| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1PsikerlordOct 13, 2014 23:33:56 | So, the Lucky feat, you can spend a luck point to make an opponent roll a second d20 when he attacks you, and you choose which d20 result to use.
I'm not sure whether I can spend this luck point after seeing the opponent's to hit roll, or if I have to declare I'm using a luck point before the roll occurs (effectively imposing disad on the monster's attack roll)?
What do you think? |
| #2FluffyBunbunKittensOct 14, 2014 0:16:17 | Since you can spend luck after the roll for your own rolls, one would presume it works the same way for the opponent's attack roll, and they just did not copy-paste the whole timing line. In a kind of 'oh and you can do this too' way. In the absence of specific rules on timing for that portion, default to what the feat said a second before. |
| #3FrogReaverOct 14, 2014 0:20:25 | Why do you assume you will ever get to see the opponents to hit roll?
In a game where you don't get to see the monsters rolls it doesn't matter if you can apply lucky before or after the opponent rolls. This best explains why the game doesn't tell you if it's before or after the opponents roll... it simply doesn't matter. |
| #4FluffyBunbunKittensOct 14, 2014 1:29:30 |
|
| #5PsikerlordOct 14, 2014 2:06:15 | In my experience, i always roll combat dice in the open as DM, and get to see them as a player. Every group I've played in has had that preference. |
| #6AhrimonOct 14, 2014 4:08:09 | I thought it was supposed to be before or after the roll, but always before the result of the attack is declared. For example DM rolls a 13. You don't know the monsters +hit, so you have to decide if it's worth it. If the DM is rolling behind the scenes, then it might be worth it to talk with the DM about how they want to handle it. A simple "I'm feeling lucky, what did you roll." "13". "Hmm, yeah, roll a second time." |
| #7YunruOct 14, 2014 5:48:57 | Lucky also turns disadvantage into an awesome thing thanks to the line:
|
| #8NoctaemOct 14, 2014 9:32:50 | Correct the Lucky feat trumps the general rules for advantage/disadvantage because it specifically calls out that you get to pick which dice is used, regardless of how many dice there were to begin with. You can also decide to spend the luck point after the opponent rolls his attack.
I've also always rolled in the open as a DM and most DM's that I play with roll in the open as well. Though some only give the final result (to determine hit or miss) and not the actual number on the d20. |
| (Reply to #7)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #5)FrogReaver |
|
| #11UthracOct 14, 2014 12:15:25 |
|
| #12NoctaemOct 14, 2014 12:40:18 |
|
| (Reply to #11)Timborama |
|
| (Reply to #12)FrogReaver | Resolution of a roll is declaring hit or miss. Resolving which of the disadvantage dice that gets used is not resolving the roll
|
| #15NoctaemOct 14, 2014 15:51:22 | "you can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is dertermined."
So resolving which of the dice in the case of disadvantage is used is part of determining the outcome I would say. So you wouldn't even get to see if you hit or miss. You simply roll the dice and see the result. Whatever the dice roll gives (1-20) is what you base your decision on, nothing else. So in the case of advantage and disadvantage you would roll both dice and stop, decide if you want to use the luck point or not and then pick the dice of your choice if you decide to spend a luck point. Then apply all modifiers and determine the outcome of the roll with that single dice you chose. It's very restrictive but very useful.
|
| (Reply to #15)FrogReaver | the outcome isn't determined by resolving the disadvantage part of the equation first...
|
| #17jonathonhawkeOct 14, 2014 17:18:15 | Otherwise Luck turns disadvantage into advantage+ |
| (Reply to #17)FrogReaver |
yep. When there are two valid rules interpretations you should use the one without the most crazy effects. I don't get what's soo hard to understand about that
|
| #19NoctaemOct 14, 2014 17:45:04 | It's a feat. Feats are rare. Feats should have powerful abilities. Not knowing if the dice you pick necessarily even hits or misses is the restriction. Resolving disadvantage is reaching an outcome or is part of the outcome of the roll. So no you don't resolve anything, you just roll the dice and decide at that moment if you apply the luck die or not. I don't get what's sooo hard to understand about that right? *roll eyes*
If you decide that this feat is too powerful for your table, houserule away and nerf it. Otherwise this feat is a great choice. Furthermore the guides for the classes all reflect the RAW which is exactly as above.
EDIT: And I have to add, this is something you can do... 3 times a day? This is not overpowered. It's very restrictive by nature and you can use it only a very limited number of times per day. And then you don't have your stat increase (since you took a feat) or another feat that would be useful more often / day. |
| (Reply to #19)FrogReaver | Feats should be powerful isn't a very good argument for why my way isn't a valid way to read the rule. It's also a poor hermeneutic for determining whether the rule allows you to pick any of the 3 dice on disadvantage. A much better hermenutic is to realize that advantage and disadvantage should never have the same outcome in all situations.
|
| #21NoctaemOct 14, 2014 17:58:23 | I'm not sure why you're using terms associated with bible theory and interpretation but anyway...
Looking past that your interpretation involves reaching the outcome of disadvantage. The feat specifically states that you use it and its effects before determining the outcome of the roll (disadvantage included). I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding how your interpretation isn't valid for that reason alone. |
| (Reply to #21)FrogReaver |
Because my reading is valid. I dont know why you have trouble understanding that my method doesn't resolve the attack even though as you famously put it that "it only resolves part of it".
Resolving part of something isn't the same as resolving that something... What's so hard to understand?
|
| #23NoctaemOct 14, 2014 18:11:05 | You're adding words. The feat doesn't say "apply before resolving the attack". It says before resolving the outcome of the dice. So before adding modifiers, comparing vs defenses, before determining the outcome of advantage / disadvantage, etc... Resolving disadvantage is reaching the outcome of the dice in part or completely. Keep in mind also that Lucky can be applied to other things than just attacks. So apply your interpretation to an ability check for example if that makes it easier for you. And yes, reaching the outcome partially of the attack or ability check or saving throw is still reaching an outcome, which the feat states you cannot do. Not partially, not at all. By your interpretation resolving or reaching the outcome of any aspect of the dice roll, it's instantly illegal by the restriction the feat gives. It's not even a question of ambiguous text, the feat literally says word for word that you can't reach any sort of outcome after rolling the dice.
I find it hillarious though that you're trying to say that resolving things half way is ok when the feat literally says you can only use its effects before reaching any sort of outcome. And also, I would ask that you stop with the sarcrastic comments. I don't know what your problem is but knock it off. There's no need for this "what's so hard to understand?" you started. |
| #24Varden_KholOct 14, 2014 18:12:52 |
|
| (Reply to #23)FrogReaver | Resolving the outcome is equivalent to resolving the attack...
|
| #26NoctaemOct 14, 2014 18:28:17 |
|
| #27Varden_KholOct 14, 2014 18:43:53 |
|
| #28PsikerlordOct 14, 2014 23:26:50 |
|
| (Reply to #27)FrogReaver |
|
| #30NoctaemOct 15, 2014 5:00:16 |
|
| (Reply to #30)FrogReaver | "The feat not specifying the level of outcome it restricts simply means that any outcome is restricted. "
This is not true. In no way does saying "the outcome" mean "any outcome. The feat says "the outcome"
|
| #32NoctaemOct 15, 2014 8:11:43 | Right, so you're arguing semantics instead of making a clear and coherent argument. You're logic is hillariously flawed. So if a rule says you can't make an attack, you can just not all the way? Or how about if it says you can't make a saving throw, you can just not completely? You obviously just don't like what this feat can do, for reasons that are entirely your own. No point in arguing with you over that. |
| #33FrogReaverOct 15, 2014 8:14:18 | RAW says "When you have either advantage or disadvantage, you roll a second d20 when you make the roll. Use the higher of the two rolls if you have advantage, and use the lower if you have disadvantage".
So when I roll with disadvantage I roll two dice. I must pick the lower dice. Then the DM determines the outcome of the roll based on that dice.
So lucky says "You can choose to spend on of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw."
So we now have two possibilities: 1. I roll two dice because of disadvantage. I pick the lower dice. I then spend a lucky point and roll an additional d20. I now get to pick between that lower dice and the lucky dice. Once I have chosen the DM determines the outcome.
2. I roll two dice because of disadvantage. I then spend a lucky point and roll an additional d20. I get to choose which of those three d20's I want. One I have chosen which dice the DM determines the outcome.
In both cases I am rolling the lucky dice before the outcome is determined. So that restriction doesn't effect anything. So what other arguments are there for one way or the other? |
| #34NoctaemOct 15, 2014 8:29:23 | No, in example 1 you're rolling the lucky die after the outcome of disadvantage has been determined (by declaring one dice to be lower and the one disadvantage forces you to use). Specific beats General. The general rules for Advantage/Disadvantage are trumped by the specific rules of the Lucky feat.
So the correct answer is option 2. Because that is the only one of the two you presented that follows the restrictions of the Lucky feat and is rule legal. It literally says you can't determine the outcome of the dice you roll before applying the Lucky feat. There's not much else I can say to make it more clear so I won't try. If someone presents another argument that isn't directly shut down by the text of the feat I'll respond further though. |
| (Reply to #34)FrogReaver | 1. I roll two dice because of disadvantage. I pick the lower dice. I then spend a lucky point and roll an additional d20. I now get to pick between that lower dice and the lucky dice. Once I have chosen the DM determines the outcome.
I don't know what you read but clearly "the outcome" is determined after the lucky dice is rolled.
|
| #36NoctaemOct 15, 2014 8:47:59 | Determining the outcome of disadvantage is determining the outcome of the dice you rolled which triggered the Lucky feat. Especially so because in your interpretation you're removing one of the dice you rolled in the first place. How is that not reaching an outcome? And how exactly do varying degrees of outcome work? How do you apply that to saving throws with Lucky? You reach the outcome of the dice you roll for a saving throw by determining the outcome of advantage/disadvantage, you can't say no to that. If the lower roll for disadvantage on a saving throw is below 10, you failed the saving throw. So how you can even try to apply Lucky at that point when it clearly says you can't determine the outcome of the rolled dice is unknown to me.
Frankly it seems you're arguing just for the sake of arguing about something you know is wrong with an argument that is completely ridiculous. I'm done here and I seriously hope no one buys into what you just posted because it's clearly very wrong. |
| #37Jay_Ibero_911Oct 15, 2014 9:49:47 |
|
| #38NoctaemOct 15, 2014 10:13:30 | Ok that's fair. But I don't think that changes anything, please correct me if I'm wrong though Jay. |
| #39Jay_Ibero_911Oct 15, 2014 10:49:23 |
|
| #40RCanineOct 15, 2014 11:01:09 | I agree with FrogReaver. No rules element should be able to make a roll with disadvantage more likely to succeed than one without disadvantage. If you think it would, odds are you're reading the rules incorrectly. |
| #41NoctaemOct 15, 2014 11:30:51 |
|
| #42Jay_Ibero_911Oct 15, 2014 12:42:24 | One problem I realized with the interpretation that make disadvantage beneficial though is that it can encourage silly behavior like deliberately dropping prone in order to get super advantage with lucky. |
| #43NoctaemOct 15, 2014 12:52:11 | Good point, it's an unfortunate byproduct of the feat that the player can influence when best to use it. Even if you go by the interpretation that you resolve advantage / disadvantage before choosing to use it.
|
| #44paulstraitOct 15, 2014 20:09:18 | This seems like a silly fight (and all the more sillier for people getting indignant about it when it is frankly unclear and, as some have suggested, perhaps intentionally so to accomodate different local DM practices). The rules do not define what it means to determine the outcome. What is the process that gets you from rolling to a determined outcome?
1. Roll a die (or dice). [roll=d20]
2. Add relevant modifiers to roll outcome. [outcome=(roll+modifiers)]
3. Compare result to DC. [if(outcome >= DC): success; failure]
4. Announce result. (Some groups might rearrange steps 3 and 4) "Frungor rolled a 20, which is a succcess/hit/save"
5. Narrate the result. "Frungor dives out of the way of the fireball, pulling his shield up to his face to protect himself from the brunt of the damage."
6. Record relevant changes on character sheet or spreadsheet or however you keep track of things. [HP=(HP-damage)]
7. Move on to something else.
At which point was the outcome determined? Deterministically, the outcome was determined once the die was rolled, even before the numbers were added -- the result was determined to be X provided that proper math was done. But the DM didn't know the outcome -- by calculating it, he determined what it was. But the player didn't know at that point, so was it determined? From the player's perspective it was undetermined until s/he heard the DM announce the outcome. After the result was announced, what if there is a reaction like a shield spell? The outcome of the die roll had been determined up to that point, but the outcome of the action had not. Does the narration matter? Usually at my table, if you want to use a reaction, you would use it between steps 4 and 5 -- the narrating of the action means the outcome is determined. But under some circumstances, I'd allow it if happened before step 6, since at that point, I don't have to undue any changes yet. After step 6 would be testing my patience, only allowable in extraordinary circumstances.
Now, I'm guessing I'm going to get a tirade of abuse and derision for saying this, but the game does not tell you what 'determined' means, and that means that you have to 'determine' what it means for your group.
I take it, at a minimum, to mean that a couple turns later, you can't say "oh ****, I forgot about lucky, can I make that last hit a miss?" No, almost certainly not.
As for the rest, it is up to the DM, but my only suggestion would be not to do it in a way that would slow down play. So if you are going to use lucky, use it as quickly as you can. If steps 2 and 3 take a non-trivial amount of time, perhaps you should have to announce it before that. If you are using technology and steps 1 through 4 happen simultaneously, then it is obviously impossible to announce that you want to use the lucky die after the dice have been rolled but before the result is announced.
Now, berate me for my obvious illiteracy or whatever. |
| (Reply to #32)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #23)Coredump00 |
|
| #47paulstraitOct 15, 2014 22:01:09 |
|
| #48FluffyBunbunKittensOct 16, 2014 0:56:09 |
|
| #49NoctaemOct 16, 2014 4:27:45 |
|
| #50melloredOct 16, 2014 5:04:33 |
|
| (Reply to #7)UngeheuerLich |
|
| #52paulstraitOct 16, 2014 7:15:53 |
|
| #53intentlyOct 16, 2014 9:59:43 | I love arguing about semantics, so I'll throw my $0.02 in!
Clearly the definition of "the outcome" is important, but I'd like to complicate matters further.
A die roll with dis/advantage could be considered as a single platonic die with a certain weighting. Even though it appears to be two dice in the physical realm, it's really just one platonic dis/advantage die in the metaphysical realm. Similarly, rolling two physical d10 dice to represent a d100 looks to our human eyes like two physical dice, but really it's just one platonic d100 die in game terms. Who says that a die must be a contiguous physical object?
From this perspective, picking the highest/lowest value from the two physical dice to determine the value of the dis/advantage die is no more "determining an outcome" than is reading the number off the face-up side of a single physical die, or combining the values from two d10 dice to make a d100. Sure, in the physical realm it *appears* to the naive observer than you're "picking" one of the two die values, but metaphysically you're just reading a number off the face-up side of a single platonic dis/advantage die. |
| #54NoctaemOct 16, 2014 14:57:07 |
|
| #55paulstraitOct 16, 2014 15:05:56 | I don't think it is too powerful -- I mean, first of all, advantage and disadvantage isn't *that* huge in the first place. Even at its most powerful (when you need to roll exactly an 11 or higher), it is still irrelevent to the outcome 75% of the time. When you need to roll higher (or lower), it is even less relevant. And now that I think about it, I'm not really against the fact that it is precisely the especially unlikely scenarios that the 'lucky' individual is lucky. My only concern would be if I thought the player would intentionally disadvantage himself in order to advantage himself, so to speak. But I trust my players not to. I still think the rule is a bit ambiguous, but I think I'm persuaded that this is a solid interpretation. |
| #56FrogReaverOct 16, 2014 15:26:33 | In the lucky feat "before the outcome is determined" is specifically a reference to determining whether you hit or miss. |
| #57NoctaemOct 16, 2014 15:42:32 |
|
| (Reply to #57)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #57)FrogReaver |
|
| #60NoctaemOct 16, 2014 17:05:12 | Well here's what appeal to authority means:
According to person 1, Y is true. Therefore, Y is true.
So basically you're arguing that because the DnD Next Q&A states that my argument is true, I'm falling into the above fallacy by agreeing and pointing to it as evidence. By I think you need to examine who exactly is agreeing with me. At the top, it says that the Community Manager will officially answer questions posed by the public along with other representatives of the company. So it's not only 1 person, but a group of people who collectively came to the same conclusion and endorse it. You can be certain that this kind of endorsement is not done without making sure that the information released is accurate. Official Q&A like this is as good as it gets. It's the people who represent the company who created, released and support the game. Official Q&A and official errata are the ways you can determine how the rules of the game work and basically settle debates.
If me saying "cool they actually answered the question we're discussing and agree with the argument I presented in an official Q&A" is somehow appealing to authority in your book, then so be it. But you sound more like you just can't take my argument being agreed upon by the Q&A buddy.
EDIT: I should specify of course that if you don't agree with the Q&A, feel free to houserule away. That's your prerogative. |
| #61ORC_CricketOct 16, 2014 18:11:49 | We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone. |
| (Reply to #60)FrogReaver |
"According to person or group 1, y is true. Therefore y is true."
You are pointing to some person or group agreeing with you as evidence your position is right. That's a logical fallacy...
You have no more "actual" evidence for your position on what "the outcome" means than I do for mine.
|
| #63paulstraitOct 16, 2014 19:16:50 | Ok, so bracketing off the rule question for a moment (and so this might be entirely off-topic), but I had this thought as I was driving to work. What makes a person "lucky"? Now, obviously, in real life, while some people might seem 'lucky,' if we are being rational we don't believe that some people mystically are luckier than others (even while we observe bizarre rituals with our dice that would make gamblers blush). But in D&D, or even more specifically, in the Forgotten Realms, this is a supernatural part of the world.
There was an anecdote, I think in the 2E Faiths & Avatars text, that when a child is born, the divine sisters Tymora (goddess of luck) and Beshaba (goddess of misfortunte)--who millennia ago were united in one being called Tyche--flip a coin. Depending on if it lands heads or tails, the child will be fortunate or misfortunate (or something like that). Now, this happens to everyone, supposedly, so what about the people who are so lucky that they, in game terms, have the Lucky feat? Surely, those people have been supernaturally blessed by Tymora.
There is an NPC cleric of Tymora that interacts with the party from time to time, so I wondered, how would she explain what was going on with the PC who has the Lucky feat -- who is not only 'luckier' statistically, but that seems to be especially lucky in the most unlikely of circumstances (i.e., either at the clutch moment of an encounter or when all the odds are running against him [disadvantage]). And so I thought that she would tell the PCs the above anecdote, with the following addition, especially appropriate to 5e. Perhaps for most people, neither Tymora or Beshaba influence the result of the coin toss, just leaving it up to chance. But for some people, for whatever reason, one of the two goddesses takes an interest in them, and instead of flipping just one coin, they add a second one of their own, taking the best (in Tymora's case) or worst (in Beshaba's case) result from the two coins and applying it to that child. And a child blessed with luck or cursed with misfortune in this fashion would be especially lucky or unlucky, moreso than the average Faerunian denizen.
Anyhow, [/tangent] |
| #64magix0Oct 16, 2014 20:37:12 | Roll the Lucky die separately from rolling the advantage/disadvantage roll. Problem solved |
| #65Coredump00Oct 16, 2014 20:54:30 | The DnD Next post is very vague in how the actual mechanics work, and would allow for rolling the two dice of disadvantage, then rolling the lucky die, giving the equivalent of advantage. Exactly matching what the answer says. The answer *never* said you just roll all three dice and pick the one you want.
Despite Nocteam continually misquoting the rule, the rule *never* talks about the outcome "of the dice".
|
| (Reply to #65)FrogReaver |
|
| #67paulstraitOct 16, 2014 22:47:14 |
|
| #68DS.397Oct 16, 2014 22:58:36 |
|
| #69paulstraitOct 16, 2014 23:03:25 |
|
| (Reply to #69)FrogReaver |
|
| #71PsikerlordOct 17, 2014 3:06:17 | I think my ruling would be you resolve disad first, then apply lucky. Otherwise it's a bit tooooo good, imo. |
| #72NoctaemOct 17, 2014 3:48:26 |
|
| #73SmashpunkOct 17, 2014 7:31:06 |
|