The extremity of the DCC Luck Check
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:47 am
Okay so unlike every other check in the game, the Luck Check features a unique mechanism: rolling a d20 under the actual Score. You want to roll low. If somehow the die size is affected by the dice chain smaller dice is suddenly good instead of bad, and the Luck modifier is not involved at all.
All of that might be strange but ultimately acceptable, but the probabilities skew extraordinarily in the favor of high Luck scores.
Normally when you are asked to make a DC 10 Check, your d20 roll is always within ten points (discounting modifiers) of the result. Meaning that burning 10 points of Luck should be sufficient to survive a "save or die" type of situation.
But with the rulebook Luck check mechanism this is no longer true. If you roll 18 and have only 3 Luck points left, you must sacrifice 15 points to pass the test (assuming burning Luck is even effective on Luck Checks!). And of course, you only have three.
This means that going low on Luck is much much worse than it would if Luck Checks utilized the standard conflict resolution mechanism. A character with high Luck is nearly immune to even a long series of otherwise-fatal Luck Checks (he can expect to pass them all with minimal need to burn Luck), while a character with low or average Luck will quickly find that he runs out of luck (literally).
Having 10 Luck is better than having 3 Luck, but only marginally so. Having 15 Luck is vastly better than having 10 Luck, and having 18 Luck is even better still (again by a large margin).
What are your thoughts about this? To me, it appears as if nostalgia for bygone dice rolling conventions have blinded us to basic mathematics.
Should Luck Checks be converted to the standard mechanic, that is, making a DC 10 Luck Check, the extreme weakness of low Luck and the near-invincibility of high Luck is normalized to regular standards. But before I do this, I want to hear the opinions of veteran DCC gamers and judges.
All of that might be strange but ultimately acceptable, but the probabilities skew extraordinarily in the favor of high Luck scores.
Normally when you are asked to make a DC 10 Check, your d20 roll is always within ten points (discounting modifiers) of the result. Meaning that burning 10 points of Luck should be sufficient to survive a "save or die" type of situation.
But with the rulebook Luck check mechanism this is no longer true. If you roll 18 and have only 3 Luck points left, you must sacrifice 15 points to pass the test (assuming burning Luck is even effective on Luck Checks!). And of course, you only have three.
This means that going low on Luck is much much worse than it would if Luck Checks utilized the standard conflict resolution mechanism. A character with high Luck is nearly immune to even a long series of otherwise-fatal Luck Checks (he can expect to pass them all with minimal need to burn Luck), while a character with low or average Luck will quickly find that he runs out of luck (literally).
Having 10 Luck is better than having 3 Luck, but only marginally so. Having 15 Luck is vastly better than having 10 Luck, and having 18 Luck is even better still (again by a large margin).
What are your thoughts about this? To me, it appears as if nostalgia for bygone dice rolling conventions have blinded us to basic mathematics.
Should Luck Checks be converted to the standard mechanic, that is, making a DC 10 Luck Check, the extreme weakness of low Luck and the near-invincibility of high Luck is normalized to regular standards. But before I do this, I want to hear the opinions of veteran DCC gamers and judges.