D&D 5E Bend Luck unusable for self?

[Full Bleed]

Starting at 6th level, you have the ability to twist fate
using your wild magic. When another creature you can
see makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving
throw, you can use your reaction and spend 2 sorcery
points to roll 1d4 and apply the number rolled as a
bonus or penalty (your choice) to the creature’s roll. You
can do so after the creature rolls but before any effects
of the roll occur.

I tried using Bend Luck for the first time tonight. But due to the bolded portion of text above, the GM ruled that it could not be used to benefit the Sorcerer *using* the ability... that it could only affect an enemy or ally.

Excluding the user of the ability seemed pretty arbitrary... and I can't come up with a reasonable justification for the limitation.

Has anyone else had this issue come up before?

 

[mellored]

I can't come up with a reasonable justification either for allowing it to be used on the sorcerer or for not allowing it.
I can't see what's it has to do with wild magic at all....

But yes, as written, it's not usable on the user. Though remember that the enemy makes saving throws against your spells, so you can use it to help land a hold person.

 

[Full Bleed]

I can't see what's it has to do with wild magic at all....

I don't mind it as a somewhat randomized element of "bending" reality. In that vein I think it's, thematically, acceptable for Wild Magic users gaining some control of the chaos they inflict on their environment.

But I do not see the sense in excluding the Sorcerer from the benefit. I would love to hear what the rationality for that is. It's their reaction. Their sorcery points. Their wild magic. They can bend the luck of every one and every thing around themselves but their own?

I half believe the notion to be so absurd, that they just assumed everyone would know that a Sorc could use it on themselves and chose the highlighted language to clarify that it could *also* be used on any other "creature(s) they could see".

As much as the language doesn't not specifically "include" them, it doesn't specifically "exclude" them either.

I could argue that it would be clearer if it said, "When the sorcerer, or any creature they can see, makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving
throw..." to explicitly *include* the Sorc. But if I demand that level of specificity to include them, then I could also argue for a greater degree of specificity that *excludes* them.

"Another" is actually a term often used for "addition" to something.

If I said, "When you see another cake, you can stab it with your fork" you would not then believe that you've lost the ability to stab your own cake with your fork, would you?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But I do not see the sense in excluding the Sorcerer from the benefit. I would love to hear what the rationality for that is. It's their reaction. Their sorcery points. Their wild magic. They can bend the luck of every one and every thing around themselves but their own?

If you want a justification, I give you Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the earth." The Sorcerer is a firm place to stand.

The wording seems clear enough to me: you can't boost your own saving throws or to-hit rolls. You can still penalize enemy saves though, so Bend Luck is still awesome.

 

[Full Bleed]

If you want a justification, I give you Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the earth." The Sorcerer is a firm place to stand.

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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

My point was more that you have to push from SOMEWHERE. You can't move yourself with a lever any more than you can pick yourself up in a bucket. Well, perhaps neither can you bend your own luck.

This is a post-hoc rationalization (trying to find a rationale that fits the provided rule text), but I think it would work. It's a theory a wild mage could plausibly form about himself or herself.

Note also that wild mages have historically been linked not to pure chaos, but rather to controlling chaos. (They also were closely associated with metamagic in AD&D sources, including the Tome of Magic where they originate.) Therefore, the idea that wild mages are defined by a "distinct lack of surety" seems questionable to me.

 

[jaelis]

If you don't like it, go ahead and change it, you won't hurt anything. Or convince your dm to change it if you're the player.

 

[Tainted Powers]

Hi! I would of though a sorcerer in deed would be able to see himself. Even if not completely but it would still suggest that you can use Bend Luck on yourself. If a ally is in 3/4 cover you can still use it on her. So why not yourself?

 

[Full Bleed]

Therefore, the idea that wild mages are defined by a "distinct lack of surety" seems questionable to me.

Of course, you're free to question it all you want. But the whole idea of something being "wild" to begin with indicates a "distinct lack of surety" in my book.

If you don't like it, go ahead and change it, you won't hurt anything. Or convince your dm to change it if you're the player.

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. He's the type of GM that would probably have played with by-the-book Weapon Speed Factors in AD&D until he realized almost no one else did. That, btw, isn't a criticism--Just a basic acknowledgement of the type of game the DM wishes to run.

So given my opinion that excluding the Sorcerer from the ability lacks a reasonable or explicit explanation, I was genuinely interested how others have been playing. I wasn't able to find this discussion anywhere... though I was able to find secondary discussions where it was pretty clear that others seemed to be playing under the assumption that the Sorc could bend their own luck.

I would of though a sorcerer in deed would be able to see himself.

I just checked... and I have determined that I can see myself quite well!

 

[mellored]

Hi! I would of though a sorcerer in deed would be able to see himself. Even if not completely but it would still suggest that you can use Bend Luck on yourself. If a ally is in 3/4 cover you can still use it on her. So why not yourself?

You can generally both see and touch yourself.

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