Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8692253" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Oh, sorry. I didn't realize "the halfling is too lucky to have something catastrophic happen to them" was now "the halfling race is too lucky to have something befall the entire race" It also doesn't affect the incredibly lucky races of the Gnomes, Dwarves, Elves, Goliaths, Firbolgs, Centaurs, Satyrs. Man, there sure are a lot of races that are lucky huh? Oh wait, you don't mean that either. Weird. So, since we are still talking about a single halfling in a party of adventurers like we have been this entire time, as a representative of their race... maybe don't go shifting the goalposts?Interesting. Failure isn't bad luck. But success is good luck? So, halflings have good luck because they succeed more often, but failure isn't bad luck it is just.... what? After all, my X% more likely to succeed was met with "luck is luck" Because, you know, if I was laying on the ground bleeding to death... I'd say that I must have had some pretty bad luck to end up in that position. Normally, if I had good luck, I wouldn't be laying on the ground bleeding to death. Whether or not a particular six seconds gets me closer faster doesn't matter as much as being in that position. After all, you've now defined failure as both rolling a 2 and as rolling a 1. See, the human fails 45% of time (anything lower than a 10) and the halfling fails 47.25% of the time (Anything lower than a 10, with a reroll). Sure, the halfling is very unlikely to roll a 1... but that isn't failure. Failure is failing the roll.Really? So, when my Fighter reaches level 3 and gains proficiency in the Arcana skill, he has become 10% luckier than he was before? Because, succeeding on the action = Luck. Bards hand out luck. Clerics cast luck spells on everyone. Magical swords are all lucky. Because succeeding on an action is luck. Wait no. You don't mean that. You mean that halflings succeeding on rolls is because of luck. Not because of their proficiencies, ability score modifiers, class features, and everything else. Wait wait, no. You don't mean that. You mean that the lucky feature means that they will probably succeed at an action about 3% more often than everyone else, because they are lucky. Which, by the way, is such a small percentage it will not be noticed at a particular table. Survey's and such used to gather information generally have a 3% margin of error, which this falls into. So, this is quite literally a margin of error. So, unless the DM enforces this... which we will discuss in a moment, huh?Actually, the adventurers and PCs being brave matters a lot. In fact, it could be the only thing that does matter. Because who does your character get compared to? The other PCs. I'm reminded of the Worf effect. I'm sure you've heard about it. Is Worf a bad-ass warrior? Sure, we are told he is, but if you watch the show you see him... lose. Constantly. He could fold the vast majority of humans on Earth into a pretzel, but that doesn't really matter because we never see him do it. He's the guy that always loses the fight, so it doesn't matter how much you tell us he is a great warrior.Sure, the common peasants are running in fear... but your companions aren't. Most fear effects don't include "cowering", in fact, I think only a single fear effect in the game changes your stated actions at all. So the halfling will in fact not be cowering less than his companions, because his companions will generally not be cowering. And, again, if we are going to measure bravery as "succeeds on saving throws vs fear" then the Monk, Druid and Cleric are even braver than most halflings. Being high wisdom classes. Some Ranger's too. Because, they are going to succeed on those fear saves, so they must be even braver. Except, again, we don't define bravery by whether or not you feel magical fear.Interesting. It is not your position that a DM who goes out of their way to narrate the halfling as being luckier than his companions is a bad DM. And yetYou speak about Bad DMs ruining the game by not doing exactly that. So, what gives? If I don't go out of my way to describe lucky things happening to halfling because of their luck... I'm a bad DM? That is a level of care for the race that no other race gets. I'm not a bad DM for not narrating the Kenku's voice as particularly strange. I'm not a bad DM for not narrating that the Goliath is particularly tough. I'm not a bad DM for narrating that the Firbolg is soft-spoken and doesn't understand names. But I'm a Bad DM if I don't make sure to narrate how lucky the halfling is. Ah, wait, I think I see what is going on here. You aren't understanding my position. At all. To roll this back. Let's take your example of climbing that wall (which shouldn't be a roll, but that is neither here nor there) So the halfling declares an action to climb the wall and rolls a... 5! How does halfling luck apply to this situation? It doesn't. Maybe the halfling is searching a room and rolls a.... 15! How does halfling luck apply to this situation? It doesn't. In fact, I have seen a halfling character go an entire campaign without rolling a 1 on a d20 check. There is, after all, only a 5% chance of rolling a 1. So, in that situation... is the halfling lucky? No. Their "luck" never manifests... Unless when the gnoll fires an arrow at the halfling and misses the halflings armor class, the DM says it is because of halfling luck. Unless when they are walking through town, and the party is hit by a gang of pickpockets, they ignore the halfling because of halfling luck. Unless the DM twists the story around and makes sure to add to their narration "the halfling is lucky" in times when THE HALFLING ISN'T ROLLING. Because other than that? We will say 97% of the time, the halfling isn't any luckier than anyone else. They may roll a 1, get that stroke of good fortune... and still fail. So, they don't get that narration of being lucky. Or they succeeded, and the DM attributes it to their luck, where for any other character it would be because of their skill. And, if I take you at your own words. You think that a DM who doesn't do that, who doesn't change the narrative to reflect how special the halfling is when they aren't rolling, is a Bad DM. Or you think that the halfling will roll enough 1's that re-roll into successes that anyone will remember and appreciate how lucky halflings are.</blockquote>

Verification