D&D 5E Thoughts on Halfling "Lucky" trait and the "Lucky" feat

[Oofta]

*Falling from any height and using reaction to land without damage even at middle levels (generally narrated with a small Dragonball Z style crater on landing).

You mean they don't just have expertise in the superhero landing pose?

 

[TwoSix]

I'm very torn on the Lucky feat. It's very powerful and as a player I love it; but I also hate it both as a player and as a DM because it's so very metagamey. Whenever you have to make a decision whether or not to "use your luck", you're being pulled right out of the fantasy world and back to a bunch of people sitting around a table trying to decide whether or not to roll some extra dice. It's immersion-breaking and dissociative.

So I love it because it's very strong and versatile, but I hate it because it damages the fun of the game.

Fortunately, the problem is fixable: ask the player to declare in advance (at character creation time, although he's free to change it whenever) specifically what kind of lucky he is, and then the DM will apply the luck when needed just like any other game rule. "I'm lucky at saving throws" means Luck automatically gets invoked whenever he fails a saving throw; "I'm lucky at making precise shots with my bow" means Luck gets invoked whenever you miss on a Sharpshooter attack; "I'm lucky at anything involving redheads" means Lucky gets invoked on any miss/saving throw failure/ability check failure/initiative roll involving a redhead, even a redhead in disguise. Or he could specify a combination of these, or even "I'm Lucky at everything" to invoke his luck on any failure whatsoever (which means he'll probably run out of luck dice really fast).

This doesn't increase the power of the Luck feat at all, but it prevents it from being a dissociated mechanic, so it doesn't hurt the game. The PC doesn't have to make any decisions about luck during the game, and now neither does the player, so the player can put himself fully into the shoes of the PC and just roleplay.

"Dissociative", "immersion", and "metagamey" in the same post? Somebody likes to live dangerously.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

I think the feat itself definitely is a bit powerful. The trait less so but we do use critical misses and ironically, the halfling has used this ability 3 times in one battle (and on two rerolls they ended up being criticals - lol) which kind of put the spotlight on this so I was just curious what everyone else thought. Even the player thought that was a bit much as it could be unlimited. I'm not necessarily looking to change it now but just looking for feedback and opinions.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

"Dissociative", "immersion", and "metagamey" in the same post? Somebody likes to live dangerously.

What are you implying?

 

[Satyrn]

I'm very torn on the Lucky feat. It's very powerful and as a player I love it; but I also hate it both as a player and as a DM because it's so very metagamey. Whenever you have to make a decision whether or not to "use your luck", you're being pulled right out of the fantasy world and back to a bunch of people sitting around a table trying to decide whether or not to roll some extra dice. It's immersion-breaking and dissociative.

Heh, I think you've talked me into getting this feat for my gnome battlemaster. What you listed as a negative is a big fat positive for my group, I think. The rest of the table with be jealous every time I wonder "hmmm, should I roll this sweet shiny d20?"

Plus, it'll make my gnome battlemaster a bit more like the halfling rogue he keeps getting mistaken for - just because he's short.

 

[Satyrn]

WHAT'S WRONG WITH MONKS!!!111??!!!

Sorry, I meant to say ... would you mind explaining the basis for this contentious issue that you have raised in passing?

I think the biggest problem with monks is they're not paladins.

 

[thethain]

"Dissociative", "immersion", and "metagamey" in the same post? Somebody likes to live dangerously.

Its a feat that when used, the player is using it, and there's not really a way to even imply the character itself is using it unless you are willing to RP someone who gets precognition visions of the future. Also it inherently doesn't work too well with secret rolls, which is a valid play option.

 

[Oofta]

Heh, I think you've talked me into getting this feat for my gnome battlemaster. What you listed as a negative is a big fat positive for my group, I think. The rest of the table with be jealous every time I wonder "hmmm, should I roll this sweet shiny d20?"

Plus, it'll make my gnome battlemaster a bit more like the halfling rogue he keeps getting mistaken for - just because he's short.

Why not a halfling battlemaster? Ooh ... darn I am getting so tired of rerolling all the time!

 

[jgsugden]

It (both Luck related abilities) doesn't break the game. It is evocative. It adds to the fun. Enjoy it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*