Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mark1 07-17-07, 10:17 AM	Can this feat be taken more than once? Thanks in advance.
tarkin 07-17-07, 10:48 AM	No. No feat can be taken more than once unless it specifically says it can. Those that do, usually overlap, don't stack. I.E. You take Weapon Focus (shortsword) and WF (Longsword), not WF (Longsword) twice.
Swedishguy91 07-27-07, 09:45 AM	do i need toughness before i take this
Shaggy_Shaggs 07-27-07, 09:46 AM	No. If you needed Toughness it would be listed in the requirements.
Frugal 07-27-07, 09:54 AM	No. If you needed Toughness it would be listed in the requirements. I can understand the confusion where normally an "improved" feat requires the "base" feat first. Improved Toughness really should have been called, "Toughness that doesn't suck".
tarkin 07-27-07, 10:55 AM	Or more accurately: "Toughness taken for hitpoints, not taken to qualify you for a Prestige Class."
Steidas 07-27-07, 11:51 AM	Or more accurately: "Toughness taken for hitpoints, not taken to qualify you for a Prestige Class." It actually counts as Toughness in order to qualify for anything.
Nezkrul 07-27-07, 12:23 PM	It actually counts as Toughness in order to qualify for anything. Thats a good houserule, but it puts more power into the player's court. Nothing in the description of the feat in the Complete Warrior mentions that it counts as toughness
Steidas 07-27-07, 12:28 PM	Thats a good houserule, but it puts more power into the player's court. Nothing in the description of the feat in the Complete Warrior mentions that it counts as toughness In 3.0 it actually did and I thought I would on this one too... I don't really think that gives a lot of power though, it gives you 1hp per HD... 10hp at level 10? That's not much. Standard point buy players need all the Hp they can get XD
Nezkrul 07-27-07, 01:21 PM	its not really a trade off if you allow it to qualify for stuff. by trade-off I mean you give something up to get something you want. a scaleable passive feat is by no means a trade off compared to a static nonscalable feat.
Rostasky 07-27-07, 02:26 PM	Doesn't the War Hulk get Improved Toughness like three times? Maybe it was slightly altered, I don't have the MH in front of me.
Taureus_Drakken 07-27-07, 02:30 PM	Nope, the Warhulk only gets Toughness more than once. It would be nice if it got Imp. Toughness though.
risner 07-27-07, 05:31 PM	It actually counts as Toughness in order to qualify for anything. No, it absolutely does not.
Steidas 07-27-07, 11:37 PM	No, it absolutely does not. I was already corrected. Please spare me the embarrasement :embarrass
Willie the Duck 07-28-07, 01:35 AM	Whatever. One underpowered feat vs. another underpowered feat. Only losers of the first order would fight over the scraps. pre-emptive edit: yeah, that was overly harsh. But people know the basics. Something doesn't qualify as something unless it explicitly says so. The OP knew all the basic rules for feats, commenting on them says more about you than about them.
Steidas 07-28-07, 01:42 AM	Whatever. One underpowered feat vs. another underpowered feat. Only losers of the first order would fight over the scraps. pre-emptive edit: yeah, that was overly harsh. But people know the basics. Something doesn't qualify as something unless it explicitly says so. The OP knew all the basic rules for feats, commenting on them says more about you than about them. But I have the power of common sense, and I hate RAW!!!... unless it agrees with me, then it's a perfectly plausible explanation.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 07-30-07, 06:36 PM	In 3.0 it actually did and I thought I would on this one too... I don't really think that gives a lot of power though, it gives you 1hp per HD... 10hp at level 10? That's not much. Standard point buy players need all the Hp they can get XD It didn't exist in 3.0.
danielinthewolvesden 08-01-07, 01:20 AM	Whatever. One underpowered feat vs. another underpowered feat. Only losers of the first order would fight over the scraps. Improved Toughness is hardly underpowered, in fact it is one of the best feats in the game. Too many folks here ignore defensive feats. But you have to LIVE to get off those insane damages. And altho Toughness is nearly worthless by level 20, many a wizard would never make ti to level 2 without it. Sure, no sane level 20 build includes Toughness ('cept as a pre-req) but if I had a 1st level PC with a cruddy Con, I would seriously consider it- then attempt to change it over later.
EjoThims 08-01-07, 12:48 PM	Improved Toughness is using a feat slot to gain only the smallest part of a +1 con modifier. Feats to grant additional attacks or completely nullify an opponent's attacks do a lot more for to keep you alive.
TorgSmackie 08-01-07, 01:16 PM	I can understand the confusion where normally an "improved" feat requires the "base" feat first. That's okay. Improved Manyshot is epic. Greater Manyshot can be taken the same level you get Manyshot.
Frugal 08-01-07, 01:27 PM	That's okay. Improved Manyshot is epic. Greater Manyshot can be taken the same level you get Manyshot. And Greater Manyshot is much better too, with fewer prerequisites.
TorgSmackie 08-01-07, 05:10 PM	Well idunno if it's better, but it's different. It has a different effect. Improved Manyshot is just an epic limit remover.
Witch 08-01-07, 05:15 PM	Try and make sense of a feat as prerequisites. If a feat requires you to have Toughness, it requires you to be real tough. Improved Toughness makes you more tough than Toughness does. Ergo, if you've got Improved Toughness, you qualify for things that require Toughness. You may disagree. Such disagreement is based on legalistic terms rather than on making sense of the mechanics.
rogue74656 08-01-07, 05:19 PM	We are having a debate about Improved Toughness here... I thought that 1 hp per level was woefully underpowered at any level... The reading that several friends have is that it provided a number of hit points equal to the maximum you could roll on the die for the class you took it (eg. wizard taking it gets 4 hp while a fighter would get 10) plus an additional 1 per level thereafter. I have not been able to find any clarification of this matter. What does everyone think?
tarkin 08-01-07, 05:28 PM	Improved Toughness as is, basically upgrades you one hit dice. I.E It makes a wizard have the same hitpoints as a rogue, a rogue the same as a ranger, a ranger the same as a fighter, or a fighter the same as a barbarian. That sounds like a pretty good increase to me. If you think Improved Toughness is too weak, I first instruct you to not improve the feat, but instead make up your own feat. (Just as you should not allow Improved Toughness to qualify as a pre-re for Toughness, you should not upgrade Toughness, instead make your own feat.) Do not screw around with other people's creations, make your own instead But honestly, What you are describing seems like an excessive amount. Consider taking it at first level. You are MORE than doubling your hitpoints. Even at 2nd level, we are talking about a 50% increase in hitpoints. Maybe your feat might be allowable as a higher level feat, say takeable at 9th level or higher. What you wrote is wrong, completely, particularly the part about WHY we diagree. You have proven you totally do NOT understand the pre-requiste system. If a feat requires you to have Toughness, it requires you to be real tough. I see. If you have a Con of 32, you would be TOUGHER than someone that had toughness so you would be 'real tough' and therefore qualify? As a general rule, someone that takes the feat toughness instead of say Combat Reflexes makes their character WEAKER, not tougher. Why? Because Toughness is sucky feat. By your same logic, anyone that has the feat Craft Staves can also make wands, because obviously if you know how to make the superior magic item you should also be capable of making the inferior one, right? Having the feat toughness does not in ANY way make you 'tough'. If a feat/prestige class requires you to have the feat called Toughness, it requires you to have paid one of your VERY limited and valuable feats to get a mere 3 hitpoints. The feat Improved Toughness ALSO does not make you 'tough'. Instead it gives you 1 hitpoint per level (which is usually but NOT ALWAYS greater than 3- 2nd level people can take the feat you know). But Improved Toughness does not qualify you for Dwarven Defender The main point is you are wrong about why game designers put 'toughness' in as a pre-req They are NOT thinking "I only want a tough person to take this feat". How do I know that? Because they are not morons and can read - so they already know that having the feat toughness does not in any way make you a 'tough' character. Instead, they are thinking "This abilty is powerfull. Too powerfull, I need some way to balance it. The feat Toughness is a sucky, worthless thing, I know, I will force the player to waste a feat by taking Toughness to get my powerfull, cool ability" How do I know that? It was EXACTLY my thought process when I write up things for Dragon magazine and they paid me to do it. Pre-reqs are there for BALANCE purposes, they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with fluff text that you want it to refer to.
Witch 08-01-07, 05:36 PM	What you wrote is wrong, completely, particularly the part about WHY we diagree. No, what I write is written from a different perspective from yours. You have proven you totally do NOT understand the prestige class system. No, I've proven that I've another opinion from you on the prestige class system. I see. So if you have a Con of 32, you would be TOUGHER than someoen that had toughness so you would be 'real tough' and therefore qualify? No, you'd have different investment in being tough as a trained quality in particular. By your same logic, anyone that has the feat Craft Staves can also make wands, because obviously if you know how to make the superior magic item you should also be capable of making the inferior one, right? No, because wands are entirely different from staves. They function differently, for one. If a feat/prestige class requires you to have the feat called Toughness, it requires you to have paid one of your VERY limited and valuable feats to get a mere 3 hitpoints. You have failed to grasp the idea that in-game mechanics cannot solely be justified on out-of-game terms if they blatantly contradict in-game logic. Having the feat toughness does not in ANY way make you 'tough'. Instead what it does is give you 3 hitpoints and qualify you for certain other things. The feat Improved Toughness ALSO does not make you 'tough'. Instead it gives you 1 hitpoint per level (which is usually but NOT ALWAYS - 2nd level people can take the feat you know - greater than 3). Okay. I was wrong. From level 3 on, Improved Toughness should be able to substitute for Toughness. But that's entirely irrelevant, because to my knowledge, I don't know of prestige classes that can be taken earlier than that. The main point is you are WRONG about why game designers put 'toughness' in as a pre-req They are NOT thinking "I only want a tough person to take this feat". Why do I know that? Because they are not morons and can read - so they know that having the feat toughness does not in any way make you a 'tough' character. Instead, they are thinking "This abilty is powerfull. Too powerfull, I need some way to balance it. The feat Toughness is a sucky, worthless thing, I know, I will force the player to waste a feat by taking Toughness to get my powerfull, cool ability" The designers were wrong. Quite simply. If you want an ability to be powerful, put it at a higher level, where it belongs. Problem solved. The answer is not "make one ability useless so the other can have more power". How do I know that? It was EXACTLY my thought process when I write up things for Dragon magazine and they paid me to do it. Congratulations. What do I need to answer? That I don't write for Dragon Magazine? Ok, I don't. They don't pay me - how is this relevant, exactly? You don't need to be paid to be a designer. Pre-reqs are there for BALANCE purposes, they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with fluff text that you want it to refer to. You've subjected yourself to the meaninglessness that is rules without justification in flavor. Sense and logic should be just as important concerns as balance.
Molitor 08-01-07, 10:30 PM	Try and make sense of a feat as prerequisites. If a feat requires you to have Toughness, it requires you to be real tough. Improved Toughness makes you more tough than Toughness does. Ergo, if you've got Improved Toughness, you qualify for things that require Toughness. You may disagree. Such disagreement is based on legalistic terms rather than on making sense of the mechanics. Total agreement with your reasoning. I will add that generally when a completely useless feat is a prereq for a prestige class it generally proves to me that said feat was chosen to tone down the prestige class. But upon posting I can see that you are entrenched in a heated debate with others. Suffice it to say.....you need not reply.
starfire311 08-01-07, 10:48 PM	Try and make sense of a feat as prerequisites. If a feat requires you to have Toughness, it requires you to be real tough. Improved Toughness makes you more tough than Toughness does. Ergo, if you've got Improved Toughness, you qualify for things that require Toughness. You may disagree. Such disagreement is based on legalistic terms rather than on making sense of the mechanics. one thing I would like to point out is that ussually it is the weak characters that take toughness, and after taking it they are still weak... for example, 1st level wizard with toughness and 8 Con, I would in no way describe the character as tough, especially when standing next to a 1st level barbarian with 3 times times as many HP. So, in conclusion, toughness does not make one tough; ergo, something that has a prerequiste of toughness, does not require that you to be tough, it only requires that you have the toughness feat.