Is Luck of Heroes balanced?

[apsuman]

Luck of the Heroes effect 100% of the saves the player will encounter.

Assume a normal random distribution for save types, and Iron Will would only effect 33% of a character's saves.

Now that part is obvious.

But it has been pointed out the rouge with his good Reflex save will probably already be making most/all of the important reflex saves. To a lesser extent Fighters will be making their Fort saves. For these types of characters, the +2 to their weaker save is probably better.

However, given the relative strengths of certain classes, LotH would be better than any of the +2 to one save feats under some conditions, and not so under other conditions.

IMHO, Monks would benefit from LotH more than other classes as all their saves are good.

Characters with two good save types and one weak one would probably benefit most from the +2 to 1 save feats.



g!

 

[Victim]

You've restated my post very well.

--Flattered Spikey

Really? I didn't bother reading the whole thing. I've been in discussions like this before, so I basically have canned responses to some of the topics that tend to repeat themselves. Therefore, you may have been restating my posts from a previous thread.

However, "Great minds think alike" sounds like a much better theory, in my not so humble opinion.

 

[FANGO]

"Luck of the Heroes effect 100% of the saves the player will encounter. "

This is very much untrue...

Example: I have a 14th level sor1/bbn2/ftr2/trb.prot.2/drag.disc.7 (yes, he's a munchkin...I'm teaching the DM a lesson ;-)) with a +32 fort save. The highest fort DC he's encountered yet has been 30. In this case, luck of heroes would not affect his saves at all (not to mention that he has a luckstone anyway, as almost all of my characters do, because +1 to saves, skills and ability checks isn't half bad for 10k, esp. if you use your skills a lot like I do). However, his ref and will are both nowhere near this good, and he does indeed have iron will. I could also use the example of my high level half-ogre barbarian type who doesn't miss a fort save (and has a luckstone, btw), or my low level halfling rogue who doesn't miss reflex saves (except on a 1...which seems to happen every time I roll a reflex save...grr...)...

Regardless, in all these examples, luck of heroes wouldn't affect 100% of the saves, and would be a vastly inferior choice to a +2 to one save feat (not to mention the stupid stupid stupid named bonus of luck of heroes...grr...)

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Really? I didn't bother reading the whole thing.

Obviously.

That was kinda my point. It's fun to pick on people when they haven't read the whole thread.

--Ribbing Spikey

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Luck of the Heroes effect 100% of the saves the player will encounter.

Assume a normal random distribution for save types, and Iron Will would only effect 33% of a character's saves.

Well, we know what happens when you assume. Like stated earlier, a Mage would be a real dumbass to use Charm Person on a Cleric or Fireball on a rogue. If players are gonna go head to head against anything intelligent they aint gonna get a normal distibution of saves.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

It's irrelevant unless he is making 95% of his fort saves.

Unless he is up to the 95% level for one of his saves (against most situations), having +1 for all three is better than +2 for one.

Even at a 90% save level for most of his Fort saves, it is STILL better to have +1 and make it 95% and increase his other two save types by 5% then to increase one of the lesser ones by 10%.

Now, Roland will try to convince you that there is a skewed set of save types per character class. Well, occasionally there might be if the save is due to an opposing spell caster using a targeted spell.

But if the save is from an area affect spell, chances are that it is affecting multiple characters, possibly including the Rogue, Bard, and/or Monk with their good Reflex saves.

If the save is from poison or disease...
If the save is from a trap...
If the save is from an ability of a monster...

The point is that most saves are NOT from enemy spell casters targeting a single character. Most are from other sources which are typically not intelligently directed or against multiple PCs.

And, even in the case of enemy spell casters, they usually only have so many targeted spells per day. If they KNOW that you are a Rogue or a Bard, maybe they will try a Fort save spell against you. That is, if they happen to HAVE a Fort save spell available.

Well, we know what happens when you assume. Like stated earlier, a Mage would be a real dumbass to use Charm Person on a Cleric or Fireball on a rogue. If players are gonna go head to head against anything intelligent they aint gonna get a normal distibution of saves.

At least in the campaigns I've DMed or played in, the vast majority of PCs wear light armor. Very few wear medium or heavy armor. So, with a casual glance, it is very difficult to tell what a given PCs class may be. Druids are the only class that have weapon restrictions. For example, every elf in the game can use some form of bow and sword. Even my low level Wizards always wear leather armor. So, if an enemy spell caster sees a PC cast a spell and the spell has a visual effect or the enemy spell caster makes a Spellcraft roll, then maybe he might know a little more about the PC. Otherwise, …

And, at least in the groups I’ve played with, the enemy spell casters are the first targeted (once they are determined as such). So, they typically do not have a lot of rounds to throw targeted spells at PCs. Plus, with multi-classing, you really cannot assume that a given PC has a given low save type.

The point is, unless the DM often plays the NPCs as if they have metagame knowledge, it should be the exception rather than the rule that enemies quickly know exactly which PCs have low Reflex saves, which have low Fort saves, etc. If your DM is repeatedly having enemy spell casters target the lowest save PCs in your group, then I personally would look for a new DM.

The ratio in most well run campaigns might not be 33% for each save type, but it should be nowhere near 50% for a given PC for their lowest save type. IMO. Roland will disagree. C’est la guerre.

 

[Vander]

Has there been any errata on "Iron Will", etc. The +2 seems awfully weak for taking a whole Feat. I would say +4 or something....Just my .02 cents.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

No, there hasn't been any errata for Iron Will. It's good because it's an unnamed bonus and simply stacks.

I think Luck of Heroes is fine as is. The fact it is a named bonus (Luck) strips it of some power. It's also one of those feats that can be made obsolete (which I don't like) by a luckstone or other item that grants a luck bonus.

 

[mzsylver]

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.

ha. you know... if my rogues could make all their reflex saves 95% of the time id be damn happy. got a 15th level one that has +20 (i even took Lightning Reflexes). i have STILL failed reflex saves & am very happy i have Improved Evasion.

back to the topic, i think that Luck of Heroes is balanced.

however... i also think that an interesting variant rule would be that Luck bonuses stack just like Dodge bonuses. i mean, come on! it's LUCK!!!

later! =)

 

[Roland Delacroix]

KD: Hmmm, could be. In my games theres quite a bit of interaction betwen PCs and nemisis' so character knowledge is, at least, not entirelly unknown. The nature of my players has been that they are generally free with info about themselves to anyone, but the bad guys are pretty willy about that stuff.

As usual the campaign is the biggest factor in what we call 'balance'.