Luck

[David Johnston2]

Here's the thing about Luck. It isn't. Luck has absolutely no effect on random stuff that happens. It doesn't cause anything improbable to happen. For that, look at Serendipity. No, Luck is actually the ability just to...not screwup in any serious way. It's something you keep handy to ensure that you'll get fewer critical misses, that your opponents will get fewer critical hits...and maybe that you won't miss save versus death rolls. Apart from that last one what we're talking about is not luck. It's competence, being a reliable performer. It's not screwing up when the heat is on. Despite the name, almost anything Luck does can be simply the product of being unshakeable and cool-headed...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Here's the thing about Luck. It isn't. Luck has absolutely no effect on random stuff that happens. It doesn't cause anything improbable to happen. For that, look at Serendipity. No, Luck is actually the ability just to...not screwup in any serious way. It's something you keep handy to ensure that you'll get fewer critical misses, that your opponents will get fewer critical hits...and maybe that you won't miss save versus death rolls. Apart from that last one what we're talking about is not luck. It's competence, being a reliable performer. It's not screwing up when the heat is on.

Well, two things.

One is that that's player choice, not what Luck fundamentally does. You can use Luck to shoot for unlikely results. Luck can bag you an 8 or better result almost 60% of the time. Avoiding those sorts of gambles, playing things safe, and only using Luck when safe turns out to not be safe enough is reasonable for a number of reasons, but those reasons aren't to be found in the mechanics of Luck.

The other is that a long run of nothing critically failing is something improbable happening. It might not be as flashy as an instant million-to-one break, but it can be just as unlikely. Luck that means the truism "@#*% happens" isn't true for your life is luck indeed!

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Despite the name, almost anything Luck does can be simply the product of being unshakeable and cool-headed...

You're not the first to suggest that, but in my opinion it's profoundly wrong. Compentence simply doesn't do that, and suggesting that the effects of Luck are what competence looks like implies that characters without luck are not competent. Which would be an extremely serious failure of the entire system.

[AlexanderHowl]

Luck becomes possible of making a one-in-a-million shot when it is an ability. For example, let us say that you have a character with Probability Control (Psionic) 4 [20] and Luck (Psionic, -10%; Reliable, +10, +50%) [21]. When you use Luck in advance to make three rolls, you get to add +14 to each of the rolls, which allows you to make those one-in-a-million shots (a character with skill 14 would have a 60% chance of succeeding on a roll that suffered a -20 to skill, which is flying a helicopter blindfolded through a hurricane territory).

[Shostak]

In addition to Ulzgoroth's comments, I'll toss in that, by buying Luck, you not only get a chance every so many minutes to turn any bad roll you choose into a good one, those multiple re-rolls should, on average, increase your total number of critical successes.* If you have more than the average number of critical successes, you are lucky, not merely competent.

*your average of crit successes per attempted task, not per roll; the per roll number will still be close to the average (unless you the player are lucky!) of roughly 1 out of every 216.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Luck becomes possible of making a one-in-a-million shot when it is an ability. For example, let us say that you have a character with Probability Control (Psionic) 4 [20] and Luck (Psionic, -10%; Reliable, +10, +50%) [21]. When you use Luck in advance to make three rolls, you get to add +14 to each of the rolls, which allows you to make those one-in-a-million shots (a character with skill 14 would have a 60% chance of succeeding on a roll that suffered a -20 to skill, which is flying a helicopter blindfolded through a hurricane territory).

Do you have any source suggesting that's a valid interpretation of Reliable? Because it seems like complete rule salad to me. Reliable is a bonus to rolls to use an ability, and there are no rolls to use Luck.

[mr beer]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Here's the thing about Luck. It isn't. Luck has absolutely no effect on random stuff that happens.

Unless the GM asks you to make a roll for something that's random or the GM is rolling for something that's random that affects your character. In either case, you may use Luck.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Well, two things.

One is that that's player choice, not what Luck fundamentally does. You can use Luck to shoot for unlikely results. Luck can bag you an 8 or better result almost 60% of the time.

Why would I want an 8 or better result?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Luck becomes possible of making a one-in-a-million shot when it is an ability. For example, let us say that you have a character with Probability Control (Psionic) 4 [20] and Luck (Psionic, -10%; Reliable, +10, +50%) [21]. When you use Luck in advance to make three rolls, you get to add +14 to each of the rolls, which allows you to make those one-in-a-million shots (a character with skill 14 would have a 60% chance of succeeding on a roll that suffered a -20 to skill, which is flying a helicopter blindfolded through a hurricane territory).

<snort> You can't put reliable on Luck because Luck already works every time you try it.

[AlexanderHowl]

Actually, there is nothing in the rules against it. In Powers (p. 59), it says that Talent adds to Luck rolls when using Luck actively. In Powers (p. 109), it says that Reliable acts exactly like Talent, effects the same rolls as Talent, and does not effect any rolls not effected by Talent. Therefore, active uses of Luck benefit from both Talent and Reliable, so the +14 bonus is valid.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Why would I want an 8 or better result?

...Because that happens to be what you need for something? I do not understand your question.

The reason I pointed it out, if that's what you mean to ask, is that an 8 or better is fairly improbable (<26%) normally but is far more achievable with the help of Luck.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Actually, there is nothing in the rules against it. In Powers (p. 59), it says that Talent adds to Luck rolls when using Luck actively. In Powers (p. 109), it says that Reliable acts exactly like Talent, effects the same rolls as Talent, and does not effect any rolls not effected by Talent. Therefore, active uses of Luck benefit from both Talent and Reliable, so the +14 bonus is valid.

That strikes me as extremely stupid...but I have to agree that it is what the text says.

You did fumble a small but important point, though. That bonus only works "if that use of Luck is declared in advance". That...has some weird consequences if your Luck doesn't have the Active limitation. (Specifically, you probably can't benefit from it...except for rolls the GM makes for you in secret. Per the core Luck writeup on B66. I said it was weird!)