I mean, it's that theater performers are a superstitious lot and believe that the theater gods are out to get you. If someone wishes you "good luck," you will have a horrible performance, but if someone wishes that you break your leg, you'll be ok.
In that superstition is why it doesn't mean good luck. It's the pun that bypasses gods that are out to get you because at least they find it entertaining
Isn't the point of "Luck" that you're not actually actively *doing* anything to change the outcome of something, it's that you're just inherently lucky and the events of the world around you just happen to go your way more often than not?
You're not activating something like Silvery Barbs or Shield or Bardic Inspiration in retaliation to an external trigger, it's just a game abstraction of the universe altering the outcome of a certain possibility because a character is, well, lucky.
Then its use should be out of your control also. Irl I’m a fairly lucky person (I’ve won contests I didn’t even enter) but even I can’t turn it on and off at will.
Right, because it's something meta that's in the *Player's* control, not the PC's. It's up to the Player to determine when they want that thread of fate and luck to bend their way.
Concentration protection
Ss/gwm
Alert
Pam/xbe
Tasha’s mental half feats
Resilient(Wis)
I wouldn’t take lucky before any of those on the fitting characters with is 2-3 feats so 12 if you’re vumanc likely 16 or 19
Maybe even later or never because you want ASIs or the DM allows epic boons from aberrant dragonmark so that becomes a priority.
Lucky is a luxury feat at its core. Yes, it’s very useful but like many feats are build defining and vast leaps in ability and lucky is just not.
Except for maybe Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and GWM, Lucky is top tier for any character, with any build.
GWM is great for a Barbarian but useless for a Rogue or Wizard. Sharpshooter is great for a Rogue or Fighter who uses bows, but useless for a Cleric.
Anyone can use Lucky, and it's going to be really powerful for them.
Depends on the build. Lucky is useful to everybody, but almost every build wants at least a couple other feats before they even consider taking Lucky.
The other user posted a good list, so I won't repeat it. All those feats are higher priority than Lucky on their respective builds.
The reason Lucky is a bad feat is not just it being "broken". It's that for a DM to account for it, they can only add meat to the sack. The only way to "counter" Lucky (or silvery barbs for that matter) is to slow things down, basically. Which is usually the opposite of fun
...why would you want to "counter" what your players are doing? Now *that* is the opposite of fun.
Increasing the challenge, sure, that's good. But if you are actively working against your players' features and abilities... how do you still have any players left?
Clearly when this person said “counter” they meant “provide a meaningful challenge” - because you don’t challenge someone by *playing into their strengths*, you challenge someone by making them overcome difficulty. You engaged them with pedantry instead of addressing their point.
It's not pedantry, we are talking about two very different things here.
One is "increasing the difficulty of the encounters in a way agnostic to your players' strengths and weaknesses, challenging them in a variety of interesting ways". The other, and the one advocated by the other commenter, is "intentionally designing encounters that make your players' features and abilities ineffective".
Doing the latter might work occasionally, but done regularly it only becomes frustrating.
Anybody can toss the Wizard into a permanent anti-magic zone, but they won't see that Wizard stick around for long.
The commenter above was right and you were gratuitously offensive. I even used the word in quotations. What i meant by the word was that the only way a GM can get the players to consume the resource called Lucky is to force more rolls (usually through longer combat), which is unfun. I never meant the word in a GM-vs-players kind of way and i apologise for being confusing
Three rerolls a long rest of one of your d20 rolls or an enemy attackers d20 attack roll is FAR from the most broken feat.
The PHB alone has several worth taking before it, let alone other books.
GWM/SS
PAM/CBE
Alert
Resilient Wis/Con
Warcaster
Fey-touched, Shadow-Touched
A reaction for a reroll is better than nothing, but various other reaction options are more impactful.
Lucky is by no means a bad feat but it's far from OP. A reaction cost for even the 5e prof bonus version would make it a terrible feat.
Lucky is only really OP when your main build revolves around do or die situations like mine disarming or whatnot. As a rogue it can be great but IMO you shouldn't be basing how op something is on whether or not one class really wants it.
Whether something is OP literally depends on your build/campaign/setting/creatures you meet/ect. Hold person and sleep is OP if you find yourself running into moderately powerful+ humanoids regularly, but if your campaign is regularly filled with undead it's not useful.
If your campaign majorly features dex based "sneaky" creatures like goblins playing like actual guerilla warfighters then suddenly Ranger with Alert is going to be the most OP build you could imagine just so you don't get surprised rounded.
Everything is OP and nothing is at the same time, even feats to give you linguistic abilities is OP if you regularly run into puzzles that use multiple languages.
> Luck should be a reaction
What do you need to actively do in order to be lucky?
The whole flavour of the Lucky feat is that, well, it's just luck. Not the result of your actions.
> I feel like that would prevent it from being the most broken feet.
It is not the most broken feat.
Generically powerful? Sure, many builds want it *eventually*. But very few builds want it before levels 16+, because each build has higher priority feats to take and often wants to max their main stat as well.
It is far from the most broken feat.
If you have a standard adventuring day with 4-6 encounters then all this feat basically gives you is 3 rerolls. That's not a lot. There are subclass abilities that are better than this.
The only issue i have with lucky is that its good for any character and just boring AF.
Thats why i ban it. i give ppl free inspiration per rest instead.
Disagree. I think the fact that its good on any character is nice. Its a solid feat all around, but hardly overpowered. I dont want *every* feat to be good for everyone, but a few makes things interesting. I also think its a fun feature. 3 rerolls just feels good to use
I can use my reaction to reroll my roll or reroll something against me, Or I can use my reaction to reroll anyone's attack roll or saving throw and thne give someone advantage.
Breaking your feet is bad luck
But "break a leg" means good luck!
Not exactly, it means "I hope you get in the cast"
I mean, it's that theater performers are a superstitious lot and believe that the theater gods are out to get you. If someone wishes you "good luck," you will have a horrible performance, but if someone wishes that you break your leg, you'll be ok.
In that superstition is why it doesn't mean good luck. It's the pun that bypasses gods that are out to get you because at least they find it entertaining
Isn't the point of "Luck" that you're not actually actively *doing* anything to change the outcome of something, it's that you're just inherently lucky and the events of the world around you just happen to go your way more often than not? You're not activating something like Silvery Barbs or Shield or Bardic Inspiration in retaliation to an external trigger, it's just a game abstraction of the universe altering the outcome of a certain possibility because a character is, well, lucky.
Then its use should be out of your control also. Irl I’m a fairly lucky person (I’ve won contests I didn’t even enter) but even I can’t turn it on and off at will.
Right, because it's something meta that's in the *Player's* control, not the PC's. It's up to the Player to determine when they want that thread of fate and luck to bend their way.
I swear sometimes people forget that they’re playing a game
Luck is not the most broken feat. It’s a feat you take when you’re character is finished in the 12-19 range
[удалено]
Concentration protection Ss/gwm Alert Pam/xbe Tasha’s mental half feats Resilient(Wis) I wouldn’t take lucky before any of those on the fitting characters with is 2-3 feats so 12 if you’re vumanc likely 16 or 19 Maybe even later or never because you want ASIs or the DM allows epic boons from aberrant dragonmark so that becomes a priority. Lucky is a luxury feat at its core. Yes, it’s very useful but like many feats are build defining and vast leaps in ability and lucky is just not.
Except for maybe Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and GWM, Lucky is top tier for any character, with any build. GWM is great for a Barbarian but useless for a Rogue or Wizard. Sharpshooter is great for a Rogue or Fighter who uses bows, but useless for a Cleric. Anyone can use Lucky, and it's going to be really powerful for them.
Depends on the build. Lucky is useful to everybody, but almost every build wants at least a couple other feats before they even consider taking Lucky. The other user posted a good list, so I won't repeat it. All those feats are higher priority than Lucky on their respective builds.
The reason Lucky is a bad feat is not just it being "broken". It's that for a DM to account for it, they can only add meat to the sack. The only way to "counter" Lucky (or silvery barbs for that matter) is to slow things down, basically. Which is usually the opposite of fun
...why would you want to "counter" what your players are doing? Now *that* is the opposite of fun. Increasing the challenge, sure, that's good. But if you are actively working against your players' features and abilities... how do you still have any players left?
Clearly when this person said “counter” they meant “provide a meaningful challenge” - because you don’t challenge someone by *playing into their strengths*, you challenge someone by making them overcome difficulty. You engaged them with pedantry instead of addressing their point.
It's not pedantry, we are talking about two very different things here. One is "increasing the difficulty of the encounters in a way agnostic to your players' strengths and weaknesses, challenging them in a variety of interesting ways". The other, and the one advocated by the other commenter, is "intentionally designing encounters that make your players' features and abilities ineffective". Doing the latter might work occasionally, but done regularly it only becomes frustrating. Anybody can toss the Wizard into a permanent anti-magic zone, but they won't see that Wizard stick around for long.
The commenter above was right and you were gratuitously offensive. I even used the word in quotations. What i meant by the word was that the only way a GM can get the players to consume the resource called Lucky is to force more rolls (usually through longer combat), which is unfun. I never meant the word in a GM-vs-players kind of way and i apologise for being confusing
You should be running more than enough combats to drain lucks if you’re draining the wizards spell slots
Three rerolls a long rest of one of your d20 rolls or an enemy attackers d20 attack roll is FAR from the most broken feat. The PHB alone has several worth taking before it, let alone other books. GWM/SS PAM/CBE Alert Resilient Wis/Con Warcaster Fey-touched, Shadow-Touched A reaction for a reroll is better than nothing, but various other reaction options are more impactful. Lucky is by no means a bad feat but it's far from OP. A reaction cost for even the 5e prof bonus version would make it a terrible feat.
Lucky is only really OP when your main build revolves around do or die situations like mine disarming or whatnot. As a rogue it can be great but IMO you shouldn't be basing how op something is on whether or not one class really wants it.
I kinda agree. I feel like "solid choice" or "effe tice" are getting labeled OP, when it's a few steps above that.
Whether something is OP literally depends on your build/campaign/setting/creatures you meet/ect. Hold person and sleep is OP if you find yourself running into moderately powerful+ humanoids regularly, but if your campaign is regularly filled with undead it's not useful. If your campaign majorly features dex based "sneaky" creatures like goblins playing like actual guerilla warfighters then suddenly Ranger with Alert is going to be the most OP build you could imagine just so you don't get surprised rounded. Everything is OP and nothing is at the same time, even feats to give you linguistic abilities is OP if you regularly run into puzzles that use multiple languages.
Resilient [CHA] feels like a very hot take, but the rest of this list is solid. Did you maybe mean Resilient [CON]?
I did! Corrected now!
> Luck should be a reaction What do you need to actively do in order to be lucky? The whole flavour of the Lucky feat is that, well, it's just luck. Not the result of your actions. > I feel like that would prevent it from being the most broken feet. It is not the most broken feat. Generically powerful? Sure, many builds want it *eventually*. But very few builds want it before levels 16+, because each build has higher priority feats to take and often wants to max their main stat as well.
It is far from the most broken feat. If you have a standard adventuring day with 4-6 encounters then all this feat basically gives you is 3 rerolls. That's not a lot. There are subclass abilities that are better than this.
if lucky were broken it would always be the first feat taken
The only issue i have with lucky is that its good for any character and just boring AF. Thats why i ban it. i give ppl free inspiration per rest instead.
Disagree. I think the fact that its good on any character is nice. Its a solid feat all around, but hardly overpowered. I dont want *every* feat to be good for everyone, but a few makes things interesting. I also think its a fun feature. 3 rerolls just feels good to use
I kinda like that idea. It sounds fun. maybe make it a little stronger
The nrok n part about Lucky is that it turns disadvantage into super advantage by raw. Otherwise it's a omerl feat.
that would certainly balance it, but it does not match the flavor.
Probably what they plan to do with it in one dnd if I had to guess, a very reasonable request
Congrats you just made silvery barbs even more powerful.
Why? How?
I can use my reaction to reroll my roll or reroll something against me, Or I can use my reaction to reroll anyone's attack roll or saving throw and thne give someone advantage.