D&D 5E Would a "lucky guy" class fit your setting?

[Minigiant]

Ponder this.
An adventurer does a series of ritualistic gestures and actions and avoids certain taboos throughout his life. All in attempts to bring good luck.
He wears a necklace of four leaf clovers, rabbit's feet, bells, and other charms everyday. He avoids mirrors, black cats, and other jinxes. This is not aa compulsion but a purposeful action of his own will.
And the universe rewards him. The level of commitment is rewarded.

Basically this character expands the Lucky feat into a whole class. Maybe he or she is blessed by a deity,his just lucky, or figured out the Secret hack into the universe's method of probability.

But Lucky Man's sword attacks crit on command. He always "happen" to have a toll or object useful for solving a problem in his bag. Arrows tend to "only hit the muscle" and miss major organs. He is always on time and his enemies tend to fail in slowing him down. The guy he is looking for tends to show up in front of him if in the right place.

Would you allow some luck obsessed adventurer who is just looks very fortunate from the outside until his or her luck runs out in your setting? What setting would it fit into?

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

To make him fair, he would have to have an equal share bad luck. I don't know how happy the rest of my players would be if somone else was playing a character that always hits, always crits, is never hit himself, always has the answer for every trick, question, puzzle, dilemma - et al. Eventually the rest of the party would just sit cross legged on the sidelines holding up 1-10 placards at how wonderfully lucky boy is doing, while whatever they do seems to pale in significance. Why should the thief bother picking a lock, lucky boy inconceivably and improbably will find the right key in his ruck sack. Why should the Paladin bother challenging Evil Prince Phrann to a duel as when lucky boy walks by, Evil Prince Phrann will slip on a previously unseen slick of lamp oil, breaking his neck.

Clearly, the idea wasn't to make him this invicible uber luck machine (at least I hope it wasn't), but with good luck, there almost has to be bad luck as well - or at least limits to his luckiness.

 

[was]

Superstitious characters are fine, but I would not give him/her any of the special benefits suggested. It seems a bit unbalanced and more than a little unfair to other players.

 

[Gilladian]

No. Lucky is not a career or life path. It is just a small part of a character. A feat, even a background, but not a class.

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

Not at all.

Luck might make the dagger you throw find a soft spot in an amour. But Luck does not teach you how to throw that dagger in the first place.

 

[Celebrim]

What you call "lucky guy" and what I call "paragon" is essentially the last class I need to make for my homebrew. I just haven't fully figured out how to make it both balanced and interesting.

An example of this sort of character would be Saka from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Despite not being a super powered spellcaster, Saka holds his own in a party were everyone else is the most powerful spellcaster on the planet. Indeed, there are times when Saka rescues the rest of the party. And "luck" is a big part of his success.

But I consider this class to be more than just "the luck guy". It's also a "skill monkey" sort of class, and as Saka puts it "the idea guy". Also, Saka is sort of the party "warlord" or "marshall", who buffs the rest of the party with tactical insight. What's interesting is that while Saka is a minimally compotent warrior, he's not a character like Jet or Tai Li who possesses sufficient martial prowess to match up with spellcasters.

Fundamentally, the question is, "How can we have a person who lacks an obvious extraordinary skill, balanced in a party where everyone else is extraordinary?"

This class would be very useful for balancing hobbits with Gandalf and Aragorn, and similar sorts of situations where you want someone 'normal' to achieve extraordinary things.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

no...

maybe as a subclass though. A lucky fighter who's luck bending fit within the power structure would be cool. A lucky rogue seems to just be perfect. the fatespinner prestige class for 3.5 wizard could make a cool wiz subclass..

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

I think this concept is best applied in one of two ways:

1. A Player character who is trained/practiced/skilled in the first place, superstitious, and seemingly lucky. (Pretty much what is written now)
2. A NPC or NON adventurer who is not trained/practiced/skilled, who is overly superstitious and who may have gotten incredibly lucky one or twice.

I don't buy an entire class being built around blind luck especially not one designed to do what very few characters (Elminster, Drizzt, etc) have been able to do, reach level 20 lol.

 

[Minigiant]

To make him fair, he would have to have an equal share bad luck. I don't know how happy the rest of my players would be if somone else was playing a character that always hits, always crits, is never hit himself, always has the answer for every trick, question, puzzle, dilemma - et al. Eventually the rest of the party would just sit cross legged on the sidelines holding up 1-10 placards at how wonderfully lucky boy is doing, while whatever they do seems to pale in significance. Why should the thief bother picking a lock, lucky boy inconceivably and improbably will find the right key in his ruck sack. Why should the Paladin bother challenging Evil Prince Phrann to a duel as when lucky boy walks by, Evil Prince Phrann will slip on a previously unseen slick of lamp oil, breaking his neck.

Clearly, the idea wasn't to make him this invicible uber luck machine (at least I hope it wasn't), but with good luck, there almost has to be bad luck as well - or at least limits to his luckiness.

Well his luck would run out eventually.

There's two ways to do it.

Either expand Luck points to let you do more with it. Spend a luck point to make your next hit a crit. Spend a luck point to get resistance to the next ranged attack against you. Eventually you run out of luck points and become a bad Rogue without sneak attack.

Or
You just raise probability of certain action. He crits on a 7 or 1. She stabilizes on death saves of 18, 19, or 20. Then fate decides. They are just more likely than others to succeed.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

No. Way too OP.

But - if he did step on a crack or a Druid wild shapes into a black cat in the most bizarre/cuddly sneak attack ever, he would instantly lose all luck and in fact be actively unlucky - no crits ever, always disadvantage for everything, armour falls off just as the fight begins, etc. The risk/reward would have to be huge.

Either way it would be a pain in the ass to DM.