D&D 5E Do you allow lucky feat and Wiz. divination portent feature for downtime activity rolls?

[Yunru]

You mean I'd training...
To improve my killing of creatures...
Despite spending my adventures killing creatures all the time...

Something doesn't sound right there.
It's called "experience" for a reason.

 

[Grognerd]

I’d allow using this. If a characters is lucky and can see into the future, chances are they will be more successful.

This. It makes the most sense, and - as others noted - it's unlikely that any downtime activity is going to break anything, so why not let the diviner (or just the lucky fella) have a leg up in mundane interaction?

 

[clearstream]

You mean I'd training...
To improve my killing of creatures...
Despite spending my adventures killing creatures all the time...

Something doesn't sound right there.
It's called "experience" for a reason.

Training to learn new techniques, that I do not currently possess, and which will indeed improve my killing of creatures (and other things, too!)

That said, if a proposed mechanic causes dissonance for a group, it's fine not to use it. If the objection is more that they don't currently have the fluff in mind to support their desired crunch: that can often be overcome.

 

[MNblockhead]

That's not a core rule, right?

Why not make the cost and time fixed? Seems more fun, than Player A needing to pay double as much and take double as long for his level up than Player B just because he rolled worse.

Nope. Not core. It is a home brew rule based on (1) the training for levels variant in the DMG, (2) with pricing adjusted based on a suggestion by [MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION] in another thread I started (click here for his post), (3) and EN5ider #23 - Master & Apprentice: Gaining New Levels With Style. I replaced the EN5ider "mojo" mechanic with an award of inspiration for a exceptional training results. Going into the full details would be tangent for this thread, but you are correct. My rules for training to level up are very much home brewed.

Now, I've found that in discussions like this I often have the concern raised that I will be harming the fun by using rules that lead to unequal results, especiall if the rules do not give equal opportunity to all characters. May it has something to do with my only having played OD&D and AD&D (1e) before a long period of time with no D&D, but this way of thinking feels alien to me.

While I like the modernization of the rules, bounded accuracy, and the overall better balance of modern D&D, even in 5e two characters are not going to have equal opportunity to do all things unless they are playing clones.

My rules are certainly more "fair" than OD&D and AD&D that capped levels for certain races, had race requirements for certain classes, and which had different XP requirements to level up for each class. I'm not bringing any of that into 5e. I'm simply using a mechanism that will make it possible for training to tougher (more time and more money needed to level up) if you roll poorly on training roles and also makes it possible for training to go very smoothly (less cost and time) and result in perks and inspiration.

I mean, in the spirit of "fairness" should I do away with all rolls for selling and buying non-mundane items. Just remove CHA roles for bargaining?

If my players hated this, sure, I could see sticking with a base non-variable cost and making the roles only apply to whether or not they get perks and inspiration from training. But the variable cost and time rewards players to take non-combat skills. If concerns are raised, rather than completely scrapping variable costs and time for training, I might provide other ways to improve a characters chances of good results during training. Already I allow inspiration to automatically bump a character up to next result tier. I could also see allowing self-study (Research downtime activity) to be used to help with training roles.

If a halfling school of Divination Wizard with the lucky feat and a saved point of inspiration has a chance for exceptionally good training results that no other character can match, well, I'm okay with that. It is his time to shine and anyone who has gone to school long enough has met someone who seems to "get all the breaks", breezing through their studies and careers on dumb luck.

 

[MNblockhead]

Characters who find themselves unable to afford the cost can find a different named trainer to try to impress (i.e. they get to reattempt their checks). I think this could have a nice feel, so long as the DM has the stomach to actually block a character who can't afford it from levelling!

I would think the training costs should be something that the party should be willing to chip in to help each other out. It helps the entire party to have a member level up. But, ultimately, it is up to the players. I certainly have the stomach to not allow someone to level up if they can't afford it. Get back into the dungeon and get that treasure, son!

 

[MNblockhead]

You mean I'd training...
To improve my killing of creatures...
Despite spending my adventures killing creatures all the time...

Something doesn't sound right there.
It's called "experience" for a reason.

Yeah because experience alone is going to teach you those new skills and abilities. Things your character has never done.

Besides, as I've stated, in this campaign you don't get any experience for killing creatures. You get experience primarily from extracting treasure. One GP of value equals one XP. There is also milestone experience (not milestone leveling, but XP given for hitting certain milestones).

 

[5ekyu]

I've been thinking about training. I like the sound of skill checks for time and costs, applied in the following way.

Say I require that a named trainer be found, who must be higher level than the trainee. This obviously becomes more difficult and more interesting as characters advanced. Characters then need to show them that they are worth taking on: the named trainer increasing their time and costs if they can't prove themselves. ("You clearly need a lot of practice and are barely worth my effort, but very well then, pay me double and it'll take twice as long!")

Characters who find themselves unable to afford the cost can find a different named trainer to try to impress (i.e. they get to reattempt their checks). I think this could have a nice feel, so long as the DM has the stomach to actually block a character who can't afford it from levelling!

I always wondered about trainer-blocked systems... why adventure at all? I mean you level and get better by training. So, why not do other things to make money then pay these tutors to get you your levels? Get a lucky score, marry well and go from pretty con man or lucky miner to 3rd level whatsit in the safety of walled splendor.

 

[Li Shenron]

By RAW it seems that players should be able to use the lucky feat or the Wizard School of Divination Portent Feature for skill checks required by downtime activities. However, given the ample opportunity for long rest during extended downtime, is this not almost guaranteeing good results?

I have a player who is considering a build that will have both. That's 5 re-rolls per long rest, two of which can be used for one check.

With XGE variants there is at least "complication" rolls, which the Lucky Feat won't help with.

I'm inclined to allow it because I like to follow RAW and I also like the idea of the trope of the lucky sob who is always finding what he needs and getting good deals. I don't think it would break anything, but this is the first campaign where downtime with figure prominently.

Has anyone used a lot of downtime activities where characters made heavy use of the lucky feat? How did that impact the game?

It's never come up, but I may probably allow it, as in general both "luck" and "foretelling" can explain almost all applications of a bonus.

For some reason I don't feel fully comfortable with allowing it to rolls that represent activities that span multiple days... but again I don't think the narrative is against it, and it's probably also not unbalancing. I might just say that such case would cost one lucky point or one portent dice every day, but in most cases it wouldn't probably matter anyway because I would not allow multiple (significant) downtime activities.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Now, I've found that in discussions like this I often have the concern raised that I will be harming the fun by using rules that lead to unequal results, especiall if the rules do not give equal opportunity to all characters. May it has something to do with my only having played OD&D and AD&D (1e) before a long period of time with no D&D, but this way of thinking feels alien to me.

While I like the modernization of the rules, bounded accuracy, and the overall better balance of modern D&D, even in 5e two characters are not going to have equal opportunity to do all things unless they are playing clones.

My rules are certainly more "fair" than OD&D and AD&D that capped levels for certain races, had race requirements for certain classes, and which had different XP requirements to level up for each class. I'm not bringing any of that into 5e. I'm simply using a mechanism that will make it possible for training to tougher (more time and more money needed to level up) if you roll poorly on training roles and also makes it possible for training to go very smoothly (less cost and time) and result in perks and inspiration.

I mean, in the spirit of "fairness" should I do away with all rolls for selling and buying non-mundane items. Just remove CHA roles for bargaining?

Wrong way to look at it imo. This is not about fairness, this is about: "Only ask players to roll for something when rolling actually results in more fun for the group."

Now in the current situation I'd say: When failing just means paying more money and spending more time, that doesn't result in more fun for the players. Also it apparently brings up issues with balance and rule interpretations which are the reason you created this thread in the first place, so it also doesn't seem to result in more fun for the DM (or at least results in more work than benefit).

So if a system just brings problems and no fun, I question if that system should even be in place.

 

[Satyrn]

Since you're homebrewing some new downtime activities, I'd homebrew a Downtime and Resting rule that essentially says that the player gets the benefit of a long rest at the start of downtime, and another at the end, but can't take any rests during.

What this would (should) effectively accomplish is that the player gets only 3 Lucky rerolls or 2 Portents no matter how long the downtime lasts, even if the character is performing more than one activity, but the character is still all rested up when the next adventure starts.

(You could create another downtime activity called Vacation that takes a week and count as a long rest.)