>How does the Lucky feat interact with advantage and disadvantage? The Lucky feat lets you spend a luck point; roll an extra d20 for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw; and then choose which d20 to use. This is true no matter how many d20s are in the mix.
>For example, if you have disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use. You still have disadvantage, since the feat doesn’t say it gets rid of it, but you do get to pick the die.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats/
Okay I get it. Lucky is suppose to portray how in main character always land that one in a million shot. Like how everyone else couldn't hit but Luke turned his targeting computer off (to give himself a disadvantage) and still made that shot by trusting the force.
But this super advantage thing still somehow feels wrong in a game in a counterfactual way when people are deliberately closing their eyes to attack with disadvantage to hope for a crit. Do you or your DM allow you to use Lucky and disadvantage in this way in your game?
>>46348605
Oh no.
That creates hot new meta.
Forcibly creating bad conditions for yourself actually help you with the Lucky feat.
>>46348662
Not only that:
>You can choose to spend one o f your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined.
So imagine this situation:
>DM: okay anon, you and the BBEG are on the edge of the cliff with the pool of lava underneath, you have your swords locked and you're trying to push each other off into the lava
>DM roll an Athletics roll of 17 for BBEG
>DM: okay roll your Athletic, now because the BBEG is a large creature you get disadvantage
>You roll a 20 and a 1!
>DM: too bad, you fall into....
>You: NOT SO FAST DM! I use my luck point!
>Roll a 3
>You: I choose to use the 20 result, you push the BBEG into the lava pool instead
>>46348605
>>46348662
This is one of the problems with narrative mechanics. Many of the stories they try to encourage only work because of the "mechanics" of the world. The point is that they're ~exceptional~. Giving them mechanical encouragement not only creates an odd dissonance where the way the game works is directly at odds with the world it's meant to represent,
For example, think of the trope where a heroic underdog defeats an overwhelmingly powerful foe. Giving the foe a hidden weakness that a clever hero/player can take advantage of is fine. But a "story-driven system" might try to encourage the story by giving the "underdog" so many bonuses that it's statistically unlikely for him to actually lose. He's not at a disadvantage anymore, so the trope doesn't even apply; the result is a story that superficially imitates what the game designers want, while actually being the opposite.
>>46348711
That actually justifies wasting a feat to adjust a single result per day. Nothing wrong with it.
>>46349415
It's three times a day.
>>46349464
Even better! I don't see why this is a bad thing. If a player tries to "disadvantage" himself there's a good chance he screws up anyways.
>If a player tries to "disadvantage" himself there's a good chance he screws up anyways
Rolling three dice and choosing the result you want is objectively better than rolling one and hope for the best.
>>46349580
Yes, but that requires him to be in some bad situation. Like surrounded by bandits with a broken sword. Even 3 19's wont get him out of there unscathed.
Math for 3d20d2 if anybody cares & the simple 1-liner for it.
http://anydice.com/program/8035
>>46349037
Actually, I think "I close my eyes and trust in the force" and then taking a disadvantaged shot that then I lucky is perfectly in theme with some characters. Not everyone, but then not everyone should take the lucky feat.
