For my group, I’m currently doing 2 days = Long rest (that is basically 48 hours of light activity that can include completing downtime activities, but I would say no to travelling, since I like journeys to be dangerous and exciting, so not conducive to resting). If I roll a 4 and a 12 then I can decide to give a team member the 12 or an enemy the 4, which gives me an edge since the feat would require me to roll when I DECIDE to use it, so the number would be unknown.

The cap is a +5 unless you’re using the ‘Alternatives to epic boons’ rule. The only problem we had, and made us “nerf” it, was how it interact with disavantage, turning it into “superadvantage”. A lot.

In fact one of them is a min/maxing (ugh) math/science professor. This also works well with any other abilities that allow for dice rerolls, and it just makes the overall game more challenging for the players. The weakness of simulacram is that it can simply be dispelled right!? if it doesn’t fall into how you want to play don’t take it you make it bigger then it is and extra roll on one of your actions or an attack against you. a DM job is to make a story, make the luck play to your favour. Lucky is particularly annoying when player vs. player contests take place. I’ve had team members roll a 7 and a 3, or a 2 and a 2. Which is what any DM who deserves that name does.

Pole Arm Master is pretty sick. But even at higher levels these don’t always come into play, in the Drizzt series this was a climax that came after many small encounters that didn’t happen all together. One reason to do it this way is because it has less impact on messing up with time-sensitive campaigns (players feel they are less constrained in their decisions because they aren’t forced to sit around doing nothing while taking really long Long Rests).
I’d also argue that Cristyna is missing the point that Lucky isn’t so much an issue because 3 extra rolls in adventuring day is bad (which it isn’t) but that those 3 rolls are either massively important or fundamentally changes how the players approach the game. You probably do need to make sure you aren’t letting the luck player reset his pool everytime he wants. Alternatively, if you are a bit more generous than I am, then you could have them roll a d3 simply, giving them 1-3 luck points a day and an average of 2. RAW, lucky actually let’s you turn disadvantage into what I like to call super advantage. Thanks for the comment. Sleeping is not enough, you have to make time for prayer, meditation, study etc., to regain your spell slots etc.. If you need a 3, you are going to pass it anyway.

the rest of the time he failed anyway. Some great points and you make a very convincing argument. 1) Inspiration is not even remotely comparable to the Lucky feat and it isn’t supposed to be. Whenever you make an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you may spend 1 luck point to roll an additional d20. Personally, I think 3 re-rolls over two encounters isn’t OP … but by design it should be spread over 6 to 8 encounters. That’s a massive boon! Before you say “well that’s d&d”, that’s where I think this feat comes into play. It is universally beneficial in that it gives any character the power of probability manipulation. it also can be done by the DM, and 100 times better, as he can select the stats, feats, magic items and level of the bad guys… So yes, anything that players can do, the DM can do it 100 times better. Lucky annoys me from a player perspective as well. Doing otherwise is just bad and lazy DMing. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more.

Immediately precedes this by likening the DM to a dictator and follows it up with a diatribe of strawmen. Feats are Optional. As do the majority of DMs…, https://thinkdm.org/2018/01/13/feat-strength-tiers/. It is one use of a free advantage and that is it. ), I love this discussion, though, because LUCKY was the first feat I ever chose, simply because I’m a notoriously bad die roller. You’re right. https://thinkdm.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/feat-strength-tiers/. Personally I have to admit that I really enjoy luck, I get very absorbed in the numbers game and am criminally a min-max guy.

I always ban it after my last campaign. Nothing, he will charmerd or hold immobile while the party chop it to pieces.

I can think of times I have rolled a saving throw, failed, used and luck point, and then failed the second roll as well. “If you have inspiration, you can expend it when you make an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check. As it happens, the Lucky feat is a long rest resource. If they’re optimizers, trying to squeeze every advantage out of the rules, then you may have a point – but that’s a very dull way to roleplay – for me, it’s about as interesting as becoming an accountant! And MAYBE, you decide you’re taking the fight to the syndicate and infiltrating a large building BAM, that will be loaded with encounters, maybe 8 to 10 in one night. (6)they fight more of the guilds allies (7)boss room where a mage sends them into a demon realm. The game is better without Lucky.

I’ve found that my players become far less reckless when this mechanic is implemented, since they know if they’re taken off guard that not even their precious Lucky feat will save them. Every player took lucky as their first feat and always used it at critical moments. (I know there are people and sites that crunch these probability roll numbers. If they need a little help to pull it off, the game narrative usually wins. I hope some of this is useful, though.

It’s easy to take each disagreement as a personal affront, and every counterpoint as a “shut the f*ck up you idiot”, but yeah, I don’t think people mean it that way, and certainly I’m trying more and more not to take it that way (even if I have in the past!). So if your players are reasonable human beings, and you can have a thoughtful discussion with them, then you can explain why adjusting the rest structure will help create better balance (again, this is assuming better class balance is desired, or you like the idea of ‘gritty realism’ as it is called in the DMG).

Now, if you declare to players that resting takes much longer, but then you start throwing 6 – 8 encounters per day at the players, then yes, I’d agree that’s a jerk DM move (and players would rightly be up in arms over it). Luck, on the other hand, gives you the choice to gain that advantage on a dime, after you already saw that bad roll, on attacks, abilities, or saves, or the enemies attack, and when already set up with advantage while the enemy imposes disadvantage: YOU GET ADVANTAGE . 2) Wasn’t me who took Lucky off the table, was another DM in my group. It is necessary, unless you wish to nerf the Diviner.

III) If it works at your table and everyone is happy, then all is well.

Perhaps the best fix of all would be to have to declare you are using a luck roll before casting the die.
In answer to “do I nerf paladins because they out-burst damage”, hell yes…, https://www.hipstersanddragons.com/divine-smite-5e-dnd/. woops i meant to reply to ‘Your Mom’ above. I had a lot of fun with my Paladin using Great Weapon Master in my last session cutting down minions left and right and benefiting from the extra attack you get when you reduce a creature to zero hp almost every round.

We ran into 2 to 3 large encounters and 2 to 3 dangerous traps each session. Almost, but not yet, “game breaking”, and very fun to use. Because I have never played in a game like that…. It is usable only 3 times per day.

Giving NPCs Lucky to counter Lucky is just dumb, and a waste of everyone’s time. Of all the things to get upset about in the world, Dungeons & Dragons is most certainly not one of them! The “rules” are merely guidelines to get you started, to be modified (created, edited, or removed) as your group sees fit. Every single one of the four Dungeon Masters in my group has banned it from the table (the only change to the official rules we all agree on! Which maybe why all the DMs in our group agreed to ban it. If you want to discuss contents of this page - this is the easiest way to do it. People like to play different ways, and just because *you* like to play as a joe schmoe who add 1d4(1d4!

Simple, but a lot less manipulative. Oh, there’s a social check we really have to succeed here? I’m onboard with banning it if your players consistently take it rather than feats that better fit the flavor of their character, but I don’t think it’s actually as mechanically overpowered as it seems. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer. For example:

I have to assume most of the people that are angry have never dm’d a game before because they are lacking the understand of creating a dramatic environment. Then again, I’m happy if my players want to try something brave or exciting.

hell even a divination wizard changes the roll if the final outcome and you dont have to roll, to say it is broken when it is so easy to change the outcome thro all other means when the entire game is built off of advantage and disadvantage shows that you need to observe and think more creatively about how all game resources are being used. You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment. See pages that link to and include this page. The character loses their grip on the rope ladder and begins to fall, another player tries to catch them and fails, the character tries to get a grip themselves but fails … Lucky allows a re-roll and they succeed.

I would be just repeating myself if I say much more!

My awful-Charisma druid can do most of the talking, knowing he’s always got that luck to fall back on.

I’ve prefaced many an article with how well-balanced I think the 5e rules are, and the more I play, the more I realised how spot on WOTC got things… well apart from Counterspell, healing rules, Paladins (in particular their divine smite ability), and a few other bits and pieces. if you’ve resorted to giving your NPCs the feat, as then you’re just in a battle of rerolling dice rolls that already tell a perfectly good story. Compare it to the zillions of rolls that anyone does in a single day. If you want to keep Lucky but fix it somehow, here are some suggestions on how to deal with it. I would also use a point to roll for a low saving throw or to avoid a natural “1” in a critical moment. Very bad. Thanks again for the comment. I’ve prefaced many an article with how well-balanced I think the 5e rules are, and the more I play, the more I realised how spot on WOTC got things… well apart from Counterspell, healing rules, Paladins (in particular their divine smite ability), and a few other bits and pieces.. One – inexplicable – thing that blows my mind though is how the Lucky feat survived playtesting. They have to say “I use a lucky point” before knowing if it hits or misses. Notify administrators if there is objectionable content in this page. – great weapon master That’s it. It’s also noteworthy here that their first roll was bad enough that they felt they already lost. A good DM acts as a guide for his or her players, not a dictator.

This guy’s legit. (And of course before each campaign I explain to the players this mechanic will be implemented.

It’s possible to roll worse than I had, but equally possible to roll better. You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. If you made Long Rests 24, 48 or even 72 hours long, you can cut back on the seeming ‘power’ of things like Paladin Smite, Lucky and even some of the other powerful Class Abilities I have not seen discussed here (that are based on Long Rests). Sharing happiness by sharing Coke rewards codes. saying that I only really notice rogues take luck these days. Some monsters have “Legendary Saves”, they may choose to pass the ST even if they fail the roll… And we are going to deny players even the chance or rolling a second time???