confusion and frustration for the players. I'll geta lot of "okay, what is that goblin doing" or "why am I rolling with disadvantage? Well, if I'd known that I'd have picked a different target." ect.

It wouldn't lend itself to my players having more fun. And actually, towards the naming spells thing. I've described spells differently (like mirror image being a cloud of translucent shields, or a high level magic missile being a wave of power) and freaked people out. And sure, sometimes that is good and fine, but after the third time someone asks "what the h- was that" instead of taking their turn, it is just slowing the game down.


So, it isn't BASIC DMING to me. Because it works against player enjoyment and slows down the game. Two things I try very hard as a DM to avoid if at all possible. Sure, sometimes the narrative is more important, or the mystery is the point even if it causes problems, but claiming people don't understand how to DM properly if they don't use the method you and your table uses is really kind of arrogant of you.

[Mordaedil]

That style of DM'ing really was more at home in 3rd edition and earlier, seeing as 4th and 5th edition got rid of the spellcraft skill, so you can't roll anything to identify the spell being cast. Informing the players of what spell is targetting them is helpful to DM too, as some players might be more intimately familiar with certain spells and can help aid ruling on them.

[Zalabim]

Wait, are you really arguing that portent negates disadvantage?

That's a novel interpretation.
Already covered by a sageadvice question, actually. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/24/diviner-wizard-portent/

That style of DM'ing really was more at home in 3rd edition and earlier, seeing as 4th and 5th edition got rid of the spellcraft skill, so you can't roll anything to identify the spell being cast. Informing the players of what spell is targetting them is helpful to DM too, as some players might be more intimately familiar with certain spells and can help aid ruling on them.
For example, if you let me know the wizard cast Cone of Cold, specifically, I might be able to point out that Cone of Cold requires a Constitution save, not a Dexterity save. If I don't know what the spell is, I can't tell when it's being used wrong.

[Knaight]

The DM should portray the world with description, not mechanics. You don't say a goblin is taking the Dodge action, you say "the goblin drops back into a defensive posture to avoid oncoming attacks." You don't say "the mage casts Cone of Cold." You say "You see the mage begin waving his arms in a circle as frost gathers around the tips of his fingers. Suddenly a vortex of swirling cold envelops all of you!"

This is BASIC DMing. Like..rule 2 of being a DM after "Don't be a ****." is "Describe the world, not mechanics." Dungeon World calls it "Don't name your moves." (Actually Dungeon World is a great training experience on how to pace a combat well if you're looking to start running any system.) Anyway, basic, basic stuff.

Cone of cold is a bit of a borderline case here - yes, it's a game term, but it's a game term that corresponds to an actual spell in setting (whereas the idea of discrete actions, HP, etc. generally don't). "Spear' is a game term too, but that doesn't mean you should avoid using it in description.

As for the question of how to pace a combat well there's a case to be made for dropping into mechanics precisely to speed it up, while using a much more description heavy style elsewhere. This often works out to a mix of some sort, where description is saved for more notable events.

[Glorthindel]

It's interesting how a similar mechanic presented differently has that much effect.

I recommend making a "Lucky" hat and having a player that has a character with the feat wear it. That way you're less likely to feel surprised. (I may or may not be joking I haven't joking. I can't tell.)

Heh, joke or not, I'm definitely game to give a couple of my players a brightly-coloured pointy hat with a giant "L" on the front :smallwink:

But seriously though, rethinking my own comment has almost convinced me that the way to "disarm" Lucky of its negative connotations is to give it to all characters as a freebie (once everyone ha it, it becomes just another common mechanic, rather than an unusual one, and it will seem less of an unpleasant surprise when it happens). Hmm.

[Willie the Duck]

Heh, joke or not, I'm definitely game to give a couple of my players a brightly-coloured pointy hat with a giant "L" on the front :smallwink:

I'm sure a dunce cap with the letter "L" displayed over their forehead will definitely be interpreted as standing for "lucky." :smallbiggrin:

[Cybren]

Heh, joke or not, I'm definitely game to give a couple of my players a brightly-coloured pointy hat with a giant "L" on the front :smallwink:

But seriously though, rethinking my own comment has almost convinced me that the way to "disarm" Lucky of its negative connotations is to give it to all characters as a freebie (once everyone ha it, it becomes just another common mechanic, rather than an unusual one, and it will seem less of an unpleasant surprise when it happens). Hmm.

I like this as a concept, partly because i feel that the Inspiration mechanic doesn't....work? Like, I don't think the same mechanic that is meant to represent diegetic effort or opportunity should also represent metanarrative agency of the play-actors?

[Unoriginal]

Some DMs do exactly that, and they're not wrong for it. I'm not saying DMs should, but I appreciate it when they do. They won't give the exact hit point total, only that a Fireball isn't needed. The character knows its abilities. It is in character knowledge for the player to know that even if the player did not pick up on the verbal clues the DM gave.

Alright, as long as we both agree it's something that can be done, but doesn't need to be done, and that there is nothing wrong with doing or not doing it, then we agree.

[Segev]

Show one place where my argument relies upon the terminology "logical rolls."You're the one who defined them and then insisted that there's a difference between "logical rolls" and "physical die rolls," and you're the one insisting that Portent replaces an entire "logical roll."

Your entire argument hinges on the point so much that you had to define the concept!


I don't care what you call it, Portent can't be used on a saving throw once you've already started rolling dice for that saving throw. You make baseless assertions to the contrary but can't support your argument textually.Actually, I have supported my argument. You've failed to use the RAW to support yours, relying instead on defining a new term that doesn't exist in the text at all. And then insisted your argument doesn't hinge on it, while turning around and using that definition without the term you assigned to it again. And yet, no text is offered by you to support your claim.

You're the one making an extraordinary claim about the definition of "roll." You have to prove that your definition is supported in the text.


Prove it. What in the text of the PHB supports your assertion that a physical d20 roll and a saving throw are the same thing, even when there is advantage or disadvantage? Where does the PHB ever authorize you to use Portent and a rolled d20 on the same saving throw? How do you reconcile that with the text of Portent which specifically forbids such a thing?Where does the PHB ever deny you the ability to use Portent on one of the dice when you roll with advantage or disadvantage? You've yet to prove your point; pretending that you have and then insisting I provide more evidence than you have is poor argumentation tactics.

The PHB forbids you from using Portent on a die after you have rolled that die. That's it. The definition of Advantage (and Disadvantage) specifies you roll two dice for a given check when they're in play, and describes which die you must take. Portent says you must declare its use before you roll the die it's replacing.

Show me text defining it as replacing both dice, rather than just one.


Enough already.So you concede?


Wait, are you really arguing that portent negates disadvantage?

That's a novel interpretation.He does seem to be.


And advantage, yes.

If you use Portent to make a Dracolich roll a 1 on its save vs. Polymorph, it can use a Legendary Resistance (if it has any remaining) to overcome the failed saving throw, but it cannot use its Magic Resistance to roll an additional d20 in addition to the 1. Its saving throw total is 1 + mods, full stop.That makes Portent much stronger in certain circumstances, that's for sure. "Nah, I don't have disadvantage. I have Portent."


Ok, I think this adds a nice flavor to the feature. I might steal it.I don't care for it, myself, but...hey!


Already covered by a sageadvice question, actually. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/24/diviner-wizard-portent/That's...got to be the most cockamamie way of applying an ability possible.

You declare its use, then still roll both dice, determine which die will be taken and THEN set it to the Portent value? That breaks the rules of Advantage and Disadvantage pretty harshly, since it is potentially having you take a die that is not the higher/lower after all.

If he wants to define what Max is calling a "logical roll," he should go ahead and do so.

Still, it does seem the Sage Advice author agrees with Max, and that logical rolls are a concept and that Portent applies to them, not to the actual dice rolled. Portent therefore negates Advantage, Disadvantage, and Lucky. So if you see a foe use Luck, you can still blow Portent to make him have 100% wasted it.

[MaxWilson]

Still, it does seem the Sage Advice author agrees with Max, and that logical rolls are a concept and that Portent applies to them, not to the actual dice rolled. Portent therefore negates Advantage, Disadvantage, and Lucky. So if you see a foe use Luck, you can still blow Portent to make him have 100% wasted it.

No you can't. At that point it is too late to declare Portent if you haven't already.

[Segev]

No you can't. At that point it is too late to declare Portent if you haven't already.

You have yet to provide text to back up your assertion, but you have found an interesting gap that I'd forgotten about.

Your assertion is that, if the Advantage or Disadvantage roll has been made, and then the guy pops Lucky, it's too late to Portent the Lucky roll.

Sage Advice is actually silent on this, discussing only that declaring Portent before the A/D roll is made replaces whichever die is ultimately chosen with the Portent value. It makes no comment as to whether popping Lucky allows you to choose between the Lucky die and the Portent value assigned to the roll before you spent your Luck point.

My assertion, however, remains that Portent says you must choose to use it before you roll the die to be replaced (which Sage Advice doesn't contradict). And that there is no text which says that the Lucky die is somehow the same "roll" as the other dice being thrown to determine the result of a check. I can't exactly prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on you to find me text which asserts that Portent refers to what you've termed "logical rolls" and not to physical die rolls. Because the clearest reading of Portent, to me, is simply that you're not allowed to use Portent after you see the die result and don't like it. You have to use it before you know what the die would have rolled.

Any OTHER choices that allow you to roll additional dice AFTER you know what the first dice rolled wouldn't impact this; the important thing is that you use Portent before the die you're actually replacing rolls.

That is a perfectly valid reading of the RAW; nothing in it is contradicted without inventing new text that defines "logical rolls," as you have. So the burden of proof remains on you to demonstrate that "logical rolls" are what the Portent rule about "before you make the roll" refers to, as opposed to actual die rolls to be replaced.

[JoeJ]

You have yet to provide text to back up your assertion, but you have found an interesting gap that I'd forgotten about.

Your assertion is that, if the Advantage or Disadvantage roll has been made, and then the guy pops Lucky, it's too late to Portent the Lucky roll.

Sage Advice is actually silent on this, discussing only that declaring Portent before the A/D roll is made replaces whichever die is ultimately chosen with the Portent value. It makes no comment as to whether popping Lucky allows you to choose between the Lucky die and the Portent value assigned to the roll before you spent your Luck point.

My assertion, however, remains that Portent says you must choose to use it before you roll the die to be replaced (which Sage Advice doesn't contradict). And that there is no text which says that the Lucky die is somehow the same "roll" as the other dice being thrown to determine the result of a check. I can't exactly prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on you to find me text which asserts that Portent refers to what you've termed "logical rolls" and not to physical die rolls. Because the clearest reading of Portent, to me, is simply that you're not allowed to use Portent after you see the die result and don't like it. You have to use it before you know what the die would have rolled.

Any OTHER choices that allow you to roll additional dice AFTER you know what the first dice rolled wouldn't impact this; the important thing is that you use Portent before the die you're actually replacing rolls.

That is a perfectly valid reading of the RAW; nothing in it is contradicted without inventing new text that defines "logical rolls," as you have. So the burden of proof remains on you to demonstrate that "logical rolls" are what the Portent rule about "before you make the roll" refers to, as opposed to actual die rolls to be replaced.



You can replace any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature you can see with one of these foretelling rolls.

Not one die, but one complete attack roll, saving throw, or ability check.

[Willie the Duck]

Not one die, but one complete attack roll, saving throw, or ability check.

The text you quoted does not actually rule one way or the other. It says attack roll (to pick one of the three). Is that one of multiple dice, or all of them? It isn't (within that sentence) clear, and what the answer is, is the point of contention.

[MaxWilson]

The text you quoted does not actually rule one way or the other. It says attack roll (to pick one of the three). Is that one of multiple dice, or all of them? It isn't (within that sentence) clear, and what the answer is, is the point of contention.

It's clear because of other usage, e.g. the fact that one attack roll may have multiple d20s rolled during the course of it due to e.g. advantage.

If you have advantage on "an attack roll", you roll two d20s and choose the higher. It's still indubitably one attack roll.

[JoeJ]

The text you quoted does not actually rule one way or the other. It says attack roll (to pick one of the three). Is that one of multiple dice, or all of them? It isn't (within that sentence) clear, and what the answer is, is the point of contention.

It's completely clear. An attack roll, like an ability check or a saving throw, is the full roll of however many dice; usually one d20 but occasionally more than one. A saving throw (or attack roll or ability check) made with advantage/disadvantage is not two saving throws (or attack rolls or ability checks), it's still just one saving throw (or attack roll or ability check) even though it uses two dice.

[Willie the Duck]

It's completely clear. An attack roll, like an ability check or a saving throw, is the full roll of however many dice;

Not completely clear within the sentence you quoted. An attack roll is not defined as the full roll of however many dice. That is an assumption that requires outside definition (because by intuitive language, it could be that, or each of the dice you roll with dis/advantage could each be 'an attack roll'-- both interpretations make sense. I trust MW is correct (although it would have been better to see the quote). That was my point (minor as it may be).

[Segev]

Not one die, but one complete attack roll, saving throw, or ability check.


The text you quoted does not actually rule one way or the other. It says attack roll (to pick one of the three). Is that one of multiple dice, or all of them? It isn't (within that sentence) clear, and what the answer is, is the point of contention.


It's clear because of other usage, e.g. the fact that one attack roll may have multiple d20s rolled during the course of it due to e.g. advantage.

If you have advantage on "an attack roll", you roll two d20s and choose the higher. It's still indubitably one attack roll.


It's completely clear. An attack roll, like an ability check or a saving throw, is the full roll of however many dice; usually one d20 but occasionally more than one. A saving throw (or attack roll or ability check) made with advantage/disadvantage is not two saving throws (or attack rolls or ability checks), it's still just one saving throw (or attack roll or ability check) even though it uses two dice.


Not completely clear within the sentence you quoted. An attack roll is not defined as the full roll of however many dice. That is an assumption that requires outside definition (because by intuitive language, it could be that, or each of the dice you roll with dis/advantage could each be 'an attack roll'-- both interpretations make sense. I trust MW is correct (although it would have been better to see the quote). That was my point (minor as it may be).

Willie the Duck expresses the argument accurately.

Nothing in the quoted text says that the "attack roll" is a singular unit. When you make an attack roll with advantage, you roll two dice and take the higher one. If you still dislike the result and are Lucky, you can spend 1 LP to roll a third d20 and pick either it or the highest die of the first two.

Portent does not say that you replace all of the dice rolled, but that you replace a roll.

Yes, an attack roll with advantage is a roll, but it is also two rolls with only one of them counting.

Portent's wording is such that you cannot choose to replace an already-rolled die with the Portent result. Nothing in it says that you cannot replace a die you have yet to roll, even if that die is part of the resolution process of a multi-roll check.

[MaxWilson]

Willie the Duck expresses the argument accurately.

Nothing in the quoted text says that the "attack roll" is a singular unit. When you make an attack roll with advantage, you roll two dice and take the higher one. If you still dislike the result and are Lucky, you can spend 1 LP to roll a third d20 and pick either it or the highest die of the first two.

And if you do use Lucky to use three d20s on an attack roll (or whatever), it's still one attack roll.


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.

It does not say "you choose which attack roll, ability check, or saving throw to use," because there's still only one attack roll/saving throw/ability check being made. And Portent likewise interacts with one attack roll/ability check/saving throw. It does not interact with individual die rolls within the attack roll/ability check/saving throw.

[Pex]

then we agree.

Miracles can happen.

:smallbiggrin::smallwink:

[JoeJ]

Nothing in the quoted text says that the "attack roll" is a singular unit. When you make an attack roll with advantage, you roll two dice and take the higher one. If you still dislike the result and are Lucky, you can spend 1 LP to roll a third d20 and pick either it or the highest die of the first two.

Portent does not say that you replace all of the dice rolled, but that you replace a roll.

Yes, an attack roll with advantage is a roll, but it is also two rolls with only one of them counting.

Portent's wording is such that you cannot choose to replace an already-rolled die with the Portent result. Nothing in it says that you cannot replace a die you have yet to roll, even if that die is part of the resolution process of a multi-roll check.

Nothing in the text defines the word "the" either. Where in D&D do the terms "attack roll" "ability check" and "saving throw" ever mean anything other than all of the dice that are rolled? If a creature with legendary resistance makes a saving throw with disadvantage and both dice come up failure would you argue that it needs to spend two uses in order to succeed?

By your interpretation, if I'm rolling with advantage/disadvantage, I assume I could roll one of the dice, see the result, and then decide to use portent to replace the other one? And also force everybody else at the table to roll the dice separately whenever they have advantage/disadvantage?

[Segev]

Nothing in the text defines the word "the" either. Where in D&D do the terms "attack roll" "ability check" and "saving throw" ever mean anything other than all of the dice that are rolled? If a creature with legendary resistance makes a saving throw with disadvantage and both dice come up failure would you argue that it needs to spend two uses in order to succeed?
Given that the definition of a roll, absent text specifying that there exists these "logical rolls" Max has defined, involves the physical rolling of a die, and that Portent replaces a single roll rather than specifying that it replaces a set of multiple rolls, the fact that the text doesn't redefine "roll" any more than it redefines "the" suggests that we should use the normal definition of the term, rather than this "logical roll" that is nowhere defined in the RAW.

By your interpretation, if I'm rolling with advantage/disadvantage, I assume I could roll one of the dice, see the result, and then decide to use portent to replace the other one? And also force everybody else at the table to roll the dice separately whenever they have advantage/disadvantage?Indeed not. You do not roll the two d20s in two separate instances; they are rolled together. Indeed, you would have to use Portent on one of them and roll the other, still, and you'd take the higher/lower, depending on whether you were rolling with advantage/disadvantage.

Now, Sage Advice has said otherwise, with one of the weirder explanations for how to proceed I've seen. Namely: you say, "I am using Portent," then roll both dice, determine which die you're keeping, THEN change its value.

The interesting thing about the ruling Max is advocating is that this means that, if you use Portent, you have negated Advantage, Disadvantage, and preemptively made even Lucky a bad idea to spend. (You haven't prevented it, but it's wasted if he does, since the Portent will replace the Lucky roll even if that's the best of them and is the one chosen. You can't use Lucky to replace the Portent roll, by this ruling, because the Portent roll replaces the whole thing.)

Frankly, if you want to play it that way, go ahead; it makes Portent INCREADIBLY potent. Already one of the strongest 2nd level Wizard specialization abilities, it's now one of the strongest low-level abilities in the game.

[JoeJ]

Given that the definition of a roll, absent text specifying that there exists these "logical rolls" Max has defined, involves the physical rolling of a die, and that Portent replaces a single roll rather than specifying that it replaces a set of multiple rolls, the fact that the text doesn't redefine "roll" any more than it redefines "the" suggests that we should use the normal definition of the term, rather than this "logical roll" that is nowhere defined in the RAW.

It doesn't replace a roll it replaces an attack roll - the phrase is used, not just the word - or an ability check, or a saving throw. All three of those are listed in the same sentence with equal weight.

Where in any D&D text do you see making an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage referred to as making two attack rolls? Where do you see that with regard to saving throws? Or ability checks? The explanation of the Lucky feat makes it explicit that multiple rolls of a d20 can constitute just one attack roll, ability check or saving throw, and nowhere that I'm aware of are those terms ever used differently.


Indeed not. You do not roll the two d20s in two separate instances; they are rolled together. Indeed, you would have to use Portent on one of them and roll the other, still, and you'd take the higher/lower, depending on whether you were rolling with advantage/disadvantage.

If portent only replaces one of them, then they must be separate rolls. So I should be able to see what the first one is before deciding whether to use portent on the second.


The interesting thing about the ruling Max is advocating is that this means that, if you use Portent, you have negated Advantage, Disadvantage, and preemptively made even Lucky a bad idea to spend. (You haven't prevented it, but it's wasted if he does, since the Portent will replace the Lucky roll even if that's the best of them and is the one chosen. You can't use Lucky to replace the Portent roll, by this ruling, because the Portent roll replaces the whole thing.)

Frankly, if you want to play it that way, go ahead; it makes Portent INCREADIBLY potent. Already one of the strongest 2nd level Wizard specialization abilities, it's now one of the strongest low-level abilities in the game.

Yes, by RAW portent does negate advantage/disadvantage and Lucky. That fits the text of what it's supposed to be modeling - this is the future the character has seen and knows to be true.

And that would be incredibly potent if you could decide what the portent rolls were, rather than having to take what you get on any given day, or if you could use it after the roll. As it is, it's just very useful.

[Segev]

Yes, by RAW portent does negate advantage/disadvantage and Lucky. That fits the text of what it's supposed to be modeling - this is the future the character has seen and knows to be true.

And that would be incredibly potent if you could decide what the portent rolls were, rather than having to take what you get on any given day, or if you could use it after the roll. As it is, it's just very useful.

It's still incredibly potent. Got a low number? Negate that foe's Advantage and prevent him from using Lucky. Got a high number? Negate your or your ally's Disadvantage and guarantee a save or hit. Got something in the middle? Transforming disadvantage into taking 10 is still ludicrously good.

While I disagree with the choice in how to read "an attack roll" as being actually this agglomerated mass of multiple d20 rolls, rather than as short hand for potentially multiple independent rolls of which you will take one, I will shrug and happily take it if I am the one with Portent. It's actively better than the minor trick I pointed out that started off this whole debate.

[MaxWilson]

It's still incredibly potent. Got a low number? Negate that foe's Advantage and prevent him from using Lucky. Got a high number? Negate your or your ally's Disadvantage and guarantee a save or hit. Got something in the middle? Transforming disadvantage into taking 10 is still ludicrously good.

I may regret asking this, but under what circumstances do you consider that to be "ludicrously good"? Does your game feature a lot of lowish-DC saves against instant, irreversible death or something? I predict that whatever "ludicrously good" application you have in mind for "taking 10 instead of disadvantage" will probably impress me as somewhat niche and not really particularly good at all--probably about on par with a single use of high-level Bardic Inspiration.

Portent is okay, IMO, but its biggest down sides are that (1) it isn't resource-efficient since you sometimes wind up spending it on something that would have succeeded anyway (and Crawford's goofy suggested method of using it will just make that all the more obvious and all the more painful); (2) it can only help you succeed on things you are already capable of. E.g. if you have no spell that will insta-kill the Pit Fiend, Portent isn't going to let you insta-kill the Pit Fiend. Instead you might get to Slow it for a round, or whatever it was that you were already capable of doing.

If 5E had not invented Legendary Resistance it would be more attractive for fighting big tough solo creatures (Wrathful Smite + Portent (1) against ancient red dragon = win?) since you could potentially just hold off on your assault against the big solo until a day when you happen to roll a 1 on your Portent. But as it stands, any single creature which is worth preparing so extensively against is probably just going to burn a Legendary Resistance to shrug off the effects instead. (This is yet another reason why I advocate scrapping legendary resistances in favor of old-school Magic Resistance, a.k.a. spell resistance, which can work even against spells like Wall of Force that have no saving throw. See http://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2016/03/5e-magic-resistance-variant-rule.html for details.)

P.S. I guess there is one niche Portent excels at: minion-mancy. If you've only got a single shot at letting your buddy the Necromancer take control of the Mummy Lord, or you've only got one 1000 gp diamond with which to attempt to Planar Bind the Efreet you knocked unconscious in the last fight, having e.g. a 100% chance of success 60% of the time (on a day when you rolled a low Portent) and a 50% chance of success the rest of the time is obviously better than a 50% chance of success 100% of the time (if you don't have Portent at all). It may not be resource-efficient in terms of Portent usages per long rest, but it makes you far more efficient at consuming Mummy Lords and diamonds. So the best summoner is one with a bunch of low-level Diviner apprentices.

That's obviously not the scenario Segev is referring to though, because disadvantage on enemy saves is a good thing, not something you'd want to overcome.

[Whyrocknodie]

Adding +1 to hit and damage is relatively boring and goes unnoticed in general play. A pool of special dice you can replace other dice with is more satisfying.

[MaxWilson]

Adding +1 to hit and damage is relatively boring and goes unnoticed in general play. A pool of special dice you can replace other dice with is more satisfying.

Yes, they're both fairly small abilities. Compare to something like Inspiring Leader (free HP for everybody in the party, every short rest; in some ways better than +2 Con for every single member of the party, and at level 1 more like +8 Con), Mounted Combatant (extra mobility and advantage on lots of melee attacks, if you can meet the prerequisites), Sharpshooter (ignore partial cover and range penalties, plus a decent DPR boost on the order of 25-50% depending on opposition), Undead Thralls (twice the HP and twice the damage for the party's meat shields), Skulker (hide from darkvision in the dark), Mobile (do I even need to explain?), etc.

These things are qualitative game changers in a way that Portent or +1 to hit and damage are not. E.g. for some matchups, Skulker or Mobile can be the difference between winning 0% of the time and winning 100% of the time.

Lucky is not a game-changer in this sense but it's nice and versatile and often useful in non-combat scenes as well as in combat.

[Boci]

Sorry I'm late to this, but how is there any disagreement on portent "You must choose to do so before the roll," and lucky "You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined". They don't interact, they happen at different times. How is there any disagreement about that? Ddd the dictionary say before and after are now interchangable? Because if they did I missed that.

[Willie the Duck]

Boci, While I consider the whole thing a complete dumpster fire at this point, people have put forth their arguments and they are relatively clear. If you care enough what their opinions are, I'm sure you can find time to read them. If you don't then you don't really need a synopsis.

[Boci]

It's not clear to me. The destinction beyween before/after is, but I can't descipher an argument as to why that wouldn't just end the debate. The debate has been going over 2 pages with multiple people involved. I don't think merely asking for a synopsis is that out of order. They don't have to oblidge.

[robbie374]

So a bit of a rant here but everywhere I look Lucky is very highly rated if not considered the most powerful and broken feat in the game, and I almost entirely disagree. It wouldn't even be in my top 5 list of power feats for any character except one focused on rerolls. Lucky gives you 3 rerolls a day that can be used after you have already failed. That gives you the chance to change 3 instances of failure on rolls that are absolutely critical into success. That seems very powerful at first glance but let's dig into this a bit. First of all, how many rolls does a character actually make that are absolutely critical? Save your character from dying maybe? Stop the bbeg from getting off his really big move? Sure. Succeeding at stealth when it is absolutely vital? Ya why not. But in reality you might see one of these rolls come up in an adventuring day. So in reality you end up either saving your 3 rolls for the entire day waiting for that absolutely critical roll or more realistically using 2 of them on just rolls where a reroll is useful and saving one for that important roll that may not come up. So based on above, lucky gives you 2 rerolls on failed rolls that have little to no impact in the grand scheme of things and maybe 1 important roll per day. Also important to note, it doesnt turn failure into success, it just lets you reroll. Which means if you didnt have a high chance at succeeding on that important roll to begin with you don't have a high chance on succeeding the second time you try it. Lets compare this to other things you could spend the asi on:

ASI: A single asi gives you some subset of the following, +1 to hit and/or damage on every attack you make all day. +1 to a handful of skills checks. +1 to initiative. +1 to ac. +1 to a saving throw. In bounded accuracy that +1 can turn a lot more than 3 failed rolls in successes in a day and it applies all day every day. What's better than rerolling a failed roll? Not failing to begin with.
Alert: You get +5 to initiative, cant be surprised, and invisible targets dont have advantage against you. You want to know what sucks? Having all of your enemies attack you and not being able to do anything about it. This remedies that. If surprise and invisible enemies never come up it still gives you a whopping +5 to initiative again all day every day.
Weapon Feat: Polearm Master, Crossbow expert, Greatweapon master, Sentinal, sharpshooter. Any martial build can make use of at least one of them and generally more than one. And for that build it is going to pay out way more than that a few rerolls a day.
Magic Feat: Magic initiate and Ritual Caster can add a ton of utility and spell sniper can help make sure you dont miss on those vital attacks to begin with or are too far away to be targetted by that killing blow. Warcaster gives you straight up advantage every time you need to make that important concentration check among other benefits. At least one of these will provide more value in a day than lucky.
Resilient: This one is really only a half feat and it provides a +2-6 bonus on the selected save. For half a feat. The full feat when used on an odd stat can give +3-7 bonus on the save and all the benefits of asi above. You dont need to reroll a save that you dont fail to begin with.
Dungeon Delver: This one needs the right campaign but if traps are the real killer, then the always on advantage against traps lets you "reroll" every single trap save you encounter throughout the day. rather than just 3.

Everybody always says, "Lucky is great because it works with any build," but that is simply not true. Lucky (unlike Portent) does not apply to saving throws made by your enemies: martial characters benefit on their attack rolls all the time, but magic users have no use for it at all unless they are using Scorching Ray on everything. I had the Lucky feat on a wizard that I played, and other than negating a critical hit against me every now and then, it was totally useless.

[Cybren]

Everybody always says, "Lucky is great because it works with any build," but that is simply not true. Lucky (unlike Portent) does not apply to saving throws made by your enemies: martial characters benefit on their attack rolls all the time, but magic users have no use for it at all unless they are using Scorching Ray on everything. I had the Lucky feat on a wizard that I played, and other than negating a critical hit against me every now and then, it was totally useless.
(psst lucky works on YOUR saving throws, and plenty of spells besides scorching ray require attack rolls)

[Segev]

I may regret asking this, but under what circumstances do you consider that to be "ludicrously good"? Does your game feature a lot of lowish-DC saves against instant, irreversible death or something? I predict that whatever "ludicrously good" application you have in mind for "taking 10 instead of disadvantage" will probably impress me as somewhat niche and not really particularly good at all--probably about on par with a single use of high-level Bardic Inspiration.Well, first-off, since Portent is a level-2 ability, if it is "about on par with a single use of high-level Bardic Inspiration," that's pretty impressive already. "Yeah, yeah, being able to ignore Concentration is nice, I guess, but since a Wizard casting wish to emulate a glyph of warding that triggers a Concentration spell can already do the same thing, it's not that big of a deal!"

Perhaps, though, you're denigrating high-level Bardic Inspiration.

Anyway, yes, the uses will be moderately niche, but they're "niche" is something that comes up relatively frequently - if not every session, then every 2-3 sessions. The ability to "take 10" is positively amazing, and you often don't realize just how much so until you don't have it anymore. It's RELIABILITY. You know you have the numbers to succeed at this if you just don't roll poorly. What's this? You have disadvantage on this check for some reason? Well, your chances of rolling poorly just shot up very high. Good thing Portent negates disadvantage and lets you get a reliable result!

Oh, no, the boss monster just used mind control on your ally. Even if he mercifully isn't suffering disadvantage on that save, you really can't afford for him to fail it. Portent to the rescue! Oh? He has disadvantage? Portent negates it AND gives him a reasonable roll!

Critical skill/ability check? You only fail on a 5 or less? Good thing your Portent was a 7!


P.S. I guess there is one niche Portent excels at: minion-mancy. If you've only got a single shot at letting your buddy the Necromancer take control of the Mummy Lord, or you've only got one 1000 gp diamond with which to attempt to Planar Bind the Efreet you knocked unconscious in the last fight, having e.g. a 100% chance of success 60% of the time (on a day when you rolled a low Portent) and a 50% chance of success the rest of the time is obviously better than a 50% chance of success 100% of the time (if you don't have Portent at all). It may not be resource-efficient in terms of Portent usages per long rest, but it makes you far more efficient at consuming Mummy Lords and diamonds. So the best summoner is one with a bunch of low-level Diviner apprentices.

That's obviously not the scenario Segev is referring to though, because disadvantage on enemy saves is a good thing, not something you'd want to overcome.Well, it IS the scenario to which I refer if, for some reason, the enemy has advantage on that save (though I admit I can't think of many circumstances that grant that when you have "only one shot"). Note that Portent negates enemy advantage as well as allied disadvantage on anything you can impose it on.

Under the reading I give it, Portent is useful when circumstances aren't working against you, and Lucky+Portent lets you spend two resources after you see something going bad to guarantee it goes better.

Under the reading you're giving it, Portent takes desperate situations and gives you the absolute confidence that they'll turn out fine. Now, not every one, because you don't control what the Portent die comes up as, but you'll almost always find a scenario where confidence in the number you or the enemies or your allies will roll, especially if it negates Advantage (on your foes) or Disadvantage (on your allies), is a very, very powerful ability.


It's not clear to me. The destinction beyween before/after is, but I can't descipher an argument as to why that wouldn't just end the debate. The debate has been going over 2 pages with multiple people involved. I don't think merely asking for a synopsis is that out of order. They don't have to oblidge.
The question is over whether a "roll" is what Max Wilson defined as a "logical roll," or refers to the actual d20 roll.

Max and his side of this debate claim that Portent must be applied before any dice are touched. It basically negates all Advantage, Disadvantage, and Lucky, and anything else that might add or manipulate dice, replacing the final number chosen/selected/determined with the Portent result. It is therefore too late to use Portent after any dice have been rolled; even if there are mechanics (like Lucky) that let you roll new dice after seeing the results of the old ones, you can't use Portent on the new dice even before the new dice are rolled, because you didn't use it on the FIRST dice that were rolled.

My claim is that Portent's "must use it before the die is rolled" is referring to the specific die in question. When you would pick up that d20, you don't roll it and then decide, upon not liking the number it shows, to replace it with Portent. You must say, "Instead of rolling that die, I declare its result will be my Portent value." Under this reading, Portent doesn't negate Advantage or Disadvantage; you pick one of the dice you'd be rolling, and apply Portent, but you still must roll the other one, and take the higher/lower (for advantage/disadvantage). Additionally, if somebody sees a roll and doesn't like the result, and chooses to apply Lucky, since this new Luck die has not yet been rolled, you could apply Portent to the Luck die.

Nobody is arguing over "before/after," but rather over what constitutes the "roll" that Portent is used on, and before which it must be declared.

[Cybren]

Nobody is arguing over "before/after," but rather over what constitutes the "roll" that Portent is used on, and before which it must be declared.

Yes, but Max is correct.

[Segev]

Yes, but Max is correct.

You do realize that unsupported assertions don't actually persuade anybody, right?

I mean, I could just as eloquently reply: "No, he isn't," and nobody would be able to say I had a less persuasive argument than yours.

I will thank you for what little value your post does contain: it suggests to me that I have accurately represented Max's position, confirming that I do understand it. If I had not accurately represented it, I imagine those who agree with him would have felt the need to correct me. Rather than just bleat agreement as if logic were a popularity contest.

As posted, your argument has as much weight as anything given by Lord Drako (or whatever he calls himself this time around) of the "Invincible Sorcerer King."

It also completely ignores that my post accurately answers Boci's question, instead implying there is something to dispute in my post. My post, which you quoted, details WHY there is argument. It doesn't attempt to persuade one way or the other. I have other posts where I've done that.

[MaxWilson]

Everybody always says, "Lucky is great because it works with any build," but that is simply not true. Lucky (unlike Portent) does not apply to saving throws made by your enemies: martial characters benefit on their attack rolls all the time, but magic users have no use for it at all unless they are using Scorching Ray on everything. I had the Lucky feat on a wizard that I played, and other than negating a critical hit against me every now and then, it was totally useless.

You never wanted to improve your initiative rolls to get your spell off sooner? You never failed a Stealth check or a Persuasion attempt? Never failed a concentration save?

It sounds to me like you probably overlooked opportunities to benefit from your luck. "Unused" != "useless."

================================================== ==


Well, first-off, since Portent is a level-2 ability, if it is "about on par with a single use of high-level Bardic Inspiration," that's pretty impressive already. "Yeah, yeah, being able to ignore Concentration is nice, I guess, but since a Wizard casting wish to emulate a glyph of warding that triggers a Concentration spell can already do the same thing, it's not that big of a deal!"

A high-level bard has a full roster of spells and (probably) five uses of Bardic Inspiration per short rest. Canonically, that's fifteen uses of Bardic Inspiration per day.

If you find a single Bardic Inspiration charge "pretty impressive", I imagine the power of a full-blown bard must just blow your mind, huh?

Not me. It's a neat ability, but like Portent, it doesn't make you capable of anything you weren't already capable of. It's mostly good because (unlike Portent) you get so many uses of it. If it were restricted to 2/long rest it would be distinctly meh.


My claim is that Portent's "must use it before the die is rolled" is referring to the specific die in question.

If you're going to put things in quotes, you probably should actually, you know, quote the text instead of making up your own words. The actual wording is, "before the roll," with no reference to "the die" at all.


You can replace any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see with one of these foretelling rolls. You must choose to do so before the roll, and you can replace a roll in this way only once per turn.


I will thank you for what little value your post does contain: it suggests to me that I have accurately represented Max's position, confirming that I do understand it. If I had not accurately represented it, I imagine those who agree with him would have felt the need to correct me.

Final Notice: let it be known that for the remainder of the thread, MaxWilson has no duty to publicly correct false statements from Segev or any other poster. If a poster says something and it goes unchallenged, that SHALL NOT be construed as support for the expressed position, nor as a concession that no argument can be made against that position, but only as a statement that further arguing is a waste of time.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

[guachi]

After reading Portent, I'm with Max on this one. Rolling never occurs. It doesn't matter what the circumstances of the roll are. It never occurs. More than the roll never occurring, we don't ever get to the step of deciding if a roll is at advantage/disadvantage/whatever.

It's like Neo at the end of The Matrix (now available in UHD! Buy it! It's a great transfer!) saying, "No".


EDIT: I guess according to Sage Advice the roll is still made but it seems superfluous as you seem to have no choice in whether you replace the roll or not.

[Segev]

After reading Portent, I'm with Max on this one. Rolling never occurs. It doesn't matter what the circumstances of the roll are. It never occurs. More than the roll never occurring, we don't ever get to the step of deciding if a roll is at advantage/disadvantage/whatever.

It's like Neo at the end of The Matrix (now available in UHD! Buy it! It's a great transfer!) saying, "No".

Eh... even by Max's reading, there's no reason you wouldn't know if it's Advantaged or Disadvantaged before you decided whether to use Portent or not.

And by my reading, the roll that Portent is used on still never occurs. It's just that it's one of potentially several d20s, rather than a "logical roll" as he defined it, which may be one or several d20s.

And, also, by the asinine ruling in the Sage Advice linked earlier, we're all wrong, and rolling does occur. It just doesn't matter, because Portent will replace the rolled dice. But the algorithm calls for us to make the useless rolls anyway!

[Boci]

The question is over whether a "roll" is what Max Wilson defined as a "logical roll," or refers to the actual d20 roll.

Max and his side of this debate claim that Portent must be applied before any dice are touched. It basically negates all Advantage, Disadvantage, and Lucky, and anything else that might add or manipulate dice, replacing the final number chosen/selected/determined with the Portent result. It is therefore too late to use Portent after any dice have been rolled; even if there are mechanics (like Lucky) that let you roll new dice after seeing the results of the old ones, you can't use Portent on the new dice even before the new dice are rolled, because you didn't use it on the FIRST dice that were rolled.

My claim is that Portent's "must use it before the die is rolled" is referring to the specific die in question. When you would pick up that d20, you don't roll it and then decide, upon not liking the number it shows, to replace it with Portent. You must say, "Instead of rolling that die, I declare its result will be my Portent value." Under this reading, Portent doesn't negate Advantage or Disadvantage; you pick one of the dice you'd be rolling, and apply Portent, but you still must roll the other one, and take the higher/lower (for advantage/disadvantage). Additionally, if somebody sees a roll and doesn't like the result, and chooses to apply Lucky, since this new Luck die has not yet been rolled, you could apply Portent to the Luck die.

Nobody is arguing over "before/after," but rather over what constitutes the "roll" that Portent is used on, and before which it must be declared.

Ah okay, I see what the debate is about. Thank you for clarifying iot for me.

[Beelzebubba]

And, also, by the asinine ruling in the Sage Advice linked earlier, we're all wrong, and rolling does occur. It just doesn't matter, because Portent will replace the rolled dice. But the algorithm calls for us to make the useless rolls anyway!

He says that in all those cases to make sure that people know it's clear where it occurs in the logical order.

It's Twitter, so he doesn't belabor the point. It's 5e, so the rules state things in clear, short ways, and if you see a shortcut that preserves the intent of the rules, it's your call.