Goodman Games

When halflings burn luck on behalf of an ally, does the ally get +2 per point spent, or +1?

-Berc

I've been going with +1 for allies and +2 for the halfling only since the text says "+2 bonus to his roll" and not something else like "+2 bonus to affected rolls."

You get +4 if you have a Halfling's foot on a keychain.

jeff wrote:You get +4 if you have a Halfling's foot on a keychain.

The discovery that lead to the extinction of halflings.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I always assumed it was +2 but now I am not so sure. It does say that they double the bonus of a luck check which also implies that it's double when added to others as well.

bholmes4 wrote:I always assumed it was +2. It does say that they double the bonus of a luck check which also implies that it's double when added to others as well.

Ditto.

bholmes4 wrote:I always assumed it was +2 but now I am not so sure. It does say that they double the bonus of a luck check which also implies that it's double when added to others as well.

But it does say "gains a +2 to HIS roll" on p. 60.
I think i will go the "hardcore" way, of allowing a 2:1 luck burn to his own rolls only.

But it would be good to hear what was the official intent ... Joseph?

The intent of the rules was that any Luck burned by a Halfling grants a 2:1 benefit. So 1 point of Luck burned grants +2 to a roll by either the Halfling or an ally.

I notice in my games the more we play the more amazing the lucky halfling becomes. Throwing his bonus on allied saving throws, spell checks, and recently to damage rolls. The halfling is becoming more important to party survival than the cleric.

"Why are they always after me lucky charms?"

Raven_Crowking wrote:"Why are they always after me lucky charms?"

That guy is magically suspicious...

GnomeBoy wrote:

Raven_Crowking wrote:"Why are they always after me lucky charms?"

That guy is magically suspicious...

Say hello to your new Patron, wizard!

I have a quick question about halfling luck. Could it be burned to increase the result of deeds die, or does a deeds die need to be a natural 3+ to go off?

Vanguard wrote:I have a quick question about halfling luck. Could it be burned to increase the result of deeds die, or does a deeds die need to be a natural 3+ to go off?

I would think that since the high-level Warrior & Dwarf pluses to attack and damage don't count for deed success, that adding a bonus from burnt Luck wouldn't either - just like there is no rule about how much Luck one can burn to turn a normal hit into a critical hit.

Interesting territory for a house-rule though - might get players playing a little looser with their Luck, which could be pretty entertaining.

That's what I figured. I like it as is, honestly. You shouldn't be able to burn your way to a critical hit or a mighty deed, but it was something the rules didn't clarify.

I noticed an odd bit of wording in the text describing the "third" use of the halfling good luck charm.

If you read the first 5 sentences of the paragraph, it appears to me to be clear and complete: a halfling can spend his own luck on behalf of an ally.

And then there's an additional sentence: "The halfling's Luck modifier can apply to any roll made by an ally: attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, spell checks, thief skills, and so on."

To me, this last sentence is entirely extraneous if it is referring to the halfling spending luck on an ally's behalf. We already know that expended luck can apply to all of those kinds of rolls.

But the sentence doesn't say, "Luck expended can apply to ..." It says, "The halfling's Luck modifier."

Read literally, the sentence means that, in addition to being able to expend luck on an ally's behalf, the halfling can actually add his Luck modifier to allies' rolls at will. That would mean that a party that included a halfling with a Luck score of 18 would have a permanent +3 to all their rolls unless the halfling spent some of his luck and reduced his current Luck so that his modifier dropped.

Am I being crazy to even consider the possibility that this literal interpretation is what the rule intends?

Yeah I think you are crazy . That's probably just there in case the halfling spends more than one point, thus changing the modifier.

If you are right that really changes things .

Ravenheart87 wrote:

jeff wrote:You get +4 if you have a Halfling's foot on a keychain.

The discovery that lead to the extinction of halflings.

Halflings can still make little halflings with only one foot.

The real problem was the part hunted for to make human females get pregnant more often.

bholmes4 wrote:Yeah I think you are crazy . That's probably just there in case the halfling spends more than one point, thus changing the modifier.

If you are right that really changes things .

In general, a halfling is pretty unlikely to have a Luck modifier greater than +1, so my interpretation would give the party a nudge upward on all rolls, but not a crazy advantage. In the case of halflings with Luck scores of 16 to 18, the party would get a significant bonus for the first part of most days, but if the halfling used even a couple of points of luck, his current modifier would drop down into reasonable territory quickly.

The incentives for spending luck become very interesting in this interpretation, too. The halfling wouldn't get to apply his modifier to all of his own rolls, so he would have to weigh the benefit of expending luck points against the reduction in his modifier, which can aid his allies. So the party wouldn't want a high-luck halfling spending luck unless it was of critical importance. A 12-luck halfling who spends 3 luck points to help the party out (or even just to boost one of his own rolls) has given a clear benefit. But if a halfling with an 18 luck spends the same 3 points, he's just reduced everyone's rolls by 2 points of modifier.

An additional interesting quirk would be the ability of a halfling to spend his luck down until his modifier went negative, and then threaten to "curse" allies who don't let him have his way. (If he can apply his modifier to allies' rolls, why wouldn't that apply to a negative modifier too?)

I'm still pretty dubious that this interpretation is what's intended, but the more I think about it, the more interesting it gets.

Bilgewriggler wrote: And then there's an additional sentence: "The halfling's Luck modifier can apply to any roll made by an ally: attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, spell checks, thief skills, and so on."

To me, this last sentence is entirely extraneous if it is referring to the halfling spending luck on an ally's behalf. We already know that expended luck can apply to all of those kinds of rolls.

I'd offer the opinion that the sentence is not entirely extraneous, and is just giving a few examples of the types of rolls available. It is unclear, because of a poor choice of word in "modifier", when "bonus" or something similar would be less confusing.

But you're right - the interpretation you've taken would lead to some interesting strategic decisions.

Assuming that's not the intended interpretation, I do hope that "player-sourced" minor clarifications can make it into future versions of the core rules. While this is example is (hopefully) unlikely to cause scuffles at the gaming table, I know that for example my players and I tend to read any D&D 3/3.5/4 inspired rules very literally, as we missed those versions and don't always know the "obvious" intent. Simple word choice can make a big difference to how we play the game!

Merl wrote:

Bilgewriggler wrote: And then there's an additional sentence: "The halfling's Luck modifier can apply to any roll made by an ally: attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, spell checks, thief skills, and so on."

To me, this last sentence is entirely extraneous if it is referring to the halfling spending luck on an ally's behalf. We already know that expended luck can apply to all of those kinds of rolls.

I'd offer the opinion that the sentence is not entirely extraneous, and is just giving a few examples of the types of rolls available. It is unclear, because of a poor choice of word in "modifier", when "bonus" or something similar would be less confusing.

But you're right - the interpretation you've taken would lead to some interesting strategic decisions.

Assuming that's not the intended interpretation, I do hope that "player-sourced" minor clarifications can make it into future versions of the core rules. While this is example is (hopefully) unlikely to cause scuffles at the gaming table, I know that for example my players and I tend to read any D&D 3/3.5/4 inspired rules very literally, as we missed those versions and don't always know the "obvious" intent. Simple word choice can make a big difference to how we play the game!

One of my players rolled a freakishly awesome halfling (18 luck, bonuses in at least two physical stats, no negative modifiers, and a great birth auger that I don't recall off the top of my head). If he makes it past 0 level, he's the kind of player who'll want to push these kinds of boundaries, so I want to be ready to deal with it in the way that will be the most fun for the group.

The permanent modifier to all allies' rolls appears over the top to me. I doubt this was the intent, and honestly I'm not going to search the book to point to rules pages; but it would be a freakishly strong ability that the halfling should never, ever, except to save himself from certain death, give away against a one-shot luck burn. Everyone getting even only a +1 to all their rolls all the time, is wayyyy better than the halfling getting +5 or even +10 to one roll once. Some will argue, "it depends on the roll"... Well, that's B-S, because statistically, that permament +1 is going to improve all actions so much that getting one sure success through luck burn by the halfling is not going to outweigh that 5% increase in success of all actions by all other PCs.

If your player tries to argue that rule, simply say "no". Period. "I'm not going to accept a permanent ambulatory bonus-giver into the game because that's not how I interpret the rule. If you feel otherwise, you can run a game for us, and we'll try hard to find ourselves a lucky halfling "

Skyscraper wrote: If your player tries to argue that rule, simply say "no". Period. "I'm not going to accept a permanent ambulatory bonus-giver into the game because that's not how I interpret the rule. If you feel otherwise, you can run a game for us, and we'll try hard to find ourselves a lucky halfling "

I agree, although it would be awfully tempting to simply run with it. And clarify a few things... for example, if there are multiple halfling allies, do you add all the modifiers together, or randomly determine which one applies? Either way, the players might decide to reinterpret the rule when they realize just how often they run into really UNLUCKY halfling allies on their adventures....

Skyscraper wrote:The permanent modifier to all allies' rolls appears over the top to me. I doubt this was the intent, and honestly I'm not going to search the book to point to rules pages; but it would be a freakishly strong ability that the halfling should never, ever, except to save himself from certain death, give away against a one-shot luck burn. Everyone getting even only a +1 to all their rolls all the time, is wayyyy better than the halfling getting +5 or even +10 to one roll once. Some will argue, "it depends on the roll"... Well, that's B-S, because statistically, that permament +1 is going to improve all actions so much that getting one sure success through luck burn by the halfling is not going to outweigh that 5% increase in success of all actions by all other PCs.

If your player tries to argue that rule, simply say "no". Period. "I'm not going to accept a permanent ambulatory bonus-giver into the game because that's not how I interpret the rule. If you feel otherwise, you can run a game for us, and we'll try hard to find ourselves a lucky halfling "

Obviously, if the halfling is Lawful, it would require dire circumstances to cause him to short the entire party for a one-shot roll on his own behalf. But if the halfling is Neutral or Chaotic, then conserving his luck in order to share out his modifier would be out of character. As a judge, I'd be more than happy to say that any halfling so intent on using his luck on behalf of others would essentially be denying himself luck -- meaning that monster attacks and traps and spells might be more likely to target him, eventually forcing him to augment a save with a luck burn. And if that halfling were playing against alignment to boot, I'd magnify the effect.

The potential effect on party dynamic could be fun too. I would subtly (or not so subtly) encourage the other players to behave in an overprotective fashion toward the halfling, so that he might find it constantly chafing that they won't let him be the one to search for treasure, or to parlay with the black knight ... or even to go out after dark, lest they lose their cherished bonus.

I'm not too worried about my players colluding to min-max the use of the bonus, and if they do become over-dependent on it, that just gives me a story hook to create an adventure in which the halfling gets cursed and the party has to quest to restore his luck. Or one in which nefarious strangers hear of the miraculous lucky boon in this individual halfling, and kidnap him in hopes of making use of his good fortune for their own purposes.

With all that said, I agree that the "ambulatory bonus-giver" interpretation probably founders on the simple disproportionality of the whole party having a (potential) +3 to all damage rolls. That's an enormous advantage, and would require the judge to retool a lot of encounters, especially at lower levels where the monsters don't have that many hit points.