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

[Laurefindel]

I like both abilities and feat. I could see removing the super-triple-advantage-on-disadvantage-rolls part, but it’s one of feats I appreciated most both from a player and DM perspective.

I heard how it can be disruptive at high level when PCs have ASI to spare and fail so rarely that lucky virtually becomes an auto-success, but I must say this is a lesser worry compared to other high level issues I would have. Otherwise it’s a good feat, especially at early levels, but it comes at the cost of other good feats and ASI at early levels.

Even with the prospect of free feats at level 1, I’d keep it in with the new iteration.

 

[Minigiant]

Without Luck, Halflings don't feel like a race.

The only things that make halfling feel like a fantasy race is Brave and Luck with all the beefits for being small stripped out of 5e. They are basically short humans if you takeout Luck.

Lucky was annoying but I always say it as someone who carried a bunch of lucky charms and those charms accidentally worked. "The arrow hit my lucky horseshoe. Thanks Lucky Horseshoe"

 

[Vael]

I'll be honest, I think I've only seen a single PC with Lucky since I started DMing 5e and it didn't do much to impact the game. Now, I do expect with a free 1st level feat to see more PCs with Lucky going forward, but I dunno, manipulating dice is just a thing in 5e.

 

[Yaarel]

Luck is an important narrative, relating to fate, charisma, magic, and comedy. There needs to be a balanced mechanic to represent it. The 5e and 1DD versions of it seem fine enough.

The mechanic, even with the ability to invert disadvantage

Fun concept. To intentionally put oneself at a disadvantage in order to succeed.