D&D 5E Bend Luck unusable for self?

[Full Bleed]

However, it bend luck specifically says "another creature".

Absolutely true. And it's the thrust of the interpretation that excludes the Sorc from bending their own luck.

The questions are:

1) How are people actually using the ability despite the syntax? I'm finding many examples--out of the context of challenging this interpretation--where it's pretty clear that *many* people are allowing Sorcerers to bend their own luck. In the examples I've seen, there is never an explicit acknowledgement that they are ignoring the raw... so it seems more likely that they've simply overlooked the exclusion because it lacks an explanation why it would be that way (or they are simply interpreting "another" differently).

2) Is it, perchance, just "unfortunate" syntax where the author failed to state the obvious (that the Sorcerer could bend his own luck) in lieu of highlighting that the Sorcerer can also bend the luck of *another* creature they can see?


Taking my cake example above another way: If you're sitting at a table where everyone has a piece of cake and I give you an ability that says, "With this ability you can steal a bite of cake from another piece of cake you can see" would you assume that you can no longer take a bite from your own cake because I used the word "another"?


And here's "another" example (that due to its existence does not exclude earlier examples)... when you look at the description of Lay on Hand it says:

As an action, you can touch a creature and draw
power from the pool to restore a number of hit points
to that creature, up to the maximum amount remaining
in your pool.

Could I not argue that it says that the Paladin can only use their LoH on a "creature" they can touch"? That it fails to explicitly include themselves in the description? How much more clear would it have been for the author to say, "You can touch yourself or any creature"? Or did they just assume that no one would attempt to exclude the paladin like, perhaps, we're supposed to assume that the Sorcerer is not excluded from being able bend their own luck?

 

[Blue]

Love the quote. But I don't buy that there is anything particularly "firm" about a Wild Magic sorcerer. In fact, I'd argue that it is a distinct lack of surety that defines the class.

You are clearly mixing up in-game and out-of-game.

Mechanically, everything about the Wild Magic Sorcerer is defined. Even wild surges are all spelled out ahead of time. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what you say.

That doesn't mean a DM can't do whatever they want. But they can do that in any case, it does not make the mechanics less "firm" except when trying to rationalize what you want and the description clearly and unambiguously states is not the case.

 

[Full Bleed]

You are clearly mixing up in-game and out-of-game...

<snip>

it does not make the mechanics less "firm"

Have to disagree. I never indicated that the *mechanics* were less firm. You've connected those dots (probably because I talk about weak mechanical syntax later). But the "firm" quote came from Hemlock's creative "in game" reasoning for why the Sorcerer couldn't bend their own luck ("The Sorcerer is a firm place to stand.")

And while I respect the attempt, I rejected the conclusion that anything about the lore of a Sorcerer indicates that it's ever really "standing on firm ground". I maintained that Wild Magic is, in fact, infirm. For many other classes I think Hemlock's concept is solid with some slick philosophical word-speak to back it up.

I will concede that I, inadvertently, invited such creative explorations of the exclusion by saying: "I can't come up with a reasonable justification for the limitation" in the op.

When what I meant was that I couldn't come up with a satisfying justification for the limitation within the scope of the game (of course, I could make something up like Hemlock did)... and that I could find no justification in the rules to explain it (whereas, where there are similar exclusions, there are often explanations provided.) My hope was to find some hidden Sage Advice or core text that went into more detail... or to see exactly how many people actually ignore the inferred exclusion.

 

[jaelis]

1) How are people actually using the ability despite the syntax?

When we had a wild sorc, we played bend luck as written. The idea to alter it didn't come up.

2) Is it, perchance, just "unfortunate" syntax where the author failed to state the obvious (that the Sorcerer could bend his own luck) in lieu of highlighting that the Sorcerer can also bend the luck of *another* creature they can see?

We'll never know, but at this point it says what it says I'm afraid. That's what "rules as written" means.

The DM's comfort zone is "by the book", so short of Sage Advice indicating otherwise... or a groundswell of players adopting a particular interpretation contrary to his... he's not likely to be swayed.

I think you are out of luck then. You might find that a lot of people here will agree it would be fine to let it work on yourself. And plenty of people who would say they don't care about RAW. But I don't know that a lot of people would agree that the RAW says it works on yourself.

 

[Herobizkit]

This effect works much like the Bard's Bardic Inspiration and Cutting Words - both of which are unable to target the Bard in question.

 

[Full Bleed]

This effect works much like the Bard's Bardic Inspiration and Cutting Words - both of which are unable to target the Bard in question.

Interesting that you should mention "Bardic Inspiration":

You can inspire others through stirring words or music.
To do so, you use a bonus action on your turn to choose
one creature other than yourself within 60 feet of you
who can hear you.

Notice how much less ambiguous the syntax is there? How *clear* it is that the Bard is *excluded*? This is more typical of exclusionary language used in the rule books.

That's simply not the case with Bend Luck. There is no specific exclusion. So, again, if the author thought it obvious that the user could use it on themselves (like Lay on Hands), they might then choose the "another creature" syntax to indicate *other* viable targets.

Further, with Bardic Inspiration, it's far more *obvious* that the user would not be able to easily "inspire" themselves with words of encouragement... but, even so, the author had the wherewithal to make it clear to the player base that they could not. Not so with Bend Luck. It's not obvious at all that a Sorcerer would not be able to Bend Luck (Tides of Chaos affects self, Halfling Luck affects self, the Lucky Feat affects self, etc.) But they go with the language they did? Without specific exclusion?

I'm (willfully, I admit) not so easily sold.

 

[mellored]

The rules as written does not allow you to use bend luck on yourself.
The rules as intended.. i don't know. I'm not the author.
The rules as fun... I don't know. I'm not you and your group.
The rules as balanced... I don't see any issue with allowing it to be used on yourself.

Rule 1 is to enjoy the game. By all means, use it on yourself if that will make you and your group happier.
Personally, I like abilities that can not be used on yourself and wish every class had a few. It encourages teamwork.

Taking my cake example above another way: If you're sitting at a table where everyone has a piece of cake and I give you an ability that says, "With this ability you can steal a bite of cake from another piece of cake you can see" would you assume that you can no longer take a bite from your own cake because I used the word "another"?

You cannot use "steal cake" on your own cake, no. You already have it.

But it would not stop you from using the normal "eat cake" ability that everyone has.

Could I not argue that it says that the Paladin can only use their LoH on a "creature" they can touch"?

You can touch yourself. You are a creature. It does have any limit such as "another creature".
So it works.

 

[ad_hoc]

Tides of Chaos is for yourself.

Bend Luck is for others.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Callum Reilly]

Are y’all forgetting about Tides of Chaos? Because that is like Bend Luck but only for yourself. I think of it like this: If you confine your ability to alter chance to yourself, it works one way, but if you extend it out from yourself it works another.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=89831]Full Bleed[/MENTION] "I just checked... and I have determined that I can see myself quite well! "

Well, as long as you do not think you are another that is ok