Is Luck of Heroes balanced?

[Roland Delacroix]

KD: Using some kind of mathematical probability doen't really work in the +2 vs +1 all debate. If all three saves got thrown out equally sure, but thats not the case in, at least my, games. Casters see a fighter, they throw a Charm or Hold Person. They see a Wizards they throw an Entangle or something. A Sorcerer would have to be some kind of idiot to throw a Fireball at a Rogue. In these cases a +2 is by far better than a +1.

 

[trentonjoe]

Wow, what a post! This has been going on for a month. The guy who started it must be brilliant!

<TrentonJoe takes a bow>

Anyway, the vote seems to be 6-3 for balanced.

I think I agree with the majority. The +1 to all saves is close enough to the +2 in one save that EVERYONE doesn't take it.

How many of you guys take this feat? I have about 8 characters and 2 of them took. Both those guys consider themselves very lucky.

 

[Darklone]

Well...

My characters didn't take it. Too many other feats to chose from.

And why should a halfling monk/wizard with horrible good saves waste one of his precious feats on something like this?

Spellcasters need their feats for metamagic. Fighters can't choose it. The others have a sidelong wishlist of desperately needed feats. Why choose this one? I know a lot of fightertypes who took Iron Will since sleep, colour spray or similar spells took them out too often. But none of them took Luck of Heroes.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

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?

I think that the majority of the time your conclusion is correct, KarinsDad, there are situation in which I think it is incorrect.

For example, a barbarian with an 18 con. He has a really good fort save (+6 at 1st, +8 while raging) already, so he will make the majority of his fort saves.

He also has a butt-load of HP. 16 at first, and an average of 10.5 a level. Since most reflex saves are to avoid fireballs and the like, failing a reflex save willl almost never kill him.

Ah, but will saves. Hold person, charm person, confusion, suggestion, sleep...all spells that can mean the end of the party if the barbarian fails his save.

I know which feat I would choose.

--Over-Analyzing

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Someone asked why Luck of Heroes grants a luck bonus.
That is probably because it is a back ground feat, isn`t it?
(And other Background feats - like "Militia" are not completely equal handled to most feats...)

 

[jontherev]

not so sure

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.

In a game where you roll dice, it's not always a good idea to gamble like that. I'd MUCH rather shore up my worst save than add +1 to all 3. Exceptions would be monks, paladins, or classes with only one 'good' save. And only because I'd personally rather not spend more than 1 feat on boosting saves. Imagine (and this is NOT an extreme example) the fighter/rogue 10/10, who would have base saves of 10/10/6. In cases like this, it is better to shore up that weak save imo. Not to mention, he's much more likely to have a high CON and DEX and possibly improved evasion. Your math is right, but it doesn't take everything into account. I think it really depends on the character, as to which feat is more advantageous.

 

[jontherev]

Wow, what a post! This has been going on for a month. The guy who started it must be brilliant!

<TrentonJoe takes a bow>

Anyway, the vote seems to be 6-3 for balanced.

I think I agree with the majority. The +1 to all saves is close enough to the +2 in one save that EVERYONE doesn't take it.

How many of you guys take this feat? I have about 8 characters and 2 of them took. Both those guys consider themselves very lucky.

My 11th level rogue multiclassed pc took both Iron Will and Smooth Soul. And here I am realizing I just posted something about never taking more than one save boosting feat! DOH! I won't be taking Luck of the Heroes though, since all of my saves are at +15 at the moment.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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?

You see, it's not that all of the conditions must occur - it's that any one must occur.

If any of the following are true, you conclusion is logically unsound:
* Your points #1 and #2 (both needed), or
* Your points #3, or
* The least favorable saving throw is exactly 50% of the saves, or
* Any save DCs will lies on an exterior point, or
* Saving throws don't happen with equal frequency, or
* Saving throws don't have the same results

To prove your argument as written, you'd have to disprove all of these points (well, not 1 and 2; you'd only have to prove one of those false, in addition to the rest of the bulleted points).

 

[Victim]

Luck of Heroes isn't that great unless you're placing a ton of emphasis on saves.

I think that Iron Will is almost always better for a fighter than Luck of Heroes. First of all, each save category has different effects. Reflex saves almost always reduce damage from traps or fireballs. Fort saves usually block nasty effects that kill or cripple, and reduce some damage. Will saves usually negate some bad mental effect.

Reflex: damage: 1/2
Fort: cripple: negate, kill: negate, damage: 1/2
Will: incapacitate: negate

Not that there aren't exceptions, like entangle.

What does a fighter have? Good HP, good Fort, and good damage ability. Because he'll have quite a few HP, reflex saves aren't that crippling. He has a good Fort save, so poisons and death spells are hard to land on him. However, he has poor Will save and no buffer to absord the effects of a failed save. In fact, a failed save can cause him to change teams for a bit, gving his toughness and damage ability to the other side so he'll beat down his companions. While having added reflex can be useful, and Great Fortitude helps when wizards boost spell DCs up, the disadvantages of failing a Will save combined with his vulnerability in that area make Iron Will a better choice.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

What does a fighter have? Good HP, good Fort, and good damage ability. Because he'll have quite a few HP, reflex saves aren't that crippling. He has a good Fort save, so poisons and death spells are hard to land on him. However, he has poor Will save and no buffer to absord the effects of a failed save. In fact, a failed save can cause him to change teams for a bit, gving his toughness and damage ability to the other side so he'll beat down his companions. While having added reflex can be useful, and Great Fortitude helps when wizards boost spell DCs up, the disadvantages of failing a Will save combined with his vulnerability in that area make Iron Will a better choice.

You've restated my post very well.

--Flattered Spikey