Luck use and mighty deeds

[Monster]

Generally, is it permisible to use luck to change the deed die to a success?

We had agreed on it at home, but I was wondering what the general consensus is here.

[Rostranor]

" noted earlier, a character can permanently burn Luck to give a one-time bonus to a roll."
Pg 95

So the answer is yes, but I would consider it a frivolous waste of Luck for the most part when you consider the overall purpose and mechanism of Luck. Part of that however is how often you give out Luck points in your game.

I have had only two non-thief expenditures of Luck in my year long campaign so far. Both were to avoid spell corruption. The players have been too afraid to spend them over fear that they wont be able to roll their bodies over.

[GnomeBoy]

My take on it is that you cannot change the result of the Deed Die -- you can only add to the total result of the attack roll with Luck.

The Deed success was explained to me as being the de facto result of the Die roll, e.g. x number of faces mean (potential) success, and y number of faces mean no Deed. This was in a playtest with Joseph back before release of the game. I believe at least one other contributor to the game's design has said as much, too.

Maybe they didn't hold to that and do it differently now, maybe it doesn't really matter. You can of course modify the game to suit any tastes, and that is it's beauty. But as it stands, I like it the "die-face" way.

I think modifying the Deed Die result is kind of like rolling a 19 and burning 1 Luck to make it a natural 20. It doesn't work like that.

[Rick]

I think modifying the Deed Die result is kind of like rolling a 19 and burning 1 Luck to make it a natural 20. It doesn't work like that.

That's my understanding of it as well.

[michaelcurtis]

For what it's worth, I don't allow Luck to be spent to modify the deed die. However, if the warrior rolled a 3 or better on his deed die and missed the attack by rolling low on his action die, I would allow Luck to be spent to increase the action die total.

Splitting hairs? Consistent? Wonky? Sure, but I'm just here to have a good time.

[DM Cojo]

For what it's worth, I don't allow Luck to be spent to modify the deed die. However, if the warrior rolled a 3 or better on his deed die and missed the attack by rolling low on his action die, I would allow Luck to be spent to increase the action die total.

Splitting hairs? Consistent? Wonky? Sure, but I'm just here to have a good time.

This is how I would rule it as well.

[GnomeBoy]

... if the warrior rolled a 3 or better on his deed die and missed the attack by rolling low on his action die, I would allow Luck to be spent to increase the action die total...

Absolutely unwonky.

[Skyscraper]

I also rule for the good time.

[Rostranor]

Adding +1 to a roll of 19 would not make it a natural 20, it would only make it a total of 20. No critical hit or automatic hit, the total just becomes 20.

I would still allow it for deed die because Luck can be used to modify a die roll and the deed die is a die roll. I do however think its a waste of luck and its use in that capacity would probably stop pretty quick.

[Gansk]

The deed die adds to both to-hit AND damage. Any warrior who has a choice between adding luck to a deed die or an action die is automatically going to choose the deed die. The mighty deeds would be icing on the cake (I wouldn't allow it).

[GnomeBoy]

Adding +1 to a roll of 19 would not make it a natural 20, it would only make it a total of 20. No critical hit or automatic hit, the total just becomes 20.

Exactly my point. The *special* thing doesn't happen, you just get a higher total.

The deed die adds to both to-hit AND damage. Any warrior who has a choice between adding luck to a deed die or an action die is automatically going to choose the deed die. The mighty deeds would be icing on the cake (I wouldn't allow it).

This is an interesting conceptual slice... I think the hair to be split is what does "roll" mean...

If roll means, the face of a die, then using Luck to modify the Deed Die should allow the attack result and the damage result to both increase. And the Deed attempted may also succeed with this improvement. If anyone is coming up with special rules along the lines of "burning Luck to add to a Deed Die means only adding it to one of those results", well, doesn't that seem fiddly?

If roll means, the *result* of some dice and the corresponding bonuses, then you can't secure a Deed by burning Luck for the Deed Die -- Luck additions can only add to the result of the total, i.e. the did-your-attack-hit-or-not result. Deed success is not directly affected (except in whether or not the attack itself was successful).

How about these apples... If burning Luck changes the die itself, then does that mean, once you've rolled a 20 on a d20, you can't burn Luck to improve the result? Or is it fair to get a 22 on a d20? Put another way: If burning Luck is the same as flipping the die to a new facing, obviously once you've rolled a 20 there are no higher faces to flip to, and you can't burn Luck to get a higher number (because there are none).

I'm not saying anyone is doing it wrong -- I'm just trying to hash out the possibilities.

[Skyscraper]

I think that the entire "what is a roll" and "what is a result" approach, while it makes sense on a purely logicial basis, is too profound for this game's approach.

Personnaly, I'd allow the deed die to be improved by luck. (I've changed my mind on this topic.)

If the letter of the rule is what you're looking at, the rule says "a die roll", a deed die is a die roll.

The warrior's schtick is his deed, why not allow the deed die to be improved by burning luck like anyone else's ability can be improved? The wizard could be turning a spell being cast from failure to success, or from success to greater success, why can't the warrior change a deed from failure to success also? The effect of a spell can be much more important than a deed.

Also, the warrior uses a deed every round, he'll be able to use luck every blue moon to improve his deed die anyway, assuming he does. And when he does, all the power to him, isn't that cool?

If you enter the "what is a roll" questioning, then it applies to all die rolls, improving a failure to a success should be prohibited for all die rolls if you prohibit it for a deed. The fact that the deed adds to a to-hit roll is rhetorical. IMO.

[oncelor]

I give out about 1.3 points of luck to each player per session. Our interpretation of the rules is that burning a point of luck is just like flipping the die to a higher number and pretending that this was your roll. So we do allow players to get critical hits by turning a '19' into a '20' and we do allow players to burn luck on MDoA's. You can't burn luck to get a result that's higher than the highest number on the die you rolled. Compared to other players on this thread it sounds like we're pretty generous with luck, but it isn't that often that players use luck on MDoA's -- my players generally save their luck for the many save or die effects I throw at them.

This interpretation of the rules is troubled by the fact that the rules specify that only warriors and dwarves can avoid a fumble by the expenditure of luck, and that's how we play the rule, but the notion that spending a luck is just like turning your die to a higher number is contraindicated by this warrior/dwarf fumble rule.

Also, I've found that allowing warriors to burn luck on MDoA's and hit rolls to get criticals helps to close the power gap with wizards.

[cjoepar]

I would allow it, no doubt. I suppose if there were some point later on where it was abused in some way, I'd reconsider, but I see no reason not to adhere to the RAW in this case.

[GnomeBoy]

...
If the letter of the rule is what you're looking at, the rule says "a die roll", a deed die is a die roll.
...
If you enter the "what is a roll" questioning, then it applies to all die rolls, improving a failure to a success should be prohibited for all die rolls if you prohibit it for a deed. The fact that the deed adds to a to-hit roll is rhetorical. IMO.

I simply disagree. There is an attack roll, of which the deed die is a part. There is no "Deed roll", per se.

I would allow anyone to modify the attack roll with Luck all they like, but that doesn't change the probabilities of the deed die.

I see allowing Luck to tweak a Deed as a houserule. And to be clear, I've got no beef with houserules.

[Skyscraper]

...
If the letter of the rule is what you're looking at, the rule says "a die roll", a deed die is a die roll.
...
If you enter the "what is a roll" questioning, then it applies to all die rolls, improving a failure to a success should be prohibited for all die rolls if you prohibit it for a deed. The fact that the deed adds to a to-hit roll is rhetorical. IMO.

I simply disagree. There is an attack roll, of which the deed die is a part. There is no "Deed roll", per se.

I would allow anyone to modify the attack roll with Luck all they like, but that doesn't change the probabilities of the deed die.

I see allowing Luck to tweak a Deed as a houserule. And to be clear, I've got no beef with houserules.

I'd agree with your argument if I accepted that "the deed die is part of the attack roll". However, that last part is far from clear in the rules IMO. The deed die concept is introduced in the attack modifier section of the warrior. Yet that does not confine the deed die in any way. The rules text is "[warriors] receive a randomized modifier known as a deed die". And the warrior table 1-10 indicates "deed die" in parentheses after "attack", but that does not mean that the deed die is "part of" in the attack roll. To me it simply means that the attack bonus is equal to the deed die. It seems to me that, in interpreting that the die die "is part of the attack roll" and consequently falls outside any rule affecting die rolls, you use an interpretation that applies in no other aspect of the rules that I know, to the deed die mechanic, to exclude luck being applicable.

And there is a "deed roll". Per the rules, "[a]t 1st level, [the deed die] is a d3. The warrior rolls this d3 on each attack roll and applies it to both his attack roll and his damage roll." I see instructions to roll a deed die here.

As I see it, the deed die influences the attack AND and the damage roll AND is also determinative to success or failure of the mighty deed. So the deed die clearly spills beyond the attack roll itself, it is not contained within the attack roll, even if the concept is introduced in the "attack modifier" section of the rulebook.

Even if the deed die were exclusively used to influence the attack roll, and was then considered "part of the attack roll", it's still a die roll in itself. And luck can influence "a roll". I don't see why the deed die would be excluded.

I consequently see nothing according to my interpretation of the rules, to exclude the deed die from the luck mechanic.

But as you suggest, you're free to houserule as you wish.

*ducks to avoid the flying pans*

;-P

[Eyeball360]

I simply disagree. There is an attack roll, of which the deed die is a part. There is no "Deed roll", per se.

I would allow anyone to modify the attack roll with Luck all they like, but that doesn't change the probabilities of the deed die.

I see allowing Luck to tweak a Deed as a houserule. And to be clear, I've got no beef with houserules

That's an interesting perspective. I would have assumed that by definition a "die roll" occurs when you roll a die.

But, as you said, the rest of us can just create a house rule where we change the meaning of rolling a Deed Die into the same thing as rolling any other die.

[GnomeBoy]

Darn! I'm fresh out of pans!

Would a cupcake work as well??

In what situation do you ever roll the deed die on it's own? It is always part of an attack roll and is integral to the attack roll.

AFWIW, the Deed mechanic is special/unique in and of itself, so whatever ruling applies to it with regards to Luck doesn't have to apply to anything else.

[Skyscraper]

Gnomeboy, I must warn you, I have two spells prepared today:

"Boccob's always right when arguing on the internet"

and

"cooking pan shield"

Just so you know.

[Eyeball360]

Darn! I'm fresh out of pans!

Would a cupcake work as well??

No thanks - I am trying to cut down and shed a few pounds before Christmas.

In what situation do you ever roll the deed die on it's own? It is always part of an attack roll and is integral to the attack roll.

But lots of rolls have very specific circumstances associated with them. When do you ever roll a Saving Throw on its own? It's always done in response to a spell or other effect. When do you ever roll a Corruption roll on its own? Its always done as a result of a fumbled spellcheck. What about a damage roll? It's never rolled without first rolling to hit or cast a spell. Sorry man, I think the intent of the game mechanic is that a die roll is a die roll is a die roll, and as I've said many times, I think if there is a simple straightforward way to interpret what is written and a complicated way that it could be interpreted, the simple straightforward way is generally always the correct way.

AFWIW, the Deed mechanic is special/unique in and of itself, so whatever ruling applies to it with regards to Luck doesn't have to apply to anything else.

AFWIW, you sir, are taking this assault on your opinions with much grace and class. Thank you for that!

[Skyscraper]

AFWIW, you sir, are taking this assault on your opinions with much grace and class. Thank you for that!

Wait I'm not done with him yet, I'm barely getting warmed up, I plan on additional spells:

"Mordenkainen's annoying poster who doesn't let go"

and also

"Cone of personal insults in an unimportant topic"

We'll see if he keeps a straight face then!

[GnomeBoy]

Don't make me break out the taunting French accent! It is especially un-pretty coming from gnomes...!

Should I at this juncture point out again that this interpretation is not just my personal take, but that the concept comes directly from Mr. Goodman, Mr. Stroh, and other DCC designers?

Not that that is mentioned to change your mind -- houserules in the right hands are a beautiful thing. But I'm sure you'll forgive me if I side with those guys, and take your reading as a houserule of your own.

We don't make any rolls in an RPG in isolation, attacks, damage, saves, corruption, or otherwise. I'm just saying that the deed die is part of the attack roll.

I'm not personally too fussed about it, one way or the other. But the OP wondered how different folks did it. I threw in my two-cents and a little explanation, and then started getting deconstructed. I don't mind, since I'm mostly held together with magnets and chewing gum, so re-assembly is simple enough (like me).

If somebody comes to this thread with that same basic "can you or can't you?" question, I want them to see it explored.

As John Hodgman says, "that is all".

[GnomeBoy]

Sky, I'm just glad you didn't prepare Bigby's interposing finger.

That's a spell too far.

[Rick]

http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 323#p69323

I'd rule it differently. It'd say that you get the static bonus to hit and damage, but the deed still goes off only on a "natural" 3+.

This. The natural die roll is the determiner, sans modifiers.

//H

http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 429#p69429

I guess I should have made that more clear - as Harley and Steven noted, the deed die determines success on a "pure" result of 3+ with no modifiers (kind of like a "natural" 1 for a fumble or a "natural" 20 for a crit, you need a "natural" 3+ for the Mighty Deed).
<snip>
_________________
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
http://www.goodman-games.com

[Rostranor]

Well it wasn't made more clear! Its in print, it will be interpreted by the letter of the written word. All non Luck burn to Deed Die roll people are heretics! Hrumph!