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

[Noctem]

Blackjack is not about luck. It's about math. If you go play blackjack basing your decisions off luck (or in fact any gambling in general), you're in for a bad time. Poker, etc.. also aren't about luck, but math.

http://probability.infarom.ro/blackjack.html

But back to the feat in this table top game...

 

[Rune]

Blackjack is not about luck. It's about math. If you go play blackjack basing your decisions off luck (or in fact any gambling in general), you're in for a bad time. Poker, etc.. also aren't about luck, but math.

http://probability.infarom.ro/blackjack.html

But back to the feat in this table top game...

I believe you just said the same thing I just said.

In order to do better in blackjack (or poker, since you brought it up), you need to reduce the luck factor by gaining as much information about your probabilities as possible and then analyzing that data to determine your course of action. Of course, the actual probabilities don't change with that information, which means that, yes, luck still does play a role in blackjack and poker, just a reduced one.

And, since the exact same thing is also true of the "Lucky" feat, all of the above is, indeed, relevant.

Giving that information to the players reduces the role luck plays in resolving the outcome. Which strikes me as ironic. Nothing more, nor less.

 

[Kalshane]

I believe you just said the same thing I just said.

In order to do better in blackjack (or poker, since you brought it up), you need to reduce the luck factor by gaining as much information about your probabilities as possible and then analyzing that data to determine your course of action. Of course, the actual probabilities don't change with that information, which means that, yes, luck still does play a role in blackjack and poker, just a reduced one.

And, since the exact same thing is also true of the "Lucky" feat, all of the above is, indeed, relevant.

Giving that information to the players reduces the role luck plays in resolving the outcome. Which strikes me as ironic. Nothing more, nor less.

The feat is meant to replicate the character having good luck, not the player.

 

[Rune]

The feat is meant to replicate the character having good luck, not the player.

Which is an ironic intent. (Or, should I say, it is an ironic assumed intent, since that depends largely on interpretation of the mechanics in question.)