Lucky Feat

[bordazhel]

I am running AL dungeon of the mad mage this season. One of my players has the lucky feat. How does lucky interact with disadvantage? He says that he rolls his two dice for disadvantage, rolls an additional one for lucky, and THEN takes the highest of the three due to lucky. That doesn't seem right that rolling a lucky dice with the disadvanage gives him the best of three d20s.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

I believe the player is correct.



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.


Due to the final line in the quoted section this creates an exception to the general rule that is disadvantage.

[bordazhel]

Ok, thanks. I wasn't 100% sure about the interaction.

[Lunali]

That is how it works by RAW, many DMs change the rule if they don't like it or their players abuse it.

Personally, I think making luck more powerful when the odds are against you makes some sense and feels more fun, as long as the players don't intentionally give themselves disadvantage.

[LudicSavant]

I am running AL dungeon of the mad mage this season. One of my players has the lucky feat. How does lucky interact with disadvantage? He says that he rolls his two dice for disadvantage, rolls an additional one for lucky, and THEN takes the highest of the three due to lucky. That doesn't seem right that rolling a lucky dice with the disadvanage gives him the best of three d20s.

The player is correct by RAW.

Personally not a fan of this rule; I change it when I DM.

[Contrast]

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.

If you're in AL Lucky+disadvantage=super advantage is the correct ruling.

[DrKerosene]

The player is correct by RAW.

Personally not a fan of this rule; I change it when I DM.

It’s only three rolls per in-game day. If the Party is facing up to six combats in an adventuring day, then it’s possible they can blow all their luck before the first short rest.

If the Party only makes a few important rolls each day, then it does become more significant (especially if the Party is stacking buffs to the Lucky PC).

[LudicSavant]

It’s only three rolls per in-game day. If the Party is facing up to six combats in an adventuring day, then it’s possible they can blow all their luck before the first short rest.

If the Party only makes a few important rolls each day, then it does become more significant (especially if the Party is stacking buffs to the Lucky PC).

Make no mistake: It's not the power level that concerns me.

It's that a player is encouraged to intentionally impose Disadvantage on themselves when they want to raise their accuracy with Lucky. That bothers me in this sense. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer)

[JackPhoenix]

Make no mistake: It's not the power level that concerns me.

It's that a player is encouraged to intentionally impose Disadvantage on themselves when they want to raise their accuracy with Lucky. That bothers me in this sense. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer)

As a fan of Discworld, I have no problem with attempting to turn something into million-to-one chance....

[LudicSavant]

As a fan of Discworld, I have no problem with attempting to turn something into million-to-one chance....

I am also a fan of Discworld and would find the mechanic much more appropriate if I was telling a story in a Discworld-esque setting.

However, it does not fit the tone of the games I usually run.

For example, it would be quite jarring if a character in Game of Thrones actively chose to take steps to hinder their own accuracy... in order to somehow improve their accuracy.

[Zhorn]

Personally not a fan of this rule; I change it when I DM.

Make no mistake: It's not the power level that concerns me.

It's that a player is encouraged to intentionally impose Disadvantage on themselves when they want to raise their accuracy with Lucky.

I feel similar on that.
My change is just telling my players Lucky only interacts with 1 dice, and is made before (dis)advantage is applied.
Functionally disadvantage still turns into super disadvantage and advantage still turns into super advantage, but not AS much in the other direction.
Example: Opponent rolls with advantage a 20 and a 12. You burn a Lucky dice on that 20 and roll a 4. Now it's advantage on a 4 or 12, and they get the 12.

[DrKerosene]

I am also a fan of Discworld and would find the mechanic much more appropriate if I was telling a story in a Discworld-esque setting.

I would appreciate seeing a character that can justify, or reflavor, the Lucky feat as an in-universe phenomenon.

I do think I would dislike DMing for a character who abuses the disadvantage+Lucky=super-advantage mechanic with no rational in-universe reason (as you’ve described).

I usually enjoy Alexandrian articles. I think I’m a action-focused storyteller type, if I understood the article correctly. I generally don’t mind disassociated mechanics, if they seem to have a reasonable explanation/flavor. Though I do dislike some limited abilities and trying to justify how a hypothetical PC should suddenly know the ability and associated limits.

[NaughtyTiger]

As a fan of Discworld, I have no problem with attempting to turn something into million-to-one chance....

Or Luke turning off his targeting computer to trust the force...

[Contrast]

Make no mistake: It's not the power level that concerns me.

It's that a player is encouraged to intentionally impose Disadvantage on themselves when they want to raise their accuracy with Lucky. That bothers me in this sense. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer)

I feel like I'm not reading that article as saying what you seem to be implying its saying. The article says that dissociated mechanics (ones that have no relation to your character choosing to do a thing) have problems. In that case the problem isn't closing your eyes and praying just before you fire an arrow, its the Lucky feat in general. If anything your character purposely choosing to blind or prone themselves before making an attack is an improvement in terms of the issues the article discusses on the basis that your character is making a clear choice to do a thing (though the article treats that more as a band aid to the dissociated mechanic of the Lucky feat rather than a solution).

I don't really agree with the point you or the article made though.

If they just say 'I drop prone, attack with a luck point then stand back up' I would be sad compared to if they said 'As I swing to attack I unbalance and trip but fortunately this catches him off guard and I get a blow in while he's exposed before clambering back to my feet' but that would be true regardless of if we're talking about the Lucky feat or not really.

[Chronos]

There is some dispute about the RAW. Crawford interprets the rules to mean super-advantage, but then, Crawford sucks at interpreting rules. I and some others hold that when you're choosing which die to use with Lucky, your choices are the die you want to replace, or the new one you rolled, and that other dice on the table (such as the extra one you rolled for Disadvantage) are not available to be chosen. Allowing you to choose dice other than those two opens up a far bigger can of worms, because there are a whole bunch of other dice in the game. Can you choose the die the DM rolled last turn, that's still sitting there with a good number on it? Why not?

Under this interpretation, Lucky does still improve your odds if you have disadvantage, but lucky+disadvantage is still not as good as lucky+normal roll.

[Wildarm]

I am running AL dungeon of the mad mage this season. One of my players has the lucky feat. How does lucky interact with disadvantage? He says that he rolls his two dice for disadvantage, rolls an additional one for lucky, and THEN takes the highest of the three due to lucky. That doesn't seem right that rolling a lucky dice with the disadvanage gives him the best of three d20s.

He's got the rule right(IMO). Turning disadvantage into super advantage is lots of fun. I had a cowardly diviner who had the lucky feat and sometimes, usually when he had to blast something with a firebolt in melee range he would scream in terror before letting loose a blast of fire. Was hilarious and because he was damn lucky, it usually worked. He also cringed and turned away(disadvantage) in fear trying to slap foes away and land the occasional melee touch attack(Shocking Grasp) but his random flailing always seemed to slap the foe in the face at the right moment allowing him to get away.

You can even make it a zen thing, closing your eyes and visualize the scene in your mind. Tap into the spirit of the world. See their chakras - Whatever - Get triple advantage.

Honestly, if a playing is burning his lucky uses on landing single attacks, I'm totally fine with that as a DM. Better that than making me re-roll crits or getting a 2nd save versus a nasty effect which is the best use of your luck(IMO). Hitting is easy in 5E. Staying alive, not quite as easy.

[LudicSavant]

So far of all the explanations offered, only the Discworld one seems sufficient to justify lines of thought like "Don't restrain him, it'll help him dodge!"

[Contrast]

There is some dispute about the RAW. Crawford interprets the rules to mean super-advantage, but then, Crawford sucks at interpreting rules.

And to be clear by Crawford you mean the Sage Advice Compendium, the official document for rules adjudication for 5E.


Allowing you to choose dice other than those two opens up a far bigger can of worms, because there are a whole bunch of other dice in the game. Can you choose the die the DM rolled last turn, that's still sitting there with a good number on it? Why not?

Good lord you're right! At the start of the PHB where it tells you how to roll d20s to determine checks it just says at the end that you compare 'the total' to the target number, it doesn't specify the total of what! RAW all dice rolls can be considered infinite!


So far of all the explanations offered, only the Discworld one seems sufficient to justify lines of thought like "Don't restrain him, it'll help him dodge!"

You've never watched a scene where someone uses their restraints to block/entangle someone attacking them?

I think the important thing to remember is that you only have a few luck points a day. It's not like they're immune to the negative consequences of being restrained - just a few times a day they may be able to put them off for a few seconds due to a series of lucky circumstances.

[Keravath]

Lucky just isn't that useful honestly. I've been playing AL for 2 years now and I think I have seen three characters with the feat and one of them is mine. The other two characters were tier 1 and as far as I know they dumped it before the character was locked down at level 5. It becomes useful as a dump feat at high level if you have nothing better to take.

In my case, I chose it early on (Level 4) for my specific character because it was thematic and not because it was useful (Variant human, observant at 1st level, Lucky at 4th). The character is now 14th level and there have probably been only a couple of times it made any difference at all. It never gets wasted on attack rolls unless it is to try to prevent a crit against me. It is almost never worthwhile using Lucky to try to hit something unless it is a very tough creature, with only a few hit points left, its turn happens to be next ... and even then the odds of Lucky making a difference aren't that great. The most common usage in my case for Lucky is to try and make a save I have already failed whether it has advantage or disadvantage.

I've never seen or heard of a character trying to make a situation worse in order to hit better with Lucky (it just isn't worth it) though if they wanted to do this, all a character needs to do is close their eyes when they make an attack.

On the other hand, in terms of in game justification, it is like trusting to Luck, or the force or some other outside phenomenon or diety to guide your hand/aim. It works best when the odds are stacked against you, when you are more likely to fail, somehow you succeed. Naratively, the "super" advantage from the Lucky feat makes sense from this perspective when the forces of the cosmos give you a better chance when the odds against you are the worst, when everything seems the darkest. It works in many fictional contexts and I honestly don't see why folks have an issue with it in D&D. Yes, it seems quite powerful but it is only on three rolls in adventuring day and the way AL is structured they don't typically get refreshed in most modules that will typically have 4 to 6 encounters with a short rest.

---

Anyway, the player was correct that in AL, when attacking with disadvantage or advantage when using Lucky, you roll the two dice, decide if you like the outcome, and if not, roll the additional die from the feat and choose the best one.

[LudicSavant]

You've never watched a scene where someone uses their restraints to block/entangle someone attacking them?

There is a difference between not getting hit despite being restrained, and being restrained improving your ability to dodge a crucial strike, to the point that someone will avoid restraining you in order to try to land that strike more reliably.

[Contrast]

There is a difference between not getting hit despite being restrained, and being restrained improving your ability to dodge a crucial strike, to the point that someone will avoid restraining you in order to try to land that strike more reliably.

They are indeed spending an ASI to acquire a feat which allows them the ability to have spectacular luck and achieve that 3 times a day yes. If they don't spend a point of that limited resource which they paid an ASI for (which would last a maximum of 18 seconds or against several opponents 6 or less) they're just as restrained as everyone else.

Do you have a problem with the fact that Alert makes you better off fighting in the dark than you would have been in the light against someone without the feat? Are you concerned that someone with polearm mastery and sentinel can stop someone running into combat with them and do damage to an enemy all on the enemies turn? Is a berserker barbarians Retaliation ability problematic because combined with rage there's a good chance you're doing more damage back to the enemy than they're doing to you? How about the arcane tricksters Spell Thief ability?

I don't see that 'you can turn a disadvantageous situation to an advantageous one and that's intrinsically wrong' as being a valid criticism of an ability in and of itself basically. Provided its properly limited in power (and you've said you don't think theres a power level issue) I don't otherwise see the problem.

[LudicSavant]

You've never watched a scene where someone uses their restraints to block/entangle someone attacking them?

There is a difference between not getting hit despite being restrained (something already modeled without the Lucky feat), and being restrained improving your ability to dodge a crucial strike, to the point that it flips your motive from "does not want to be restrained" to "wants to be restrained," at least within the context of that specific situation.

This is jarring because this motive often doesn't match up with the motive of the actual character or the tone of the story. There are exceptions, such as when characters in Discworld try to foil themselves in order to create million to one odds, since in Discworld million to one odds always work and that's a predictable aspect of the universe that characters can plan around. Therefore if we were in Discworld, such an ability would be associated.



I think the important thing to remember is that you only have a few luck points a day. It's not like they're immune to the negative consequences of being restrained - just a few times a day they may be able to put them off for a few seconds due to a series of lucky circumstances.

They are indeed spending an ASI to acquire a feat which allows them the ability to have spectacular luck and achieve that 3 times a day yes. If they don't spend a point of that limited resource which they paid an ASI for (which would last a maximum of 18 seconds or against several opponents 6 or less) they're just as restrained as everyone else.

The concern isn't about balance, it's about principles of ludonarrative design and how they apply to some (not all) of the genres that D&D seeks to emulate.

If anything, the idea that a person wants to blind themselves and pray for 18 seconds a day and no more adds to the issue, rather than ameliorating it.


I don't see that 'you can turn a disadvantageous situation to an advantageous one and that's intrinsically wrong' as being a valid criticism

I didn't say it was intrinsically wrong and even gave an example of a context where I'd be okay with it. :smallannoyed:

[greenstone]

As an alternative to the "super-advantage" situation, enforce the rules of the feat as follows.

The rule is, "… 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. " (highlight mine)

So, if the player is rolling with disadvantage then they roll two d20 and take the lowest. If they choose to use a luck point then they roll another d20 and choose which of the results to use.

They should never be rolling three dice at the same time.

[Contrast]

I had a whole reply written out but then accidentally deleted it so apologies as you're getting the cliff notes version :smallbiggrin:

No-ones gonna volunteer to get restrained when there are easier ways to disadvantage yourself. They may do so believing in their ability/luck/destiny to see them through and they're welcome to see how that works out long term - risk is not worth reward (you can always just not be restrained and use a luck point for regular advantage after all...).

I'm not sure whats narratively wrong with someone lucky in a fantasy setting. There's someone over there throwing fireballs and teleporting and running up a tower and floating back down again by channeling their inner ki after all.

Re only 18 seconds a day. Why can a cleric only ask for their gods assistance once a week? Why do you only heal in discrete chunks of an hour? What is magical about resting for 8 hours compared to 7? Why can a barbarian only get angry a set number of times a day? And so on and so on. Maybe they do have these unlucky circumstances otherwise or occasionally close their eyes to make an attack and that explains some of the times they just miss.


I didn't say it was intrinsically wrong and even gave an example of a context where I'd be okay with it. :smallannoyed:

Ah apologies this was me misreading tone - I assumed you were being flippant. So your objection is that the feat is too silly for 'serious' D&D? I feel we may just have to agree to disagree then :smallwink:

[LudicSavant]

No-ones gonna volunteer to get restrained when there are easier ways to disadvantage yourself.

The example was "Don't restrain him, it'll help him dodge!"

As in, a player, out of character, going "Don't restrain him! It'll make him harder to hit with my big crucial ability that will win the fight this turn!" to another player.

Another example would be a character who would put on heavy winter coats in the desert to avoid getting Exhausted by Extreme Heat.

I don't know about you, but I found it very narratively jarring when a character ended up surviving a trek across the desert because they bundled up like an Eskimo.

[Lunali]

The example was "Don't restrain him, it'll help him dodge!"

As in, a player, out of character, going "Don't restrain him! It'll make him harder to hit with my big crucial ability that will win the fight this turn!" to another player.

Another example would be a character who would put on heavy winter coats in the desert to avoid getting Exhausted by Extreme Heat.

I don't know about you, but I found it very narratively jarring when a character ended up surviving a trek across the desert because they bundled up like an Eskimo.

If the temperature of the desert is higher than the character's body temperature, being bundled up like an Eskimo would help protect against the heat, and as a bonus, at night it would protect against the cold.

[Contrast]

The example was "Don't restrain him, it'll help him dodge!"

As in, a player, out of character, going "Don't restrain him! It'll make him harder to hit with my big crucial ability that will win the fight this turn!" to another player.

'Don't attack the barbarian, we want him to drop rage so he's easier to hurt'

'Don't attack the defenceless enemies, that'll snap them out of the Hypnotic Pattern'

'Don't attack - the grave cleric made him vulnerable to damage and I do larger single hits that you'

These sort of specific edge cases are pretty common with specific abilities that do specific things. I would point out that this would also require you to know that the enemy has luck points (which you have no in game way of knowing I would assume) and that he has not used them already. So metagaming to the hilt it would seem.


Another example would be a character who would put on heavy winter coats in the desert to avoid getting Exhausted by Extreme Heat.

I don't know about you, but I found it very narratively jarring when a character ended up surviving a trek across the desert because they bundled up like an Eskimo.

Sounds like a player who is about to discover that the DM decides when rolling is appropriate and that someone wearing heavy winter coats in the desert doesn't roll to see if they gain exhaustion, they just do.

[LudicSavant]

Sounds like a player who is about to discover that the DM decides when rolling is appropriate and that someone wearing heavy winter coats in the desert doesn't roll to see if they gain exhaustion, they just do.

There are actually specific rules already established for what happens in this situation.


EXTREME HEAT
...
Creatures wearing medium or heavy armor, or who are clad in heavy clothing, have disadvantage on the saving throw.

So a character who is Lucky might actually throw on the very things that other characters are slipping out of, in order to increase their chances of survival.

There's no way that this makes any narrative sense (barring some specific settings like Discworld). And it's just one of a hundred different examples like this with the Lucky feat. It's not an edge case, it's just how it works in general: You take steps that should disadvantage you, in order to gain super-advantage. It makes things that should hurt you help you. That is the entire effect of the disadvantage->super advantage conversion. Humans are very good at rationalizing things away, but the whole thing about good ludonarrative design is that if you have it, you don't need to rationalize everything away.

If you don't think that's an example of something narratively jarring, then I suspect that you will argue that no mechanic is.

If instead you're saying that it is narratively jarring for this to happen and that one would be justified in altering the result with a DM ruling, what are you still arguing about?

[Tallytrev813]

RAW reads as you USE the die you pick from lucky, RAW for Disadvantage is USE the lower of the two die - because they utilize the same verbiage your player is right.

LUCKY:
You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you may spend 1 luck point to roll an additional d20. You can use this ability after the original roll, but before the outcome is revealed. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.

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

If multiple creatures use a luck point on the same roll, they cancel out, resulting in no additional dice.

You regain expended luck points when you finish a long rest.


Me, personally?

The fair way (IMO) to play it is.

You have Disadvantage:

1. Roll 2 Die (Die A and die B)
2. Choose to use Lucky
3. Pick which die (A or B) to use lucky on
4. Set that die aside (Lets say it's die B), and roll another die (Die C)
5. Choose between die B and die C
6. Place the chosen die next to die A
7. the lower of A // B or C is the die utilized for the check/attack/ST.


So basically, I roll a 4 and a 18.
I pull the 4 aside and roll another die, it's a 14.
I choose to use the 14.
I put the 14 next to the 18 - which is lower (for disadvantage)
the 14, so the 14 is what applies.

[Galithar]

I am running AL dungeon of the mad mage this season. One of my players has the lucky feat. How does lucky interact with disadvantage? He says that he rolls his two dice for disadvantage, rolls an additional one for lucky, and THEN takes the highest of the three due to lucky. That doesn't seem right that rolling a lucky dice with the disadvanage gives him the best of three d20s.



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

That's the most relevant rule to help adjudicate how to resolve this and would appear that they have to replace only one of the dice rolled with Disadvantage.

Lucky, however, is NOT a reroll. You roll an additional die and then CHOOSE which you keep. I interpret this, and I've seen many others do so as well, as you first resolve the advantage/disadvantage and then choose between the result and the luck roll. Meaning if they rolled at disadvantage and got a 1 and a 20. Then they spend a luck point and roll a 10 they can choose to take their 10 or the 1, but not the 20.

This is the most logical and balanced ruling in my eyes. It allows for the mitigation of disadvantage, but not the ability to turn it into super advantage where they get the best of three dice. They get their original, or their luck roll.

Edit: This may also be relevant. Though I recommend going with the resolve advantage/Disadvantage then allow luck rolls to affect the outcome from there as I stated above.



Advantage and Disadvantage
(p. 173). In the first sentence of the fourth
paragraph, both instances of “reroll” have
been changed to “reroll or replace.”


I can't remember if Lucky ever used the word replace, or sticks solely with 'choose'.

[FabulousFizban]

yepyepyep that is how it works. its a neat if cheesy trick. lucky is an awsome feat

[Cybren]

Y’all know your CHARACTER doesnt know they have the lucky feat, right?

[Galithar]

Y’all know your CHARACTER doesnt know they have the lucky feat, right?

Says who? Does your fighter not know they have PAM? They don't know the exact mechanics of it, but they DO know that they seem to get out of situations unscathed that others get clobbered by.

[Chronos]

Furthermore, if you don't interpret that rule about re-rolls to apply to the Lucky feat, then the phrasing "something in the game, such as the halfling's Lucky trait..." is superfluous, since there are no other abilities that work like the halfling's Lucky trait. If we assume that that rule applies to the halfling trait and to the ability that works most like the halfling trait, well, the ability that's most similar to the halfling trait (though not exactly the same) is... the Lucky feat.

[RedMage125]

I know a lot of people are disatified that "Lucky+Disadvantage=Super Advantage", but it kind of makes sens if you think about it.

Your character is extremely lucky, right? You've just spent a valuable mechanical resource (limited ASI/Feat choice) to reflect this. So when situations seem to lower your odds of success (i.e. disadvantage), you can instead pull off a miracle and succeed, due to your incredible luck.

To quote Elan form OotS: "A 10% chance is pretty unlikely, but everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!"

Your ability to succeed at "long shot" situations is not "cheese", nor an "exploit". It's a feature.

[Segev]

On the one hand, if I must, I can justify the "Disadvantage => Super Advantage" stunt by acknowledging that a hyper-lucky character who "trusts in his luck" when only luck can save him is narratively likely to get it. On the other, it is a perverse incentive, for reasons already laid out.

For AL, I believe that that is the correct ruling, and you should go with it if you're genuinely running AL. If you're just running "AL rules," though, for an otherwise closed group, you can house rule it. Just be clear what you're doing. Even if you're running legit AL, as long as there aren't WotC-imposed rules you need to follow about absolute adherence to the RAW, you are probably fine as long as you spell out how Luck works at your table before anybody starts relying on it. Because the main problem with changing the rule mid-game on them is if they put themselves in a situation relying on transforming Disadvantage into Super Advantage, and you rip that out from under them when it's too late. If they know in advance, they can choose to play a little differently.

The way I always will run it is that the Disadvantaged roll occurs, and the player is stuck with the lower die. Then, he spends Luck, and rolls an additional die, and chooses between the die he just rolled and the die imposed on him by Disadvantage. This is going to be lower than using Luck on a normal die roll, most likely, because he already has the non-Luck die lower than it otherwise would be, meaning the Luck die is more likely to be the kept die even if it rolls low.

However, in practice, people don't tend to use Luck on a roll that came up decently, anyway. I mean, is he likely to bother using Luck on even a Disadvantage roll if the two dice for Disadvantage came up 17 and 19? No, he's likely to keep the 17. The effect of how I rule it is that Luck just is more likely to be desirable to use if you're rolling with Disadvantage.

[Tharkun]

So far of all the explanations offered, only the Discworld one seems sufficient to justify lines of thought like "Don't restrain him, it'll help him dodge!"
I have a diviner wizard who took lucky instead of warcaster. But for him my head-canon for portent and lucky is very Alex Versus, he sees multiple timelines and he is using his abilities and actions to choose particular futures. Portent is him forcing the choice and lucky is him choosing actions to try to select the best options of the timelines he perceives.

This works for me and isn't nearly as silly as the discworld variant.

[LudicSavant]

I have a diviner wizard who took lucky instead of warcaster. But for him my head-canon for portent and lucky is very Alex Versus, he sees multiple timelines and he is using his abilities and actions to choose particular futures. Portent is him forcing the choice and lucky is him choosing actions to try to select the best options of the timelines he perceives.

This works for me and isn't nearly as silly as the discworld variant.

This doesn't actually explain the 'perverse incentive' aspect.

Why does the best option for the timeline involve wearing a winter coat in the desert, or turning out the lights to see better, or wearing full plate to make you stealthier, or throwing away your thieves tools makes you disarm the trap better?

[Segev]

This doesn't actually explain the 'perverse incentive' aspect.

Why does the best option for the timeline involve wearing a winter coat in the desert, or turning out the lights to see better, or wearing full plate to make you stealthier, or throwing away your thieves tools makes you disarm the trap better?

Bad examples; most of those also shut off your numeric proficiency bonus (wearing armor with which you're not proficient, throwing away the tools with which you are proficient).

The better examples - and which are arguable as to whether thematic appropriateness kicks in or not - include things like closing your eyes and looking away while hoping your desperate shot hits the BBEG. You give yourself Disadvantage by blinding yourself, and then use Lucky. One can phrase that as "trusting in pure luck" rather than skill or effort at that point.

I still don't like it, and generally wouldn't run it that way, but it's not a completely ridiculous scenario.

[Tiadoppler]

The Lucky feat isn't appropriate for every character's narrative, or even every campaign's genre. What characters does the feat make sense for?

Elan. Pinkie Pie. Rincewind, or the Ankh-Morpork Watch. What do these characters have in common? They're comic characters who lean on the fourth wall. They have internal logic that doesn't match the real world, but does work for them, in the context of their universe. These are characters who can succeed at nonsensical plans because they don't know their plans should fail (or, at least, would fail in our universe).

So, I don't think that the Lucky feat is appropriate for a grizzled, pragmatic veteran in a serious campaign, but it might be perfectly appropriate for the naive, idealistic sidekick who throws out wacky plans. Taking the Lucky feat means that a big part of your character is their unbelievable, unrealistic luck. When things go terribly wrong, they just somehow come out on top, no matter how unlikely the outcome.

DMs in home games should feel free to ban (or limit) feats that have mechanics or narrative implications that are inappropriate for the specific campaign or characters. At the same time, goofy comedic characters who do random stuff and somehow succeed are just as much a part of overall D&D culture as edgelords, minmaxers, and murderhobos.

[RedMage125]

Bad examples; most of those also shut off your numeric proficiency bonus (wearing armor with which you're not proficient, throwing away the tools with which you are proficient).

The better examples - and which are arguable as to whether thematic appropriateness kicks in or not - include things like closing your eyes and looking away while hoping your desperate shot hits the BBEG. You give yourself Disadvantage by blinding yourself, and then use Lucky. One can phrase that as "trusting in pure luck" rather than skill or effort at that point.

I still don't like it, and generally wouldn't run it that way, but it's not a completely ridiculous scenario.

I agree that's problematic. And if I had a player attempting to intentionally impose diasadvantage on themselves for that reason, I would make a DM ruling then and there that Lucky could not be (ab)used in such a manner. That's a DM ruling, however, overriding what the RAW says. but it's also in response to a player attempting to metagame and abuse the rules in such a manner.

Player wants to use a luck point to land a hit on a displacer beat? Fine. Or when firing a ranged weapon at long range? Totally okay. Situations that impose disadvantage by their nature are not problematic for use of Lucky to me. A character closing their eyes to impose blindness to get the "disadvantage turns to super advantage" thing is beyond the pale, for me as a DM.

[Tharkun]

This doesn't actually explain the 'perverse incentive' aspect.

Why does the best option for the timeline involve wearing a winter coat in the desert, or turning out the lights to see better, or wearing full plate to make you stealthier, or throwing away your thieves tools makes you disarm the trap better?
I was unclear.
Ignoring the winter coat and full plate examples because those are ridiculous and I agree with you. But the idea that when blinded your instinctive reaction in this particulars series of conditions would allow your shot to hit works. Maybe there is a something in your field of view that would cause your instinctive reaction to be off by a bit, or the ideal shot involves shooting to the left and a random gust or change will divert it to your target.

The idea is that probabilistic event causes a fork and so sometimes the odd fork works for the lucky individual at this time.

Again, I am focusing on an Alex Versus probability mage style pattern. It is more serious than the Discworld version but still involves some ridiculousness. Also it isn't perfect but it allows me to take a RAW feat and skin it for my RP purposes.

[Segev]

So, I don't think that the Lucky feat is appropriate for a grizzled, pragmatic veteran in a serious campaign, but it might be perfectly appropriate for the naive, idealistic sidekick who throws out wacky plans. Taking the Lucky feat means that a big part of your character is their unbelievable, unrealistic luck. When things go terribly wrong, they just somehow come out on top, no matter how unlikely the outcome.


Not...necessarily. It's actually a very fluff-flexible feat and mechanic. The gruff warrior did not fail that Constitution check; he has the grit to power through it even when it looked grim. The grizzled veteran made the impossible archery shot because he's just that good, even if "just that good" was represented by an extra die roll to get a better d20 result. The determined paladin made that climb check out of the ice pit with the help of his god's divine intervention to make that hand-hold hold out just long enough to pull off of it.

[Tiadoppler]

Not...necessarily. It's actually a very fluff-flexible feat and mechanic. The gruff warrior did not fail that Constitution check; he has the grit to power through it even when it looked grim. The grizzled veteran made the impossible archery shot because he's just that good, even if "just that good" was represented by an extra die roll to get a better d20 result. The determined paladin made that climb check out of the ice pit with the help of his god's divine intervention to make that hand-hold hold out just long enough to pull off of it.

Oh, I agree that it's refluffable, but, as written, the Lucky feat refers to "inexplicable luck", not 'grit', 'heroic willpower' or 'determination'. The only point I was trying to make was that the goofy randomly-turning-self-imposed-restrictions-and-terrible-planning-into-unexplainable-success ability fits really well with certain types of comedy characters.

[LudicSavant]

Bad examples; most of those also shut off your numeric proficiency bonus (wearing armor with which you're not proficient, throwing away the tools with which you are proficient).

You seem to be a bit confused; wearing armor with which you're not proficient wasn't actually among the examples, nor was foregoing proficiency on a check to disarm traps.

For example, you get Disadvantage on stealth in full plate whether you're proficient or not.


I was unclear.
Ignoring the winter coat and full plate examples because those are ridiculous and I agree with you.

I see.


The Lucky feat isn't appropriate for every character's narrative, or even every campaign's genre. What characters does the feat make sense for?

Elan. Pinkie Pie. Rincewind, or the Ankh-Morpork Watch. What do these characters have in common? They're comic characters who lean on the fourth wall. They have internal logic that doesn't match the real world, but does work for them, in the context of their universe. These are characters who can succeed at nonsensical plans because they don't know their plans should fail (or, at least, would fail in our universe).

So, I don't think that the Lucky feat is appropriate for a grizzled, pragmatic veteran in a serious campaign, but it might be perfectly appropriate for the naive, idealistic sidekick who throws out wacky plans. Taking the Lucky feat means that a big part of your character is their unbelievable, unrealistic luck. When things go terribly wrong, they just somehow come out on top, no matter how unlikely the outcome.

DMs in home games should feel free to ban (or limit) feats that have mechanics or narrative implications that are inappropriate for the specific campaign or characters. At the same time, goofy comedic characters who do random stuff and somehow succeed are just as much a part of overall D&D culture as edgelords, minmaxers, and murderhobos.

Agreed!

[Cikomyr]

Luck transforming Disadvantage into a super-advantage is dumb.

I don't care if it's RAW. If one of my player tried to pull that, I'd be really unhappy at his desire to literally break the intent of the rule.

Luck allows you to reroll ONE die, and you pick your pick between that original die and the reroll.

You STILL have disadvantage tho. That means this

You have Die 1, Die 2, and Luck Die (D1, D2 and LD). Let's say D1 is always the lowest between D1 and D2.

the final outcome is: Min (Max(D1, LD), D2)

That means if D1 and D2 are the same number on a disadvantage, using luck is useless. that means if D2 is very low, using luck won't get you anything higher than D2.

ex:

You roll a 4 and a 10

you Want to reroll the 4, here are the outcomes:

1 to 4:
Min(Max (1-4,4), 10) --> 4

5 to 10
Min (Max(5-10,4), 10) --> 5 to 10

11+
Min (Max (11-20,4),10) --> 10

The luck feat basically allows you to have a number between your two dies when you have disadvantage.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Luck transforming Disadvantage into a super-advantage is dumb.

Luck allows you to reroll ONE die, and you pick your pick between that original die and the reroll.

You STILL have disadvantage tho. That means this

You have Die 1, Die 2, and Luck Die (D1, D2 and LD). Let's say D1 is always the lowest between D1 and D2.

the final outcome is: Min (Max(D1, LD), D2)

This is my take on it also, with the addition that I'd allow one use of Lucky on each die, so: Min (Max (D1, L1), Max (D2, L2))

[Cikomyr]

This is my take on it also, with the addition that I'd allow one use of Lucky on each die, so: Min (Max (D1, L1), Max (D2, L2))

One luck point per reroll. So in your case, 2 luck points used.

[Tallytrev813]

One luck point per reroll. So in your case, 2 luck points used.

They're on 2 separate rolls

[Christian]

This idea of luck doesn't only fit into comedy fantasies like Discworld ...



One eye lost. What would that do to his ability to fight? That worried him more than anything ... He pulled out a knife, flipping it. Then, on a whim, he tossed it behind him without looking. He heard a soft screech, then turned to see a rabbit slump to the ground, speared by the idly thrown knife ...Yes, he might not be able to judge distance, and he might not be able to see as well. But luck worked better when you were not looking anyway.

(From Towers of Midnight, by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson)

[LudicSavant]

This idea of luck doesn't only fit into comedy fantasies like Discworld

The idea of luck in general isn't the issue.

[Corran]

Luck transforming Disadvantage into a super-advantage is dumb.

It's as dumb as the luck feat is in the first place, at least thematically. Personally I like the lucky feat.
What's annoying though, is a player taking advantage of it to create super advantage, so in this context I agree with you. And I would also agree that it is a little dumb. Super advantage from lucky is not that good of a dpr boost. Theoretically only rogues could use it well (but practically I don't think they can, because I am assuming that disadvantage is technically still in effect, so no sneak attack, so practically is a poor dpr boost), and perhaps crit fishers (though again, I don't think that anything breaks here, and I wouldn't mind letting crit fishing get all the help it can get because it's very weak to begin with). But yeah, the intent of abusing the mechanics (assuming allowing super advantage was not the intent), is not sitting all that well with me too. Keep in mind though, that in some rare cases it might even be appropriate. This is not the first time someone used this example, but think of Luke when destroying the first death star. Turning off the targeting system could very well had been the player's way of self imposing disadvantage so that he can use super advantage.

I don't think there is anything wrong with super advantage both mechanically and thematically. But I understand DM's who want to houserule it. Imo it's the player's intention doing the foul here.

[LudicSavant]

RE: Luke Skywalker

Here's the thing: The thing at work in these sort of examples isn't "things that hurt you help you," it's "the sense you are relying on is a distraction from a superior sense." This is why "close your eyes and see" is a well-established trope, but "make more noise so you can hear" isn't.

I'd say Luke turning off the targeting computer would be better represented by the fact that he has a better ability to use (the Force), and because it doesn't stack. Or because the force is hindered by distractions.

Not because he has a generally-applicable ability to make anything that would sabotage his performance improve his performance, 3 times a day.

Luke does not get out of the sliced-open creature stomach in order to have a better chance of surviving the cold, for example.

[Corran]

I'd say Luke turning off the targeting computer would be better represented by the fact that he has a better ability to use (the Force), and because it doesn't stack. Or because the force is hindered by distractions.

Not because he has a generally-applicable ability to make anything that would sabotage his performance improve his performance, 3 times a day.

Luke does not get out of the sliced-open creature stomach in order to have a better chance of surviving the cold, for example.

Sight being a distraction to other senses is a well-established trope, but Lucky does a lot more than just make you benefit from blindness, so just explaining why a character blinds themselves doesn't really fix it.
The idea is that we could potentially come up with ways to fluff it so that it wouldn't look silly giving ourselves disadvantage. Different people will have different standards about that of course. For example, playing a character that believes in luck/destiny/etc could justify having that character close their eyes at a critical moment for me but not for you. My point though is, that at least imo, I don't see anything inherently wrong with using lucky for super advantage both from a balance and a thematic perspective. It's the potential intent behind it that bothers me (even if that intention does not translate well in practice); the intention of wanting to game the system.

[LudicSavant]

For example, playing a character that believes in luck/destiny/etc could justify having that character close their eyes at a critical moment for me but not for you.

The issue isn't that "close your eyes at the critical moment" can't be justified for me, it's that that's not even close to the only thing that needs justification.

Also, note the "Explaining It All Away" section in the Alexandrian article.

[Corran]

The issue isn't that "close your eyes at the critical moment" can't be justified for me, it's that that's not even close to the only thing that needs justification.

Also, note the "Explaining It All Away" section in the Alexandrian article.
Ok, this was interesting. Putting lucky aside for a moment, I have issue with the premise that having dissociated mechanics is a problem. For me that's not a problem, but a solution. I view mechanics as a way of playing 'fair', and not as sth that needs to be consistent for the game world to make sense. I like explaining things away, because if I didn't, then I wouldn't be able to play all the silly concepts I come up with (currently working on one, and I certainly have to explain away and ignore a lot of things -while crapping on some dnd official lore- to make it work; but I certainly don't mind, if it means I get to roleplay a character that I want and for whom I have some very interesting roleplaying ideas; and if the DM and the other players don't mind either, I get to play the weird character concept I am so excited about). I guess that explaining/describing mechanics in a consistent way is not important to me for the game world to make sense (other things do that).

[RedMage125]

Luck transforming Disadvantage into a super-advantage is dumb.

I don't care if it's RAW. If one of my player tried to pull that, I'd be really unhappy at his desire to literally break the intent of the rule.


I don't think that breaks the intent of the rule at all, and your proposed fix is kind of harsh, in that it seems like you want to penalize your players out of some sort of desire to "balance" the cool stuff they can do.

I agree that a player doing something to intentionally impose disadvantage is violating the intent of the rules, it's metagaming like a mofo. Luck points are a metagame concept, and so a character never has any reason to close their eyes and trust "the Force" or any crap like that.

But normal "attack/save/ability check at disadvantage" scenarios? I think it's exactly in keeping with the intent of the rule. Like making an attack with a longbow at long range, swinging at a displacer beast, or making a Deception check to fool that guard that just caught you where you aren't supposed to be.

The player has spent a valuable and limited resource (ASI/Feat) on saying that their character is especially Lucky. And you think "being able to pull a success out of a bad situation" is somehow "breaking the intent of the rule"? :smallconfused: Also, their luck points are limited to 3/day. That's only 3 rolls of any kind that can be affected at all.

Keep in mind that luck points are a metagame concept. The character has no idea that he's got the ability to "turn disadvantage into super advantage", this is something the player is able to do. Narratively, you are giving mechanical voice to that choice the players made about how his character is exceptionally lucky. It's not like a sorcerer who spends sorcery points to quicken a spell. That character knows they are using their abilities to modify the way a spell works. In-character, someone using a luck point on a disadvantaged roll just knows they've got low odds of success. Yes, the player knows they're spending a resource to drastically improve the character's chance, but that's what makes it fun and interesting.

"Turning disadvantage into super advantage" isn't "cheese" or "game-breaking" in any way. It's an opportunity for a player character to do something really cool by succeeding at low odds. Party wiped out a patrol around the hobgoblin enclave, but one escaped and is now running to sound the alarm, and is already over 100 ft away, even if you move closer (thus making the shot with disadvantage)? Cool, character pulls his longbow, sweat dripping down his brow as he focuses on making a shot that might make the difference between life and death for his companions. He releases the arrow, just as the fleeing hobgoblin is cresting a small hill in the distance, almost out of line of sight entirely...and drops as the arrow finds it way directly into the back of its skull.

Remember also that having advantage, or even "super advantage" isn't even a guarantee of success. It's statistically more likely, yes. But hell, just last night I made a Wisdom save with advantage and got a 3 and a 6 on the dice. That sucks, oh well.

If you're going to try and impose a house rule to keep meta-gaming players from abusing this mechanic to do things like "closing my eyes before I fire my longbow", tell them that they cannot use a luck point on such a roll. Make it one of your rulings that luck points cannot be used if a player is going to intentionally impose disadvantage on themself for the express purpose of using the luck point to get super-advantage. That should stop any abuses while still making the feat awesome and useful, and enabling those "long shot success" narratives. Remember, that player chose not to take an ASI, or any other feat, because they wanted to have a meaningful way of representing that their character has prodigious luck, and sometimes does succeed when the chips are down. Someone who thrives on living on that dangerous edge.

Bottom line is this. Your proposed "fix"...who benefits from it? The players? Certainly not. What benefit to you, the DM? None, really. You're not the player's enemy. The DM and the players are creating a game and a narrative together. If the only benefit is to some vague, ephemeral concept of "balance", and you do this as some kind of sacrificial offering to that altar, what does anyone get in return? How is your game improved by doing that?

[Coffee_Dragon]

One luck point per reroll. So in your case, 2 luck points used.


They're on 2 separate rolls

Yup, that's what I meant; two applications, two charges.

[Evaar]

This doesn't actually explain the 'perverse incentive' aspect.

Why does the best option for the timeline involve wearing a winter coat in the desert, or turning out the lights to see better, or wearing full plate to make you stealthier, or throwing away your thieves tools makes you disarm the trap better?

Can’t account for most of those except the thieves’ tools. That’s the dude who’s running out of time to disarm the bomb or unlock the door with his finicky tools, so in a moment of panic and frustration he throws down the tool and just hits the thing or rips out a wire or whatever - and it works.

Actually turning out the lights to see better can sort of be explained. You put out the lights and notice a glint shining off just the thing you were looking for. Doesn’t help you see the room better, but you spotted the thing. Now why the character would think to do that is harder to address narratively, but that’s kind of up to the player.

[Segev]

Luck transforming Disadvantage into a super-advantage is dumb.

I don't care if it's RAW. If one of my player tried to pull that, I'd be really unhappy at his desire to literally break the intent of the rule.

Luck allows you to reroll ONE die, and you pick your pick between that original die and the reroll.

You STILL have disadvantage tho. That means this

You have Die 1, Die 2, and Luck Die (D1, D2 and LD). Let's say D1 is always the lowest between D1 and D2.

the final outcome is: Min (Max(D1, LD), D2)

That means if D1 and D2 are the same number on a disadvantage, using luck is useless. that means if D2 is very low, using luck won't get you anything higher than D2.

ex:

You roll a 4 and a 10

you Want to reroll the 4, here are the outcomes:

1 to 4:
Min(Max (1-4,4), 10) --> 4

5 to 10
Min (Max(5-10,4), 10) --> 5 to 10

11+
Min (Max (11-20,4),10) --> 10

The luck feat basically allows you to have a number between your two dies when you have disadvantage.

I tend to do it slightly more forgivingly, and what I feel is more in the spirit and letter of the RAW (though not the RAW-as-interpreted-by-AL). You make your roll with Disadvantage, generating R1 and R2. Your result right now is min(R1,R2). Disliking the result (unsurprisingly, since it's made Disadvantage), you spend a Luck point, and roll a third die. You now may choose between min(R1,R2) and the Luck die. In effect, you're only ever choosing between two dice at a time. The Disadvantage roll leaves you with 1 die (the lower of the two), and then you roll Luck, and take the higher of the new die or the one the Disadvantage roll left you with.

In practice, this actually will have minimal difference in result from rolling Luck on a normal roll, or even an Advantaged roll. The reason is slightly subtle: you're not going to spend the Luck point if the die roll you got was acceptable. So what really happens is that it's less likely you'll spend Luck on an Advantaged roll, and more likely you'll spend Luck on a Disadvantaged one. But it's not technically going to shift odds nearly as much as blind analysis suggests, because you don't spend Luck without knowing what the result of the roll would have been without it.