What happens if you (or 2 sperate people) use lucky and portance on the same roll?
Portence:
When you finish a long rest, roll two d20s
and record the numbers rolled. You can replace any
attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or
a creature that you can see with one of these foretelling
rolls. You must choose to do so before the roll, and you
can replace a roll in this way only once per turn.
Lucky:
Whenever you make an attack
roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend
one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose
to spend one 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.
mellored wrote:
No official ruling so far (maybe someone should turn to Sage Advice), but in Portent you "replace the roll" you're going to do with a "roll" the diviner did before.
Portent wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Kentus wrote:
I agree, the way they are worded makes it clear that you use portent before the roll and lucky after, so they don't really conflict.
I would argue too that you could use a portent die on the lucky reroll (if you didn't already spend one on the original roll).
I think the issue is that Portance straight replaces the rolled die, so you don't actually roll it, and Lucky specifically says that it replaces a dice you roll after you roll it. Seems like these two abilities could never stack together. You didn't roll the dice you used Portance to replace. And when you roll Portance, it wasn't an attack roll / saving throw / ability check at the time.
My 2 cp.
EDIT: You also can't roll, replace with Lucky and then use Portance since Portance specifically states:
You must choose to do so before the roll, and you can replace a roll in this way only once per turn.
The only way to use these elements would be on seperate rolls. They are mutually exclusive I believe... can't think of a single instance where you could use both on the same roll with the restrictions in place.
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I see your point, but I guess it seems more slippery to me.
when you roll Portance, it is not an attack roll / saving throw / ability check
I don't suppose someone could tweet?
jaelis wrote:
If someone uses Portent, then no attack roll is made, so there is no opportunity to use Lucky.
Robert plays a rogue with Lucky, Dave plays a diviner with Portance.
Steps, in order:
1. Dave wakes up in the morning and rolls portence, gets a 5 and a 15.
2. Later in day Rob and Dave get in a fight.
3. Rob wins initiative, says he is attacking Dave.
4. Dave says: I am using Portence to replace Dave's attack roll with my Portence roll of a 5.
....This is legal, since Dave can replace any attack roll made by a creature he can see with a foretelling roll. He is choosing to do so before the roll.
5. Rob spends a luck point to roll an additional d20, gets a 12, and uses that instead of the 5.
....This is the part you'll disagree with. But there's nothing wrong with the timing. Assume for a moment that the foretelling roll does in fact count as an attack roll. Then (a) he is spending the luck point after the die was rolled (it was rolled in step 1 above). And (b) the outcome has not yet been determined. Those are the only timing requirements for lucky.
You can claim, like Stormborn does, that Rob can't use lucky because the portence roll isn't an attack roll. Like I said, that's a legitimate interpretation, but it is a complicated one. If you categorically say it isn't an attack roll, then Rob doesn't get to add his Dex or proficiency bonus to it (since you add those to attack rolls), and even if it "hit," nothing would happen because you only do damage if your attack roll hits.
So I'm saying that for the purpose of resolving the attack, you must count the portence roll as an attack roll. That what "replacing the roll" has to mean for the ability to make any sense. Now you can rule that it counts as an attack roll only for that purpose, and no other. If you do, then Rob can't use Lucky. But you could equally well rule that it counts as an attack roll for all purposes, and if you do, then Rob can use Lucky. The rules don't have anything to say about it, so you have to leave it as a DM's call.
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
So it really boils down to a semanitcs argument.
So we need a Dev to weigh in on it.
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
I agree with Noctaem's interpretation and those were my thoughts as well. Portent replaces the roll, whereas lucky lets you try again AFTER a roll. But there wasn't a roll for this action so the lucky person doesn't get to try again. The Wizard forsaw this outcome so there's no getting around it.
And I think the flavor supports this reading as well. Portent is the power for a Divination Wizard and she's looking into the future. She KNOWS that her buddy rogue is going to roll a 20, because she saw the future earlier that morning. She KNOWS the big-bad-evil-guy is going to fail his hold person save because she's saving the 1 she rolled. She tells her buddies, they all laugh. But then it turns out the BBEG is lucky and gets to reroll... Booo...
- Eck
Eck wrote:
I'm with jaelis. When portent replaces an attack roll it must somehow count as an attack roll or there would be no ability modifiers that affect the replaced attack roll.
Consider portent and the battle master precision attack:
Precision Attack. When you make a weapon attack roll against a creature, you can expend one superiority die to add it to the roll. You can use this maneuver before or after making the attack roll, but before any effects of the attack are applied.
Can you use precision attack when a divination wizard uses the portent ability on that attack roll? Why or why not?
Now consider portent and the archery fighting style:
A r c h e r y
You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged w eapons.
It requires an attack roll to be made with a ranged weapon as well. Can you use archery style when a divination wizard uses the portent ability on that attack roll? Why or why not?
Now consider Lucky and portent
Lucky - Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one 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.
Can you use lucky when a divination wizard uses the the portent ability on that attack roll? Why or why not?
***Note if one works they all should work since the only requirement on any of these abilities is you making an attack roll.
FrogReaver wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
Except that Portance SPECIFICALLY states that you can't roll first then use the feature....
Portance:
When you finish a long rest, roll two d20s
and record the numbers rolled. You can replace any
attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or
a creature that you can see with one of these foretelling
rolls. You must choose to do so before the roll, and you
can replace a roll in this way only once per turn.
So you never get to roll at all. However you guys are correct when you say:
"I've always read the portent roll as replacing the original as if that the portent value is what you had rolled on the attack roll."
....I don't have a horse in this race, but can I ask why everyone's calling it "Portance"? It's Portent. The plural would be "portents", and the rolls themselves are called "foretelling rolls". "Portance" is a nonword; the similarly-spelled "important" is actually unrelated to "portent" ("important" is from importantia, "important"; "portent" is from portendo, "to foretell". The only thing they both have in common is they're from Latin.)
We now return to semantics, already in progress.
mellored wrote:
What I find odd is that it that Portance says to replace a roll MADE by you or a creature you can see. Made is past tense, even though it said you must do you before the roll. So as far as I can tell you are counted as having made an attack roll ( or saving throw/ability check ) by the wording of Portance, even though a die was not rolled. There is an act of physiclaly rolling the die, which does not occur, and the game mechanic of making an attack roll, which Portance says does occur by using the past tense ( made an attack roll, not make an attack roll ).
Under this logic you are counted as having made a roll, it now makes sense to add modifiers you would to an attack roll. Also lucky, and the other abilities in the thread that require an attack roll/ability check/saving throw also work.
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Out of curiosity, where does it state that Portent prevents you from rolling the die?
jonathonhawke wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
it clearly says you replace the attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see with one of these foretelling rolls. Since you've already rolled previously and have stored the results. All you're doing is replacing the roll itself with the straight result. There is no roll at all within the check itself, just a straight result replacing the roll you would have made.
I do think this whole issue comes down to the fact that a "roll" can mean different things.
1. It can mean the physical act of picking up a die and rolling it.
- This is probably the most common natural language meaning, but I don't think it is actually used much in the game. Otherwise there would be times when, for instance, an electronic die roller would be interpreted differently than a physical die roll. But the Game Dice section at the start of the PHB would seem to use this sense.
2. It can mean the number obtained by rolling a die, or other equivalent means.
- I think this is most often what the rules mean. They don't normally care how you get the number, just what the number is. For instance: "If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC." That applies even if you are using an electronic roller. It also applies even if you have disadvantage, where the d20 roll is actually the net result of two rolls.
- Similarly, in Reliable Talent "Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10." Here a d20 roll is explicitly identified with the result of the roll. (It doesn't say "you can treat the value obtained by a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.")
3. It can mean the number obtained from a die plus any applicable modifiers.
- I think the rules are actually fairly careful to avoid this, but it gets used a lot in spoken language a lot in my experience. (DM "What is your attack roll?" Player: "22".) It also shows up implicitly in uses like bless: "Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw." If you were trying to interpret this strictly with meaning #2, it might suggest that if your d20 roll was an 18 and your d4 roll was a 2, then you got a critical hit. But here we know that "attack roll" stands for the total result of the attack roll with modifiers, not the literal result on the die.
I think that Noctaem is a bit hung up on meaning 1 in regards to portance and lucky. But it is a real meaning, it could be what the ability is intended to refer to. If you use meaning 2, then I think they should work together, since lucky is referring to the result of the roll, not the physical roll itself.
Here is another example that avoids Lucky. Say Rob has disadvantage, and Dave tries to help him out with Portance. If you are using meaning 2, then the Portance roll should replace the result of the roll, so the fact that he has disadvantage doesn't matter. But if you are using meaning 1, then Rob would only get to replace one of his dice... if they were both low, he would still miss.
That all said, I still feel that Eck's flavor-based interpretation is the most compelling as far as how I'd want to play it in a game.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Because those other features specifically state rolling dice, roll, etc.. They require you to roll dice to work. Archery does not, it just requires a specific kind of check.
jonathonhawke wrote:
the Lore Bard 3 ability Cutting Words
uses the same outline of word/rules
that Lucky uses.
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Let me make it simple,
If your ally or enemy never rolls for the attack roll then there is no roll for portent to replace.
jaelis wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
The wording in Portent is plain. "You must choose to do so before the roll, and you can replace a roll in this way only once per turn."
So, to break this down:
"You must choose to do so before the roll" - So, the DM says, I am making a saving throw for the Fireball. You say, "Hold on. I'm using my Portent die."
"and you can replace a roll in this way only once per turn." - Notice: replace a roll. It doesn't say to roll and take the better result. In fact, in this case, it literally makes no difference what would be on the d20 roll if the DM went ahead and rolled it, because my Portent dice replaces whatever is on that die.
If you want to roll the d20 in order to use Lucky, then this is what would happen.
I roll my d20. I roll a 13. I use Lucky to roll another d20. I roll a 20!.
My portent die is a 3. Congrats.
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Eck wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
FarBeyondC: Obviously, yours is the One True Way. So, I'll bow out of this one-sided lecture you are giving.
Noctaem wrote:
Wow Frog... just wow.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Semantics!!!!
mellored wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote: