Lucky feat

[Anthiondel]

How good and how usefull is really the lucky feat? I see it as superb on paper but have never used it. What are your thoughts/experiences?

[CTurbo]

It's a very good feat, and it's very good on every character no matter what kind of build you're going for.

But still, it's not something I'm ever going to take early on in a campaign.

[Deadandamnation]

It's the best feat period.

Defensively is just a potential ass saver, also you can roll it after rolling your main dices.

3 times a day Is also really overpowered.

If you Just keep it for Skills Is also potentally game changing...trying to persuade a king to give you his daughter hand? Rolled 2? Don't bother my lucky die got me a 18...check (than the king cut his daughter left hand and give it to you! Cheers! A wedding gift After all)

[LudicSavant]

The Lucky feat is superb from an optimization perspective. It’s basically a way to help IP proof any build.

Whether it’s negating a crit, turning disadvantage into triple advantage, retrying a crucial save, nailing that key skill roll, or having another go at initiative, Lucky allows you to tip the odds in your favor when it really counts.

[Chronos]

It's not overpowered. It doesn't let you do anything you couldn't already, and anything that you're bad at, you'll probably still be bad at. And sometimes it can end up doing absolutely nothing at all, because the new roll is worse than the original, or better but still not good enough to succeed at whatever you were trying. Most builds will have some other feat that will be a bigger benefit.

But on the other hand, it's useful for absolutely everyone, and sometimes it can be a huge help (like re-rolling the failed save that would have killed your character).

[Zhorn]

...turning disadvantage into triple advantage...

This is probably my only issue with the Luck feat, turning either disadvantage into super advantage, or advantage into super disadvantage.
If that ruling is allowed, it can encourage players to intentionally seek out giving themselves disadvantage on important rolls to benefit from super advantage, or setting up their enemy to have advantage to turn that into super disadvantage. That aspect is a bit broken.

For my current game, I've told my players that when it comes to the Lucky feat: "When used on a roll made with advantage or disadvantage, the die rolled with a luck point can replace one die before advantage or disadvantage is applied"
That was disadvantage is still disadvantage, and advantage is still advantage, you just nudge the odds a little in the direction you want.

[Razgriez]

Its probably the most practical feat in the game and will bail you out of trouble, more likely for you to pull off some crazy awesome but difficult things, or just let you do some sort of hilarious action. Its 3 free re-rolls, stack with other forms of re-rolls and roll enhancements (Bardic Inspiration for example), and it can turn Disadvantage into a type of "Super Advantage", because using lucky adds a third dice, and lets you pick any of the dice.*

That said, is it the best for everyone? Eh... not quite. Its good on everyone because everyone is going to wish they could reroll some skill check, or save, or attack roll eventually. But at the same time, the fewer of those you make, the lower value it becomes.

Its kinda like the "Alert" feat in that regard. Is it useful to everyone? Yes. But there's a difference in usefulness between the Wizard/Sorcerer who wants to drop a fireball on the enemy as quick as possible, and the Assassin/Scout Rogue who not only needs to go first to maximize their damage, but also is probably the party's recon specialist and needs to watch out for ambushes.

On Classes/Builds where you're the party's skill expert or need to make a lot of "All-or-Nothing" rolls, such as Bards, Rangers, and Rogues "Lucky" value is at its best, and well worth a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd ASI investment in it. Tanky/frontliner types will also find plenty of use in it, because even with high save values, you can expect to take a lot of saves, or have to make attack rolls to keep the enemies attention or Opportunity Attacks. Pact of Blades and/or Hexblades will find use in it as well

For backlines, or characters that rely primarily on spell casting, this basically will be used for just re-rolling saves, and the odd skill check. Useful, but you got other feat options to consider getting with your limited number of ASIs


*Note: It should be noted that Lucky does not confer "true" advantage, for the sake of certain abilities, like Sneak Attack.




This is probably my only issue with the Luck feat, turning either disadvantage into super advantage, or advantage into super disadvantage.
If that ruling is allowed, it can encourage players to intentionally seek out giving themselves disadvantage on important rolls to benefit from super advantage, or setting up their enemy to have advantage to turn that into super disadvantage. That aspect is a bit broken.

For my current game, I've told my players that when it comes to the Lucky feat: "When used on a roll made with advantage or disadvantage, the die rolled with a luck point can replace one die before advantage or disadvantage is applied"
That was disadvantage is still disadvantage, and advantage is still advantage, you just nudge the odds a little in the direction you want.

Your house rule has actually also been suggested as a Rule Variant by the official Sage Advice compendium on the D&D website for DMs who want to tone Lucky down just a little bit and not watch their players smile with glee everytime they're told to roll with Disadvantage

[Lyracian]

For my current game, I've told my players that when it comes to the Lucky feat: "When used on a roll made with advantage or disadvantage, the die rolled with a luck point can replace one die before advantage or disadvantage is applied"
That was disadvantage is still disadvantage, and advantage is still advantage, you just nudge the odds a little in the direction you want.

Is that essially the same as the Sage Advice article?
https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
If a DM wants advantage and disadvantage to play their normal roles even when the Lucky feat is used, here’s a way to do so: roll two d20s for advantage/disadvantage, roll a third d20 for Lucky, eliminate one of the three dice, and then use the higher (for advantage) or lower (for disadvantage) of the two dice that remain.


For me Lucky is on the list for every character and probably my default level 16 pick, earlier if possible. Higher priority is going to be prime ability to 20 and either a concentration booster (War caster, Res Con) or a Weapon feat (PAM, GWM, SS) then Lucky. Certain builds may want a supporting feat such as Inspiring Leader, Medium Armour Master or Ritual Caster that push Lucky down the list.

[Segev]

This is probably my only issue with the Luck feat, turning either disadvantage into super advantage, or advantage into super disadvantage.
If that ruling is allowed, it can encourage players to intentionally seek out giving themselves disadvantage on important rolls to benefit from super advantage, or setting up their enemy to have advantage to turn that into super disadvantage. That aspect is a bit broken.

For my current game, I've told my players that when it comes to the Lucky feat: "When used on a roll made with advantage or disadvantage, the die rolled with a luck point can replace one die before advantage or disadvantage is applied"
That was disadvantage is still disadvantage, and advantage is still advantage, you just nudge the odds a little in the direction you want.

I would run it sequentially. First, roll with Advantage or Disadvantage, as appropriate. You now have only one d20 left: the better one for Advantage; the worse one for Disadvantage. If you choose to apply Lucky, it applies to that die: roll one more d20, and between the one you've still got and the new one, choose the one you prefer.

Algorithmically, with made-up numbers for examples:
Advantage

Roll with Advantage; get a 2 and a 6.
Choose the 6 as the higher number; be disappointed because you're sure that's not good enough.
Use Lucky to roll another d20; get a 10.
Choose to keep the 10.

This kind-of is "super Advantage," but that's what Lucky is for: making rolls better.

Disadvantage

Roll with Disadvantage; get a 2 and a 20.
Choose the 2 as the lower number; be disappointed because this cost you a 20!
Use Lucky to roll another d20; get a 10.
Choose to keep the 10.

This is not super-Advantage; you got a 10 when one of the three dice you rolled was a 20. Disadvantage did its job, and then Lucky mitigated the damage.

If you'd happened to roll a 2 and a 6 on Disadvantage, and then taken the 2 and rolled a Luck die because you didn't like it and gotten a 20, that still isn't any worse than rolling a 2 or 6 without Disadvantage and choosing to spend Luck. Luck is sort-of negating the Disadvantage at this point, but the Disadvantage made you more likely to need to SPEND the Luck, and gave you a worse baseline die to compare the Luck die to, making the floor for your reroll lower.

[Keravath]

In my experience, Lucky can be ok. It is an insurance policy that us usually useless but occasionally can save a clutch situation. There are many feats that can be far more useful: Resilient, Warcaster, PAM, Xbow expert, Sharpshooter, GWM, ASI to max critical stat (eg. 20 int on a wizard is FAR better than Lucky)

I think Lucky suffers from observational bias in terms of folks assessing how much it is worth. People remember the times it makes a difference and completely forget all the times when it does nothing. As a result, it feels more powerful than it actually is in practice. DMs have lots of stories of when Lucky worked out very favorably but that is likely because when it succeeds it is extremely memorable and when it fails to work it does nothing and is easily forgotten.

The biggest problem with Lucky is that you might as well take it when there is nothing better. It can help any character, any build, and gives them all a bit more survivability.

Some additional comments:

1) Lucky is usable 3 times/Long rest. This can make it a scarce resource. However, in games where the party has one big combat/day and the rest of the day are social or exploration encounters then Lucky becomes more powerful. Someone can choose to use Lucky to hit when they might have missed (utterly useless application of Lucky in most scenarios), they could use to try to get a higher initiative (another totally useless application except possibly for an Assassin rogue in a surprise round ... and even THEN it will fail to improve the result most of the time unless your original roll was a 1). In a typical adventuring day with multiple short rests, 3-5 combat encounters, several social or exploration encounters on top of that. Lucky doesn't go very far.

2) Lucky guarantees NOTHING. In tier 3, you might typically face having to make a saving throw against a DC17 spell. If you have 14 con but no proficiency this is a +2 requiring a 15 die roll to pass. This is fairly typical in my experience. The character fails the save and uses Lucky. They still have a 70% chance of failing the second die roll too. 7 times out of 10 they fail again. Its great when it works but the odds of it working when you need it aren't great. When your chance of failing is low, Lucky enhances the characters chances of success so you are more likely to succeed at something you would normally succeed at anyway.

3) Lucky's best application is saving it for important die rolls. An important save, a very very important skill check (e.g disarming a deadly trap), and perhaps attempting to negate a crit (works 95% of the time at that). However, the character and player can't really tell when such a die roll is important. A caster casts a spell requiring a con save, should you use Lucky? Keep in mind you don't know what spell it is until after the saving throw and the effects are applied. Do you use Lucky on every saving throw? In this case, the three uses could be gone in one combat with no applications left for something really important. Most of the time, the player doesn't know whether a die roll will be important so it is difficult to judge when to use Lucky.

Anyway from experience:
- I play Adventurers League. In two years, I haven't seen many characters with Lucky until tier 3 or 4 when there weren't better choices available. At tier 3 or 4, Lucky can be useful but there are far more applications where it doesn't work.
- I played in ONE game where two players were trying out the Lucky feat in tier 1 play. Out of the 6 applications used in that game, ONE die roll changed an outcome and it really didn't make much difference. As far as I know, both players swapped to other feats later since it was so useless and unreliable.
- I have one character with Lucky, who took it early since they are a rogue without con or wis save proficiency. I thought I would try it out. There have been about 25% of appilcations where Lucky improved a result (I tend to be very picky in using it, trying to save it for important situations). The vast majority of the time it makes no difference. It is a second chance, an insurance policy, which usually fails but sometimes pulls out a clutch save.


Lucky can change disadvantage into "super advantage" except that when you are using Lucky in this case you failed already. At least one of the die rolls was already bad. This is even more true with advantage, the only reason to use Lucky on a die roll where you have advantage is because you rolled two fails already. Lucky just gives you an extra chance. The difference with the disadvantage situation is that you can use Lucky, to roll an additional die with the intention of using the already higher displayed die roll. However, with Lucky limited to 3/LR, I have seen this come up only extremely rarely. i.e. It is an edge case that bothers folks from a hypothetical point of view but makes very little difference in practice (except for the occasional and exceptionally memorable occasion).

In my opinion, and in my experience over the past two years playing 5e, Lucky is an upper mid-tier feat whose main issue is that it can benefit any character and so ends up getting taken by most characters when they run out of better choices. However, again in my opinion, taking it early when there are many feats that might benefit your character all the time in every combat or every encounter, it is a weak option.

[NaughtyTiger]

It is a great and FUN feat that will make for memorable events.

It is not broken or OP.

It's 3 times per long rest
It's a feat

It doesn't break the game like sharpshooter does.

How many times is a game lost due to 1 disadvantage but would be won due to 1 advantage?

Vs sharpshooter, which is used every round of combat, and negates 2 tools the DM has to give ranged attacks parity.


And, yeah, people might "abuse" the system by giving themselves disadvantage.... and it was thematic when Luke turned off his targeting system and trusted the force...
(closing your eyes is not the way to do it since you still have to guess which square your opponent is in)

[Deadandamnation]

Imho getting a reroll Is invaluable that's why I say that Is Op.

Usually you will use It when you have nearly 50% of succede in any task (being that a save, a skill, an enemy Attack...list goes on)

50% of failure with a reroll mean 25% of failure (exaclty as having advantage)...

So a feat that give me 3 +25% chanche a day Is Big

[Keravath]

Imho getting a reroll Is invaluable that's why I say that Is Op.

Usually you will use It when you have nearly 50% of succede in any task (being that a save, a skill, an enemy Attack...list goes on)

50% of failure with a reroll mean 25% of failure (exaclty as having advantage)...

So a feat that give me 3 +25% chanche a day Is Big

Just curious but have you played several characters with the Lucky feat to see how it works in practice? Have your friends used it for a typical adventuring day with several combat encounters? How do you decide which die rolls to use Lucky on? What happens when you have used them all up? Do you ask for a long rest? Does the DM say Yes?

What do you do when you have a DC18 vs a spell that might be disintegrate? Do you use Lucky even though your chances are small or do you save it and hope the spell isn't disintegrate?

Finally, reducing overall your chance of failure to 1/4 from 1/2 on three die rolls a day is useful but in my opinion not big. Convenient, dramatic certainly if you manage to make the die roll, useless otherwise. However, keep in mind that you only use Lucky when you have failed the first one already ... so if you had a 50% die roll on the first roll, which you failed, Lucky only gives you another chance at 50%.

Anyway, I'd be curious to hear stories from folks about how often it has worked and how often it has failed. How do you decide to use it? Does your DM run a full adventuring day or do they allow a long rest when the players ask because they deplete all their resources in a single fight?

My experience is that it would be an upper mid-tier feat with broad usefulness to all classes but really doesn't have much impact except for the occasions when it stops something bad from happening and those are fun and dramatic for both the players and the DM. I've also found that it fails to help more often than not since it usually gets used for important difficult die rolls or for bad luck easy ones.

[Zhorn]

Your house rule has actually also been suggested as a Rule Variant by the official Sage Advice compendium on the D&D website for DMs who want to tone Lucky down just a little bit and not watch their players smile with glee everytime they're told to roll with Disadvantage

Is that essially the same as the Sage Advice article?
That's most probably the original source.
I learned of this ruling from one of the homebrew mega threads where people were just posting all those minor tweaks they run in games, too small for individual threads.

[jas61292]

I hear people all the time talk about how amazing and powerful this feat is, but I've never actually seen it used. Everyone I play with finds it incredibly boring, and would never pick it over a different feat or ASI. Re-rolls for no in game reason except "luck" are not narratively interesting like most feats are.

I could probably see someone taking it if their character concept involved being lucky, but I just don't see that kinda character happening. Just seems very contrived to me.

Anyways, as far as the actual power, it really depends on how your DM handles the advantage stuff. If they allow disadvantage -> super advantage, it is great. If not, I think it is kinda underwhelming for an entire feat.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Lucky is a great feat not OP, sorry.

If you think Lucky is OP, is the portent class feature of the diviner a game-breaking thing? Why isn't just everybody playing wizard diviners?

As a DM, I see that the #1 thing lucky does is counter the inherently swingy nature of the d20. Sorta like passive check or the older "take a ten."

[YoFizz]

I'm using lucky for the first time on a recent character. It fit thematically so I finally decided to give this "broken" feat a try.

I side with the crowd that says its good but not broken. Its really good for whatever that is worth and it can be easily applied to any build. But I gotta say, having a character that it works well with has been so much fun. I have a thief rogue focused on high dex and high charisma. So, playing her involves a lot of dex skill checks and social situations, so failing a deception roll then trying to save it with another lie and another and another has been really fun. I've been RPing luck as basically flavoring the roll by doing an extra little something. so as i said before, i would tell a lie and then try to compound the lies until it sounded more believable. or if i fail an acrobatics check for jumping from roof to roof the luck roll is scurrying up the side before falling or something like that.

[Deadandamnation]

Against a Disintegrate 18 DC you have 4 options:

A) You take the Resilient (Dex) Feat: That increase your chance by usually 20 or 25%
B) +2 Dex: Increase your chance by 5%
C) Shield Master: Increase your chance by 10-15%
D) Lucky: Increase your chance by 100% that's at least a 15% (0 dex, No bless, no nothing against a 18 DC roll)

Obviously Resilient Is the best of them but that's another Feat I Always pick @12 or 16 and it's limited to One of (wis, Dex or Con)

Non Dex classes are few, Paladins have a save boost, Clerics (i dislike them, don't know about Dex saves for them but probably death ward), Str Fighters should get Resilient (Dex) imho to be competitive, Barbarians half the damage if bear, have usually 14 Dex at least...Druids should get Death Ward also.

That leave us with classes that are proficent in Dex or have at least 14+ dex, than Lucky kick in.

For an Arcane Caster, Non Dex proficent like wizard/sorcerer the Minimum Competitive Dex Is 14. That bring the save to 16+ than Lucky Will add the same bonus of being proficent in Dex saves with the Resilient feat (+25% chance to save).

I have Always picked It up with any char i've played. If they are Human that's my first pick, if they are non Human casters it's my first pick after the casting stat.
Usually my picks are Bard, Rangers and Paladins (i've skipped lucky just for the ranger, since he's died before getting to It)

My actual Bard picked It @12 since i've prefered to get 20 in Cha first, I use It usually on Counterspell, Concentration, Saves and in Cutting Words combination. Sometimes Is useful, sometimes Is not, but often 1 times out of 3, when it work it's a day saver.

As the Paladin with Lucky (was Human) I don't think he had never missed an important save in his career.

[MilkmanDanimal]

It's fine, but I don't see it overpowered at all. I mean, GWM and Sharpshooter exist . . . and Lucky is overpowered? Higher-level martials can get +10 to damage multiple times a round (the -5 to hit rapidly becomes largely irrelevant), and Lucky is three chances to roll again per long rest. I think it's a great feat, but, Lucky isn't anything crazy. It's an opportunity to try again, and it's fine for that.

[Pex]

It's not overpowered. It doesn't let you do anything you couldn't already, and anything that you're bad at, you'll probably still be bad at. And sometimes it can end up doing absolutely nothing at all, because the new roll is worse than the original, or better but still not good enough to succeed at whatever you were trying. Most builds will have some other feat that will be a bigger benefit.

But on the other hand, it's useful for absolutely everyone, and sometimes it can be a huge help (like re-rolling the failed save that would have killed your character).

Even when it does work turning a failure into a success, why should a DM be fuming in anger a PC succeeded? Why should he be upset the monster's crit against the PC becomes a miss? Is he playing against his players or something?

[Deadandamnation]

It's fine, but I don't see it overpowered at all. I mean, GWM and Sharpshooter exist . . . and Lucky is overpowered? Higher-level martials can get +10 to damage multiple times a round (the -5 to hit rapidly becomes largely irrelevant), and Lucky is three chances to roll again per long rest. I think it's a great feat, but, Lucky isn't anything crazy. It's an opportunity to try again, and it's fine for that.

I consider GWM and SHARP as tier 3 feats :)

They do like nothing imho, best part being the extra Attack and the range. I wouldn't use the +damage at all, neither consider it good...it's Average at best.

So seems that we are on different trains.

I said that Lucky 3/day is too much, should be 1/short rest... that's all

[Tallytrev813]

Lucky is an awesome feat for any class.

It's not OP. It's fine. It's a very good and widely applicable feat.

And i dont see how it turns Disadvantage into super advantage?

You can choose to reroll 1 of the 2 die rolls, but you still have to choose the lowest of the 2 rolls remaining after 1 of the original 2 is replaced.

If you roll a 2 and a 7 and you choose to reroll the 2 and get a 20, you still have to take the 7. At least that was my understanding.

[Willie the Duck]

As others have said, it generally makes people who already have a high success chances succeed all the more, while not greatly increasing the odds for people who aren't already likely to succeed. So, like Elven accuracy, the overall percentile increase in performance is relatively low.

Regardless, I don't consider it a problem except as an attractive nuisance -- the people who are most likely to overvalue it seem to be people new to 5e, who are the ones already facing the most mental calculation burden during decision points. Adding a 'Waitwaitwait! I'm thinking about whether I want to use one of my Luck-rerolls' to every middling roll seems almost torturous sometimes to someone still getting used to the game.

[LudicSavant]

This is probably my only issue with the Luck feat, turning either disadvantage into super advantage, or advantage into super disadvantage.
If that ruling is allowed, it can encourage players to intentionally seek out giving themselves disadvantage on important rolls to benefit from super advantage, or setting up their enemy to have advantage to turn that into super disadvantage. That aspect is a bit broken.

Yeah, I really dislike that aspect of it from a game design perspective.


Higher-level martials can get +10 to damage multiple times a round (the -5 to hit rapidly becomes largely irrelevant)

You really ought to check the math on that. The -5 to hit remains very relevant at all levels.

For example, if you have +11 to hit (max stat and proficiency) vs 19 AC (average for a CR20 encounter according to the DMG monster building guidelines) and we're on the low end of per-attack damage for that level, just 2d6+5 with rerolls from the GWF feat, guess how much damage GWM is adding? About 0.67 DPR per swing. About 3.23 with Advantage, and -1.9 with Disadvantage.

And if you have higher per-attack damage, GWM becomes less worthwhile, because a miss is costing you proportionally more while the +10 on hit is gaining you proportionally less. For example if you do an average of 30 points of damage on a successful hit, with +11 to hit and an enemy with 19 AC, that -5/+10 is giving you -3.5 DPR, or -0.725 even with Advantage.

None of this is to say that GWM isn't a good feat, but it is often overestimated.

[Segev]

Yeah, I really dislike that aspect of it from a game design perspective.

It also isn't how it could possibly work with any reading of the text that I can parse.

Lucky can in no way let you pick the die Disadvantage would force you to discard.

[Chronos]

Deadandamnation, there are other things besides Disintegrate that you might really want to make a save against.

An an enemy has to have quite a high AC before using a -5/+10 feat isn't worthwhile. Against most enemies, it'll do more for your damage than +2 to mainstat. And it gets even better if you have Bless, or bardic inspiration, or advantage, or a War Cleric who can give you a +10, or a Diviner who can give you a high portent. Or, for that matter, the Lucky feat.

[LudicSavant]

It also isn't how it could possibly work with any reading of the text that I can parse.

Lucky can in no way let you pick the die Disadvantage would force you to discard.

The official ruling from Sage Advice Compendium is thus:

How does the Lucky feat interact with advantage and disadvantage? The Lucky feat lets you spend a luck point; roll an extra d20 for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw; and then choose which d20 to use. This is true no matter how many d20s are in the mix. For example, if you have disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use. You still have disadvantage, since the feat doesn’t say it gets rid of it, but you do get to pick the die.


Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium


How does the Lucky feat interact with advantage and dis-advantage? The Lucky feat represents extraordinary luck that can help you when you need it most. It lets you spend a luck point; roll an extra d20 for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw; and then choose which d20 to use. This is true no matter how many d20s are in the mix. For example, if you have advantage or disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use. You still have advantage or disadvantage, since the feat doesn’t say it negates it, but you get to pick the die. The upshot of this fact is that a rogue, for instance, who has disadvantage on an attack roll couldn’t use Sneak Attack even if the rogue uses the Lucky feat to pick the die. The Lucky feat is a great example of an exception to a general rule. The general rule in this case is the one that tells us how advantage and disadvantage work (PH, 173). The specific rule is the Lucky feat, and we know that a specific rule trumps a general rule if they conflict with each other (PH, 7). If a DM wants advantage and disadvantage to play their normal roles even when the Lucky feat is used, here’s a way to do so: roll two d20s for advantage/disadvantage, roll a third d20 for Lucky, eliminate one of the three dice, and then use the higher (for advantage) or lower (for disadvan-tage) of the two dice that remain.

And the RAW is thus:


You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.

Seems pretty easy to parse.

[Deadandamnation]

Deadandamnation, there are other things besides Disintegrate that you might really want to make a save against.

An an enemy has to have quite a high AC before using a -5/+10 feat isn't worthwhile. Against most enemies, it'll do more for your damage than +2 to mainstat. And it gets even better if you have Bless, or bardic inspiration, or advantage, or a War Cleric who can give you a +10, or a Diviner who can give you a high portent. Or, for that matter, the Lucky feat.

Yeah, but Is damage...damage Is never the best option.

Fact Is not that GWM Is usless or uneffective rather that It won't make you a Better fighter but Just a Little Better at doing damage against low AC targets...

Compared to Shield Mastery: a potential cool and useful bonus action, and a good bonus on a flaw like Dex saves.

Sentinel, that gives you options.

Polearm master, that gives you a totally different playstyle...

Really GWM Is overvalued

[Lyracian]

Anyway, I'd be curious to hear stories from folks about how often it has worked and how often it has failed. How do you decide to use it? Does your DM run a full adventuring day or do they allow a long rest when the players ask because they deplete all their resources in a single fight?
I have two lucky Rogues in the game I run.
Most of the time they have been lucky on skill roles few of them have been life or death situations.

Important uses of Lucky was rolling a 1 when persuading the villagers to stay and help against the giant attack. It has also been used as an "Action Surge" in combat when at attack misses; managed to deal the killing blow to a Dragon when 3 of the party were bleeding out.



In my opinion, and in my experience over the past two years playing 5e, Lucky is an upper mid-tier feat whose main issue is that it can benefit any character and so ends up getting taken by most characters when they run out of better choices. However, again in my opinion, taking it early when there are many feats that might benefit your character all the time in every combat or every encounter, it is a weak option.
I think that is a good summary. Everyone can make use of it but it is often third or fourth on the list to get.

[Segev]

The official ruling from Sage Advice Compendium is thus:






And the RAW is thus:



Seems pretty easy to parse.
Wow. That's stupid. And entirely not how the ability is worded in the books. He just made up new, badly balanced rule.

[djreynolds]

Lucky is as good as indomitable for saving throws, if you have a negative modifier it may not help at all at higher levels.

But its a good solid feat, and its strong throughout play, but I would still recommend resilient something first.

Fighting some of the demon lords, I almost needed a 20 in some instances to just pass

[Lunali]

I see lucky as a feat like constitution as a stat. Con isn't generally the top stat for anyone, but it's near the top for everyone.

[sambojin]

I tend to play Druids, and mostly Moon Druids, and it is a very fine feat for them.

As a Moon, there are other very high-tiered options available to you. Warcaster, Resilient(Con), Mobile, Alert, Magic Initiate (Wizard/Find Familiar), Ritual Caster (Wizard), Sentinel, and possibly others. A +2Wis ASI never goes astray either. Yay! More, better spells to pick from each day! Any of them!

But since you'll also have wildshape forms who's entire thingy is "to hit with an attack", often with not the greatest attack bonus, Lucky is great. Miss with your restrain-on-hit attack/your-proner-plus-bonus-action-attack enabler/your blinder/paralyzer/whatever, at a moment where it was the entire reason for you being in that wildshape at the time? That is almost spell-slot worthy amounts of debuff? For that situation against that enemy?

No worries, roll another die, give it another go.

Yeah, sure, you can save them for saves and skills. But a low-level Lucky Moon Druid is a happy Moon Druid. Your forms start being "only ok'ish" after a certain time (thank Nature you're an awesome caster that had the decency to not be squishy running up to that magic=better thing). But being able to use those weird attacks, or do some mighty grappling with very few attacks, is a LOT better for a Moon Druid than it is for most sub/classes. It keeps your signature moves quite good, even without multiclassing, while still having all the normal Lucky benefits.

So, yeah. Lucky is good, but especially good for some classes. Even with its weakest option (attack rolls).

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, but Is damage...damage Is never the best option.

While I would solidly enjoy this to be the case, in a game where combat is still the primary avenue of rules-supported challenge, and the primary mechanism of combat resolution is moving the other guy's hit point total to zero before they do the same to yours, doing more damage will always be a solid option (provided the damage boost is sufficient, of course). Case in point would be another really good use of an ASI for a martial character -- increasing your Str/Dex by 2 points is usually a solid choice as well.


Fact Is not that GWM Is usless or uneffective rather that It won't make you a Better fighter but Just a Little Better at doing damage against low AC targets...

If you are limiting your GWM usage to low AC targets, this might well explain why you have a differing position on the feat. The character who makes good use the feat has ways of not needing to limit their usage of the -5/+10 to low AC opponents -- they are a battlemaster fighter with the precision maneuver, they are a barbarian using reckless attack, they are a hexblade with Devil's Sight who engages their opponent in a darkness effect, or heck they just have a cleric ally casting bless on them and melee-rogue ally giving them a flanking setup (and DM using said optional rule). Sure, if you are just throwing GWM on top of a otherwise normal martial character, then of course it comes out feeling middling-at-best.


Compared to Shield Mastery: a potential cool and useful bonus action, and a good bonus on a flaw like Dex saves.
Sentinel, that gives you options.
Polearm master, that gives you a totally different playstyle...
Really GWM Is overvalued

The first three points are great -- yes, having more options or opening up your playstyle are wonderful things to do. Particularly given how much people complain about the same-action-every-round complaint often brought to bear on martials. They do not, however, support (or honestly really address) the last one.

[Keravath]

Wow. That's stupid. And entirely not how the ability is worded in the books. He just made up new, badly balanced rule.

No. He didn't make anything up. It is worded in the books as the following:

"You choose which of the d2Os is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours."

Lucky doesn't mention advantage or disadvantage, ALL is says is that when you use it, roll a d20 and choose from "which of the d20s". It doesn't explicitly say what to do in the case of three or more d20s being rolled in which case you just go with what is written which says that you CHOOSE even when it is more than 2 die rolls. Instead of introducing new rules to handle the interaction between Lucky and multiple d20 rolls they simply clarified what the text already says which is the point of Sage Advice.

[Segev]

No. He didn't make anything up. It is worded in the books as the following:

"You choose which of the d2Os is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours."

Lucky doesn't mention advantage or disadvantage, ALL is says is that when you use it, roll a d20 and choose from "which of the d20s". It doesn't explicitly say what to do in the case of three or more d20s being rolled in which case you just go with what is written which says that you CHOOSE even when it is more than 2 die rolls. Instead of introducing new rules to handle the interaction between Lucky and multiple d20 rolls they simply clarified what the text already says which is the point of Sage Advice.

Fair enough, I suppose. I just always read Advantage and Disadvantage as effectively being one die; you're just using two to determine what value you got. Lucky is an extra die; you're choosing between it and whatever result you got on the Advantaged or Disadvantaged die.

Well, regardless of the official RAW, I will run it that way, and strongly recommend others do the same, as it keeps things balanced and makes Lucky potent but not "turn Disadvantage into super-Advantage" good.

Even if there's a certain amusement value to literally closing your eyes before firing your arrow to increase your chances of hitting because you're trusting in your luck.

[DrKerosene]

Lucky can easily be squandered by a Player, if they are inexperienced or heavily invested in a very specific thing.

Though a Heavy Weapon Master or Sharpshooter could also use those feats at all the wrong times, it’s probably easier to learn when to not use those feats.

I’ve seen a DM allow multiple re-rolls for the same check/save and all fail. Ths rolls were all low in that case, but trying to make the wrong decision work is still a trap for a Player to fall into.

[El_Jairo]

This is probably my only issue with the Luck feat, turning either disadvantage into super advantage, or advantage into super disadvantage.
If that ruling is allowed, it can encourage players to intentionally seek out giving themselves disadvantage on important rolls to benefit from super advantage, or setting up their enemy to have advantage to turn that into super disadvantage. That aspect is a bit broken.

For my current game, I've told my players that when it comes to the Lucky feat: "When used on a roll made with advantage or disadvantage, the die rolled with a luck point can replace one die before advantage or disadvantage is applied"
That was disadvantage is still disadvantage, and advantage is still advantage, you just nudge the odds a little in the direction you want.

You have identified the problem with Lucky: turning disadvantage in super advantage. Turning advantage into super advantage isn't really a problem.

I like your way to try to fix this. Yet be aware that for advantage, this still mean super advantage but this is quite okay. First you need to set up advantage, so most probably there are resources spent.

Yet I think that there is a simpler solution: after you have made the initial roll, normal or at dis- or advantage, you pick the result from this roll and you get to roll another lucky roll to add to this result at advantage.

So for advantage and normal rolls nothing changes but for a disadvantage roll you basically roll two dice, pick the lowest and then you get to roll the lucky dice and pick between the disadvantage roll and the lucky die (effectively with advantage). If you really want to keep the disadvantage you could apply it to the second roll as well but I feel that is only making it super disadvantage, so you would never use the lucky feat on a disadvantage roll.

What I feel makes this feat great is that you can still get away from unfavorable odds, because you are lucky.

It is truly a great feature, because you can mitigate bad dice. Yet there is is no guaranteed effect so it still is rolling dice. But being able to Re-Roll a 50/50 is very powerful as you get 50% more chance of succeeding that roll.
What you can't do is make a very difficult roll easier: your odds will still be the same, you only get a second chance at it.

So in my view this is a very powerful feature but it is not broken as it is limited and doesn't guarantee anything.

[Pex]

Fair enough, I suppose. I just always read Advantage and Disadvantage as effectively being one die; you're just using two to determine what value you got. Lucky is an extra die; you're choosing between it and whatever result you got on the Advantaged or Disadvantaged die.

Well, regardless of the official RAW, I will run it that way, and strongly recommend others do the same, as it keeps things balanced and makes Lucky potent but not "turn Disadvantage into super-Advantage" good.

Even if there's a certain amusement value to literally closing your eyes before firing your arrow to increase your chances of hitting because you're trusting in your luck.

It makes sense for a lucky character to have that bit of luck come in when the chips are down, i.e. is Disadvantaged but because of dumb luck he overcomes it - "super Advantage". Using Lucky betters your odds, nothing more. It's not an autowin. For that see Portent.

[Keravath]

Fair enough, I suppose. I just always read Advantage and Disadvantage as effectively being one die; you're just using two to determine what value you got. Lucky is an extra die; you're choosing between it and whatever result you got on the Advantaged or Disadvantaged die.

Well, regardless of the official RAW, I will run it that way, and strongly recommend others do the same, as it keeps things balanced and makes Lucky potent but not "turn Disadvantage into super-Advantage" good.

Even if there's a certain amusement value to literally closing your eyes before firing your arrow to increase your chances of hitting because you're trusting in your luck.

Personally, if I had been making up the rules, I would agree with you.

Resolve the d20 roll (including advantage or disadvantage) and THEN allow the use of Lucky and choose between the Luck die and the die roll that resulted from the first die roll resolution. This would be able to turn disadvantage into a form of advantage but not "super-advantage" where you could use a 20 rolled on a disadvantaged roll to turn it into a critical hit with Lucky.

[Man_Over_Game]

It makes sense for a lucky character to have that bit of luck come in when the chips are down, i.e. is Disadvantaged but because of dumb luck he overcomes it - "super Advantage". Using Lucky betters your odds, nothing more. It's not an autowin. For that see Portent.

Even Portent isn't an autowin now.

The errata on rerolls now states that you can only ever "Reroll or replace...one die". Portent uses the term "Replace". So if someone has Advantage on a roll, you could ever only replace one of the two rolls.

[Segev]

Even Portent isn't an autowin now.

The errata on rerolls now states that you can only ever "Reroll or replace...one die". Portent uses the term "Replace". So if someone has Advantage on a roll, you could ever only replace one of the two rolls.

With Advantage, that's all you need; it's actually good to have Advantage if you're throwing a middling Portent in, because you're using the middling Portent as a "lowest I can roll" and taking Advantage to roll to see if you can beat it. With Disadvantage, it kinda sucks, because you're capping your result with whatever your portent die is. But still, it makes the die you do roll allowed to get higher than it might otherwise if you had to actually roll both.

What you can do with Lucky is replace the die with a luck die that you declare as the Portent die. You're still only replacing one die; the luck die isn't a reroll. So, with Lucky, which expressly allows you to see the number on the dice before using it, you can roll, then use Luck if the roll is less than your Portent die, and take the Portent die rather than risking another low roll.

[Chronos]

If I can choose any one of the dice, then I'm going to choose the 19 that the DM rolled on his attack last round, and is still sitting there on the table.

What's that? That's not one of the specific set of dice we're choosing from? Well, neither is the die that Disadvantage forced me to throw out.

[Lunali]

Even Portent isn't an autowin now.

The errata on rerolls now states that you can only ever "Reroll or replace...one die". Portent uses the term "Replace". So if someone has Advantage on a roll, you could ever only replace one of the two rolls.

You have to use portent before the roll, the portent is the outcome of the roll.

[Segev]

You have to use portent before the roll, the portent is the outcome of the roll.

You can still use it in conjunction with Lucky to use it after the roll, but you’re spending a luck point and he Portent at that point.

[Zhorn]

When it comes to super advantage and super disadvantage, I'm only against the ability to get to them from the opposite ends of the scale. Luck should be a nudge to the odds in the direction you want, not outright bending reality to get there (over dramatisation, I know).

Replacing one dice before applying advantage/disadvantage:

If you have advantage, and use a luck point on it to replace one of the rolled die before advantage is applied, it still operates as super advantage.

If your opponent has disadvantage, and use a luck point on it to replace one of the rolled die before disadvantage is applied, it still operates as super disadvantage.

If you're opponent has advantage, and use a luck point on it to replace one of the rolled die before disadvantage is applied, you're trying to negate the worst case scenario (their best roll). If they were regular lucky and got two high rolls, I see that as fair that one is still likely to get past. The luck point can still negate a crit.
If they had a good roll and a bad roll, then the luck point is just trying to negate that one good roll.

If you have disadvantage, and use a luck point on it to replace one of the rolled die before disadvantage is applied, you're trying to negate the worst case scenario again (your worst roll). If you were regular unlucky and got two low rolls, I see that as fair that that level of bad luck is hard to overcome. The luck point can still negate a nat 1.
If you have a good roll and a bad roll, then the luck point is just trying to negate that one bad roll.

In all of these cases, advantage and disadvantage are not being negated outright, and that just feels more preferable to me.

[Chronos]

With a sane interpretation of the rules, the net effect of lucky plus disadvantage is that you roll three dice and use the middle one. This can be better or worse than a single normal roll, depending on what was more likely: Using the middle of three dice makes whatever was the most likely outcome before slightly more likely.

[Zhorn]

--wordy snip --

With a sane interpretation of the rules, the net effect of lucky plus disadvantage is that you roll three dice and use the middle one. This can be better or worse than a single normal roll, depending on what was more likely: Using the middle of three dice makes whatever was the most likely outcome before slightly more likely.
For using it against an ally's disadvantage or an enemy's advantage, it works out to the same end result in few words.
Middle dice method doesn't work so well for using it against the enemy's disadvantage or the ally's advantage rolls though.
That's probably my only issue with that wording, it only works as desired in half the cases, and the other half would be ruled under a different method. I'm a sucker for rules consistency.

[Chronos]

It's not "half the cases". You can use Lucky on your saves, your attacks, your checks, and attacks made against you, nothing else. Most of those cases are ones where you want a high roll.

Everyone agrees that lucky plus your own advantaged roll amounts to "best of the three dice", and similarly that lucky plus an enemy's disadvantaged attack roll against you amounts to "worst of the three dice", so that doesn't need to be further explained.

[Segev]

With a sane interpretation of the rules, the net effect of lucky plus disadvantage is that you roll three dice and use the middle one. This can be better or worse than a single normal roll, depending on what was more likely: Using the middle of three dice makes whatever was the most likely outcome before slightly more likely.

Eh, not really. That's a house rule that doesn't follow any aspect of the RAW, though it is not a complicated mess, at least.

In practice, rolling with Disadvantage leads to a lower result than normal, and adding Luck to that pushes it back up, but the fact that you are replacing a lower die roll anyway means your Luck die can come out lower and still be the better one. On the other hand, it's quite possible for the Lucky die to be higher than either of the dice used to roll with Disadvantage, if both were low, anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

When it comes to super advantage and super disadvantage, I'm only against the ability to get to them from the opposite ends of the scale. Luck should be a nudge to the odds in the direction you want, not outright bending reality to get there (over dramatisation, I know).
1. The devs disagree.
2. I think you need to reconsider what "luck" means. Luck isn't about probability ...

[MaxWilson]

1. The devs disagree.

*shrug* So what? They're not the DM. They're not even playing.

It's not as though they haven't made plenty of other stupid rules too, which DMs also need to patch around.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

Eh, not really. That's a house rule that doesn't follow any aspect of the RAW, though it is not a complicated mess, at least.
OK, let's say you're rolling a saving throw at disadvantage. You roll two dice, and let's say that they're a 3 and a 15. You figure that the 15 would probably have been good enough, but that 3 definitely isn't. So you use your luck reroll on the die that rolled a 3. There are now three possibilities:

A: Your luck re-roll is even worse, say a 1. You keep the 3 instead of the 1, and then disadvantage makes you compare 3 to 15. Your three rolls are 1, 3, and 15, and you end up with the 3.
B: Your luck re-roll is in between the original two dice, say a 10. You replace the 3 with the 10, and then disadvantage makes you compare 10 to 15. Your three rolls are 3, 10, and 15, and you end up with the 10.
C: Your luck re-roll is better than both of the original two dice, say a 19. You gladly replace the 3 with the 19, and then disadvantage makes you compare 19 to 15. Your three rolls are 3, 15, and 19, and you end up with the 15.

In all cases, you rolled three dice, and you ended up with the one in the middle, as a result of following the rules.

[Deadandamnation]

OK, let's say you're rolling a saving throw at disadvantage. You roll two dice, and let's say that they're a 3 and a 15. You figure that the 15 would probably have been good enough, but that 3 definitely isn't. So you use your luck reroll on the die that rolled a 3. There are now three possibilities:

A: Your luck re-roll is even worse, say a 1. You keep the 3 instead of the 1, and then disadvantage makes you compare 3 to 15. Your three rolls are 1, 3, and 15, and you end up with the 3.
B: Your luck re-roll is in between the original two dice, say a 10. You replace the 3 with the 10, and then disadvantage makes you compare 10 to 15. Your three rolls are 3, 10, and 15, and you end up with the 10.
C: Your luck re-roll is better than both of the original two dice, say a 19. You gladly replace the 3 with the 19, and then disadvantage makes you compare 19 to 15. Your three rolls are 3, 15, and 19, and you end up with the 15.

In all cases, you rolled three dice, and you ended up with the one in the middle, as a result of following the rules.

Probably I'm wrong but is: roll two dice, take the worst, than roll luck take the best...so basically that's Advantage like in a disadvantage situation.

Things get broken if someone rule It like:

Roll two dice, roll Lucky then ignore disadvantage and take the higher of 3 as a result.

[NaughtyTiger]

Things get broken if someone rule It like:


Not broken . powerful, yes. but broken means you can consistently change/determine the outcome of an encounter.

lucky is strong, cuz you can turn disadvantage into super advantage,

but can you still whiff super advantage? yes
is passing the unpassable save going to cause the mission to succeed consistently? if every encounter comes down to 1 roll, there is something wrong.

portent is (was prior to errata) stronger than lucky, cuz you KNOW the results of the roll before you use it. (i don't understand how it works after the errata).
elven accuracy gives you super advantage (almost at will) and it's only a half feat.
sharpshooter is broken: bypasses +5 AC, bypasses disadvantage, bonus damage (-5toHit isn't a problem), not resource limited

[Zhorn]

When it comes to super advantage and super disadvantage, I'm only against the ability to get to them from the opposite ends of the scale. Luck should be a nudge to the odds in the direction you want, not outright bending reality to get there (over dramatisation, I know).1. The devs disagree.
2. I think you need to reconsider what "luck" means. Luck isn't about probability ...

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
How does the Lucky feat interact with advantage and disadvantage? The Lucky feat represents extraordinary luck that can help you when you need it most. It lets you spend a luck point; roll an extra d20 for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw; and then choose which d20 to use. This is true no matter how many d20s are in the mix. For example, if you have advantage or disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use. You still have advantage or disadvantage, since the feat doesn’t say it negates it, but you get to pick the die. The upshot of this fact is that a rogue, for instance, who has disadvantage on an attack roll couldn’t use Sneak Attack even if the rogue uses the Lucky feat to pick the die.
The Lucky feat is a great example of an exception to a general rule. The general rule in this case is the one that tells us how advantage and disadvantage work (PH, 173). The specific rule is the Lucky feat, and we know that a specific rule trumps a general rule if they conflict with each other (PH, 7).
If a DM wants advantage and disadvantage to play their normal roles even when the Lucky feat is used, here’s a way to do so: roll two d20s for advantage/disadvantage, roll a third d20 for Lucky, eliminate one of the three dice, and then use the higher (for advantage) or lower (for disadvantage) of the two dice that remain.

Considering the Sage Advice Compendium lists both of the rulings as valid options, it isn't a case of the devs stating one way as the correct way over the other. Both are recognised and it's up the the DM to go with which of them they prefer (or any other method as is acceptable under rule zero).
You like super advantage. That's cool. But don't mistake your own preferences for confirmation ALL the devs adhere to that same view.
I just prefer advantage and disadvantage to still play their intended role, and I don't favour lucky fully override it with the roll-3-pick-1 super (dis)advantage model because I find INTENTIONALLY setting up disadvantage on yourself or advantage on an enemy to trigger super (dis)advantage as the broken game play element. THAT'S what I consider broken about Lucky.

[Chronos]

Elven Accuracy doesn't give you super-advantage "almost at will". It replaces regular advantage with super advantage. You still need some way to get regular advantage, which still requires some work (building to get a class feature, and then either setting up the conditions where that feature works, or paying the cost associated with it).


sharpshooter is broken: bypasses +5 AC, bypasses disadvantage, bonus damage (-5toHit isn't a problem), not resource limited
You contradict yourself. If -5 to hit isn't a problem, then neither is bypassing +5 AC.

[Man_Over_Game]

sharpshooter is broken: bypasses +5 AC, bypasses disadvantage, bonus damage (-5toHit isn't a problem), not resource limited

Assuming your average damage on a hit, without SS, is 10 (roughly 1d10+3), what you gain from a -5/+10 attack is equal to this:

With Advantage = 12 - [# on the die to hit]. So if you need to hit a 9 on the die, SS adds +3 damage.

W/O Advantage = (11 - [# on the die to hit])/2. So if you need to hit a 9 on the die, SS adds +1 damage.

If your base damage is higher than 10 (Like, say, 1d12 + 5), -5/+10 attacks will not be as worthwhile, due to the loss in accuracy.


However, some simple calculations (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/76982/45619) show that the hit bonus and damage gain of an ASI actually trumps -5/+10 features when Advantage isn't constantly available.

So, ideally, you should only be grabbing SS or GWM as a damage feature if:

Your party can consistently (about 50% of the time) grant you Advantage
Your party doesn't have many solutions for weaker, easy-to-hit swarms of enemies
Your base damage is low, but your hit rate is fine.

[Segev]

OK, let's say you're rolling a saving throw at disadvantage. You roll two dice, and let's say that they're a 3 and a 15. You figure that the 15 would probably have been good enough, but that 3 definitely isn't. So you use your luck reroll on the die that rolled a 3. There are now three possibilities:

A: Your luck re-roll is even worse, say a 1. You keep the 3 instead of the 1, and then disadvantage makes you compare 3 to 15. Your three rolls are 1, 3, and 15, and you end up with the 3.
B: Your luck re-roll is in between the original two dice, say a 10. You replace the 3 with the 10, and then disadvantage makes you compare 10 to 15. Your three rolls are 3, 10, and 15, and you end up with the 10.
C: Your luck re-roll is better than both of the original two dice, say a 19. You gladly replace the 3 with the 19, and then disadvantage makes you compare 19 to 15. Your three rolls are 3, 15, and 19, and you end up with the 15.

In all cases, you rolled three dice, and you ended up with the one in the middle, as a result of following the rules.Ah, I see how you're reading it, okay.


Probably I'm wrong but is: roll two dice, take the worst, than roll luck take the best...so basically that's Advantage like in a disadvantage situation.

Things get broken if someone rule It like:

Roll two dice, roll Lucky then ignore disadvantage and take the higher of 3 as a result.This is more what I would do it as.

You're never choosing between 3 dice with Lucky. You're choosing between two. If you have Advantage or Disadvantage, you roll two dice and choose the higher (with Advantage) or the lower (with Disadvantage). If you then choose to spend a Luck point, you roll an additional d20 and take either it or the one you've previously kept. By the time you roll the Luck die, there is only one die left from rolling with Advantage or Disadvantage.

[NaughtyTiger]

Elven Accuracy doesn't give you super-advantage "almost at will". It replaces regular advantage with super advantage. You still need some way to get regular advantage, which still requires some work (building to get a class feature, and then either setting up the conditions where that feature works, or paying the cost associated with it).

You contradict yourself. If -5 to hit isn't a problem, then neither is bypassing +5 AC.

1) "almost at will" advantage is pretty easy. but i play at tables that emphasize teamwork vs lone wolf. but even lone wolf builds do it just fine.
2) at my tables, a 13AC wraith surrounded by melee would normally be an 18 toHit due to 3/4 cover. But sharpshooter drops that back to a 13AC. with +9 toHit at t2, a -5 still means you only need a 9 on the die to do it.
So not a contradiction at all. it is broken synergy.



With Advantage = 12 - [# on the die to hit]. So if you need to hit a 9 on the die, SS adds +3 damage.
W/O Advantage = (11 - [# on the die to hit])/2. So if you need to hit a 9 on the die, SS adds +1 damage.


There are a lot of assumptions buried in this calculation that won't see gameplay. For example, it relies on an archer taking the -5/+10 against a 20AC target as often as she does against a 10AC target.



I did say -5toHit isn't a problem as a blanket statement, so that's on me. But given that 5e relies more on HP than AC to make encounters tougher, it is true often enough.


Moreover, the point is that Sharpshooter is waaay more of a problem than lucky. Lucky isn't broken, certainly not powerful to require a nerf to a resource limited feat.