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.

<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:

1. The use of a clue token to adjust a roll is mostly only done on by someone who has played for more than five minutes for tests that are of mid to high importance, which are already tense by adding a clue you increase the ingame intensity a notch there have been several times in my last game where I lost the roll to a clue and I as a keeper were still enjoying it because it brings some intensity too the roll and creates a small/large make or break situation the feeling the investigators start to get when they lose the first few sanity its no biggie but then they are on 3/4 and they start to see I am wittling them down and the tests become more important and the idea that you would simply just save the ones from the first to the last sanity because your dice roll come withing "Range" of your luck is an anti climax and maybe could fit into all out tactical games like Descent 2 but personally not in Mansions, it becomes an anti Climax.  Personally thats why your points 1-3 invalid for my enjoyment of the game and my players who incidently have only won once but still love the game!
2.  Your point 4 about keeper abilities, these are normally randomly drawn cards for the keep and ones (Before Call of the Wild(I wouldn't know I haven't played yet)) all the players are welcome to know about for example you know if the keeper has certain cards in his deck and this effectively gives you a trump card over the keeper rather than the keeper thinking I will try this card it may pass or fail he/she will always know if you play it on a certain investigator they have permanant counter measure against it.  Most keeper abilities from mythos/injury cards are randomly drawn so the keep can't simply renew it like many investigators can with their clues.
3. I played this and Arkham with my brothers and it was awful because they didn't read cards out to build flavour they just reduced it to the base mechanics of the game and your point 5 shows why I think you/my brothers haven't understood mansions and to a lesser extent Arkham it's not Descent 2 it's about telling a story and like I alluded to in my point 1 it's not about just the mathematical probabilities it's about a story and the choice given to the investigator to increase his/her chance of success builds that fantastics tension as we have seen  in my point 1, if your frustrated trying roleplaying more, I have players who discuss the scars they have from the game weeks later and laugh about them and in game the take part of their characters and these aren't seasoned roleplayers they are virgin gamers.
4. People attack Mansions for obvious bias and I wont have that discussion again here but that is just the keeper/investigator balance and it may redress that in a large way but there is also the investigator/investigator balance, I know this is a coop for investigators but there is nothing worst than playing a game where a team mate is a lot better than the rest of you (Try playing Diablo1/2/3 Borderlands 1/2 etc with a high level mate<EmoteThat wont work>Boring!</Emote That wont work>)
5. Luck you are right isn't 100% describing the mathematical action in game but sounds better than a true description may!

Lilikin said:

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.

Thanks guys!

Well we all know how easy it is to lose Sanity! ;)