D&D 5E Lucky feat (the defense part) question

[Chaosmancer]

Even with seeing the dice there's no guarantee that lucky turns a blow into a miss or even a crit into a non-crit. There's just a better chance of it happening.

I agree there is no guarantee, but it helps prevent a player from spending a point to re-roll when they see you rolled a 2, and then replacing your 2 with a 10 by accident

Sure, the rest (and better portion IMO) of the feat is still unaffected, but it would bother me to not be able to see what roll I'm trying to change

 

[Horwath]

Best use would be to wait until the DM tells you that you have been hit/crited. they you roll.

in case of hit you cant use your roll except if your roll is 20 or whatever the attackers crit range is. In case of crit you use your roll cause it makes no difference.

 

[Noctem]

This comes back to the fudging threads imo. The DM rolls behind a screen, calls out "I rolled x". I would ask to see the dice. But regardless, the un-modified number has to be given / shown before the player decides to use a luck point or not. That doesn't change regardless of rolling in the open or not. That's simply how the feat works. A DM refusing to give the number is simply not following the rules.

 

[Quartz]

Could you rebalance the feat by restricting it to the player's rolls only but giving additional uses? Because otherwise the feat means that the player has to know every die result that affects her, which obviates the point of hidden dice rolls.

 

[Noctem]

what need do you have of hidden dice rolls?

 

[Rune]

Does anyone else see the irony in stripping luck (by removing any element of the unknown) from the mechanics of the Lucky feat?

 

[FrogReaver]

This comes back to the fudging threads imo. The DM rolls behind a screen, calls out "I rolled x". I would ask to see the dice. But regardless, the un-modified number has to be given / shown before the player decides to use a luck point or not. That doesn't change regardless of rolling in the open or not. That's simply how the feat works. A DM refusing to give the number is simply not following the rules.

Show the rule where a DM must reveal his dice rolls?

 

[Blue]

This comes back to the fudging threads imo. The DM rolls behind a screen, calls out "I rolled x". I would ask to see the dice. But regardless, the un-modified number has to be given / shown before the player decides to use a luck point or not. That doesn't change regardless of rolling in the open or not. That's simply how the feat works. A DM refusing to give the number is simply not following the rules.

I don't agree with your reading of "simply how the feat works". This feat says: "You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you." By reading, the DM announces "an attack roll is being made against you", and you can spend lucky.

Now, I roll everything in front of my players, so this or a Bard's Cutting Words will have the effect that you say. But that is not required by the text. The only thing the feat requires you know is that an attack roll is made against you, not the value.

If you want to say "that's not how it works at my table", I'll agree it's a fine house rule since that's de facto how it would work at my table.

 

[Noctem]

Does anyone else see the irony in stripping luck (by removing any element of the unknown) from the mechanics of the Lucky feat?

I don't think that's ironic nor is that actually a good comparison. The DM not revealing the attack roll die result has nothing to do with luck factor. Rolling multiple dice is the unknown, since you don't know if the roll you add via the lucky feat will be lucky or unlucky. But really, luck in itself when it comes to the feat is fluff.

 

[Rune]

I don't think that's ironic nor is that actually a good comparison. The DM not revealing the attack roll die result has nothing to do with luck factor. Rolling multiple dice is the unknown, since you don't know if the roll you add via the lucky feat will be lucky or unlucky. But really, luck in itself when it comes to the feat is fluff.

Oh? I would argue that the DM's roll also contributes to the luck factor--but only if it's result is unknown before the player forces a reroll. This is not unlike blackjack, in which each player (but not the dealer) must play the odds based on limited information. Better information improves the ability to accurately assess probability (without actually changing the probability) and, therefore, reduces the role luck plays in the resolution.

I stand by my original assertion; any mechanic that reduces the role of luck in its resolution is ironic when attatched to a feat called "Lucky." Not bad, necessarily. Just ironic.