D&D (2024) Should "Lucky" remain in the game?

[Clint_L]

What are thoughts on the feat "Lucky," and the related racial ability "Halfling Luck"? I have never liked either, and would be perfectly happy to see them gone. I think they negatively effect the game's story, because they are typically used (Halfling luck always used, by design) to circumvent critical failures, critical hits, etc., and take a lot of impact out of the game.

I've been playing this game for better than 40 years, and in my experience failures are the most important part of the game. They are what give the story tension and stakes, and anything that makes it too hard for players to fail also makes it that much less exciting when they succeed. I like to keep that roll of the dice as sacrosanct as possible, and every time lucky is used it kind of feels like the wind goes out of the sails. It feels like easy mode.

So seeing a version of it as a Level 1 feat for OneD&D really disheartened me.

 

[James Gasik]

Considering that critical failures and fumbles aren't core rules, I don't think Halfling Luck or Lucky were designed with such things in mind.

However, if someone wants to go out of their way to be a Halfling or take a Feat instead of an ASI just to obviate a house rule they find annoying, I don't really see how that's any different than taking Resilient to shore up a bad saving throw or playing a race with advantage on saves.

 

[payn]

Doesnt bother me in the least. One maybe two characters will have it.

 

[dumdragon]

As a player and a DM, I like them. I'd be sad to see them go.
Don't be afraid to to give them to an NPC . What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Horwath]

No!

 

[Maxperson]

What are thoughts on the feat "Lucky," and the related racial ability "Halfling Luck"? I have never liked either, and would be perfectly happy to see them gone. I think they negatively effect the game's story, because they are typically used (Halfling luck always used, by design) to circumvent critical failures, critical hits, etc., and take a lot of impact out of the game.

I've been playing this game for better than 40 years, and in my experience failures are the most important part of the game. They are what give the story tension and stakes, and anything that makes it too hard for players to fail also makes it that much less exciting when they succeed. I like to keep that roll of the dice as sacrosanct as possible, and every time lucky is used it kind of feels like the wind goes out of the sails. It feels like easy mode.

So seeing a version of it as a Level 1 feat for OneD&D really disheartened me.

Luck isn't going anywhere unless you get lucky.

 

[billd91]

I have thoroughly enjoyed the various lucky feats/abilities in 5e. We now taunt the halfling players who roll that 2 on the die for rolling the worst initial result a halfling can roll.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I wouldn't mind if Lucky went away, but Halflings Luck has never bothered me. Mostly because then it seems like halfling PCs roll more of the "Halfling's Nat 1," aka 2.

 

[beancounter]

Lucky is OP, and should be removed imho.

 

[Ancalagon]

Lucky is OP, and should be removed imho.

the new luck has been nerfed significantly...