Improved Saves: Is This Feat Good?

[AvatarVecna]

Benefit: You have a +2 untyped bonus to all saves.

Would you consider this worth a feat slot, or alternatively do you consider it too much for a feat? Looking for general thoughts.

[FaerieGodfather]

Well, it's the equivalent of three separate garbage feats, but doesn't count as them for prerequisites.

On the other hand, it also stacks with them. I'm going to say no.

Maybe make the main saving throw feats better somehow? Combine them with other garbage feats?

[OrbanSirgen]

It's like taking a level of monk without the drawback of having taken a level in monk... Lol

[AvatarVecna]

It's like taking a level of monk without the drawback of having taken a level in monk... Lol

So is that an endorsement of the feat or no? :smalltongue:

[Saint-Just]

It's obviously unbalanced. Yes, feats of "+2 to a single save" are considered underpowered, but giving benefits of all three of them in exchange for a single feat is just too much IMO.

[noce]

Luck of Heroes is a Regional feat from Player's Guide to Faerun.
This means it requires to be of one of the races listed, from one of the regions listed, and to take that feat at first level.

I cannot explicitly describe the feat, but it's half the proposed feat, plus another minor benefit.

That said, yes, I think this feat is unbalanced, and I'd always consider it on a mundane build.
After all, in my experience a failed save is the most likely end mundane characters encounter.

[AvatarVecna]

Luck of Heroes is a Regional feat from Player's Guide to Faerun.
This means it requires to be of one of the races listed, from one of the regions listed, and to take that feat at first level.

I cannot explicitly describe the feat, but it's half the proposed feat, plus another minor benefit.

That said, yes, I think this feat is unbalanced, and I'd always consider it on a mundane build.
After all, in my experience a failed save is the most likely end mundane characters encounter.

Oh it shows up elsewhere too? I altered this from Honor Bound (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) where it's +2 on saves when failing the save would make you break an oath/promise/honor code/etc.

[Eldan]

Nah. Getting + to something what equipment is for, not one of your few feats. Those are for requirements for PrCs or to gain new abilities.

[Telonius]

The (very oversimplified) rule of thumb is that a feat is typically worth somewhere between 3,000-10,000gp. (That's based on the Alertness ioun stone, Legendary Sites in Complete Scoundrel, and a few other things). The closest effect that this feat mimics is a Cloak of Resistance +2, which costs 4,000gp, with the benefit that it's not dispellable and stacks with everything. I'd say that this is appropriate for a Feat. It's something I'd probably consider on a lot of builds, useful for everybody, but not a definite must-have for every situation. I think it would end up seeing maybe a bit less use than Improved Initiative. Make it count for any of the three garbage feats in terms of prereqs, and I'd say it's fine.

[Saint-Just]

Luck of Heroes is a Regional feat from Player's Guide to Faerun.
This means it requires to be of one of the races listed, from one of the regions listed, and to take that feat at first level.

I cannot explicitly describe the feat, but it's half the proposed feat, plus another minor benefit.

That said, yes, I think this feat is unbalanced, and I'd always consider it on a mundane build.
After all, in my experience a failed save is the most likely end mundane characters encounter.

I am somewhat confused by the local standards of describing non-SRD material, but that feat is, to my knowledge, equvalent to the half of the proposed feat plus something else, not to the proposed feat plus something else.

Honor Bound is not even close. Most of the failed saves would not result in breaking the honor code. Depending on the interpretation it may apply to something that completely incapacitates you (including SoD) if you fighting to fulfill the promise, but it definitely does not apply to something which merely inflicts hp damage, attribute damage or gives you -X to Y rolls.

[noce]

I am somewhat confused by the local standards of describing non-SRD material, but that feat is, to my knowledge, equvalent to the half of the proposed feat plus something else, not to the proposed feat plus something else.

Honor Bound is not even close. Most of the failed saves would not result in breaking the honor code. Depending on the interpretation it may apply to something that completely incapacitates you (including SoD) if you fighting to fulfill the promise, but it definitely does not apply to something which merely inflicts hp damage, attribute damage or gives you -X to Y rolls.

To be more explicit, I agree with you.
I mentioned Luck of Heroes to say that the proposed feat is unbalanced against it.
I consider Luck of Heroes a balanced feat, so double the benefits and none of the drawbacks is inbalanced in my opinion.

[martixy]

My table's opinion is that adding a 1/day reroll to the regular garbage +save feats makes them worth it enough to suck up as a feat tax.

A stacking +all would probably be considered just fine too.

Me personally, I don't feel its unbalanced, but I'd never put it in because I don't like the design, i.e. how it affects the math of the game.

[Blackhawk748]

Would you consider this worth a feat slot, or alternatively do you consider it too much for a feat? Looking for general thoughts.

Seems fine to me. It's actually worth considering taking in a build unlike the other garbage ones

[heavyfuel]

It's my personal experience that a player willing to spend a feat to improve a save would prefer to improve their low save.

This feat does nothing for a Rogue's Reflex or a Cleric's Will.

A lot of characters already have the one save which they automatically pass, so, for them, this is basically +2 to two saves.

If you don't allow for this feat to meet pre-requisites, I don't think most characters will take it. At least not before level 12 or so, after you're gotten the core feats for your build. As someone else said, it'll be less popular than Imp Initiative.

If you do allow for the feat to meet pre-requisites, then I'd suggest buffing the existing ones from +2 to +5. This also makes the feats better reflect their names. I mean, I don't expect someone who is said to have lightning reflexes to have just slightly better reflexes.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The (very oversimplified) rule of thumb is that a feat is typically worth somewhere between 3,000-10,000gp. (That's based on the Alertness ioun stone, Legendary Sites in Complete Scoundrel, and a few other things). The closest effect that this feat mimics is a Cloak of Resistance +2, which costs 4,000gp, with the benefit that it's not dispellable and stacks with everything. I'd say that this is appropriate for a Feat. It's something I'd probably consider on a lot of builds, useful for everybody, but not a definite must-have for every situation. I think it would end up seeing maybe a bit less use than Improved Initiative. Make it count for any of the three garbage feats in terms of prereqs, and I'd say it's fine.This.

Several places in the rules have more valuable prereq-less feats worth about 10,000 gp when granted by items. Otyugh hole for Iron Will is worth, what, 3,000 gp? More than three times the cost of a "meh" feat for three times the benefit sounds fine to me, especially since that "meh" feat is a prereq for a LOT of stuff.

[Biggus]

It's my personal experience that a player willing to spend a feat to improve a save would prefer to improve their low save.

This feat does nothing for a Rogue's Reflex or a Cleric's Will.

[...]

If you do allow for the feat to meet pre-requisites, then I'd suggest buffing the existing ones from +2 to +5. This also makes the feats better reflect their names. I mean, I don't expect someone who is said to have lightning reflexes to have just slightly better reflexes.

I was thinking the same thing about it being better to increase the bonus of the single-save feats. +5 seems a bit too high to me though, I'd say +3 or possibly +4 would be more balanced.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Balanced enough, I'd think. I don't think I'd take it on many characters, but it's never a bad feat. Kind of like Improved Initiative.

[Segev]

For a home game, it's probably fine. For general game design... eh, also probably fine, but could be an ingredient in problematic builds with all the rest that's out there, because "big numbers" is its own problem at times.

Its biggest sin to me is that it's boring. Even the lame single-save feats are better in this respect, because at least they make a statement about what you're shoring up or where your strengths lie. (That's not a big improvement, mind, and they're still garbage.)

Thinking on how to improve it, I would actually go in a...tangential direction. Remember the Luck Feates from Complete Scoundrel? Most of them gave a reroll for various reasons, and a luck point. You almost always had to spend a luck point for the reroll, but your luck points were fungible so you could use any of the reroll mechanisms at your disposal, paid for by luck points from any source.

I suggest making this broader, but cost a luck point to use.

Lucky Break
You sometimes have near-failures turn into successes due to random lucky happenstance.
Benefit: You can a luck point. Any time you're rolling a d20, you may spend a luck point after seeing the result to add a +2 luck bonus to the roll, as something goes just right at the last second.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

For a home game, it's probably fine. For general game design... eh, also probably fine, but could be an ingredient in problematic builds with all the rest that's out there, because "big numbers" is its own problem at times.

Its biggest sin to me is that it's boring. Even the lame single-save feats are better in this respect, because at least they make a statement about what you're shoring up or where your strengths lie. (That's not a big improvement, mind, and they're still garbage.)

Thinking on how to improve it, I would actually go in a...tangential direction. Remember the Luck Feates from Complete Scoundrel? Most of them gave a reroll for various reasons, and a luck point. You almost always had to spend a luck point for the reroll, but your luck points were fungible so you could use any of the reroll mechanisms at your disposal, paid for by luck points from any source.

I suggest making this broader, but cost a luck point to use.

Lucky Break
You sometimes have near-failures turn into successes due to random lucky happenstance.
Benefit: You can a luck point. Any time you're rolling a d20, you may spend a luck point after seeing the result to add a +2 luck bonus to the roll, as something goes just right at the last second.You'd need some other benefit to the feat to make it worthwhile, considering the "+2 to all saves" is decent but not amazing by feat standards. Remember, the three extant "+2 to a save" feats are pretty awful. As I mentioned, a decent feat costs about 10k gp and even WotC costed Iron Will at 3k gp.

Have it give you a luck point and maybe also the ability to spend 2 luck points for a full reroll after you've failed a save, which includes the +2 bonus, maybe.

[Segev]

You'd need some other benefit to the feat to make it worthwhile, considering the "+2 to all saves" is decent but not amazing by feat standards. Remember, the three extant "+2 to a save" feats are pretty awful. As I mentioned, a decent feat costs about 10k gp and even WotC costed Iron Will at 3k gp.

Have it give you a luck point and maybe also the ability to spend 2 luck points for a full reroll after you've failed a save, which includes the +2 bonus, maybe.

Note the version I gave isn't limited to saves. It's +2 to any d20 roll you care to spend a luck point on after seeing the result. (I'm tempted to phrase it such that you get to know if +2 would make the difference or not, first, even, if that would make it not too much.)

[heavyfuel]

I was thinking the same thing about it being better to increase the bonus of the single-save feats. +5 seems a bit too high to me though, I'd say +3 or possibly +4 would be more balanced.

+5 is still probably pretty weak. I can't see many builds that would justify a +5 instead of a feat that can grant them amazing abilities. If we were lowering the bonus, I'd add them as potential bonus feats for a few classes like Fighter, Scout, spell-less Ranger/Paladin (AFB right now but I'm pretty sure these last 2 get bonus feats)


For a home game, it's probably fine. For general game design... eh, also probably fine, but could be an ingredient in problematic builds with all the rest that's out there, because "big numbers" is its own problem at times.

Its biggest sin to me is that it's boring. Even the lame single-save feats are better in this respect, because at least they make a statement about what you're shoring up or where your strengths lie. (That's not a big improvement, mind, and they're still garbage.)

Thinking on how to improve it, I would actually go in a...tangential direction. Remember the Luck Feates from Complete Scoundrel? Most of them gave a reroll for various reasons, and a luck point. You almost always had to spend a luck point for the reroll, but your luck points were fungible so you could use any of the reroll mechanisms at your disposal, paid for by luck points from any source.

I suggest making this broader, but cost a luck point to use.

Lucky Break
You sometimes have near-failures turn into successes due to random lucky happenstance.
Benefit: You can a luck point. Any time you're rolling a d20, you may spend a luck point after seeing the result to add a +2 luck bonus to the roll, as something goes just right at the last second.

Agree that it's boring, but sometimes boring is okay. Especially if you have dumb players who can't remember their abilities and just want big numbers.

Question: Do you have to spend your Immediate or Swift action just like every other Luck feat (Lucky Start being the exception)

[Segev]

Agree that it's boring, but sometimes boring is okay. Especially if you have dumb players who can't remember their abilities and just want big numbers.

Question: Do you have to spend your Immediate or Swift action just like every other Luck feat (Lucky Start being the exception)

Boring and reliable can be okay, yes. Doesn't mean I LIKE it. (This is a personal taste thing.) I have taken feats for just some flat numbers when those numbers really were that important to something I wanted to do.

As to taking an immediate (or swift) action... I'm inclined to lean towards "no," but that's a "tuning factor" we could use to tweak how powerful the feat is, depending on how balanced it is. Just as is whether the DM refunds you your luck point if spending it doesn't make the difference or not.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Note the version I gave isn't limited to saves. It's +2 to any d20 roll you care to spend a luck point on after seeing the result. (I'm tempted to phrase it such that you get to know if +2 would make the difference or not, first, even, if that would make it not too much.)Well, that is better than I thought it was, especially if it's a free action treated like an immediate (but doesn't use up your immediate/swift and isn't 1/round). Still, +2 isn't much, and I doubt it'll be useful very often at all, even if you know what the DC you're trying to hit is. If you don't, it's even less useful.

Rerolls and flat bonuses to all checks (even "just" saves) are far superior, really, and I'd rather have one of those.

[Ramza00]

So True Believer Feat (Complete Divine, MiC) is a feat that gives you once a day (chosen by you) a +2 Untyped Bonus to any of your saves, but once a day. You can also use a Divine Relic without giving up a divine spell slot.

Ask yourself if you need more than once a day use, how much do you need the additional flexibility of having it up all the time, multiple times per day, and you do not have to choose is this the best time to deploy said feat? Is once a day good enough especially since you can now use a divine relic which may have a useful benefit.

-----

Another way to look at it is this feat is like a Cloak of Resistance +2 so 4k if you bought it at a store. Except it stacks so if you already have a cloak of resistance +1 (1k) upgrading it to a +3 is 8k of benefit, or upgrading it from a +3 (9k) to a +5 is a 16k benefit.

-----

Another way to look at it is to compare it to Ability Focus which is also a +2 DC benefit, while the Improved Saves is a -2 DC benefit. Now there are trade offs here for offensive is usually better than being defensive but here is the thing about DCs, it is a first past the post system where you just need to hit your target and any extra is wasted besides altering the probability of effect. You either made your save or you did not, you either took out an enemy from the fight or you didn't and running up the score provides little benefit.

[Rawrawrawr]

To me, it strikes a pretty good balance point. It's something I'd consider for most characters, so it's not underpowered, but it's definitely not a must-have and there's almost always at least a few other feats I'd take first (and it probably wouldn't make the cut for quite a few characters), so it's also not overpowered.

It fills a solid niche of "I dunno what else to take, so I may as well take this."

[Blackhawk748]

+5 is still probably pretty weak. I can't see many builds that would justify a +5 instead of a feat that can grant them amazing abilities. If we were lowering the bonus, I'd add them as potential bonus feats for a few classes like Fighter, Scout, spell-less Ranger/Paladin (AFB right now but I'm pretty sure these last 2 get bonus feats)


+5 is a lot to one save. I can see Martial's picking it up to shore up Will saves in a way that can't be undone. Niche? Sure, but definitely worth the trade

[heavyfuel]

Niche? Sure

If it's niche, then it's not really broken. Martials are feat starved, so they're probably only getting this at lvs 9 or 12. A decent feat that says "Hey, you don't have to go home as we spend 3 hours in a combat where you're no longer allowed to participate".

I'd be more worried about arcane casters getting the +5 to Fortitude, honestly.

[King of Nowhere]

I'd say it depends on the optimization level. if we are at a very high-op table where all feats are either required for something or give you amazing abilities or multiply stuff, then it's garbage. at very high op you don't roll saving throws anyway, as most enemies won't give you the benefit of one. you defend by breaking line of sight / being untargettable /being immune at those tables.
but for a mid-op table it is a fine feat. not the "must have this" kind of feat, but the "this is useful if i have no pressing urges" kind of feat.




Agree that it's boring, but sometimes boring is okay. Especially if you have dumb players who can't remember their abilities and just want big numbers.

also on npcs. if you are planning to use many npcs on an encounter, giving all them peculiar stuff to do is complicated. it's almost guaranteed that you'll forgot most of it.
on the other hand, with their lower wealth npc often have troubles hitting the heroes.
so, that's where you want feats that increase numbers.