Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Feats for Races

I find this line mystifying: "These feats don’t assume that multiclassing is used in a campaign."

What are they trying to say here? Do these feats become unbalanced when combined with multiclassing?

Also, some of the feats significantly alter a character's body. Barbed Hide, for example, endows a Tiefling with a barbed hide. That's not the sort of thing that you can acquire through training. Which gives rise to the question, "Why couldn't the Tiefling do this at level 1?" It's not like Pole Arm Master, where you can explain the acquisition of the new ability through practice and training. Either you were born with a barbed hide or you weren't.

Same with Dragon Wings: "You sprout draconic wings." I'm not well-versed in Dragonborn lore, but is that really something that just... happens during their adult life?

 

[OB1]

I don't mind the Lucky feat or Portent at all. They're strictly in the meta, the character isn't aware of what's happening at all, which is fine for me. If either required a reaction, then that would tie what's happening mechanically to what's happening in the game world and it would be a little weird. To me, there's totally a difference between the player and their character, and I don't think characters are aware of their capabilities in the same way we are. Characters with the Lucky feat just notice that sometimes things work out better than they thought they would. Characters with Portent are just foretelling moments from their own future each morning.

Interesting, I'd never thought of Lucky that way. Very cool, thanks!

 

[Mistwell]

Because it is? The fact this takes enough effort to be considered a reaction is slapstick. It's cutesy. It's taking halflings a step closer to Kender. Luck doesn't come from you (unless you're magic), it happens *to* you, which is why your real life examples don't really apply to the metaphor for Bountiful Luck. There's no "halfling" in those scenarios.



Because the mechanic doesn't match the metaphor. The mechanic is fine, but it doesn't match the image they're trying to provoke.

Let's look at Portent as another example. You'll be surprised to hear that Portent is one of my favorite features in the game. This is because of the way the mechanic and the metaphor interact. The character's involvement with the feature ends after the player makes the two Portent rolls. When the player decides to use one of the Portent die, the character isn't doing anything at all, which you can tell because there aren't any limits on when a roll can be replaced other than you need to be able to see it happen, nor is there any use of action economy. The character merely passively watches the event unfold as they foretold earlier that day when they caught a glimpse of their own future. It's exceptionally well-written in that regard.

Compare to wild magic sorcerer's Bend Luck feature, in which you use a reaction to subtly alter a roll, with the metaphor of actively manipulating luck. This is also a really good feature from a mechanic-matching-metaphor perspective.

Bountiful Luck is mechanically similar to Bend Luck and all other current uses of reactions. You might be able to ignore that, but it carries weight. Using a reaction heavily suggests not only that some sort of action is required from the Halfling, but that there is also something that the Halfling is reacting to.

That's where my problem with the feature is. It wants to be like Portent or Lucky, something passive and effortless, but it plays like Cutting Words or Bend Luck, which require the character to actively respond to an event. Like I said earlier, luck doesn't come from you (unless you're magic), it happens to you. That's the beginning and ending of my argument.

But in real life there are many examples of people who think luck comes from you rather than happening to you. A lot of sports teams and players believe in a team curse or a lucky player. Las Vegas employed people WITH YOUR HANDLE because of the luck they brought with them. Well OK they were called Coolers rather than Colders but pretty close (though some gamblers called them Mocks). Just because you personally do not believe people bring luck with them, that doesn't mean there are not many people who do genuinely believe that some people bring luck with them. And it's not a cartoonish belief. Many soldiers did believe one other soldier was lucky for them for example, and there was nothing funny about it. And this feat represents that belief that people can bring luck with them as opposed to merely having luck happen to them.

If it's something that doesn't match your personal belief system, so what? I don't believe in many Gods but I have no trouble playing a Cleric. In this fantasy world, the concept that people can bring luck with them exists. And given that matches a strong subset of people in real life, I am not sure I see any problem with that.

But really we were talking about how it is impossible to portray this concept in the game, and I think that's been well addressed at this point. You don't like it, apparently because you don't personally believe people can bring luck with them. OK fair enough. I don't need my fantasy game to match my personal belief system, but if you do, I guess don't use those elements of the game which represent that belief in the fantasy world.

 

[Corwin]

What's wrong with...

"This here's Prospero McStabby, our halfling mascot. He's our lucky charm!"

 

[Colder]

What's wrong with...

"This here's Prospero McStabby, our halfling mascot. He's our lucky charm!"

It's just silly so it doesn't fit in many campaigns because it shifts the tone.

 

[Colder]

But in real life there are many examples of people who think luck comes from you rather than happening to you. A lot of sports teams and players believe in a team curse or a lucky player. Las Vegas employed people WITH YOUR HANDLE because of the luck they brought with them. Well OK they were called Coolers rather than Colders but pretty close (though some gamblers called them Mocks). Just because you personally do not believe people bring luck with them, that doesn't mean there are not many people who do genuinely believe that some people bring luck with them. And it's not a cartoonish belief. Many soldiers did believe one other soldier was lucky for them for example, and there was nothing funny about it. And this feat represents that belief that people can bring luck with them as opposed to merely having luck happen to them.

If it's something that doesn't match your personal belief system, so what? I don't believe in many Gods but I have no trouble playing a Cleric. In this fantasy world, the concept that people can bring luck with them exists. And given that matches a strong subset of people in real life, I am not sure I see any problem with that.

But really we were talking about how it is impossible to portray this concept in the game, and I think that's been well addressed at this point. You don't like it, apparently because you don't personally believe people can bring luck with them. OK fair enough. I don't need my fantasy game to match my personal belief system, but if you do, I guess don't use those elements of the game which represent that belief in the fantasy world.

At this point I don't think you really get most of what I've been trying to say. I'm not saying that people can't be lucky and that that luck can't transfer to other people, I'm saying that making it so the character, instead of only the player, choose how and when that luck transfers on a case by case basis is the realm of magic, just like if an individual decided when, where, and how it rains. The concept of luck is inherently passive, unless you're the superstitious type that wears his special jersey for every game, but Bountiful Luck doesn't even capture that trope properly.

 

[Mistwell]

At this point I don't think you really get most of what I've been trying to say. I'm not saying that people can't be lucky and that that luck can't transfer to other people, I'm saying that making it so the character, instead of only the player, choose how and when that luck transfers on a case by case basis is the realm of magic

And I am saying it's not.

Coolers in casinos are intentionally trying to cause bad luck to other players. They do it with intent. Some do it on specific plays, or with a specific movement or action. They're paid $60,000 to $100,000 a year for this job. It's not magic. It's real life. You can not believe in that, but a meaningful number of people do. So I get what you're saying, and I am merely disagreeing with what your saying.

 

[Colder]

And I am saying it's not.

Coolers in casinos are intentionally trying to cause bad luck to other players. They do it with intent. Some do it on specific plays, or with a specific movement or action. They're paid $60,000 to $100,000 a year for this job. It's not magic. It's real life. You can not believe in that, but a meaningful number of people do. So I get what you're saying, and I am merely disagreeing with what your saying.

How do coolers do their job?

 

[Mistwell]

How do coolers do their job?

Depends on the cooler, but a lot of how they operate is kept confidential by Casinos (they don't even want you to know who they are or that they exist). If you look around though you can see some current or former coolers talk about it. Some just stand there near the game and watch. Some just play the game with the players they're trying to cool. Some play next to them. Some will do something that they feel causes the bad luck, like betting odd, some will do things like chew gum loudly or other minor nuisances. Some will engage in chat with the player, or the dealer, or other players. There doesn't seem to be a single method.

But the bottom line is, they all believe they bring bad luck to players, with something they're doing to bring that bad luck.

And then they have to keep an accounting of losses at that table relative to the losses prior to their arrival.

 

[Corwin]

It's just silly so it doesn't fit in many campaigns because it shifts the tone.

<shrug> Okay. I'll defend your right to say that. It's definitely a more reasonable position to take at least. Rather than how I should interpret the feat as working.

 

[Colder]

Depends on the cooler, but a lot of how they operate is kept confidential by Casinos (they don't even want you to know who they are or that they exist).

Oh, sounds like an urban myth to me, but let's ignore that.

If you look around though you can see some current or former coolers talk about it. Some just stand near the game and watch. Some just play the game with the players they're trying to cool. Some play next to them.

In mechanical terms, that's a passive effect. No reaction needed.

Some will do something that they feel causes the bad luck, like betting odd, some will do things like chew gum loudly or other minor nuisances. Some will engage in chat with the player, or the dealer, or other players. There doesn't seem to be a single method.

Distracting someone hasn't got anything to do with how lucky that person is, and the things you mentioned that could do something to a person's mojo aren't reactionary.

The reaction is what's wrong with the feat, not the transference of luck itself, because reactions are tied to the metaphor in a specific way that dictates how the feature needs to play out mechanically and narratively, and that has implications on the nature of luck and halflings in the game world that go counter to the standards set by all previous mechanics dealing with luck and halflings.

I'm tired of talking about this and I'd rather let you have the last word than continue this conversation. Byeeeee~