So, I am happy to see the Crossbow Expert clarification came out the way I hoped.
I think the Lucky-Disadv interaction seems a bit weird....
I *really* wish we got more than this on a monthly basis...
At least it's one argument we can stop having. I'm sure there will be others.
Lucky is weird, you're right. Can you just close your eyes to attack with disadvantage whenever you want? Sort of how averting your gaze from a medusa works.
So they've officially killed dual wielding and hand crossbows. You will never be able to have a sword in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other since you need a hand to reload. You can never have two hand crossbows at the same time. You would have to go through hoops just to be able to do it... drop weapon, reload, pick up weapon... or just not have more than just the hand crossbow. They got the rest of it right, except for that one part. For shame. Maybe they did it for balance? Can't really think of another reason.
I am happy they officially stated that my argument for the Lucky feat is correct. That's validating after the weeks of discussion that the thread generated. You roll 3 dice and get to pick which one is used with advantage/disadvantage.
Still though, poor hand crossbow 
Noctaem wrote:
Common sense and realism when discussing a table top fantasy game about dungeons and dragons. 
Noctaem wrote:
Considering that he specifically called out the possiblity of a magic or magitech autoloading crossbow, I'd say the "'because magic" argument is still just fine. You just need the magic. I imagine the original rules for ammunition were crafted with realism in mind. And it seems to me the Sage ruling was just applying the ammunition rules.
So the lucky thing... it's not so goofy as I first thought, since you'd never want to declare using a luck die before seeing the original roll(s). So it's not like you would ever benefit from having disadvantage, which is what I was thinking at first. It just means that your luck works just as well when you have disadvantage as when you don't. That's alright by me.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Using two hand-crossbows isn't really a realism issue. Is there specifically a reason based in reality why a person cannot load and fire two hand crossbows during a single round? Hand crossbows are quite small, and even something as simple as a 1 cp leather lanyard attached to the back of each one so you can hang it off your wrist while reloading the other one eliminates the free hand issue.
Just when you think an issue is settled ...
Yes, it is ok to have some realism in D&D unless it's specifically overridden by the rules for things like magic or simplifications to streamline play. I don't see a problem with that and I'm glad Crawford clarified it.
Noctaem wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Right you can preload. But that still means jumping through hoops to get the same basic benefit, at the cost of a feat (!!) as bows with much shorter range. If you need a hand that is. The main benefit of using a handcrossbow is that it's a 1 handed ranged weapon, meaning you can have another weapon at the same time or a shield. Now you can't do either of those. You can't have two hand crossbows at the same time with different enchantments. You can't have a melee and a ranged weapon at the same time. I mean there's numerous things here that have been removed from play because of this and I honestly don't understand why. Anyway, my home game will continue to allow for it. It's just too bad for AL where a DM can't make custom rulings about stuff like this.
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
The issue resided in the ammunition rules use of the words "reloading is part of the attacks that you make". Anyway no point in starting this again, we have a direct statement from Jeremy Crawford. Good enough for me.
I am glad for the crossbow clarification. It means handbows work just like handbows are supposed to work. The game is supposed to be based on an earth-like medieval fantasy world, thus the default is things work like we expect them to work. We know handbows take two hands to load.....so without a specific change via the rules, handbows should take two hands to load.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Crossbow + shield is a balance issue. Glad to see that squashed.
Crossbow + rapier or dual crossbow is only a style issue (and it can still be effectivly be done via weapon swaping).
IMO: rule of cool > realism. But that's a personal opinion.
The Luck / disadvantage article makes no sense to me: you're luckier when you have disadvantage!
Normal roll with Luck: best of 2 dice.
Disadvantaged roll with Luck: best of 3 dice.
Seriously, how does that make any sense at all?
More like you're still lucky even when you're at a disadvantage.
JackOfAllTirades wrote:
Hugin wrote:
durntaur wrote:
durntaur wrote:
Ravix wrote:
Hugin, it says you roll the three dice and you pick which one you want to use.
He has put out tweets that say the same thing
And it matches the RAW of the feat.
I hated it at first, but have come around for 2 reasons.
It means you get luckier the worse life gets. You already have advantage and its a low DC, you Lucky isn't worth much. High DC and at a disadvantage...being Lucky is great. The more you are behind the 8 ball, the bigger help Lucky becomes. Normal difficult stuff, you do okay... but when the chips are really down.... that is when you pull the longshot.
While it does allow an 'exploit' of giving yourself Disadvantage to get a better chance of success.... that also (pretty much) requires that you commit to spending the luck point before you roll any dice. And for Mid-low DCs, the 'exploit' doesn't really help much.
Coredump00 wrote:
Hugin wrote:
durntaur wrote:
Hugin wrote:
It's really weird, but he really said "die" and not "dice". I mean could be a typo, but since the others say he said it before, it probably isn't.
I don't know how "You still have disadvantage" should even be played out then, though, because disadvantage requires two dice...
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Hugin wrote:
The lucky clarification was definitely unexpected. It reminds me of Matrim from the Wheel of Time series though when he's sparring against a guy with a sword and he uses a staff and as he trips and falls he somehow accidentally kicks the staff off of his foot into the other guy and wins the fight from pure luck.
You still have disadvantage, but somehow fate smiles upon you and turns your bad luck into good luck.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yup, I misread your edit as "you can only choose one of the two dice from disadvantage to be affected by lucky". I also understood the article so that you can pick 17. Quite powerful feat.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
No, the charmed condition is something else entirely 
jaelis wrote:
durntaur wrote:
The ruling on disadvantage makes sense. I am at disadvantage. So I must roll two dice. I must take the lowest dice. That is how disadvantage works.
The ruling on luck makes sense. I roll die. I do not like die I can now roll a second die and choose which one I use.
So if you combine these it literally means. I am at disadvantage. I roll two die. I must use the lowest dice. I have luck feat. So I can now roll a third die and use either the lowest die from disadvantage or the luck die. My choice.
That is how the rules are worded. When using luck you are not allowed to roll two dice at once. While at disadvantage and while having luck you are not allowed to roll three dice at once.
You make your roll. Use luck if you do not like the roll and take the higher dice. The only difference is when at disadvantage you are making a roll with two dice first and must use lowest. You may then roll the luck dice/third dice and may use it or the lowest of the two original dice. Nowhere in the rules does it say to combine the luck roll with the original roll.
In the errata it says you are still at disadvantage. But luck is a special rule and trumps disadvantage. That is why when you roll the luck die you then get to choose which dice you use.
Any rules writer. And I am a rules and mechanics writer of tabletop games. I also proofread rules and edited rulebooks for a very large tabletop miniatures game.
The errata ruling is being misinterpreted.
Luck does not allow you to roll two dice at once. It allows you to roll a luck die after your first roll is done.
Only MinMax and rules lawyers trying to break the game and gain an advantage from a disadvantage could possibly see it with luck and disadvantage you get to roll three dice at same time and pick highest one.
Chris
The way I am interpreting it. Luck does not trump it is used after disadvantage. You still had to use disadvantage on first two dice. But once you use the luck feat. You now after having the result of the lowest of the first two dice. May roll a third die and choose either the result of lowest of two or the luck die. Your call. Both things worked exactly like they say to. You do not roll three dice at once for a hit. Because you do not declare the use of the luck feat until after the initial die roll is made. With disadvantage or even advantage you roll two dice at same time and either choose higher or lower. That is the process and steps you use. Then after that is done you may use the luck feat. Which means rolling a third die. And then because you are lucky, you may pick which one is your final roll. This is a process problem. People are assuming you get to skip steps and combine them. It does not work that way. Interpreting it that way is silly and is just players trying to bend rules and make up anything so they can gain advantage and ignore disadvantage.
The rules work perfectly, do not contradict each other if you follow the process or roll die see result, then roll luck. The only differnce to a regular roll of one die and then using luck compared to having to roll disadvantage/advantage is you roll two dice and must then choose which is your final roll. Then you can now use the luck die. It really is that simple.
wwiiogre wrote:
It's not that people are trying to minmax and abuse the most generous reading of the rules in bad faith. It's that Jeremy Crawford said "the rule means you throw 3 dice and pick any of them." That's the official stance.
Macv12 wrote:
Honestly, I would have preferred if Lucky didn't interact / interfere with Advantage/Disadvantage at all.
Like, if a character with the lucky feat had advantage / disadvantage, I would have had them:
1. Roll 2d20
2. If they have advantage, use the higher of the two die rolls. If they have disadvantage, use the lower of the two die rolls. In either case, ignore the unused die.
3. Roll luck d20.
4. Choose between the used die in step 2 and the luck die from step 3.
5. Add modifiers to the die chosen in step 4.
For example, let's say a fighter on her last legs decides to make a desperate attack to take out the orc chieftain whose group has essentially razed a village to the ground.
Based off the player's description of the character's method of attacking this chieftain, it has been decided that this last attack will be made at disadvantage.
1. The player rolls 2d20, and gets a 19 (for this particular fighter, a critical hit) and a 9 (a value that, with modifiers, would miss this particular chieftain's AC by 1).
2. As this fighter has disadvantage, the player has to use the 9. Which sucks (the DM in question is very much a "let the dice fall where they may" DM), but that's life.
2.5. The player reminds the DM that this character has the lucky feat, to which the DM replies "Well, go on."
3. The player rolls their luck die, getting an 11 as an result (not much better, but in this case good enough for what it needs to do).
4. Seeing that this particular player is normal, and is sufficiently invested in their character, they choose (from either the 9 from step 2 or the 11 from step 3) the 11.
5. Adding the character's various modifiers to the roll, the player announces that they have an attack roll of 16 vs the chieftain's AC, which hits. The player rolls damage and both player and DM collaborate to narrate the results.
But that's just me.
The problem I see with the way people are interpreting the errata is this.
I have disadvantage. I roll a 1 and a 20. Oh, well, I use a luck die. Doesn't matter what I roll, I'm picking that 20.
That shouldn't be how it works. I should be having to pick the 1 and then use a Luck die to get something other than that 1.
That is how I have used Lucky on my characters. I see nothing wrong with using it this way and it's the most fair usage for all involved.
Crawford's line of "You still have disadvantage" to me means that I am still having to pick the lowest of the two dice rolled, then I roll Lucky to take the highest of those. At no point in any discussion that I have seen had Crawford *said* to roll three dice and take your pick. He has said to roll the Luck die and you get to pick. That means to apply disadvantage first, then Lucky. Lucky overrides the fact that you would have to take the lowest die of the disadvantage roll. It doesn't mean that you get to pick the highest die of the disadvantage roll if you want to.
Macv12 wrote:
From twitter, this is the person who wrote the Sage Advice explaining what he meant.
Q: Pls expln Lucky Feat from Sage Advice. So attacking with disad, luck point, now best of three? How is that still disad?
@Crawford: You pick the d20 but have disadvantage, so things like Sneak Attack that are blocked by disadvantage are blocked.
Q: It would make more sense if you rolled 2, discarded the higher, then rolled a 3rd and discarded the lower.
@Crawford: That would be a sensible way to run it, if a DM wanted.
Q: So statistically your odds improve even more with disadvantage and lucky than if only with lucky?
@Crawford: Yep! We think of it as fortune smiling on the unlucky.
Q: So the lucky feat turns disadvantage into super-advantage? That's pretty lucky. ;)
@Crawford: It sure is lucky! But keep in mind that anything shut off by disadvantage is still shut off.
...
Q: Disadvantage doesn't really matter much for some classes. You didn't think through the implications at all.
@Crawford: The feat is good—maybe too good. But in Sage Advice, I explain how the game works, not how I wish it worked.
Sorry,
Nowhere in that conversation does he say to roll three dice at once. Nowhere.
Your argument is based on your assumption.
Crawford even agrees that rolling two, taking lower then rolling luck die is sensible. He does not say it is wrong.
His statement fortune smiling on the unlucky does not verify your reading of the rules.
So far none of his statements say roll three dice and take highest.
His statement actually explicitly states my interpretation is correct and sensible.
Once again I say MinMax players are looking to gain an advantage when at disadvantage.
Never in the rules does it say you can roll your luck die with initial roll. It says after rolling, before DM has declared its a hit or miss.
The process is roll die (or two dice if using advantage/disadvantage) see result on roll. Now you may elect to use a luck die and then choose between initial roll and luck roll. The fact you rolled two dice does not mean there are two dice as a result, that is part of process. Process is not complete until you remove highest die for disadvantage. Then your roll is complete, now you may use your luck feat and roll another die.
Meaning until you remove a die the roll is not complete. Therefore you cannot roll your luck die yet. That is specifically how the rules are worded, that is specifically how they work and nothing Crawford said above changes that. In fact what he says is ' my interpretation is sensible' and a DM could do it that way. His statements never once said to roll three dice and take highest. Never. You assumed. Because that is the answer you want. That is not the answer he gave.
Chris
And to be more specific, nowhere has the question do I roll three dice then pick highest when I am at disadvantage and I have luck feat been asked nor answered. Because people would rather assume than actually read the exact response.
It is the nature of the human brain to fill in the parts you do not understand with your own hopes. Yet some people, are very literal. They understand the meaning of the exact word usage and punctuation to draw meaning from a sentence.
I am both a player and a DM. I have been playing versions of DnD since 1976. I see this stuff happen all the time. All my favorite minmax players will try to use every advantage they can dream of by not fully reading the rules or the errata. But instead using inference and assumption to help gain them an advantage.
My interpretation still gives the character three dice to choose from. This does statistically improve his chance for a better roll. But he does not get to choose from the first two dice only from the last two. So it does exactly as Crawford states make a character lucky even when at disadvantage. It however is not super lucky. It just gives that character a chance after bad luck befell him to pull it out of the wringer.
Once again, there is no statement official or otherwise from Crawford or Wizards that you may roll three dice at once and pick highest. There is only inference and assumption.
There is however a very specific statement by Crawford saying that roll two take lowest then roll luck die and take highest is not only a way you can do it, but sensible. That my friends is not assumption or inference, that is a statement by the Sage saying that is a correct way to do it.
Now when someone asks Crawford if when at disadvantage and with the luck feat you get to roll three dice and pick highest and he responds that a DM could do it that way and its sensible. Then you have a leg to stand on. Currently you are absolutely incorrect and are using an assumption.
Chris
Q: So the lucky feat turns disadvantage into super-advantage? That's pretty lucky. ;)
@Crawford: It sure is lucky! But keep in mind that anything shut off by disadvantage is still shut off.
wwiiogre wrote:
Jeremy Crawford wrote:
Just want to chime in that between the Sage Advice article, and the numerous tweets... it is blatantly obvious that JC is saying you get to pick any of the three dice. I am actually shocked that at this point anyone can find cause to argue otherwise.
...Still waiting on that 3rd bullet in Grappler to be replaced with something...
Noctaem wrote:
JackOfAllTirades wrote:
Sorry until I see the rules and errata that say you may roll all three dice and then pick highest. I must insist that is the wrong assumption.
Because Luck dice cannot be rolled until initial roll is complete. The third dice cannot be used until after disadvantage or advantage is applied. Then and only then is the roll complete. Which means the basic mechanices of the game must be followed. Before luck roll can be made initial dice roll must be finished. You may not roll dice with initial roll. You must wait until roll is finished and you know your final roll. Then before DM declares it a hit or miss. You may now use the luck feat.
So by process Luck does not take effect until after advantage/disadvantage has applied and you now know your final roll. So I roll disadvantage I roll a 17 and a 13. So my roll is not a 17 and a 13. It is the lowest of the two. In reality there is only a 13. The 17 is no longer there. Because they have to remove that from the table. It no longer exists because by definition if you have disadvantage the 17 was never rolled.
Now by using the luck feat you roll another die. Your first roll is a 13. You roll a 20 with your luck die. So you now turn your disadvantage of the 13 roll into a 20 and gain advantage with your luck die. Both rules have been applied. 3 dice were rolled. Luck saved the day and turned disadvantage into advantage.
Every rule was followed. Luck special rule trumped disadvantage general rule.
What did not happen was that Luck became a roll three take highest roll. Because it never says you get to roll three dice and gain super advantage. Once again that interpretation is only being championed by minmax power players. It makes no sense. It does not follow the rules.
So Crawford says disadvantage still applies. But rolling three dice and picking highest means disadvantage no longer applies. So how can in one sentence in the errata Crawford says it still applies yet in another it is assumed you get super advantage and get highest of all three dice.
Either one sentence or the other is wrong or they cancel each other out. In a written statement when two parts cancel each other you generally throw out the entire thing. The only way both of those can apply is the way I have structured it. Otherwise the errata and Q & A contradict and cancel each other.
Crawford has stated this way works. He has not stated its officially the only way it works. But he has said this way works. I have not seen his statement where it says you can roll all three dice and pick highest while not applying disadvantage in any way.
So if I have an Ranger and I am 5th level. I have the luck feat. I can now nearly guarantee a hit if I lay on the ground and give myself disadvantage then roll 3 dice to hit and pick highest. Because I can use the luck feat and now turn stupidity into overpowered minmax garbage. Which by the assumption of some would make sense. Or I can take that same ranger and stand adjacent to someone and gain disadvantage and use luck and now gain super advantage. So instead of role playing the ranger/archer smartly the minmax player now decides to intentionally gain disadvantage so he gets super advantage.
Now, if it is interpreted my way. The Ranger/Archer has to roleplay smarter and try to always be normal or at advantage. Because if he gains disadvantage even with luck its not super advantage. He would never intentionally lay on ground to get disadvantage under my interpretation. Because it is stupid. He would instead want to use luck with a normal roll, not have to take lowest of two dice then use luck.
But I just look at how the mechanices apply, how the rules apply and how it actually works in game.
Chris
wwiiogre wrote:
Macv,
In my posts I described exactly how the rules on advantage and disadvantage work. I described exactly how and when you can choose to roll a luck die. You may not roll the luck die until your initial roll is complete. Meaning you must know the result of the die. You must know what the number is. So you can decide to use the luck feat.
If you roll one die, you roll it, see the result then decide to use luck.
If you roll advantage or disadvantage. You roll two dice, you must remove one of them. Now you have a final result.
That is exactly how the mechanics of the rules work.
LUCK FEAT may not be used until you know the result of the initial die cast.
You may not roll the third die until one of the first two is removed.
I am still waiting for Crawford or any of the people at Wizards to respond to this. It is so far being ignored.
I have not ignored the statements you and others have quoted. I have however actually applied what is said to what the rules and words mean. All of them. Not just one sentence. But all of them from the players handbook to the errata.
I have applied how advantage/disadvantage works and when it is applied.
I have applied how luck feat works and when it applies.
I have noted that the player gets to roll three dice. I have noted that if at disadvantage, the special luck rule gets to trump the general disadvantage rule. The player does get to pick the die.
Once again my statement that multiple times taken out of context Crawford states things. It can be assumed that it means roll three dice and take highest when at disadvantage if you do not take any of the other parts of the rules in context as well.
But if you apply the rules and the process exactly as I have described. Everything that Crawford states applies. Everything.
It just does not happen the way some want it to.
Isn't calling someone a troll actually trolling itself?
I have not insulted anyone. I have taken everything into consideration not just a single line from an errata and another single line from a question.
I have applied all the rules and the errata. It can actually only work a single way while applying all the rules.
To be fair a DM can play it anyway they want. In our Friday night gaming group we have 3 DM's, all of us agree my way is correct. We have 3 players, one of which is minmax. The person who brought the errata in so he could roll three dice and gain superadvantage while at disadvantage. Only showing us the errata after he asked to allow his character to change his feat to luck. Pointing out he could shoot his bow at point blank now and gain super advantage. I have been playing since 1976 and DMing since 1978. I am third in experience in our group. Yet all the DM's agreed there is only a single way to apply this rule.
Why? Because it makes sense. Disadvantage applies and luck can trump it. But it does not allow a super stupid super advantage from a disadvantage. It does not allow a player to trump the rules. And do stupid things and get rewarded for it.
Chris
wwiiogre wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Chris,
Which is more likely: that three guys with a friend who likes to exploit loopholes would interpret a rule in a way that seems to close loopholes, or that everyone else (count the users in this thread, to start) is "minmax" and conspiring to misunderstand the rule and Jeremy's clarifications in the same way?
Restated, which is more likely: that three guys with a bias are wrong, or that everyone else is wrong?
So your friend saw a new toy and had a bad idea. Try this: let him do it his way. He doesn't get to dictate how things in the game are rolled, he just describes his character's actions and the DM adjudicates. Obligate him to explain how it makes sense in-character to close his eyes before attacking. "I rely on blind fate!" he says. Well there you go, narrative continues fine, so there's that problem solved. Now he'll either notice that he's using his luck dice poorly, or he'll go on wasting them and you can snicker behind his back about it.
Don't accuse me of trolling. I didn't say you were trolling. I said you were being condescending and you don't know what minmax means, based on phrases like "turn stupidity into overpowered minmax garbage." Define how you understand "minmax," please. Or just stop using it, and I'll let the issue go.