Is Luck of Heroes balanced?

[Hypersmurf]

It is obvious that a +1 to all saves through the life of the character is worth more than +2 to any single save.

I don't suppose you could qualify that as "It is obvious to me" or "IMO"?

It would seem there's a few out there who don't find it obvious

-Hyp.

 

[mzsylver]

Well, it gives +3 total instead of +2 total, but you can't choose where it goes and it doesn't stack with a luckstone.

however... Luck of Heroes does work in an anti/dead magic zone

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't suppose you could qualify that as "It is obvious to me" or "IMO"?

It would seem there's a few out there who don't find it obvious

-Hyp.

It's not really just an opinion.

It's basically a fact according to the rules of probability.

If a character has the following saves:

F +3
R +1
W +4

and he purchases Lightning Reflexes, his saves will go to:

F +3
R +3
W +4

Assuming an equal distribution of saves (i.e. the same number of Fort, Reflex, and Will each), 10% of 1/3rd of the saves or 3.3% of the time, the feat will help him.

If the character purchases Luck of Heroes, his saves will go to:

F +4
R +2
W +5

Regardless of the distribution of saves, 5% of 100% of the saves or 5% of the time, the feat will help him. So, in a campaign where 50% of the saves are Reflex saves, the two feats are equal. But, most campaigns have a more equal distribution of saves.


So, it's fairly obvious and not just my opinion. And, I'm sure it's fairly obvious to most people. Now, they may think the two are balanced, but that is a different issue.

 

[FANGO]

Oh, okay. Someone mentioned halflings earlier, and then mentioned luck bonuses and luck of heroes and all that, and all I remembered was them getting a +1 and not if it was named or not (cause I never paid attention to the names on the halfling bonus, figuring that even if it was a 'luck' bonus it shouldnt be so i'd play it that way ;-)).

Well...same holds for other circumstances though...for example, I think an outlaw of the crimson road should still get the benefit from a luckstone, even though they're the same name for the bonus....

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's not really just an opinion.

It's basically a fact according to the rules of probability.

Not true at all! A high-level rogue will often make Reflex saves 100% (or 95% if you use the Sage's ruling that saves always fail on natural 1s) of the time, making additional bonuses useless. What's more, the effect of failing different saves is not the same, especially on higher levels.

For your argument to be corrct, no saves can be extreme - they must all be on interior points. This certainly isn't so...

Your position requires 4 invalid assumptions:
* Characters won't have luck bonuses to saving throws from any other sources
* All save DCs will lie on interior points
* All saving throws happen with equal frequency
* All saving throws have the same results

 

[FANGO]

By the same logic....would a tank fighter be better served by wis +2, chr +2, and int +2 item, or a str +4 item? I'd definitely take the str +4 item, if I had to choose...yet the total bonuses of the other items add up to a feater bonus (and also cost less).

Same thing with the feats...naming the bonus as luck makes the feat way less powerful than the other save feats.

 

[hong]

You can consider Luck of Heroes as effectively giving a 1st level character a 10000 gp magic item that never fails, doesn't take up a slot, and can't be stolen to boot. All for the cost of a single feat.

Personally, I think this is evidence that the luckstone is overpriced.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm. Then Weapon Focus is a feat that gives you a bonus to your attack roll approximately equal 2.000 gold pieces ...
Oh my good, what about Combat Casting (+4 on a certain skill roll) or Improved Initiatve...
Ambidexterity negates a penalty of 4 points? Two Weapon Fighting an additional 4 points? Argh, this could be equivalent to a +4 enhancement! Okay, let`s say +3, since you don`t negate damage reduction and gain no extra damage. But you can use it with any weapon, and in antimagic fields...
(Hey, this once again proves that Rangers are utterly broken and frontloaded! )

I think Luck of heroes is a nice feat. But there are many other interesting feats out there, and there will be many characters not using this feat - so I don`t think its overpowered...

 

[FANGO]

Actually, feats are (almost) always worth 4k on an item, and 8k if they don't take up a spot. Since these obviously don't take up a spot, and also since they don't die in an antimagic field, I'd say all feats are equal to about 10000 gold. Furthermore, you're forgetting that the luckstone adds to skill checks and ability checks...which are definitely significant bonuses and which are leading reasons why almost every character I make has one. So yes, I suppose it's true that a luckstone would help someone who has luck of heroes...but it doesn't make sense, to me at least, that it wouldn't stack with the bonus to saves granted by the feat (esp. since it's a feat...feats are supposed to be learned skills that are highly developed, and seldom have names or at least unstackable ones (as far as I can recall/think of), and I just really dislike the whole named bonus in luck of heroes thing)

 

[KarinsDad]

Not true at all! A high-level rogue will often make Reflex saves 100% (or 95% if you use the Sage's ruling that saves always fail on natural 1s) of the time, making additional bonuses useless. What's more, the effect of failing different saves is not the same, especially on higher levels.

For your argument to be corrct, no saves can be extreme - they must all be on interior points. This certainly isn't so...

Your position requires 4 invalid assumptions:
* Characters won't have luck bonuses to saving throws from any other sources
* All save DCs will lie on interior points
* All saving throws happen with equal frequency
* All saving throws have the same results

The original quote of mine that he was responding to was:

"It is obvious that a +1 to all saves through the life of the character is worth more than +2 to any single save. "

Are you telling me that over the LIFETIME of the saves of a an AVERAGE character, that:

1) He will eventually acquire a luck bonus that invalidates his Luck of Heroes feat.
2) He will survive to actually acquire such an item.
3) That the frequency of his least favorable saving throw will be greater than 50% of the time.
4) That many levels of his best saving throws being affected by Luck of Heroes will not compensate for his extremely high saves in his best saving throws at higher level?

Yes, extreme situations CAN affect this. But, the point is that 95% of the lifetime of a character, he is NOT in extreme situations like these.

So yes, this small 5% advantage on all of the saves IS more potent over the lifetime of the character than a 10% advantage on approximately 1/3rd of his saves.

Just like a character can acquire a luckstone at higher levels (a 10,000 GP item, about the same in cost as +3 Armor), he can also acquire other items that boost his worse save.

Plus, a luckstone doesn't work in magic dead areas, it can be dispelled, it can be stolen or lost.

Plus, most characters migrate towards situations which require their best saves, not their worst. So, Rogues migrate towards disarming traps and opening chests and doors where Reflex saves occur more often than Will or Fort saves.

It doesn't take much to realize that over the lifetime of a character, +1 to 3 types of saves is more potent than +2 to 1 type of save. Mathematically, I am correct and I doubt you will convince many people differently.