D&D 5E DMs, how are you managing the Lucky feat?

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Now I'm at work, so I don't have book in front of me. But I'm guessing that lucky has one of those damn "after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined," clauses. Personally I tend to ignore that. I don't mind the idea of declaring your reroll before the results are given, but for me it just isn't feasible.

let us say my lucky player rolls a 5, and I know he has a +7, and I know that 5 + 7 is nowhere near the 20 he needs. I do this quick calculation practically instantaneously, and simply announce the roll as a failure. "Wait!" the player cries, "I was going to use lucky!" By RAW, I just screwed him out of his ability. Or maybe I don't jump the gun, maybe I let the player do his own math. "12" he announces glumly. I reply that he missed. "Wait! I was still thinking whether it would be worth using a luck point!" Damn I did it again.

For me, have to take the extra step of asking the player whether he wants to use a luck point every time he rolls or I roll against him adds a completely unnecessary step that over the the course of an entire session or campain adds up to a lot of wasted time. Besides I've never noticed any imbalance in letting them roll after the the result has been announced.

 

[Sadras]

I manage it fine with an auto-ban on the feat!

 

[Mercule]

Now I'm at work, so I don't have book in front of me. But I'm guessing that lucky has one of those damn "after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined," clauses. Personally I tend to ignore that. I don't mind the idea of declaring your reroll before the results are given, but for me it just isn't feasible.

Agreed. It's a weird line.

Consider, for example, once the players have figured out that goblins have a 15 AC (or whatever, I'm not grabbing the book) -- assuming the DM doesn't just tell them outright. Now they know whether they've hit or not, immediately what the "results" are because they know their own attack bonus. Does that mean you can't use Lucky if you know the target number? That's stupid.

It hasn't been tested too strongly, yet, but my ruling is that the player has a reasonable period of time to announce. What's a "reasonable period"? Generally, the time it takes me to figure out who goes next. If the damage is really high and they say, "How much? I use 'Lucky'," it's too late. If there's a save involved after an attack, and I've asked them to roll the save, it's too late to force a reroll of the attack. It's a total judgment call, but I'm comfortable with that, as I expect anyone at my table to be. The flip side is that an astute player will notice that I generally move much more slowly when I think their characters are in real danger, just to give them time to think, plan, and use abilities.

 

[Thank Dog]

The problem with the "before the results are determined" thing is that most DM's will call out things like, "Does an attack against AC 20 hit you?" Well, that would technically qualify as being too late but at the same time, you were never given the opportunity to use Lucky before the result was determined.

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem with the "before the results are determined" thing is that most DM's will call out things like, "Does an attack against AC 20 hit you?" Well, that would technically qualify as being too late but at the same time, you were never given the opportunity to use Lucky before the result was determined.

Easy to adjudicate. You want the reroll? Spend the luck point.

 

[Tzarevitch]

The problem is the sloppy 5e action system makes this type of ability harder to understand than it needs to be. The easiest way to do it is to disregard what the feat says. DM makes the roll and determines whether it hits or not, and then it's on the player to quickly state that he wants to use his luck and reroll. Handle it like a 4e immediate interrupt power. Several players in my 4e game have powers like this. They're easy to adjudicate if the player does it after the DM announces hit or miss as long as they do it before the DM rolls damage. If the players aren't familiar with using it, the DM can pause for a moment to give them a bit of extra time, but believe me, they'll quickly learn when to call out that they're using their luck.

 

[Thank Dog]

The problem is the sloppy 5e action system makes this type of ability harder to understand than it needs to be.

What about the 5e action system makes it any harder to understand than it would be in 4e or 3e or 2e or 1e?

 

[Tzarevitch]

What about the 5e action system makes it any harder to understand than it would be in 4e or 3e or 2e or 1e?

4e had a lot of these actions and therefore had clear consistent rules on when they took place. 5e does not. That's why people are having such a hard time with the sequence of events. When using the Lucky feat on your own rolls, it occurs after you roll the d20 but before you determine the outcome. That's because you can see the first result and you know when to use it. When using the feat on attack rolls against you it doesn't state when you have to use it. That's poor design and you can already see the arguments it causes. There are really only 2 ways to resolve how to do it: if the DM shows his rolls, the player can see what the roll was and get a clue whether you should use it or not the same as the player does if he is rerolling his own roll. If the DM, like most of them, does not show the players the rolls, the only available clue as to when the player can use the reroll is when the DM announces hit or miss. 3e and earlier editions really didn't have these types of actions (I can't think of any of them off of the top of my head). If they occurred at all, adjudication was completely ad hoc.

 

[MortalPlague]

The problem is the sloppy 5e action system makes this type of ability harder to understand than it needs to be. The easiest way to do it is to disregard what the feat says. DM makes the roll and determines whether it hits or not, and then it's on the player to quickly state that he wants to use his luck and reroll.

Aside from the jab at the action economy (I'm a fan of the less-structured format of 5th Edition), this is spot on. I have three PCs with lucky across three games, and this is how I run it. The feat feels perfectly balanced, in that it almost always comes up in a key situation, but it doesn't break the game.

 

[transtemporal]

Lucky is problematic and one of the few rules in the game that I'm genuinely struggling to understand simply due to the wording. On the one hand it could be read that if you wish to spend a luck point, you can roll a second d20 and if you like the new roll, you can spend the luck point and use it, or not spend the luck point and use the original roll. On the other hand it could be read that if you want to roll a second d20 at all, that you have to spend the luck point and then decide which roll to use.

The first interpretation is open to abuse as it essentially means you could roll 2d20 for everything and only spend a luck point when your designated "primary" d20 is undesirable. The second interpretation, however, makes it only slightly better than Inspiration since you control when you have it and don't which is a bit weak for the price of a feat.

Seems pretty clear to me. You roll 2d20 for important rolls, if one of them is low and one of them is high, spend a luck point. You can wait to see the rolls but you have to declare whether you're spending a luck point before the outcome is determined. Works like the Battlemaster Precision Strike maneuver.

I don't think this is a big deal, the PC doesn't have unlimited luck points so they're only going to use them for important rolls.