Is Luck of Heroes balanced?

[joshuacr]

Luck of Heroes Balanced?

THis feat gives a +1 luck bonus to all saves. Is this better/worse/balanced with the other save feats ( iron will, lightning reflexes, and great fortitude)?

I was just kinda wondering what people thougt.

So this is the post that started it all?
Wow.
Well, the answer to your question is yes, it is balanced. That said, I wouldn't waste the feat. Down the line, you do have better chances in getting a luckstone and/or magic cast on you or items that would meet or even exceed the +1 save luck bonus. Anyway, for 10K, I'd rather get the luckstone which goes to skills and ability checks too.

Just my two coppers.
I AM,
--the truthseeker

 

[reanjr]

I'd say it's probably balanced. Looking at Skill Focus and +2/+2 feats for instance, it seems to sync up. Unfortunately, I think there is way to much focus in the game on avoiding affects (improving saves) and too little on causing effects (improving DCs).

 

[Darkness]

Bad thread necromancer! Bad! No cookie.

Now in 3.5, Luck of Heroes can be only taken at first level. However, it now also grants a +1 luck bonus to AC. It's now balanced against other regional feats, not non-regional ones.

 

[Marimmar]

Nice idea to reanimate old threads Joshuacr.

~Marimmar

 

[edhel]

I'd say that Regional feats from Forgotten Realms are supposed to be a bit more powerful than normal feats. Revision in PGtF makes even more powerful but you must choose it at first level and cannot choose it unless you're from a certain region.
It's all explained in Player's Guide to Faerûn.

Luck of Heroes [regional]
Your land is known for producing heroes. --
Prereq: --
Benefit: -- +1 luck bonus to all saving throws and +1 luck bonus to Armor Class.
Special: You may select this feat only as a 1st-level character. You may have only one regional feat.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMO KarinsDad is overthinking the issue.

I can think of a number of examples from actual play where LotH would or would not be the clearly superior choice. That suggests to me that we have adequate balance.

A Rogue who has a lowish Con would probably want LotH. He may well have a 80%-90% of making a Reflex save, but if he fails he is likely to be unconscious or dead. Pushing this to 85-95% is a fine idea. Plus he could use some shoring up of his weak saves, too. (OTOH, if the campaign is or goes into high levels this character will would want a Luckstone instead.)

IME a Fighter or Barbarian is not likely to die from a single failed Fort or Reflex save. A single failed Will save may well end up getting him killed. In my experience, PC and NPC spellcasters do target dudes in armor carrying big weapons with Will based spells. Even if KarinsDad is correct that LotH will help with more saves over the lifetime of the character, I still do not agree it is the best choice for some kinds of characters.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Lets try this one then.

Is it better for a starting character to put one rank in every skill he thinks is worthwhile, or to pick a select few skills and have them at 4 ranks?

I doubt most people will go for the first option, and thats even given the fact that some skills cannot even be used without ranks.

 

[IanB]

I think it is balanced by the very nature of being a feat that you can duplicate (and improve upon) using a fairly inexpensive non-slot occupying magic item.

Once you hit the mid-levels, gold pieces are far more abundant than feat slots, so the resource cost for taking Luck of Heroes is probably relatively much higher than finding/making/commissioning a luckstone, in a "standard" campaign.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I consider both feats to be acceptably balanced (not perfectly, but that is ok) because when players look at both they have to pause and think. Myself included both as a player & DM.

IF we consider first level feat choices, they are few any arguably the most precious feats you'll get because your survival is very well threatened by that unlucky crit. Taking overall better saves comes at an opportunity cost that delays other branches you'd like to pursue.

Stat generation results can make the more sizeable +2 bonus more appealing if you have a glaring penalty on a bad save or good stat bonuses to 2 of the 3. I would look at the individual character's strengths and weaknesses and the role they want before making a choice.

Finally, don't entirely rule out personality considerations, if someone is supposed to be strong willed for example (and can spare a feat) the feat might choose itself.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Lets try this one then.

Is it better for a starting character to put one rank in every skill he thinks is worthwhile, or to pick a select few skills and have them at 4 ranks?

I had one player put 1 skill point in everything (high int fighter) and develop skills that became important to the campaign.

(Your point stands of course because he was the exception)