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

[empireofchaos]

I think it might well be interesting to play a character that is being manipulated by fate, and play out expressing feelings of dissatisfaction or trepidation about the whole process or any other way that a character might respond to finding out that he's a pawn in a play. Indeed, I think it might well be interesting to play a character who is not consciously in control of his own superpowers, but whose superpowers are (from the character's perspective) mysteriously manifesting in ways he doesn't control and maybe doesn't always approve of. That to me sounds like a load of fun.

Unless I've lost track of things, you want a class of character that can contribute in meaningful ways (and not die) due to the sorts of lucky coincidences that befall protagonists.

Sounds like this sort of class could be a fun addition, if it were to be balanced well. It would need an interesting game mechanic to work with though. Maybe luck is a resource, that can be spent towards defense of offense? Maybe the player must beware his karma, and his actions may attract good or bad karma.

I thought I would repost this - the Fool class. It was my original contribution to the thread, and I think it answers to most of these demands (plus I'd like feedback). The main mechanics are:

Luck points, as per the "lucky feat". These are what make the character class unique compared to other classes. You start with three, and they increase gradually, similar to the number of cantrips for other classes.

Spells. These work kind of similar to warlock spells in that the class has a fairly limited number of them, but the ones you get at high level are pretty powerful. You also get them from a patron of sorts, but the relationship is not really a pact that you enter into because you are seeking power. It happens for reasons that aren't clear to anyone, least of all the Fool. Why spells? Well, what better way to represent those wish-fulfilling formulae that lucky fools utter? Spells are delayed until 2nd-3rd level, mainly to have a chance to establish the character's persona, and to have a chance to RP out the receipt of magical abilities.

Madness. The character is not fully in control of his/her powers, and using luck points or spells carries risks. Similarly to a chaos mage sorcerer, you can drive yourself mad or subject yourself to a high-level mind-altering spell for a while. This feature constitutes a representation of the fact that the fool character is neither mad nor sane, neither stupid nor smart, but meanders back and forth between these two states - an embodiment of liminality.

Then there are various borrowings form other classes that channel luck in various forms, from the Fighter's Second Wind, to the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge, the use of Charisma to buff up various other rolls, etc.

Finally, the archetypes - I have two and a half (kind of like the ranger) - the Simpleton, who either gets a magical animal companion that helps keep him out of trouble, or an animate object ability (so things can act themselves, so the lazy fool doesn't have to); or the Holy Fool, who gets more cleric-type spells and abilities.

Anyway, comments are welcome. My sense is, the most challenging thing about playing this class is the RP, because you're probably playing a character who changes her outlook on life frequently, and has a unique perspective.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=6800918]empireofchaos[/MENTION]: I looked at your fool class and it was a little more culturally specific than what I was going for, and overlapped to much with the broader spellcasting classes. It might be a great class for a game with a specific Russian feel, but I like my base classes to be very broad indeed. To generate that class in my game, you'd multiclass my 'lucky guy' class with champion, cleric, shaman or perhaps even rogue depending on the exact religious feel you were going for.

As a side note, Ostrov, about such a Fool, is one of my all time favorite movies.

 

[Celebrim]

i dont see why a luck class needs bad luck to compensate. Wizards don't suddenly burst into flames because they can cast fireball.

I don't think the class needs bad luck to compensate, but I do think it could be an interesting optional mechanic via a subclass or feats.

My biggest problem with it is that it would be hard to balance - much harder than a limited supply of good luck alone. If you had a mechanism for replenishing your good luck with bad luck, you risk the problem creating an effectively limitless supply of good luck. Limitless good luck would be extremely overpowered, recalling to my mind a controversy in Dragon regarding Aunt Mae versus Galactus where the problem was how little mechanical 'good luck' Aunt Mae needed to win in a particular Supers game system. The problem with try to balance good luck with bad luck is that you create the possibility of the player manipulating the system such that he only has bad luck when it isn't critical, and therefore has nothing but good luck when it matters. Not all rolls are made equal.

Right at the moment, I can't think of a good way to ensure balance between good luck and bad luck. But balancing a limited supply of good luck is reasonably easy, or at least is less difficult than balancing spellcasting (which can do everything good luck can do and more).

 

[Minigiant]

Will Fallout 4 out tomorrow, I was thinking out a High Luck character looks compared to Strength, Intelligence, Agilty (Dex), etc characters.

In Fallout, a high luck character gets lots of crits and their crit do more damage. They also get more money and ammo. Take out the "find chance" stuff and the "Lucky guy" could be critical hit and reroll focused PC with discounts to purchases and sales.

 

[garnuk]

I really like this idea. I would create this Lucky Guy class in 5e in the following way.
Take the rogue base class. Turn the "Sneak attack damage" dice pools into Lucky dice pools. These dice allow you to modify the roll of the die either up or down 3 times per long rest. The new total value counts as being the natural roll, so if your lucky dice change your to hit value to 20+ it counts as a crit, <= 1 becomes an automatic failure.

Add previously mentioned ideas to various Lucky Guy subclass features.

Allow some abilities to use one of the lucky dice as resource instead of its die value.

 

[empireofchaos]

: I looked at your fool class and it was a little more culturally specific than what I was going for, and overlapped to much with the broader spellcasting classes. It might be a great class for a game with a specific Russian feel, but I like my base classes to be very broad indeed. To generate that class in my game, you'd multiclass my 'lucky guy' class with champion, cleric, shaman or perhaps even rogue depending on the exact religious feel you were going for.

Yeah, it was designed for a culturally-specific game in mind, but I think the animal companion variant would work in a variety of settings, and the holy fool should also be feasible in a W. European or Near Eastern setting.

As far as the overlap with spellcasters - I guess if you make a spellcasting class, there are only so many templates to use. One might argue that what you have here is a sort of Sorcerer-Warlock hybrid, but then the Paladin is a Fighter - Cleric hybrid, too. The feel, and the relationship to magic powers, is pretty different. And if it's not going to be a spell-casting class, then it's going to be given lots of combat skills, which would completely wreck the flavor, to my mind.

As a side note, Ostrov, about such a Fool, is one of my all time favorite movies.

I had that out of my public library at one point, but didn't get around to watching it until I had to return it. I guess after that recommendation I'm going to have to get it out again. I should probably watch it for non-game related reasons anyway...

 

[empireofchaos]

i dont see why a luck class needs bad luck to compensate. Wizards don't suddenly burst into flames because they can cast fireball.

No, but chaos mage sorcerers might.

The idea of compensation (or cost) for using magical powers is a pretty standard view regarding how magic "works", and it's been incorporated into a lot of RPGs that use magic (e.g. WW's Mage, the French Nephilim game, and many others). Now, I'm not suggesting that D&D ditch the Vancian system in favor of something more "realistic" - Vancian magic is too deeply ingrained in the game, and attempts to get rid of it are going to be futile because too many people are used to it, and related to it as part of D&D's "brand". But even 5e is tinkering with the magic system around the edges - the Chaos Mage being one obvious example, but also the font of magic mechanic, at-will cantrips and various archetype spells, etc.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

No, but chaos mage sorcerers might.

The idea of compensation (or cost) for using magical powers is a pretty standard view regarding how magic "works", and it's been incorporated into a lot of RPGs that use magic (e.g. WW's Mage, the French Nephilim game, and many others).

I think what shintashi was getting at is that the compensation model doesn't seem like an especially good fit for this class concept. (And if that's not what he's getting at, it's what I'm getting at.) For something like a warlock or blood mage, sure. But a lucky guy? Luck isn't even "magic" in the traditional sense.

 

[garnuk]

The "bad luck" counterpoint to "good luck", is the lack of training and hard work that comes from needing to try hard to succeed instead of just getting lucky. This is reflected in the lack of bonuses in other areas. So its already built in. If a "Lucky Guy" actually has a harsh "bad luck" cost, then they would never make it to the point that they become an adventurer, they would just be a normal person, who has their share of good and bad luck.

 

[empireofchaos]

I think what shintashi was getting at is that the compensation model doesn't seem like an especially good fit for this class concept. (And if that's not what he's getting at, it's what I'm getting at.) For something like a warlock or blood mage, sure. But a lucky guy? Luck isn't even "magic" in the traditional sense.

The "bad luck" counterpoint to "good luck", is the lack of training and hard work that comes from needing to try hard to succeed instead of just getting lucky. This is reflected in the lack of bonuses in other areas. So its already built in. If a "Lucky Guy" actually has a harsh "bad luck" cost, then they would never make it to the point that they become an adventurer, they would just be a normal person, who has their share of good and bad luck.

Mechanically, it's an empirical question whether the "bad luck" (aka madness) would hamstring the fool character too much or not. I figure with all of the spell abilities and other whistles and bells, it's probably got a decent enough chance to survive. Losing your mind every so seems less hazardous than blowing yourself up with a fireball (and I hear that happens a lot). Ultimately, only playtesting would answer the question definitively.

Fluff-wise, I don't know about a "lucky guy" character per se, but what's a fool that doesn't get to be foolish from time to time, in ways that he can't control?

As for lucky =/= magic - well, OK, but if we think about what Charisma (the source of magic for a bunch of classes, including this one) literally means... Charis = grace = gratis = something granted you for free without any discernible reason for it. Just because. That's how god wanted it. And how you use that power is probably completely irrational as well, but that's how it is. Max Weber, who introduced the concept of charisma into common parlance saw it as a personal, magical power of this type. We now think of charisma as personal magnetism or personal attractiveness because we are used to appropriating characteristics that used to be gifted to us as our own birthright or our due, a product of our own exertions. Just like "genius" went from being something we had to something we were. It's this original sense of charisma that I'm trying to capture here.