How good is the Lucky feat

[Skrum]

Apologize if this has been done before, but I got into a friendly disagreement with a fellow player because he insisted Lucky was far and above the best feat in the game. This seems obviously and trivially false to me, but whatever. Is this a topic of hot debate or something? What's the general feeling about Lucky?

[claypigeons]

Lucky is very good. Whether it's the 'best' is easily contested by circumstances.

It dies, however, offer one the chance to choose their own destiny. It specifically allows you to choose which die to use. Which means in the case of rolling at disadvantage on save, for instance, you could use a luck point, roll a third d20, and then choose which one you want...not just the lowest. That can be a significant enough boon to warrant taking it.

[Greywander]

Two things about the Lucky feat:

1. Anyone can make use of it. It doesn't matter what your build is, Lucky will give you an edge.

2. The less you need it, the stronger it becomes. Optimizers will get the most benefit out of it, as they'll only rarely need to use it. This might seem counter intuitive, but it makes it a lot easier to never get hit or never fail a save or ability check or whatever you're optimized for. The better optimized you are, the less often you'll need to use Lucky, and when you do use it the more likely you are to succeed on the reroll.

I do think people might overestimate the value of Lucky. It's definitely nice to have, and it can be quite satisfying when it saves you from a bad roll, but it doesn't really let you do anything you couldn't already do. It's a good feat to grab if you've already gotten all your other build-defining feats and boosted your primary ability score to 20.

[Unoriginal]

Apologize if this has been done before, but I got into a friendly disagreement with a fellow player because he insisted Lucky was far and above the best feat in the game. This seems obviously and trivially false to me, but whatever. Is this a topic of hot debate or something? What's the general feeling about Lucky?

It is hotly debated, yeah. Some are up all night for good fun, others are up all night to get Lucky.


More seriously, Lucky is one of those feats that mostly show up in optimization discussions or when you've already spent all the ASIs you needed/wanted and are spending the remaining ones on useful but not essential things.

I personally am not a fan, but there is no objective metric for what would constitute the "best" feat.

[Skrum]

It is hotly debated, yeah. Some are up all night for good fun, others are up all night to get Lucky.


More seriously, Lucky is one of those feats that mostly show up in optimization discussions or when you've already spent all the ASIs you needed/wanted and are spending the remaining ones on useful but not essential things.

I personally am not a fan, but there is no objective metric for what would constitute the "best" feat.

What you said and the comment above yours confirms my intuition: lucky is the "second best" feat in the game. As in, it's sweet to have, but it would hardly ever be worth taking when it comes to picking a feat or ASI.

Its apparent benefit is hugely magnified because it might turn a bad roll into a good one. That is very memorable, and thus feels extremely powerful. But the reality is that it's not nearly as strong as an ability that gives a consistent, regular benefit.

[Eldariel]

It's a great feat. It's also overrated by some (it's not literally broken) and underrated by some (it's certainly above average). It's hard to evaluate because it's one feat that takes a bit of player skill to use well - you need awareness of roll impact and relative likelihood of needing the reroll later to really make use of it. 3 uses is plenty for one day but it means you can't go around rerolling e.g. attack rolls except under highly exceptional circumstances.

Generally, what it is good for:
- Reroll saves. Especially if you're about to fail one of your strong saves against an effect that could really **** you over, go for it. Poisoned or such isn't usually worth saving (unless it's like Pit Fiend poison), but if you're failing Concentration (that matters: obviously if you're already mopping up and your Hypnotic Pattern doesn't really do much but hold one enemy in place that you're about to wail on anyways, that stray bolt or random aura dropping your Concentration doesn't matter) or like a Wis/Int/Cha-save against something but a fear effect (or if you're a martial and thus care about fear effects, those too), those are generally the kind of saves you should pay attention to.
- Reroll enemy critical hits. Normal hits aren't worth noting but some monsters have really nasty critical hits (basically anything that rolls a lot of dice, from lowly Hobgoblins to Mummies, Chasmes, Shadow Demons attacking from hiding, any higher level humanoid, Dragons with elemental bites, etc.) and you generally don't want to be tanking those if you can avoid it no matter who you are. So if you are fighting something that rolls a fistful of dice and you're about to get crit, make them try again.
- Key skill checks. If you rolled a 1 for that important Persuasion check and are about you get booted out of the kingdom by the evil vizier's advice with hounds on your tail, yes, that is absolutely a time you should reroll that Persuasion check. If the consequence of failure is just a bit of damage or whatever, no, don't burn it there but if it's a make-or-break kinda deal, all the yes.
- Initiative. There are times when you really need to go first and those times, if you roll 1-7 for your Initiative, you're probably rerolling it. Especially if you're a spellcaster, and especially if you have good bonuses like Alert Chronurgist where you, with a decent roll, can expect to go first and as a spellcaster, can land that key CC or summon or whatever gamechanging effect that turns the fight from a near certain disaster to an easy victory.


With rules like that, you generally get mileage out of that but you generally have enough rolls to get through at least most of the important rolls of the day. I use it as a surrogate for Res: Con or War Caster on many characters since practically speaking you don't expect to be failing that many Concentration-saves by just the right amount per day to need Res: Con/War Caster more than 3 times leaving you with the option of rerolling other things too if need be. Of course, Res: Con is great if you have odd Con but it's less amazing if you started with an even score.

I would look to pick it up by Tier 3 on most characters simply because the amount of saves that can **** your character over raises with level (especially the amount of harm a failed save can do - you can literally be rerolling a character or TPKing the party with a single bad roll) and nobody has reliable way to make those DC20+ saves so you really want to mitigate the chance of failure as much as you can, so as to minimise the risk of total existential failure.

On spellcasters (that just cast, don't fight), my first three feats are generally Alert, Lucky and Res: Con. Add to that +4 to main stat and that takes you to level 16 (assuming Custom Lineage or Variant Human). But if you're a fighting type, you need feats for fighting and don't have the luxury of trying to avoid dying (Fighter gets to pick these up around Tier 3 with those extra ASIs). It's still a great tanking feat in particular, because of the aforementioned ability to reroll crits.

[Skrum]

Spoiler

Show

It's a great feat. It's also overrated by some (it's not literally broken) and underrated by some (it's certainly above average). It's hard to evaluate because it's one feat that takes a bit of player skill to use well - you need awareness of roll impact and relative likelihood of needing the reroll later to really make use of it. 3 uses is plenty for one day but it means you can't go around rerolling e.g. attack rolls except under highly exceptional circumstances.

Generally, what it is good for:
- Reroll saves. Especially if you're about to fail one of your strong saves against an effect that could really **** you over, go for it. Poisoned or such isn't usually worth saving (unless it's like Pit Fiend poison), but if you're failing Concentration (that matters: obviously if you're already mopping up and your Hypnotic Pattern doesn't really do much but hold one enemy in place that you're about to wail on anyways, that stray bolt or random aura dropping your Concentration doesn't matter) or like a Wis/Int/Cha-save against something but a fear effect (or if you're a martial and thus care about fear effects, those too), those are generally the kind of saves you should pay attention to.
- Reroll enemy critical hits. Normal hits aren't worth noting but some monsters have really nasty critical hits (basically anything that rolls a lot of dice, from lowly Hobgoblins to Mummies, Chasmes, Shadow Demons attacking from hiding, any higher level humanoid, Dragons with elemental bites, etc.) and you generally don't want to be tanking those if you can avoid it no matter who you are. So if you are fighting something that rolls a fistful of dice and you're about to get crit, make them try again.
- Key skill checks. If you rolled a 1 for that important Persuasion check and are about you get booted out of the kingdom by the evil vizier's advice with hounds on your tail, yes, that is absolutely a time you should reroll that Persuasion check. If the consequence of failure is just a bit of damage or whatever, no, don't burn it there but if it's a make-or-break kinda deal, all the yes.
- Initiative. There are times when you really need to go first and those times, if you roll 1-7 for your Initiative, you're probably rerolling it. Especially if you're a spellcaster, and especially if you have good bonuses like Alert Chronurgist where you, with a decent roll, can expect to go first and as a spellcaster, can land that key CC or summon or whatever gamechanging effect that turns the fight from a near certain disaster to an easy victory.


With rules like that, you generally get mileage out of that but you generally have enough rolls to get through at least most of the important rolls of the day. I use it as a surrogate for Res: Con or War Caster on many characters since practically speaking you don't expect to be failing that many Concentration-saves by just the right amount per day to need Res: Con/War Caster more than 3 times leaving you with the option of rerolling other things too if need be. Of course, Res: Con is great if you have odd Con but it's less amazing if you started with an even score.

I would look to pick it up by Tier 3 on most characters simply because the amount of saves that can **** your character over raises with level (especially the amount of harm a failed save can do - you can literally be rerolling a character or TPKing the party with a single bad roll) and nobody has reliable way to make those DC20+ saves so you really want to mitigate the chance of failure as much as you can, so as to minimise the risk of total existential failure.

On spellcasters (that just cast, don't fight), my first three feats are generally Alert, Lucky and Res: Con. Add to that +4 to main stat and that takes you to level 16 (assuming Custom Lineage or Variant Human). But if you're a fighting type, you need feats for fighting and don't have the luxury of trying to avoid dying (Fighter gets to pick these up around Tier 3 with those extra ASIs). It's still a great tanking feat in particular, because of the aforementioned ability to reroll crits.

You make a good case. I do like the idea of using it strategically like that, especially as characters get to higher levels. It's not as bad as I was thinking.

Still.....guy I'm talking to says it beat out an ASI, on a fighter, at 4th level. That seems insane to me.

[Rukelnikov]

Spoiler

Show

You make a good case. I do like the idea of using it strategically like that, especially as characters get to higher levels. It's not as bad as I was thinking.

Still.....guy I'm talking to says it beat out an ASI, on a fighter, at 4th level. That seems insane to me.

Well, im more inclined to consider Lucky amongst the best feats in the game than otherwise. Point is, is not a build enabling feat, as you yourself mentioned a couple posts ago.

At 4th lvl as a fighter, you are better off taking something that will enable you to fulfill your role better, GWM, PAM, XBE, SS, Sentinel, something like that. Thing is, there are only so many feats that grant you (meaningful) support for your role, and no matter what that role is, it will almost assuredly have to make dice rolls at one point or another, even if its to make saving throws.

And thus eventually most builds will benefit from being Lucky. And IMO it's not a stretch to say that a feat which is not the priority for anyone but its very useful to everyone is the best feat in the game.

[Jerrykhor]

I mean, if you think its not that great, then nobody can change your mind.

But you're wrong about it not being better than ASI. Absolutely wrong.

[LudicSavant]

Lucky is very good. Whether it's the 'best' is easily contested by circumstances.

I concur.

Strong feat. Not "far and above the best" feat.

[Zhorn]

It specifically allows you to choose which die to use. Which means in the case of rolling at disadvantage on save, for instance, you could use a luck point, roll a third d20, and then choose which one you want...not just the lowest. That can be a significant enough boon to warrant taking it.

For Skrum I'd say take the above with a grain of salt and always check with your DM on how THEY run the feat at their tables, as the above method is not universal.

Depending on your DM; there are three different ways that interaction will go for pairing Lucky with Advantage/Disadvantage:

1. Lucky turns any Advantage/Disadvantage into your choice of the 3 dice results.
2. Resolve Advantage/Disadvantage first, they apply Lucky to the single resultant die as normal.
3. Apply Lucky to one of the two dice rolled for advantage/disadvantage, then apply the rules for advantage/disadvantage as normal.

Both rulings (1) and (3) are in the Sage Advice Compendium, and (2) isn't all that uncommon either.

It is still a good feat for almost any build under and of these three rulings, but how it ranks compared to other ASI options changes a bit if your DM isn't fond of ruling (1).

[Eldariel]

For Skrum I'd say take the above with a grain of salt and always check with your DM on how THEY run the feat at their tables, as the above method is not universal.

Depending on your DM; there are three different ways that interaction will go for pairing Lucky with Advantage/Disadvantage:

1. Lucky turns any Advantage/Disadvantage into your choice of the 3 dice results.
2. Resolve Advantage/Disadvantage first, they apply Lucky to the single resultant die as normal.
3. Apply Lucky to one of the two dice rolled for advantage/disadvantage, then apply the rules for advantage/disadvantage as normal.

Both rulings (1) and (3) are in the Sage Advice Compendium, and (2) isn't all that uncommon either.

It is still a good feat for almost any build under and of these three rulings, but how it ranks compared to other ASI options changes a bit if your DM isn't fond of ruling (1).

Yeah, this is an interaction to clear up since RAW is stupid on this front. I personally run it as follows:
Advantage + Lucky: Roll 3, pick best.
Disadvantage + Lucky: Roll 3, pick middle.

This feels most consistent and they can all just be rolled at once without regard for which is the Lucky die and which the other dice. But this is by no means RAW.

Spoiler

Show

You make a good case. I do like the idea of using it strategically like that, especially as characters get to higher levels. It's not as bad as I was thinking.

Still.....guy I'm talking to says it beat out an ASI, on a fighter, at 4th level. That seems insane to me.

There are some edge cases where I'd consider that, like if I were running a Fighter who wants to tank more than anything. The ability to reroll enemy crits is huge for a frontliner: you are unlikely to get hit by non-crits so the reroll is likely to result in a miss removing a huge spike of damage 3/day, while also giving you cushion for getting disabled by save-or-****-yous. Indeed, I'd rate Lucky as a "great tank feat" for Fighters. Now, builds that want to/can afford to take a tank feat at 4, that's a bigger question but e.g. Spear & Board Vuman PAM Duelist Battlemaster has their only relevant feat already and can easily afford Lucky on 4 though of course this means they put resources into defense instead of offense (PAM Battlemaster has plenty of tools to be disruptive already).

But that's not strictly wrong even though Fighter is much defined by their offense. Could take Heavy Armor Master on 4, Crusher [using Quarterstaff] on 6, Lucky on 8 and be a really disruptive tanky mofo with still 18 Str. Then on 12 Res: Wis, +2 Str on 14, etc. By and large though, generally Fighter needs to work on their offense first since that's literally their only contribution. Battlemaster is a bit of an exception on that front. Of course, as Battlemaster you have the lure of those extra dice from feats, which do add a bunch to your SR contributions, which does raise the opportunity cost of picking up these feats instead.

[Hytheter]

It depends on your play environment. I largely play one-shot discord text games where more than one fight in a session is unsual, and Lucky truly shines there. Being able to reroll on demand can drastically change the path of an encounter, and being able to do it three times in one fight is pretty fantastic.

It definitely has the advantage that it's generically good - anyone can use it.

[diplomancer]

Any argument about a feat that says "this is the absolute best use of an ASI under any circumstance" is wrong.

That said, Lucky is probably the best "all-around" feat, since every single character benefits from it. For that very reason, more specialized feats are often better/more urgent.

[longgone]

Yeah, this is an interaction to clear up since RAW is stupid on this front. I personally run it as follows:
Advantage + Lucky: Roll 3, pick best.
Disadvantage + Lucky: Roll 3, pick middle.

RAW is quite clear. It's roll 3, pick whichever you want. This is also clarified in Sage Advice which also gives alternatives for DMs who wants to play it differently.

Either way, it's a good feat but not unbalanced.

[Eldariel]

RAW is quite clear.

I know. I said RAW is stupid.

[Contrast]

I mean, if you think its not that great, then nobody can change your mind.

But you're wrong about it not being better than ASI. Absolutely wrong.

I would never take Lucky over an ASI to a main stat. Even as a variant human I'm unconvinced you don't have at least 1 better option to pick.

I think Lucky is probably the most overrated feat in the game which is mostly surprising because it is actually one of the better feats - some people just seem to think its super broken and it really really isn't, its just generically and solidly good. I've played lots of games with people with Lucky and its never been more impactful than, say, PAM or GWM/SS. Most builds would potentially have space for Lucky by level 16. At level 12 though pretty much no-one should have picked it up if they were trying to fully optimise for my money.

It is also worth noting that the power of the feat changes heavily depending how many encounters/situations for normally get into in a given day. 1-2 and it will seem more powerful, 6-8 and it'll seem less powerful.

Personally I think I'd almost always have some random flavour feat that I'd be more interested in pursuing than adding Lucky.

[Waazraath]

More seriously, Lucky is one of those feats that mostly show up in optimization discussions or when you've already spent all the ASIs you needed/wanted and are spending the remaining ones on useful but not essential things.

I personally am not a fan, but there is no objective metric for what would constitute the "best" feat.

This. And even after haven taking essential feats/stat increases for a build, I think it has pretty fierce competition from a feat like Alert.

[Eldariel]

I would never take Lucky over an ASI to a main stat. Even as a variant human I'm unconvinced you don't have at least 1 better option to pick.

As a caster, I've done it more than once. I usually haven't ended up regretting it (though preparing 1 spell less is rough). Unlike martials, casters don't need feats for their basic proficiency so their ASIs are free and while casting stat improvements are nice, Lucky goes a long way towards helping you succeed on Counterspell checks, Dispel checks, Concentration checks, Initiative, etc. so it's got quite significant perks (notably in things that are otherwise very hard to buff like Counterspell-checks; +1 from casting stat is far lesser a buff than the reroll from Lucky and you aren't casting Counterspell often enough for Lucky's limited uses to come into play). While being limited to at most 3 encounters per day does suck, most of those encounters tend to be quite trivial so you don't end up burning Lucky except in harder ones and in those you tend to get good value for your money.

[longgone]

I know. I said RAW is stupid.

And that it needed clearing up. It doesn't, it is already clear.

[Eldariel]

And that it needed clearing up. It doesn't, it is already clear.

It needs clearing up, not because RAW is unclear but because RAW is stupid. You should check with your DM if they follow RAW even in cases where it makes no sense; these are the types of things DMs commonly rule however they want and thus you should ask about it before it comes up and without assuming they will follow RAW because, at least based on anecdotal experience, RAW-followers seem to be in the minority on this topic.

[Lunali]

Lucky is the best feat in the same way that con is #1 for stats. It's rarely the best feat for any given character, but it's always a good feat, making it better overall than any other feat.

As for whether it's better than an ASI, that depends on your criteria. If you're just looking for the largest boost in effectiveness, an ASI will probably be better as it applies to every roll with that stat. If you're looking for something that makes the game more fun, feats (lucky included) are generally better.

[MoiMagnus]

Lucky's power also vary depending on your day's length.
If you make only 10 d20 rolls a day, Lucky is going to be significantly stronger than if you make 100 of them.

[shipiaozi]

Lucky is a really great feat, but nowhere close to CE, PAM, Inspiring Leader or -5/+10

[msfnc]

I rarely reject a pc build that’s brought to my table. One of those rare times occurred recently, when a player showed up with a halfling divination Wizard, with lucky and second chance. I thought it was a cool build, but I didn’t let them play it. Portents, Lucky, Luck, and Second Chance all working together is a bit much. They named the pc ‘Faqyu Dierolls’. They expected the rejection, and had a backup pc built. With Lucky and Elven Accuracy.

If you just want to reroll all the dice, go play Yahtzee or Savage Worlds...

[Scarlet Knight]

I feel it is the best feat, so much so I refused to take it so not to ruin my game.

What if the DM made all his NPCs lucky?

Imagine a high level fighter is rolling to hit you, & you need him to miss or you're put out of the battle? You're ok ! Oh but wait! He's lucky...so...roll... you go down.

You get the drop on a Mind Flayer...oh sorry...he's lucky & goes first.

The wizard toying with your party fails his save! He's held! Nope, try again.

Nothing is more versatile and can ruin everybody's day in more ways than Luck.

[diplomancer]

I feel it is the best feat, so much so I refused to take it so not to ruin my game.

What if the DM made all his NPCs lucky?

Imagine a high level fighter is rolling to hit you, & you need him to miss or you're put out of the battle? You're ok ! Oh but wait! He's lucky...so...roll... you go down.

You get the drop on a Mind Flayer...oh sorry...he's lucky & goes first.

The wizard toying with your party fails his save! He's held! Nope, try again.

Nothing is more versatile and can ruin everybody's day in more ways than Luck.

Lucky on enemy NPCs is specially overpowered for the same reason that it's overpowered in a 5 minute adventuring day campaign; after all, from the NPC perspective, it almost always IS a 30 seconds adventuring day! Your examples clearly show that, specially the one about the enemy fighter; common opinion about the feat is that it is good UNLESS you do things like using it to redo a regular attack.

Of course, that says very little about its power in a regular campaign, except as a reminder, yet again, that 5e is not balanced around a 5 minutes adventuring day.

[jas61292]

I think Lucky is both an annoyingly good feat, and also super overrated.

Feats are a massive investment. You are giving up a +2 to your ability scores to get it. A +1 to all of your most common rolls is far and away more powerful that a couple of rerolls. Its not even particularly close, in my opinion. What's more, when compared with other feats, Lucky does not let you do anything new or different. You are investing an ASI into simply being slightly more likely to succeed at what you already do, but often not to the same extent as simply boosting your ability scores.

Additionally, Lucky, like all long rest based things, often gets vastly overrated online where a lot of people admittedly do not follow the games encounter guidelines. Yes, it is absolutely a more powerful ability when you have very few encounters per day. But if you do stick to the guidelines, having a single reroll every other encounter is very, very underwhelming.

That being said, yes, Lucky is still good. While in the abstract it is probably weaker than many alternatives, you choose wh,en it comes up, which does increase its power. Furthermore, it is applicable all the time with any character, which is very nice. I think the people who have been saying it is always one of the strongest feats, but never the actual best choice, are hitting the nail on the head. It is never bad to have, but it is rarely going to be optimal, outside very high levels where other feats and ASIs have already been acquired.

Now, I also referred to it as "annoyingly good," and the reason for that is that, in my personal opinion, a feat so bland and flavorless, that adds next to nothing non-mechanical to the game, does not deserve to be as good as it is. Despite its name, Lucky does very little to make a character actually feel all that lucky. Sure, its a "I won't fail that crucial save" button, but that does not translate well to making the character feel actually lucky. It is super common for someone without the feat to roll better on average than someone with it (even after accounting for rerolls). What's more, there is no particular reason that any successes from Lucky rerolls represent anything more lucky than just succeeding on it normally. I mean... how do you get lucky on a concentration save? ("I was about to lose concentration, but then, suddenly.... I didn't." Yeah, OK). To me, lucky is what you are when you accidentally push the right level to solve a puzzle, or mindlessly trip over valuable treasure. It's not hitting with the occasional extra attack, or only taking a normal hit instead of a crit.

Simply put, I don't like Lucky. And I don't think it is a top choice for anyone. But it is never a bad choice, and I would never tell someone they screwed up by picking it.

[Keravath]

Lucky is at best a second tier feat. In most cases, an ASI to bump stats can be significantly better than Lucky over the long term.

Some folks seem to think Lucky is overpowered for some reason ... I have no understanding of that viewpoint since in my experience, even most optimizers won't bother with Lucky until level 16 or 19 when they don't have anything better to take.

However, Lucky is a feat that will work for any character build, this makes it a common choice once all the actually useful feats/ASI for a particular build have been used.

Lucky has a couple of good applications
1) Mitigate a critical hit by an opponent
2) Attempt to make an important save or skill check that you have already failed

The problem with saves and skill checks is that if it is an easy roll then most of the time the character makes it the first time and Lucky is an insurance policy for the low probability fail events - and Lucky can still fail on the second attempt.

On the other hand, for difficult skill checks/saves then the odds of failing the first time are pretty high and once you have failed, the odds of failing the second time are the same as the first - so even with Lucky you still probably fail.

I think the main reason some folks have a different opinion of Lucky is a combination of observational/memory bias and actual Luck. Successes with Lucky are far more memorable and even more memorable the more important a die roll. However, if you fail then a second fail with Lucky isn't particularly memorable. The second is that if you happen to actually get lucky then the second roll can allow for changing a failure into a success. Some players can be very lucky so that almost every time they re-roll with Lucky they succeed. This is very memorable but it is also a side effect of the player actually being lucky and not the feat if they succeed regularly on low probability die rolls.

The three uses/day of Lucky is extremely limiting except in one scenario ... if the D&D game has only one encounter/fight in an adventuring day and the players know that then Lucky becomes more powerful since the player can use all three uses in one combat. This could potentially swing things since a Lucky paladin could use the feat to land extra smites for example, or a rogue to succeed on a sneak attack or similar - applications of the feat which would normally be excluded if you were saving it for important saves and crit mitigation - however, if players know there is only one fight then they figure that they might as well use it.

Finally, I've seen several characters with the Lucky feat - I have it on one of mine, I am DMing a character using it and I have played with a small number of folks who had it. For the most part, it has been very weak in practice - it either doesn't get used waiting for an important event to use it on or it gets used up and isn't available when that time arrives. Perhaps 2-3 times in all the uses has it made any difference - usually, if they failed the first time then the odds are they will fail the second. That is just my personal experience with the feat - it is generally a weak feat that makes a good last choice for almost any character.

[JNAProductions]

I feel it is the best feat, so much so I refused to take it so not to ruin my game.

What if the DM made all his NPCs lucky?

Imagine a high level fighter is rolling to hit you, & you need him to miss or you're put out of the battle? You're ok ! Oh but wait! He's lucky...so...roll... you go down.

You get the drop on a Mind Flayer...oh sorry...he's lucky & goes first.

The wizard toying with your party fails his save! He's held! Nope, try again.

Nothing is more versatile and can ruin everybody's day in more ways than Luck.

I'll echo Diplomancer a bit in response to this.

If your DM has a pool of three Luck Points for use per Long Rest on any NPC, that'd probably be fine. If every NPC has their own pool of three Luck Points, for a decent chunk of them, they won't make more than three d20 rolls, because they die fast.

To the OP and general thrust of the thread: Lucky is good. There's no character it's bad on-some make more use of it than others, but no character would find it useless. Is it the best, though? Not in my opinion. It's dang good, but certainly not always better than an ASI or more focused feat.