About Dwarven Defender entry requirements [Archive] - Wizards Community

About Dwarven Defender entry requirements [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tiverine
07-01-07, 01:57 PM I don't understand why in the prestige class entry requirements appears toughness as a necessary feat. Toughness is primarily a feat for classes with low hp like wizards or sorcerors, but for a prcl like DwD that requires you be a dwarf and 99/100 also a fighter/knight... surely you don't need 3 more HP. I can understand endurance, because is very suitable with the idea of bulwark... but why toughness ? In my idea of a dwarven defender, feats like improved shield bash, tower shield proficiency, combat expertise, shield specialisation, heavy armor optimization, etc... surely appear more appropriate than toughness as requirements.
I hope somebody may give me an answer, thanks.

p.s. sorry for my english, i'm italian.
danielinthewolvesden
07-01-07, 02:00 PM Some feats are a cost you have to pay to enter it. In this case Toughness does make sense even tho it is not optimal.
orangevoodoo
07-01-07, 02:49 PM Another reason for it requiring toughness is that Improved Toughness (+1HP/HD) wasn't written in 3.5 at that point in time. I've allowed people to take Improved Toughness instead of Toughness to qualify. I feel that the requirement makes sense, because if you are the "tank" of the group, you better have the most HP possible.
bobothechimp
07-01-07, 02:51 PM I don't know, it might be that they are supposed to be, you know, tough?
StevenO
07-01-07, 10:16 PM You could say that Toughness is there for your eventual DR.

Unless the DM believes Toughness is there as a "penalty" to entry I certainly hope they'd allow Improved Toughness to meet that requirement. The DwarfD may make you highly durable but many say fighter types are all weak and because the DwarfD typically has poor mobility it could use a little break.
runestar
07-01-07, 10:44 PM Improved toughness is not technically core, so it is hard to justify its inclusion in a prc which is supposed to draw its material from core sources, namely the PHB and DMG. The next best thing was probably the toughness feat, to fit the flavour of your needing to be "more durable" than the rest of your ilk to qualify.:)
StruckingFuggle
07-01-07, 10:56 PM I don't know, it might be that they are supposed to be, you know, tough?

Except all told, Toughness does next to nothing to make a Dwarven Defender, you know, toughter. Ooooh, +3 HP! Functionally it's like you rolled one pip better on three of your levels!

It sucks as flavor, and it sucks as a cost, since it's - except in certain situations, like when you can make it so no one gets through without crossing through your threatened area, and then maybe - a class that's mundane and unimpressive enough that it doesn't need "spend a precious feat slot on a crappy feat" barrier.
runestar
07-01-07, 11:23 PM and it sucks as a cost
It might have well been meant to suck. The concept of prereqs would be moot if it simply gave out feat prereqs which dwarven fighters would be taking anyways - then, it is a cost which isn't really a cost at all.

Wouldn't that be like saying: I like the archmage prc, but I don't want to waste feats taking spell focus twice. Could I change the feats to X, Y and Z, where those feats are feats my character already has anyways? And assume I can justify this with the appropriate flavour. :P
StruckingFuggle
07-01-07, 11:39 PM It might have well been meant to suck. The concept of prereqs would be moot if it simply gave out feat prereqs which dwarven fighters would be taking anyways - then, it is a cost which isn't really a cost at all.

If that's a rule, then its broken by plenty of PrCs.

And there's a difference between "feats that aren't what you want / have but aren't a waste" and "feats that you would only ever take because they'll get you into this class".
Vharuck
07-01-07, 11:39 PM By the way, "It sucks as flavor" is almost always a very subjective statement.
The Crimson Dawn
07-01-07, 11:51 PM It is there almost completely for flavor. Think in core when it came out what was more appropriate for a tough fighting prc than toughness itself. All of its prereqs are flavored for the dwarven virtues. Everything about this prc is too be able to soak punishment like a sponge and then hit back hard. The dwarf is to also be able to do that a long time because the hordes of his enemies may be near endless. And the dwarf is to focus on his defensive ability as that is the dwarven mindset. The feats make sense in flavor perspective even if mechanically they are not optimal. Remember that when this prc was made up initially it was way back in 3.0 before there was anything outside of 3.0 core.

Improved toughness fits thematically and provides a better benefit but that must be put forth to your DM to be accepted. Your only other choice that I know about is to use Magic of incarnum and use its toughness feat. It gives you the ability to put essentia into the feat that gives you 3hp per point of essentia invested. It specifically states that it counts as toughness for prereqs so you can use it to get into the dwarven defender. The only real bonus this way is that you can also take other incarnum feats to gain various bonuses to your character, my favorite being the ability to dimensional door at will. This special toughness feat gives you one point of essentia which you can either invest into your toughness feat or it can be invested into other abilities. I would suggest looking into magic of incarnum.
StruckingFuggle
07-02-07, 12:38 AM By the way, "It sucks as flavor" is almost always a very subjective statement.

Be that as it may, I think it's a rather solid argument. Toughness really does almost nothing (by the level you're becoming a DD) to make you, you know, actually tough. Oh man. Three HP! Tell me how often, by level 6 or 7, 3 hp makes the difference between life and death.

Improved Toughness, maybe. For HP purposes, it's like your Con is 2 higher. But geeze. Toughness?

:eyeroll:
MikeN
07-02-07, 01:14 AM Be that as it may, I think it's a rather solid argument. Toughness really does almost nothing (by the level you're becoming a DD) to make you, you know, actually tough. Oh man. Three HP! Tell me how often, by level 6 or 7, 3 hp makes the difference between life and death.

Improved Toughness, maybe. For HP purposes, it's like your Con is 2 higher. But geeze. Toughness?

:eyeroll:

Combat Casting is also a waste of a feat. It's there as a prerequisite for quite a few casting PrC's though...

Endurance is pretty underwhelming, skill focus is an extremely weak feat, spell focus is not too strong, etc, etc...

There have been lists and lists of pathetic feats.

Dwarven Defender isn't an extremely strong PrC anyway. If you think something needs to be tweaked, ask your DM, and it may be...
bobothechimp
07-02-07, 04:06 AM I don't know, it seems to me that a PrC based on being tough and withstanding hits would require a bit of work towards being tougher.
The_Shaman
07-02-07, 07:23 AM It is there almost completely for flavor. Think in core when it came out what was more appropriate for a tough fighting prc than toughness itself. All of its prereqs are flavored for the dwarven virtues.

In that case the racial requirement should suffice. Dwarves are, after all, legendary for their toughness. In fact, if the race were not quite strong as it is, it could even be a racial bonus feat.
runestar
07-02-07, 07:33 AM In that case the racial requirement should suffice. Dwarves are, after all, legendary for their toughness. In fact, if the race were not quite strong as it is, it could even be a racial bonus feat.
I think the idea is that while dwarves are tough, you have to be tougher than the average dwarf to qualify for the prc.:)
The_Shaman
07-02-07, 07:45 AM Possible, but in that case improved toughness should suffice. Mind you, you could have a Con-based prerequisite on it.

Actually, I would think that a dwarf paragon should be able to get into the PrC well enough. That is what it is supposed to be, an exemplar for dwarven toughness and solidity.
Rondulin
07-02-07, 12:47 PM I think the prerequisite feats for the DD are meant to balance out the rather strong PrC. You must pay some cost with some weak feats (toughness is pretty weak as already mentioned, endurance isn't any better).
StevenO
07-02-07, 02:35 PM Actually I think endurance is pretty valuable for a DwarvenD as it lets you sleep in medium armor. Perhaps not so useful when using Full Plate over Breastplate but when/if you get a suit of Mithral Full Plate it is nice when you can rest in it.
Ecalsneerg
07-02-07, 03:14 PM Improved Toughness, maybe. For HP purposes, it's like your Con is 2 higher. But geeze. Toughness?

Why would a PrC's prrequisites include a feat not written when the class was published?
Empiro
07-02-07, 04:21 PM The Dwarven Defender is one of the more balanced PrCs out there, before all the splat books with PrCs that made you strictly more powerful came out. The requirements are fair, and you basically trade off a few feats of an incredible amount of resiliance.
bobothechimp
07-02-07, 04:24 PM Why does the dwarven defender have dodge as a prerequisite? It's like they are trying to improve their armor class!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tiverine 07-01-07, 01:57 PM	I don't understand why in the prestige class entry requirements appears toughness as a necessary feat. Toughness is primarily a feat for classes with low hp like wizards or sorcerors, but for a prcl like DwD that requires you be a dwarf and 99/100 also a fighter/knight... surely you don't need 3 more HP. I can understand endurance, because is very suitable with the idea of bulwark... but why toughness ? In my idea of a dwarven defender, feats like improved shield bash, tower shield proficiency, combat expertise, shield specialisation, heavy armor optimization, etc... surely appear more appropriate than toughness as requirements. I hope somebody may give me an answer, thanks. p.s. sorry for my english, i'm italian.
danielinthewolvesden 07-01-07, 02:00 PM	Some feats are a cost you have to pay to enter it. In this case Toughness does make sense even tho it is not optimal.
orangevoodoo 07-01-07, 02:49 PM	Another reason for it requiring toughness is that Improved Toughness (+1HP/HD) wasn't written in 3.5 at that point in time. I've allowed people to take Improved Toughness instead of Toughness to qualify. I feel that the requirement makes sense, because if you are the "tank" of the group, you better have the most HP possible.
bobothechimp 07-01-07, 02:51 PM	I don't know, it might be that they are supposed to be, you know, tough?
StevenO 07-01-07, 10:16 PM	You could say that Toughness is there for your eventual DR. Unless the DM believes Toughness is there as a "penalty" to entry I certainly hope they'd allow Improved Toughness to meet that requirement. The DwarfD may make you highly durable but many say fighter types are all weak and because the DwarfD typically has poor mobility it could use a little break.
runestar 07-01-07, 10:44 PM	Improved toughness is not technically core, so it is hard to justify its inclusion in a prc which is supposed to draw its material from core sources, namely the PHB and DMG. The next best thing was probably the toughness feat, to fit the flavour of your needing to be "more durable" than the rest of your ilk to qualify.:)
StruckingFuggle 07-01-07, 10:56 PM	I don't know, it might be that they are supposed to be, you know, tough? Except all told, Toughness does next to nothing to make a Dwarven Defender, you know, toughter. Ooooh, +3 HP! Functionally it's like you rolled one pip better on three of your levels! It sucks as flavor, and it sucks as a cost, since it's - except in certain situations, like when you can make it so no one gets through without crossing through your threatened area, and then maybe - a class that's mundane and unimpressive enough that it doesn't need "spend a precious feat slot on a crappy feat" barrier.
runestar 07-01-07, 11:23 PM	and it sucks as a cost It might have well been meant to suck. The concept of prereqs would be moot if it simply gave out feat prereqs which dwarven fighters would be taking anyways - then, it is a cost which isn't really a cost at all. Wouldn't that be like saying: I like the archmage prc, but I don't want to waste feats taking spell focus twice. Could I change the feats to X, Y and Z, where those feats are feats my character already has anyways? And assume I can justify this with the appropriate flavour. :P
StruckingFuggle 07-01-07, 11:39 PM	It might have well been meant to suck. The concept of prereqs would be moot if it simply gave out feat prereqs which dwarven fighters would be taking anyways - then, it is a cost which isn't really a cost at all. If that's a rule, then its broken by plenty of PrCs. And there's a difference between "feats that aren't what you want / have but aren't a waste" and "feats that you would only ever take because they'll get you into this class".
Vharuck 07-01-07, 11:39 PM	By the way, "It sucks as flavor" is almost always a very subjective statement.
The Crimson Dawn 07-01-07, 11:51 PM	It is there almost completely for flavor. Think in core when it came out what was more appropriate for a tough fighting prc than toughness itself. All of its prereqs are flavored for the dwarven virtues. Everything about this prc is too be able to soak punishment like a sponge and then hit back hard. The dwarf is to also be able to do that a long time because the hordes of his enemies may be near endless. And the dwarf is to focus on his defensive ability as that is the dwarven mindset. The feats make sense in flavor perspective even if mechanically they are not optimal. Remember that when this prc was made up initially it was way back in 3.0 before there was anything outside of 3.0 core. Improved toughness fits thematically and provides a better benefit but that must be put forth to your DM to be accepted. Your only other choice that I know about is to use Magic of incarnum and use its toughness feat. It gives you the ability to put essentia into the feat that gives you 3hp per point of essentia invested. It specifically states that it counts as toughness for prereqs so you can use it to get into the dwarven defender. The only real bonus this way is that you can also take other incarnum feats to gain various bonuses to your character, my favorite being the ability to dimensional door at will. This special toughness feat gives you one point of essentia which you can either invest into your toughness feat or it can be invested into other abilities. I would suggest looking into magic of incarnum.
StruckingFuggle 07-02-07, 12:38 AM	By the way, "It sucks as flavor" is almost always a very subjective statement. Be that as it may, I think it's a rather solid argument. Toughness really does almost nothing (by the level you're becoming a DD) to make you, you know, actually tough. Oh man. Three HP! Tell me how often, by level 6 or 7, 3 hp makes the difference between life and death. Improved Toughness, maybe. For HP purposes, it's like your Con is 2 higher. But geeze. Toughness? :eyeroll:
MikeN 07-02-07, 01:14 AM	Be that as it may, I think it's a rather solid argument. Toughness really does almost nothing (by the level you're becoming a DD) to make you, you know, actually tough. Oh man. Three HP! Tell me how often, by level 6 or 7, 3 hp makes the difference between life and death. Improved Toughness, maybe. For HP purposes, it's like your Con is 2 higher. But geeze. Toughness? :eyeroll: Combat Casting is also a waste of a feat. It's there as a prerequisite for quite a few casting PrC's though... Endurance is pretty underwhelming, skill focus is an extremely weak feat, spell focus is not too strong, etc, etc... There have been lists and lists of pathetic feats. Dwarven Defender isn't an extremely strong PrC anyway. If you think something needs to be tweaked, ask your DM, and it may be...
bobothechimp 07-02-07, 04:06 AM	I don't know, it seems to me that a PrC based on being tough and withstanding hits would require a bit of work towards being tougher.
The_Shaman 07-02-07, 07:23 AM	It is there almost completely for flavor. Think in core when it came out what was more appropriate for a tough fighting prc than toughness itself. All of its prereqs are flavored for the dwarven virtues. In that case the racial requirement should suffice. Dwarves are, after all, legendary for their toughness. In fact, if the race were not quite strong as it is, it could even be a racial bonus feat.
runestar 07-02-07, 07:33 AM	In that case the racial requirement should suffice. Dwarves are, after all, legendary for their toughness. In fact, if the race were not quite strong as it is, it could even be a racial bonus feat. I think the idea is that while dwarves are tough, you have to be tougher than the average dwarf to qualify for the prc.:)
The_Shaman 07-02-07, 07:45 AM	Possible, but in that case improved toughness should suffice. Mind you, you could have a Con-based prerequisite on it. Actually, I would think that a dwarf paragon should be able to get into the PrC well enough. That is what it is supposed to be, an exemplar for dwarven toughness and solidity.
Rondulin 07-02-07, 12:47 PM	I think the prerequisite feats for the DD are meant to balance out the rather strong PrC. You must pay some cost with some weak feats (toughness is pretty weak as already mentioned, endurance isn't any better).
StevenO 07-02-07, 02:35 PM	Actually I think endurance is pretty valuable for a DwarvenD as it lets you sleep in medium armor. Perhaps not so useful when using Full Plate over Breastplate but when/if you get a suit of Mithral Full Plate it is nice when you can rest in it.
Ecalsneerg 07-02-07, 03:14 PM	Improved Toughness, maybe. For HP purposes, it's like your Con is 2 higher. But geeze. Toughness? Why would a PrC's prrequisites include a feat not written when the class was published?
Empiro 07-02-07, 04:21 PM	The Dwarven Defender is one of the more balanced PrCs out there, before all the splat books with PrCs that made you strictly more powerful came out. The requirements are fair, and you basically trade off a few feats of an incredible amount of resiliance.
bobothechimp 07-02-07, 04:24 PM	Why does the dwarven defender have dodge as a prerequisite? It's like they are trying to improve their armor class!