I'd like to pass this thought around like a bag of chips so no licking your fingers please.
I'm getting more and more (and more) frustrated with debating whether or not to use a Skill Point only to still~ fail the test by 1. The way the mechanic is set up is understandable in that you may or may not succeed even with the help. The question of being able to choose to use luck is moot. Both versions allow you to choose if you use Luck. What I'd like is for you to consider the impact of being able to add luck after the fact (as is done in some puzzle solving).
For example, an Investigator rolls against his dexterity missing the result by 2. His luck is 3 and decides to use one skill point making his check a success by 1. Even though this would be a small edit in the rules it will vastly change the outcome. I support with the following reasons….
1-The new Luck ruling would be known. All players know going in that the Luck can be used when wanted and adjust accordingly.
2-The Investigator player still needs to decide when and if they use any Skill points to gain the Luck value.
3-Even with this powerful ability, a check is not guaranteed.
4-Several abilities at the Keepers disposal can still cause a check to fail.
5-As an Investigator you gain a choice and lose frustration.
6-The keeper normally has the advantage. This helps close that gap.
7-Luck will feel like luck!
This is by no means a new topic but worth revisiting. I do not think that the current ruling represents luck all that well. Luck is something you discover after the fact and recognize it. You don't go in buying a lotto ticket knowing you will win, you buy a ticked and are surprised when you do win.
|Page 1 of 1 (5 messages)||1|
<Not actually part of the post but interesting observation> Why do FFG forums not let me onto the next line anymore? </Not actually part of the post but interesting observation>
If I understand you correctly and please correct me if I have understood it wrong, you want to be able to add your luck to your score after you have rolled rather than before so effectively if you need a 5 and you roll 3 and your luck is => than 2 you will spend a clue then automatically pass?
Full disclosure I am a baddie
I disagree and here is why:
Luck you are right isn't 100% describing the mathematical action in game but sounds better than a true description may!
Luck does not exist in mathematics, does it? Probabilities or odds do but not luck.
That being written, I think part of the fun comes from taking a risk. Using a skill with no risk won't be very fun, would it?
You are of course right. Just had a quick thought about the OP's point Luck here is a perfect way of describing what has happened in the game mechanic the point is the more luck you have the more chance you have of 'being lucky' and thus a high luck improving your circumstances it's not a luck mechanic you don't lose a token to be lucky you use a token to improve your chances so your more lucky. :P
TBH, I have no idea what I was thinking (yes I do…I was thinking I failed 7 rolls in a row and was not happy).
Players would simply store the Skill Points and have too much advantage in the end game. While the keeper does have the advantage it can still be a close game. I think I was suffering from insanity. Without going into detail, not much worse could have happened that game.
|Page 1 of 1 (5 messages)||1|