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

[TwoSix]

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.

I understand what it means, just that stating that player mechanics and character narration need to always be linked (or it's "bad for the game") isn't an accepted truth for certain playstyles. I personally have no problem with Lucky being a purely metagame resource, used by me as a player to demonstrate that my character is actually lucky in the narration.

 

[TwoSix]

I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a tyrannical DM. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies!

I remember when I was playing Dungeons & Dragons ... seems a thousand centuries ago. We were rolling up characters. We had all made our characters, and this other player came running after us and he was crying. He had seen the monstrosity Paul had created. We went back there, and we saw what Paul had created. A multiclass Paladin/Monk. A Monkadin.

And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of the Monkadin! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized Paul were stronger than we, because Paul could ... Paul WOULD make sure that the Monkadin had a Holy Avenger as a Monk Weapon. Paul would combine the insufferable smugness of the Paladin with the inestimable beauty of the Monk, and create a terror that could not be countenanced.

You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to create perfectly optimized characters without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us and makes us creates Paladins and all of the unholy Paladin hybrids.

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds and player of monkadins."

 

[Satyrn]

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

I randomly chose the race when creating the character. I'm not sure I'd ever have chosen a forest gnome, but I'm having a blast with the gnomishness - a swashbuckler at the core, but a dabbler in so many little things. I've used his skills (and his race's speak with beasts feafure) to give him a touch of ranger, his background to make him a rogue. I used the battlemaster's student of war for proficiency in alchemy supplies to go along with his race's minor illusion to give him a touch of wizard. I'm probably going to take Magic Adept as my next feat to cement that wizard thing (or reflavor the cantrips like acid splash into alchemical concoctions - or firebolt into a gun! that only his gnomish "ingenuity" can operate ).


Also, had so much fun with him last night when, after drinking a potion of frost giant strengthhis Strength leapt from 8 to 23!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I remember when I was playing Dungeons & Dragons ... seems a thousand centuries ago. We were rolling up characters. We had all made our characters, and this other player came running after us and he was crying. He had seen the monstrosity Paul had created. We went back there, and we saw what Paul had created. A multiclass Paladin/Monk. A Monkadin.

Paladin of Devotion 6/Monk of Long Death 12/Cthulu Warlock 2 is, mechanically, actually a pretty sweet build, with heavy armor, great saves, good melee and ranged offense, lots of crowd control options and a good action economy. (Action: Eldritch Blast or Attack x2 w/ Smite; Bonus Action: Sanctuary or Patient Defense or Hex.) But from a roleplaying perspective it's such an abomination that I call it the Sith Lord.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I understand what it means, just that stating that player mechanics and character narration need to always be linked (or it's "bad for the game") isn't an accepted truth for certain playstyles. I personally have no problem with Lucky being a purely metagame resource, used by me as a player to demonstrate that my character is actually lucky in the narration.

I'm pretty sure this thread wasn't soliciting "accepted truths" only. When someone asks an open-ended question like "Out of curiosity, what do people think on these?" they are of course going to get thoughts and opinions.

NOTHING is good for all games/tables or bad for all games/tables. If otherwise, there would be only one game (which might or might not be called "Dungeons and Dragons"), and everybody would play it the same way--and obviously that doesn't happen.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, and vice versa. I'm glad you like the metagamey version of Lucky--for you, no modifications are necessary.

 

[imdeadagain]

I was thinking about creating a halfling divination wizard with the lucky feat, I think my DM would resign in disgust if I did though lol


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I was thinking about creating a halfling divination wizard with the lucky feat, I think my DM would resign in disgust if I did though lol

I've never understood the appeal of a halfling divination wizard, or why people think DMs will hate them. Is it because you think you'd need a lot of extra time (as a player) to decide when to use your Portent and Lucky re-rolls? Is it because you think that Lucky and Portent synergize? (They don't. You can't even use Lucky and Portent on the same roll, ever, because Lucky requires a die roll and Portent obviates a die roll--you take a Portent result INSTEAD of rolling a die.) Some other reason?

 

[imdeadagain]

It was meant as a joke, a bit of lucky min-maxing if you will.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[transtemporal]

Lucky only procs 5% of the time and it only lets you roll again once. I struggle to see how that's overpowered.

The Lucky feat? It partly depends how your DM runs it but on the whole, not overpowered. Occasionally it might save your characters life or save the day but if it does, that's fine. It makes for exciting play.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lucky only procs 5% of the time and it only lets you roll again once. I struggle to see how that's overpowered.

It's not overpowered, but it's better than you make it sound here. It's somewhat equivalent to a global +N to all checks, where N is a number between 0 and 1 equal to your success rate without Lucky, which we can crudely estimate is intended to be around 60% or so based on MM design. (I can go into detail if needed but would rather not go on that tangent here.) A global +0.6 to every roll you make, ever, is sort of like +1.2 to every ability score, which, coincidentally is almost exactly what non-variant humans get.

For attack rolls and other rolls against a primary/specialized skill, it can easily be something approaching +1. Since it's on top of the regular +2 Dex bonus that halflings get, it's really quite decent from a quantitative power perspective.