Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ewokspy 01-26-07, 01:18 AM	I just want to know the general consensus on whether people allow a player to use Improved Toughness instead of toughness when fulfilling feat pre-requisites for a prestige class. There seems to be no errata nor any mention elsewhere on this subject. Thoughts?
Darth Sephiroth 01-26-07, 02:58 AM	I'd allow it, personally Toughness is rather worthless as it is. I've modified Toughness to be a bit better by granting 3+Con mod (If positive) extra HP rather than the straight 3.
Krusk 01-26-07, 03:23 AM	I generally would have allowed it. They are basically the same, only one is better. But i also changed improved toughness so toughness is a prereq.
ewokspy 01-26-07, 07:31 AM	Yeah, when I saw the feat I was confused. I understand that toughness can be taken multiple times and Improve toughness is a one-shot thing, but for a feat that says it improves another feat not to have that feat as a pre-req was strange. I was trying to gauge if people were just tossing toughness (which 3 hp for a feat is more worthless than Dodge, and I think Dodge is pretty worthless IMHO) and replacing, or requiring it as a pre-req to improved toughness. Thanks for the responses!
runestar 01-26-07, 08:45 AM	I wouldn't allow it, for mechanical reasons.
CaoSlayer 01-26-07, 09:56 AM	I wouldn't allow it, for mechanical reasons. The reason being that usually toughtness is required for powerful prc and feats because is a sucky feat itself so it balances somehow the prc or feat benefits.
Some_call_me_Tim 01-26-07, 10:11 AM	I just want to know the general consensus on whether people allow a player to use Improved Toughness instead of toughness when fulfilling feat pre-requisites for a prestige class. There seems to be no errata nor any mention elsewhere on this subject. Thoughts?I wouldn't. Do you allow other feat substitutions for pre-requisites? BTW, if I was currently running a home campaign, I would require toughness to be a pre-requisite for improved toughness, but that's just me.
tarkin 01-26-07, 10:26 AM	Look, do you think the designers did not realize that Toughness was a sucky feat? How stupid do you think they were? Do you think they did not know about Improved Toughness? Toughness existed in 3.0 They had MORE than enough time to hear people like you complain about it. They had the opportunity to change it when they switched to 3.5. They did not do that, instead they created Improved Toughness, and specifically used Toughness as the pre-req. Tougness was intended to be a sucky feat. It is supposed to be something to throw in for balance. Designers make up a feat and then think: I like this feat, but it is a bit too powerfull. I could weaken. No, I like it the way it is. Oh, I know, I will make them waste a feat on some useless piece of crap. How about TOUGHNESS. The Game designers could have wrote Improved Toughness as the Pre-requisite. They wrote Toughness instead of Improved Toughenss because the professional game designer intentionally weakened what it was used as a pre-req for, to make it fair for the rest of the game. Now, if you personally think a specific feat/prc is too weak, then I consider allowing Improved Toughness to replace toughnss for that particular feat. That is fine, and possibly a smart thing to do. But to blanketly say that you let people substitute Improved Toughness for Toughness indicates: 1) Ignorance of the system 2) Arrogance (You think you know better than ALL of the game designers without even looking at what they wrote) 3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game.
wonlee76 01-26-07, 10:37 AM	Toughness existed in 3.0 They had MORE than enough time to hear people like you complain about it. They had the opportunity to change it when they switched to 3.5. They did not do that, instead they created Improved Toughness, and specifically used Toughness as the pre-req. I hope you realize that Toughness is not a Pre-req for Improved Toughness. Only pre-req on Improved Toughness is a +2 Fort Save. Its a good houserule to have to make toughness more appealing though since it becomes a crappy gateway feat to a really solid feat. As to the OP: No, I do not allow Improved Toughness to meet the pre-reqs for a prestige class that requires regular toughness unless I houseruled Toughness as a pre-reqs to Improved Toughness in which case you already met the pre-req of Toughness for a prestige class. :P
Neutronium_Dragon 01-26-07, 10:41 AM	Also, they did do something about it in 3.0E, or at least they tried to. The various "<species>'s Toughness" feats (Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, etc) which appeared in Masters of the Wild. These were essentially the same thing as Toughness, but gave a higher amount of fixed HPs (with higher Fort prereqs). The problem being that even those were pretty feeble feats for the cost.
JoAT 01-26-07, 12:05 PM	I allow it. As it's one of the earliest feats in 3.5 ( from the third or fourth book produced after core), I'm fairly certain that, if it was made today, would include a "Special:" entry at the end, stating that it could be so used, much like Expeditious Dodge, Shadow Blade and Stone Power do. I can't think of anything, off hand, that's so incredibly powerful as to require that someone blow a feat on something so inconsequential in order to balance it out. If there was something that incredibly good out there, then the slight increase in power from Improved Toughness wouldn't really matter all too much, in any case.
Zumarai 01-26-07, 12:09 PM	As the designers said – Toughness is a Feat for a 1st level Elf Wizard in a one shot session.
Witch 01-26-07, 12:18 PM	Yes, Improved Toughness can suffice for these prestige classes. For one, the only one I know of is Dwarven Defender. And that one just doesn't has the "It's too good if it doesn't have a crappy feat as a prerequisite" air about it.
jadehawk 01-26-07, 12:21 PM	Like some others have already indicated, I like Toughness as a Prerequisite for Improved Toughness. However, as a result I also improved the value of improved toughness so it gives you a hit point per hit die retroactively and from now on. That is, if you get improved toughness at 18th level and you have 18 hit dice, you get 18 additional hit points off the bat, but my addition is that you continue to get an additional hit point as you gain new hit dice. This advantage is offset because of the Toughness prerequisite. Effectively it makes the question of this discussion moot, as you would have to take toughness to have improved toughness anyways. That is, of course, only if you would find this house rule acceptable in your game. -jadehawk
claypigeons 01-26-07, 12:34 PM	But to blanketly say that you let people substitute Improved Toughness for Toughness indicates: 1) Ignorance of the system 2) Arrogance (You think you know better than ALL of the game designers without even looking at what they wrote) 3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game. First off, Toughness is not a pre-req for Improved Toughness. Secondly... Step off the high horse, please. Perhaps the OP is like me, and knows the system and is not arrogant? Perhaps the OP realizes that it is 20 hp. It really doesnt matter that much. If 20 hp at level 20 is going to break you game, then you need to stop and take a look at what you're doing. Besides, most characters get 7 feats. If they want to spend a feat on a few more HP (which is really only useful for mages...as 20 HP is over 1/4 of their base HP), so be it. That's one metamagic or item creation feat they wont have. Also, as an aside, the WotC "standard" is to take worthless feats and start taking PrC levels before you qualify.
DarkRhystar 01-26-07, 12:48 PM	Tougness was intended to be a sucky feat. Sucky feats shouldn't exist. In a system like D&D, they're an artifact of bad game design.
Nezkrul 01-26-07, 12:53 PM	Like some others have already indicated, I like Toughness as a Prerequisite for Improved Toughness. However, as a result I also improved the value of improved toughness so it gives you a hit point per hit die retroactively and from now on. That is, if you get improved toughness at 18th level and you have 18 hit dice, you get 18 additional hit points off the bat, but my addition is that you continue to get an additional hit point as you gain new hit dice. This advantage is offset because of the Toughness prerequisite. Effectively it makes the question of this discussion moot, as you would have to take toughness to have improved toughness anyways. That is, of course, only if you would find this house rule acceptable in your game. -jadehawk improved toughness already does what your special "houseruling" does... its retroactive and continuous at the same time, normally. You keep acquiring that extra hitpoint every time you gain a new hit die.
Zumarai 01-26-07, 12:59 PM	3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game. …Interesting, how does one go about getting your sessions approved by WotC? I guess we all have to stop playing till we get the designers over to our pad for a cup of tea, explain to them how we run our campaign, and how we implement the rules, and then they give us a little badge or something?
Vegepygmy 01-26-07, 02:01 PM	I just want to know the general consensus on whether people allow a player to use Improved Toughness instead of toughness when fulfilling feat pre-requisites for a prestige class.From my house rules: "Improved Toughness may be substituted in any case where Toughness is a prerequisite."
IbanezNinja 01-26-07, 02:06 PM	Sucky feats shouldn't exist. In a system like D&D, they're an artifact of bad game design. Quoted for truth. In a normal game you usually will see a max of like 7 or 8 feats, and that's assuming you'll actually play a game to level 20, which I'd say is unlikely considering how unstable the system gets past level 10. 3hp does nothing past level 1, unless you are a elf wizard on 25pt buy doing a one shot, or can have the phb2 feat retraining rules no one should ever have to pick toughness.
ewokspy 01-26-07, 02:15 PM	Look, do you think the designers did not realize that Toughness was a sucky feat? How stupid do you think they were? Do you think they did not know about Improved Toughness? Listen, I was simply asking players, not the designers. Everyone plays the game differently so I was looking for opinions. Many players still believe the rules are guidelines ya know. The GM is the only law. But to blanketly say that you let people substitute Improved Toughness for Toughness indicates: 1) Ignorance of the system 2) Arrogance (You think you know better than ALL of the game designers without even looking at what they wrote) 3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game. Excuse me for asking people's opinions. I want you to know that your post was condescending, demeaning, demoralizing, and downright rude. If I wanted a lecture, I'd ask for one. Your opinion is to allow on a case by case basis. Fine enough.
ewokspy 01-26-07, 02:18 PM	Quoted for truth. In a normal game you usually will see a max of like 7 or 8 feats, and that's assuming you'll actually play a game to level 20, which I'd say is unlikely considering how unstable the system gets past level 10. 3hp does nothing past level 1, unless you are a elf wizard on 25pt buy doing a one shot, or can have the phb2 feat retraining rules no one should ever have to pick toughness. Yeah and for certain prestige classes, for a barbarian to have to sacrifice a feat for 3 hp, it seems kinda ludicrous. They only get 7 to begin with. But it seems we have several camps each with very good points.
wonlee76 01-26-07, 02:19 PM	Yes, Improved Toughness can suffice for these prestige classes. For one, the only one I know of is Dwarven Defender. And that one just doesn't has the "It's too good if it doesn't have a crappy feat as a prerequisite" air about it. There's also the Blood Magus from Complete Arcane that requires Toughness. Not sure if there are that many more prestige classes with Toughness as a pre-req beyond the Dwarven Defender and Blood Magus.
nightwyrm 01-26-07, 02:50 PM	I think some bad feats are ok as drawbacks for entering prestige class. If it makes you feel better, just think of it as spending a feat to enter into a class you really want and gain 3 bonus hps. In my game, I'm trying to enter into dracolyte which requires toughness, but I get to have a bonus domain, and alertness as class features later. Without the toughness requirement, the class would probably have to have weaker class features.
navar100 01-26-07, 06:17 PM	Like some others have already indicated, I like Toughness as a Prerequisite for Improved Toughness. However, as a result I also improved the value of improved toughness so it gives you a hit point per hit die retroactively and from now on. That is, if you get improved toughness at 18th level and you have 18 hit dice, you get 18 additional hit points off the bat, but my addition is that you continue to get an additional hit point as you gain new hit dice. This advantage is offset because of the Toughness prerequisite. Effectively it makes the question of this discussion moot, as you would have to take toughness to have improved toughness anyways. That is, of course, only if you would find this house rule acceptable in your game. -jadehawk The Feat already does that.
StevenO 01-26-07, 08:07 PM	I would allow Improved Toughness to substitue for Toughness regarding PrC Prereqs. I may allow it for feat prereqs but I'd have to look at the feats in question first.
runestar 01-26-07, 09:56 PM	Toughness doesn't necessarily suck. It's a good feat for low lv NPCs, just that its benefit pales in comparison as you lv. That does not mean that it is useless, just that it is meant to shine only in a few, specific scenarios.:)
Lamorake 01-26-07, 10:40 PM	I see the point in allowing Improved Toughness to be substituted for Toughness, but it would be hard to do in the campaigns/adventures, as some of the players I have are rules lawyers (not as bad as they could be), and if this exception was allowed, it would open the door for future requests that might not be acceptable. In otherwords, I like to stick with the consistency of rules to avoid conflicts later, even if it means having a sub-optimal feat/setup.
bob_the_great 01-26-07, 11:27 PM	allow it. it isn't overpowered and makes a crappy feat slightly less crappy. it also makes your player happy w/o doing any real damage.
Empiro 01-27-07, 02:02 AM	Other than the Dwarven Defender, I'm not aware of any other PrCs that have Toughness as a requirement. And I do believe that the class is worthy of having a few useless feats, because it is a very powerful class. If any PrCs with Toughness were printed after Complete Warrior, then any or all of them could have also stated that Improved Toughness from the Complete Warrior could also meet the requirement. If they didn't, then the designers intended it to be Toughness, and only Toughness. If you're playing in a high-powered game then sure, go ahead and make the houserule, otherwise, I'd advise against it. Improved toughness makes a huge difference for many classes. At level 10, it's "only" 10 HP, but it easily makes a wizard or rogue 20-25% harder to kill, assuming you're not playing a high powered game where everyone has wildly inflated HP. I've had at least 4 occasions when Improved Toughness did or would have made a difference between life and death. You might laugh and say that a dozen HP doesn't make a difference, but it happens far more than you think.
navar100 01-27-07, 03:55 AM	Other than the Dwarven Defender, I'm not aware of any other PrCs that have Toughness as a requirement. And I do believe that the class is worthy of having a few useless feats, because it is a very powerful class. If any PrCs with Toughness were printed after Complete Warrior, then any or all of them could have also stated that Improved Toughness from the Complete Warrior could also meet the requirement. If they didn't, then the designers intended it to be Toughness, and only Toughness. If you're playing in a high-powered game then sure, go ahead and make the houserule, otherwise, I'd advise against it. Improved toughness makes a huge difference for many classes. At level 10, it's "only" 10 HP, but it easily makes a wizard or rogue 20-25% harder to kill, assuming you're not playing a high powered game where everyone has wildly inflated HP. I've had at least 4 occasions when Improved Toughness did or would have made a difference between life and death. You might laugh and say that a dozen HP doesn't make a difference, but it happens far more than you think. If Improved Toughness would keep a PC alive even 1 round longer than if he had Toughness, then that's a good thing. I fail to see how this breaks the game, even for "low-powered" ones.
Empiro 01-27-07, 04:12 AM	Yes, it's a good thing--which is why a player should have to pay a feat for toughness to qualify for a PrC, and another one to get improved toughness. I have no issue with the feat as written at all, but I don't think it should be allowed to subsitute toughness for meeting PrC requirements.
Witch 01-27-07, 07:35 AM	And I do believe that the class is worthy of having a few useless feats, because it is a very powerful class. No, it's not. Not in particular, anyway. If any PrCs with Toughness were printed after Complete Warrior, then any or all of them could have also stated that Improved Toughness from the Complete Warrior could also meet the requirement. If they didn't, then the designers intended it to be Toughness, and only Toughness. Splat books don't refer to other splat books, so no, your point is invalid.
ewokspy 01-27-07, 09:19 AM	There's also the Blood Magus from Complete Arcane that requires Toughness. Not sure if there are that many more prestige classes with Toughness as a pre-req beyond the Dwarven Defender and Blood Magus. Actually the class the player is going for here is Primevil from Frostburn. All 3 feats required for the class make sense, but are all low powered feats. Then again they can all be taken at 1st level, so it makes sense. I would understand if this was a spell-casting class and toughness was there. But a mainly Barbarian class...3 hp is nothing to them. (It's actually less than their con mod at this point)
JoAT 01-27-07, 12:11 PM	My opinion? Go for it. Primevil is not particularly great - a slightly nicer version of wildshape that is dependent on your own stats, but is locked in place with a single prehistoric beast. The class actively makes you dumber as you go along, and most of the abilities gained apply only to your primevil form - I'd say that, as a PrC, it's about right on it's own, given that entry is a minimum of level 9, but the feat requirements are horrible; Toughness, Endurance, and Self-Suficent? I can see starting off with a ranger, maybe, for Endurance, but, really, it still asks for two essentially crap feats, and Improved Toughness won't even be a drop in the bucket for such a character - Toughness will seen as spending a feat slot to enter the class, not to gain the (dubious) benefit of the feat.
Emeramber 01-27-07, 01:12 PM	I, also, believe that, were it written now, Improved Toughness would have the clause that allows it to substitute for Toughness. For the non-combative types, such as wizard, the +2 fort save means 6th level, so a pure wizard is spending their 6th or higher level feat for the better hit points, and possibly delaying entry or another feat. Then again, my group goes one further on the Toughness subject, so we're definitely not WotC Approved. A toad familiar, in our games, grants bonus hitpoints equal to the character's level, with a minimum of 3. While we're glad that the toad is not the absolute must-have familiar anymore, it went from great to near useless. (This opinion is partly based on the usefulness of the base creature, which seems to be the reason why some creatures got better abilities than others).
General_Ridley 01-27-07, 02:08 PM	No, it's not. Not in particular, anyway. Splat books don't refer to other splat books, so no, your point is invalid. VILE DAMAGE Many of the Archdevils presented in this chapter are able to deal vile damage with their attack, spells, or spell-like abilities... snip... The Violate Spell and Violate Spell-Like Ability feats, found in Book of Vile Darkness, convert half of any damage dealt by a spell or spell-like ability into vile damage Posessions: +3 keen scourge* of speed, ring of invisibility, ring of protection +5, cloak of resistance +4, 8,000 gp in assorted jewelry and baubles *This weapon is found in Complete Warrior. If you don't have that book, replace it with a spiked chain. At will- ...snip... morality undone*(DC 24)...snip... *This spell appears in Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss. If you don't have that book, substitute greater command Powerful Charge The Powerful Charge feat appears on page 207 of Monster Manual III, and is reprinted here for convenience. snip I can find more examples out of this book alone, including use of the Fleshgrinding ability, ninja class, warlock class, the Dark Speech feat, the Mortalbane feat, spells from the spell compendium in Mephistopheles' and Asmodeus' spell lists. I could also pull Complete Arcane, for additions to the Hexblade spell list; or MMIV for references to Complete Adventurer, etc.
Witch 01-27-07, 02:21 PM	That's new. And against previous WotC design philosophy.
Empiro 01-27-07, 02:42 PM	No, it's not. Not in particular, anyway. Well, that's up to debate, but certainly in my games, you'd need to take Toughness to enter into Dwarven Defender.
General_Ridley 01-27-07, 03:15 PM	That's new. And against previous WotC design philosophy. see Complete Arcane for reference to Complete Warrior. Not new, just more abundant now than before.
Seerow 01-27-07, 03:21 PM	I love the sight of Tarkin getting owned in the morning.
Leress 01-27-07, 06:30 PM	Look, do you think the designers did not realize that Toughness was a sucky feat? How stupid do you think they were? Do you think they did not know about Improved Toughness? Still doesn't make it make anymore sense. Toughness existed in 3.0 They had MORE than enough time to hear people like you complain about it. They had the opportunity to change it when they switched to 3.5. They did not do that, instead they created Improved Toughness, and specifically used Toughness as the pre-req. As other have said Improved Toughness doesn't have Toughness as a Prerequisite but a Base Fort of +2. So that statement is wrong. Tougness was intended to be a sucky feat. It is supposed to be something to throw in for balance. That is not very good game design it that is the case. Now if you said that because Improved Toughness is not part of the SRD and they still wanted Dwarven Defender to still be part of it, but even that statement would be somewhat flawed. Designers make up a feat and then think: I like this feat, but it is a bit too powerfull. I could weaken. No, I like it the way it is. Oh, I know, I will make them waste a feat on some useless piece of crap. How about TOUGHNESS. So you are an employee to the Dungeons and Dragons Research and Development division? If that is the case please tell them that is a really poor way to add balance to the game since most characters only have 7-8 feat throughout their 20 levels. The Game designers could have wrote Improved Toughness as the Pre-requisite. They wrote Toughness instead of Improved Toughenss because the professional game designer intentionally weakened what it was used as a pre-req for, to make it fair for the rest of the game. That's the thing it's not fair it only benefits on very specific type of character (the ones with negative con modifiers, and only for one level). Now, if you personally think a specific feat/prc is too weak, then I consider allowing Improved Toughness to replace toughness for that particular feat. That is fine, and possibly a smart thing to do. Which the OP was asking about what other do in first place. But to blanketly say that you let people substitute Improved Toughness for Toughness indicates: 1) Ignorance of the system 2) Arrogance (You think you know better than ALL of the game designers without even looking at what they wrote) 3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game. No one "blanketly" substituted as you said, each has given a reason why or why not they do. The reasons you list are very flawed. Ignorance of the system You should never assume that some one is ignorance of the system, unless they have stated some that can be proven wrong by the shown them specific rules on the matter. Arrogance Once again don't assume unless they have shown to show arrogant attributes. The designers of the game are not perfect (that's why there is errata). The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game By who's standard, please show where it says that by making this change or any change that you are now playing a Power Game and therefore not to the WOTC standards. If that was the case making things weaker would make it a Power Game. These three assumptions are pretty flawed and show that you have not read the OP original post. My opinion is that yes, I would substitute Improved Toughness for Toughness as a pre-req. Since the prestige classes that have it are either heavy offensive or defensive and it would help them to live about one round longer. I think feats should be about quality than quantity.
FiestFan 01-27-07, 06:51 PM	Blood Magus requires Toughness, in addition to Dwarven Defender. I'm pretty sure there are others, but I'm feeling lazy. ;) That said, here is my.... Personal House Rule:If the PrC requiring Toughness has no Caster Level progression, you may substitute Improved Toughness as the prereq. If the PrC requiring Toughness grants Spell progression (or Psionic/Incarnum/Maneuver equivalent) of even 1 bonus spell, Improved Toughness may not be used to satisfy that prereq. This isn't RAW, I don't know if it's RAI, either. Feel free to ignore it if you don't care for the dichotomy. Personally, I dislike saddling a Character that already has decent HP and will already be behind the curve in the upper levels with a crummy Feat when a less-crummy Feat will serve a similar function.
Bopple 01-27-07, 07:25 PM	Balancewise, Improved Toughness is still a subpar feat either for a caster or for a warrior. You can only have 7-8 feats, or 10~11 if you are a Warmage or a Wizard, or take fighter 2 or 4. Would you burn your precious feat on Improved Toughness rather than on Sudden Maximize Spell, Quicken Spell, Craft Wondrous Item, Arcane Thesis, Arcane Mastery, Earth Spell, Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic, Divine Spell Power, Spell Focus and ectectectectectect? OMFG, there are tons. Or would you rather than on Leap Attack, Bounding Assault, Rapid Blitz, Woodland Archer, Crossbow Sniper, Power Attack, Cleave, Melee Mastery, Crushing Strike(or whatever name it may be), Spirited Charge, Divine Might, Divine Shield, Favored Power Attack, Improved Favored Enemy, Craven, Telling Blow and ectectectectectect? And for such lousy PrCs like Dwarven Defender, Primeval or Blood Magus? Bleh. Look. D&D3rd is very offense-oriented. And it's getting more offense-oriented, after the introduction of v3.5. And splatbooks are making the trend even more intense. Combat ends in 3~4 rounds, after all. It does not change as you lvl. Would subpar defensive feats like Improved Toughness tip the balance back? I am quite sure it would not.
nightwyrm 01-27-07, 07:28 PM	The dracolyte from the draconomicron also have toughness as a requirement. It's not too bad.
Dracomortis 01-27-07, 07:48 PM	As much as I love the blood magus for flavor, I have to admit that taking Toughness just to enter into it is absurd. Nothing it's granting is that great that I'm going to give up Maximize Spell for, especialy when I'm already going to lose 2 caster levels. Toughness gets grooped into all those feats like Alertness and Self-Sufficient that grant skill bonuses: they never get used by PCs unless they need them for a prestige class, but commonly show up on NPCs because they're easy to calculate into the stat block and require no thought during combat.
Temroc 01-27-07, 08:31 PM	3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game. I believe that the DMG heavily mentions the term "House Rule", and even has a whole 2 pages on 174-175 talking about how to modify a class. They also made a book called Unearthed Arcana, all about variant rule systems, with sidebars detailing how the designers all use house rules in their game. So I believe that the proper answer to the question in point is the so-called "Rule Zero", or, "The DM is Always Right". There are as many different styles of play as there are players, so not even WotC employees play a "WotC approved game". In answer to the point at hand, I would allow the feat to count, much like the Expeditious Dodge feat from Races of the Wild, which I think was already pointed out in this discussion.
ewokspy 01-28-07, 01:41 AM	Thanks one and all. It's about a 70/30 split for allowing it. At least now I know that allowing it doesn't open some loophole that would cause the very strand of reality we live in to unravel :)
Bengal 01-28-07, 02:46 AM	Last I checked, the entry in the PHB II for improved toughness specifically states that it functions as toughness for the purpose of meeting feat and prestige class prereqs. Why is this a discussion at all? They made a bad call with toughness, and improved toughness is meant to take its place in all things.
Bob Loblaw 01-28-07, 10:40 AM	I wouldn't. Do you allow other feat substitutions for pre-requisites? BTW, if I was currently running a home campaign, I would require toughness to be a pre-requisite for improved toughness, but that's just me. I actually do have other options as prerequistes for feats and prestige classes. I don't feel that I should be limited to the designers' imaginations or ideals as to what my game should be like. Look, do you think the designers did not realize that Toughness was a sucky feat? How stupid do you think they were? Do you think they did not know about Improved Toughness? Toughness existed in 3.0 They had MORE than enough time to hear people like you complain about it. They had the opportunity to change it when they switched to 3.5. They did not do that, instead they created Improved Toughness, and specifically used Toughness as the pre-req. I think that the designers for 3.5 are not the same team of designers for 3.0 for starters. I also think that WotC has been known to take a while to fix things even between 3.0 and 3.5. For an example, look at polymorph or wild shape. Tougness was intended to be a sucky feat. It is supposed to be something to throw in for balance. Which is rather silly in my opinion. This makes it sound like they want you to suck for 3 levels and then take that feat or prestige class that will break the game. Really, it isn't that great of a balancing act. But to blanketly say that you let people substitute Improved Toughness for Toughness indicates: 1) Ignorance of the system 2) Arrogance (You think you know better than ALL of the game designers without even looking at what they wrote) 3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game. I am far from ignorant of the system. In fact, I think that my understanding of the system enhances the enjoyment of the game for everyone I game with. I am far from arrogant in this regard. I do know better than all the the game designers without looking at what they wrote or why because I have to determine how it all affects my game. I personally don't care what any of them have to say on the matter because they are not the ones at my table. I also really like the part of the books where they tell me to make the changes I see fit. And because I can make any changes I see fit, I am playing a 100% WotC approved game. Honestly, Hasbro/WotC doesn't really care how I play the game so long as I give them my money periodically. Since they don't care, why should anyone else? They at least have a vested interest. Since ewokspy is looking to see if the houserule would be broken or not, I will answer that question with "No." I have been using this houserule since Improved Toughness was available with no reduction in fun levels for my games. We have seen no characters become game breaking or completely worthless because of the rule. My advice is to try it out and see how things work in your games. You may yourself pleasantly surprised.
travellersside 01-28-07, 11:33 AM	I merged the two. Now we simply have Toughness, which has no pre-reqs and provides +1 hp per HD, with a minimum of +3. Even so, no-one has taken it yet. Probably because it still isn't very interesting - it just doesn't suck as badly now. As far as that line about having to take a poor feat in order to balance a powerful PrC? That's absurd. If the class is that powerful, tone it done and ask for some worthwhile pre-requisites. The two quoted PrCs that I'm familiar with (Blood Magus and Dwarven Defender) aren't very good, and have no need of being balanced out by weak pre-req feats. I couldn't comment on the Dracolyte, but I'd be surprised if it's particularly powerful, since I've rarely heard it mentioned. You canusually tell which PrCs are powerful due to how often people talk about them. To the best of my knowledge, none of these PrCs are ever recommended by powergamers. As it stands, there are literally thousands of feats available. The majority of characters are able to take 7 over the course of 20 levels. Why would anyone take something that was such an appalling waste of paper? A feat should either be worth taking, or it shouldn't exist. Anything else is just wasting your time.
claypigeons 01-28-07, 12:41 PM	Last I checked, the entry in the PHB II for improved toughness specifically states that it functions as toughness for the purpose of meeting feat and prestige class prereqs. Why is this a discussion at all? It's a discussion because you checked wrong. Improved Toughness is found in Complete Warrior. And it says nothing in the description about working in place of Toughness. If you're going to make crap up that doesnt add to the discussion, at least make it sound correct and/or informed. :rolleyes:
DarkRhystar 01-28-07, 03:17 PM	It's a discussion because you checked wrong. Improved Toughness is found in Complete Warrior. And it says nothing in the description about working in place of Toughness. If you're going to make crap up that doesnt add to the discussion, at least make it sound correct and/or informed. :rolleyes: That seems like an inappropriately harsh reply. With all that's in the PhB II there might be something in there about letting some feats count as others for prerequisites (it introduces a lot of variant rules after all) or maybe the poster simply mixed up books; it happens. Rather than take an insulting tone, why not ask for a page number of where he read such? At worst a mistake would be realized, but it may also add to the discussion.
claypigeons 01-28-07, 05:20 PM	That seems like an inappropriately harsh reply. With all that's in the PhB II there might be something in there about letting some feats count as others for prerequisites (it introduces a lot of variant rules after all) or maybe the poster simply mixed up books; it happens. The post to which I replied so harshly had/has a similar tone. I was replying in kind. Presenting false information and then calling into question the reason for a discussion, based on your false information, is kind of rude.
Rivelstraz 01-28-07, 07:00 PM	Other than the Dwarven Defender, I'm not aware of any other PrCs that have Toughness as a requirement. And I do believe that the class is worthy of having a few useless feats, because it is a very powerful class. If any PrCs with Toughness were printed after Complete Warrior, then any or all of them could have also stated that Improved Toughness from the Complete Warrior could also meet the requirement. If they didn't, then the designers intended it to be Toughness, and only Toughness. If you're playing in a high-powered game then sure, go ahead and make the houserule, otherwise, I'd advise against it. Improved toughness makes a huge difference for many classes. At level 10, it's "only" 10 HP, but it easily makes a wizard or rogue 20-25% harder to kill, assuming you're not playing a high powered game where everyone has wildly inflated HP. I've had at least 4 occasions when Improved Toughness did or would have made a difference between life and death. You might laugh and say that a dozen HP doesn't make a difference, but it happens far more than you think. So why not let the players pick an useful feat? They used one of their valuable feats to get those 10 extra HP (10th level character) so they should get a good benefit. It's like using standard dodge. Seriously, what's the point? Let's make it useless but a prereq of better feats.
Red_Rabbit 01-29-07, 12:43 AM	No, I wouldn't allow it. Toughness is a Dumpy feat, but is a key feat to afew good feats such as: "Roll With It" from Savage Species which gives DR 2/- which can be taken multiple times and stacks with it's self. The Rabbit
Father Dale 02-04-07, 03:08 PM	We allow it in our games. Reasons: 1) Toughness is a worthless feat except for a 1st lvl low hp caster who doesn't want to die the first time that a kobold throws a spear at him. 2) Generally speaking, the difference between the hps gained from Imp Toughness over Toughness is small (at 10th lvl its 7 hps. Aid will give more than that.) 3) It appears that Imp Toughness is eventually going to replace toughness altogether. Imp Toughness is the most printed feat there is, it appears in more books than any other feat. Further, Imp Toughness is how Toughness was used in Neverwinter Nights, which was 3.0 based. It hardly broke Dwarven Defenders in that game working like that. 4) Its not game breaking. If you think that it is, then you realy shouldn't be using the Spell Compendium, the PHB II, or any of the Complete books. 5) Even using the RAW, the only time a character would take toughness instead of imp toughness would be to qualify for a PRC or feat. Even before the introduction of Imp Toughness, it would never be taken (except for the low level, low hp caster or the Dwarven Defender), and it wouldn't even be considered to be taken. This is the definition of a poorly designed feat, i.e. a feat that would never be taken or a feat that will always be taken. So all in all, I see no real reason to not allow Imp Toughness to work like Toughness in all respects. I imagine that if a version 4.0 comes out, we'll see Toughness work like Imp Toughness. I've been in several games where we've allowed this; and every time it was solely in relation to qualifying for the Dwarven Defender PRC. And I can say from experience that it is not overpowering to do this.
Babaganouj 02-06-07, 05:09 PM	The post to which I replied so harshly had/has a similar tone. I was replying in kind. Presenting false information and then calling into question the reason for a discussion, based on your false information, is kind of rude. Unlike your reply, I don't think that post was directed at anyone in particular. Was the false information personally insulting to you in some way?
FrostHammer 02-06-07, 08:42 PM	Is Improved Toughness from Complete Warrior?
claypigeons 02-06-07, 09:43 PM	Is Improved Toughness from Complete Warrior? Yes. Page 101. Unlike your reply, I don't think that post was directed at anyone in particular. Was the false information personally insulting to you in some way? :rolleyes:
anmesm58527 02-14-07, 10:37 PM	In oriental adventures "strength of the earth" is virtually identical to Improved Toughness exept that Tougness is a prereq.... and if the copyright dates on these books are correct...OA came out BEFORE CW..two years before..so game designers CLEARLY knew what they were doing...even though the people who designed CW were no where near OA's design, im sure they looked at it seeing as the feat is almost identical exept that imp. toughness makes the distinction of HD rather than level.. so IMO tougness shouldnt be a pre-req to improved toughness despite the "improved" suffix which is ussually reserved for feats that are improvements of their pre-req now as to the toughness as a pre-reg for PrC it could go both ways...if you are a literalist: no. Imp. toughness cant be used...if you tend to be a little more flexible: go for it, the feats seem to have the same intent
MerlintheTuna 02-15-07, 11:39 AM	Tougness was intended to be a sucky feat. It is supposed to be something to throw in for balance.Interesting. And yet astoundingly wrong.To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example). Improved Toughness is a fine swap out for Toughness in a long-term or high-level campaign. Go for it. Quote taken from Ivory Tower Game Design (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142), on montecook.com
Kelldroth Smite 02-16-07, 06:45 PM	I say **** the machanics and look at the flavor. Does their flavor of "you're a bit tougher than normal" seem similar enough? Good, then go ahead and allow it-- if you find it unbalancing, go ahead and nerf it back. Prerequisite feats are meant to ensure that characters have certain themes or qualities before embarking upon those paths. I rememember it was once claimed that you should roleplay entrance into classes like that and screw the mechanics-- as long as the entering character has that feel, the organization will have little problem accepting them. Hey, look, our rogue wants to train as an assassin... If he has enough dexterity, he could probably fake having 8 ranks in hide and move silently (maybe he has only 6?)... Our Dwarf wants to become a dwarven defender, let him embark upon an amazing test of endurance-- if his 20 something Con is enough to see him through without toughness-- ohh well.
Thiez 02-16-07, 06:49 PM	New Feat: Best Thoughness. Gives you +1 hitpoint per HD, minimum 3. Preqs: None Tada! End of discussion :)
Leress 02-16-07, 11:12 PM	New Feat: Best Thoughness. Gives you +1 hitpoint per HD, minimum 3. Preqs: None Tada! End of discussion :) Can this be used as a pre-req for Prestige classes.
risner 02-17-07, 12:38 AM	I just want to know the general consensus on whether people allow a player to use Improved Toughness instead of toughness when fulfilling feat pre-requisites for a prestige class. There seems to be no errata nor any mention elsewhere on this subject. Thoughts? RAW, you can not sub Improved Toughness for Toughness. Balance, you should not allow I.T. for T. Logic, you should not allow because they do different things. One (I.T.) is clearly better. In short, there is no reason to allow the swap.
risner 02-17-07, 12:44 AM	As other have said Improved Toughness doesn't have Toughness as a Prerequisite but a Base Fort of +2. So that statement is wrong. Did anyone even read Tarkin's post? You are the third person to get confused and think he was saying Toughness was a pre-req for Improved Toughness. Re-read his post then stop putting words in his mouth.
ewokspy 02-26-07, 08:07 AM	Did anyone even read Tarkin's post? You are the third person to get confused and think he was saying Toughness was a pre-req for Improved Toughness. Re-read his post then stop putting words in his mouth. To give defense to those who 'mis-quoted,' tarkin's quote was very ambiguous and could be taken both ways, especially since the paragraph in which he made the quote made no mention of pre-reqs for PrC's.
paladin2019 02-26-07, 08:38 AM	Small point. Prestige classes don't have prerequisites, they have requirements. If they had prerequisites, then if a character only lacked a feat to take the class and had just gained sixth level, they could use the feat gained at sixth level to qualify for the class. Because that's the way prerequisites work. But they have requirements. Requirements are different.
risner 02-26-07, 12:02 PM	Small point. Prestige classes don't have prerequisites, they have requirements. If they had prerequisites, then if a character only lacked a feat to take the class and had just gained sixth level, they could use the feat gained at sixth level to qualify for the class. Because that's the way prerequisites work. But they have requirements. Requirements are different. What are you talking about? If you want a given PrC as your 6th level and it had a pre-req or requirement of Blah feat, you could not use the feat granted at 6th level to qualify for the class at 6th level because you must choose (and qualify) for the class at 6th level before you choose a feat at 6th level. If that is not what you were suggesting, then I have no idea what your post is saying, it is greek to me.
claypigeons 02-26-07, 02:32 PM	RAW, you can not sub Improved Toughness for Toughness. Balance, you should not allow I.T. for T. Logic, you should not allow because they do different things. One (I.T.) is clearly better. In short, there is no reason to allow the swap. Because, oh man... 17 hp is just gamebreaking. The multiverse implodes at the thought! Improved Toughness is +2 con. That takes up a feat slot. It's NOT BROKEN. It's not unfair or illogical to allow it in place of a completely worthless feat.
Leress 02-26-07, 05:12 PM	RAW, you can not sub Improved Toughness for Toughness. True Balance, you should not allow I.T. for T. False, this doesn't cause imbalance. Logic, you should not allow because they do different things. One (I.T.) is clearly better. False they do the same thing just that one gives more of it and has a requirement. In short, there is no reason to allow the swap. There are plenty of reasons, many on this very thread. Did anyone even read Tarkin's post? You are the third person to get confused and think he was saying Toughness was a pre-req for Improved Toughness. Re-read his post then stop putting words in his mouth. Well that post was pretty ambiguous. I still stand by the rest of my post.
Skeetweasel 02-26-07, 06:20 PM	Look, do you think the designers did not realize that Toughness was a sucky feat? How stupid do you think they were? Do you think they did not know about Improved Toughness? Toughness existed in 3.0 They had MORE than enough time to hear people like you complain about it. They had the opportunity to change it when they switched to 3.5. They did not do that, instead they created Improved Toughness, and specifically used Toughness as the pre-req. Tougness was intended to be a sucky feat. It is supposed to be something to throw in for balance. Designers make up a feat and then think: I like this feat, but it is a bit too powerfull. I could weaken. No, I like it the way it is. Oh, I know, I will make them waste a feat on some useless piece of crap. How about TOUGHNESS. But to blanketly say that you let people substitute Improved Toughness for Toughness indicates: 1) Ignorance of the system 2) Arrogance (You think you know better than ALL of the game designers without even looking at what they wrote) 3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game. This BY FAR the most arrogant and ignorant thing I have ever read on these boards. And it was written by someone I thought knew something. I would like to offer an apology to the OP and thank you for your question. Some people should not be allowed to offer an opinion, if that is the way it will be offered. I also allow the I.T. to sub for Toughness. As most posters have pointed out, it is not game breaking at all. But if there was a way to break it, someone would.
Krusk 02-26-07, 07:30 PM	Not only is it not gamebreaking, but it becomes harder for a character who chooses improved toughness at level one to survive. level one wizard improved toughness 10 con. hp 2-5. level one wizard with toughness 10 con. hp 4-7. This dosnt even out until level 3, and improved becomes better at level 4. So in low level games, it can actually be worse to take improved over normal.
UAMDB 02-26-07, 07:35 PM	Look, do you think the designers did not realize that Toughness was a sucky feat? How stupid do you think they were? Do you think they did not know about Improved Toughness? Toughness existed in 3.0 They had MORE than enough time to hear people like you complain about it. They had the opportunity to change it when they switched to 3.5. They did not do that, instead they created Improved Toughness, and specifically used Toughness as the pre-req. Tougness was intended to be a sucky feat. It is supposed to be something to throw in for balance. Designers make up a feat and then think: I like this feat, but it is a bit too powerfull. I could weaken. No, I like it the way it is. Oh, I know, I will make them waste a feat on some useless piece of crap. How about TOUGHNESS. The Game designers could have wrote Improved Toughness as the Pre-requisite. They wrote Toughness instead of Improved Toughenss because the professional game designer intentionally weakened what it was used as a pre-req for, to make it fair for the rest of the game. Now, if you personally think a specific feat/prc is too weak, then I consider allowing Improved Toughness to replace toughnss for that particular feat. That is fine, and possibly a smart thing to do. But to blanketly say that you let people substitute Improved Toughness for Toughness indicates: 1) Ignorance of the system 2) Arrogance (You think you know better than ALL of the game designers without even looking at what they wrote) 3) The fact that you are playing a "Power Game", not something equivelent to a standard WoTC approved game. I hope you dont fall off your high horse and hurt yourself. People are allowed to make changes to the game as they see fit. The game designers wrote that in to the books. And how do you know what a standard WoTC approved game is? Your post does nothing but show your arrogance. You think your better because you dont make any changes. Oh it must be so nice to be perfect.
KurenaiYami 02-26-07, 07:38 PM	Not only is it not gamebreaking, but it becomes harder for a character who chooses improved toughness at level one to survive. level one wizard improved toughness 10 con. hp 2-5. level one wizard with toughness 10 con. hp 4-7. This dosnt even out until level 3, and improved becomes better at level 4. So in low level games, it can actually be worse to take improved over normal. *Nitpick follows.* You max out that first class level, so it's not "2-5" and "4-7," it's just "5" and "7." That and a level one Wizard doesn't have a good Fort, so it couldn't take Improved Toughness anyways.
ewokspy 02-26-07, 09:10 PM	Based on the responses it seems that in this case, allowing I.T. is acceptable. The player is taking primevil from Frostburn. Which is a Barbarian PrC that requires Endurance, Self-Sufficient, and Toughness as the req feats. The difference between 3 hp and 20 at 20th (they are only 8th so far) is minor, when you consider that at 20th, things hit harder. But at least I.T. lets our feat grow with you. Toughness for a barbarian is so much a drop in the bucket, that by the time 20th rolls around, who cares?
paladin2019 02-26-07, 09:21 PM	What are you talking about? If you want a given PrC as your 6th level and it had a pre-req or requirement of Blah feat, you could not use the feat granted at 6th level to qualify for the class at 6th level because you must choose (and qualify) for the class at 6th level before you choose a feat at 6th level. If it was a pre-req rather than a requirement, that is exactly what I would be suggesting. A pre-req, by RAW, can be met at the same time the thing it is a pre-req for is chosen. For example, a 3rd level fighter with a 12 STR (yeah, I know...) gains 4th level. He selects Strength as his feat to increase and Power Attack as his bonus feat. He can do this because a 13 STR is a pre-req for Power Attack and can thus select Power Attack at the same time he meets the pre-req. (If you have a problem with using a specific class's special ability, substitute any character gaining 12th level.) This is the RAW of pre-reqs. If prestige classes had pre-reqs, they would work the same way. As they do not, the rules were clarified in 3.5 to, and I paraphrase here, "None of the steps on the list of things to do when you level up have to be done in order, except that you must choose a class first." (I like to think my advocacy to the contrary on 3E boards contributed to this edit :devil:)
wonlee76 02-26-07, 10:26 PM	I'm horrible at quoting but the original quoted material is from Risner and the response is from Leress. Quote: Balance, you should not allow I.T. for T. False, this doesn't cause imbalance. Quote: Logic, you should not allow because they do different things. One (I.T.) is clearly better. False they do the same thing just that one gives more of it and has a requirement. I think Risner was trying to say that prestige classes with a requirement of the toughness feat should not be able to meet that requirement by having the improved toughness feat. Replacing Toughness for Improved Toughness in and of itself isn't that big of a deal but when you consider the handful of prestige classes with Toughness as a pre-req, is this "balanced"? If it is why didn't the authors of the Prestige Classes say Improved Toughness is the requirement instead of Toughness. Or in the alternative, why not write in the Improved Toughness feat that it can replace Toughness for purposes of meeting the pre-reqs for feats or the requirements for prestige classes. There are at least 2 prestige classes that were published after Complete Warrior that requires Toughness as a requirement (Blood Magus and that barbarian prestige class in Frostburn). ToB has several feats with language in the feat that they could be used to replace other feats for purposes of pre-reqs or requirements. Errata has been issued for CW and no amendment to improved toughness was done to essentially replace toughness. For all intents and purposes, Toughness is actually better than Improved Toughness if you want to get into a prestige class that requires the Toughness Feat (or the often cited 1 shot low level adventure). Improved Toughness is better in all other situations. So they are not equal or "do the same thing." Quote: In short, there is no reason to allow the swap. There are plenty of reasons, many on this very thread. And there are plenty of reasons not to allow the swap. Namely, prestige classes that came out after CW had the chance to put Improved Toughness but they chose Toughness for a "reason". WOTC could have issued in its errata for CW that Improved Toughness can replace Toughness for purposes of meeting the requirement feats for prestige classes (or pre-reqs for feats if there are any feats that require Toughness as a pre-req). Personally, I don't see a good reason why there should be a swap. If Improved Toughness is not a game breaking swap then leaving Toughness as the requirement isn't game breaking either.
Krusk 02-26-07, 11:34 PM	*Nitpick follows.* You max out that first class level, so it's not "2-5" and "4-7," it's just "5" and "7." That and a level one Wizard doesn't have a good Fort, so it couldn't take Improved Toughness anyways. nitpick for the win. your right.
risner 02-27-07, 12:54 AM	IAs they do not, the rules were clarified in 3.5 to, and I paraphrase here, "None of the steps on the list of things to do when you level up have to be done in order, except that you must choose a class first." PHB p58 says you are wrong. Also, even if I assume you were right (which you are not) you still couldn't take a feat at 6th level AND a PrC that requires that feat at 6th level (you would need to take the PrC at 7th.)
paladin2019 02-27-07, 01:21 AM	IAs they do not, the rules were clarified in 3.5 to, and I paraphrase here, "None of the steps on the list of things to do when you level up have to be done in order, except that you must choose a class first."PHB p58 says you are wrong. What part of my post you quoted is wrong? Also, even if I assume you were right (which you are not) you still couldn't take a feat at 6th level AND a PrC that requires that feat at 6th level (you would need to take the PrC at 7th.) IF prestige classes had prerequisites and IF the rules for gaining levels hadn't been clarified to require that class had to be chosen first, then those features a character gains regardless of class chosen, ie feats and ability increases, could be used to qualify for prestige classes the level they are gained.
ContinuityLapse 02-27-07, 01:35 AM	Here's something to consider: For the sake of determining Fort saves, Great Fortitude is equal to increasing your Con by 4. For the sake of determining hit points, Improved Toughness is equal to increasing your Con by 2.
paladin2019 02-27-07, 01:50 AM	Here's something to consider: For the sake of determining Fort saves, Great Fortitude is equal to increasing your Con by 4. For the sake of determining hit points, Improved Toughness is equal to increasing your Con by 2. But Fort saves only increase every other or every thrid level; hit points increase every level.
risner 02-27-07, 10:22 AM	What part of my post you quoted is wrong? Any part that talks about PrC requirements not being required before the class has been chosen (like taking a required feat at 6th level to take a level of a PrC at 6th level requiring that feat.) Any part that talks about the leveling order (what order feats, skills, classes, etcs are gained when leveling.) Any part that says that leveling order is not fixed and static. Any part that says PrC requirements are not the same as pre-reqs. Pretty much all the posts you have made in this thread are either inaccurate, you have changed your position, or I am having a very difficult time and somehow reading your posts the opposite of what you mean to say which is: PrC requirements must be met before selecting the PrC class at a given level.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 10:46 AM	Any part that talks about PrC requirements not being required before the class has been chosen (like taking a required feat at 6th level to take a level of a PrC at 6th level requiring that feat.) Any part that talks about the leveling order (what order feats, skills, classes, etcs are gained when leveling.) Any part that says that leveling order is not fixed and static. Any part that says PrC requirements are not the same as pre-reqs. Pretty much all the posts you have made in this thread are either inaccurate, you have changed your position, or I am having a very difficult time and somehow reading your posts the opposite of what you mean to say which is: PrC requirements must be met before selecting the PrC class at a given level. Just poking in to try to clarify since I *think* I know what is trying to be said, and maybe my paraphrase could help. If my reinterpretation of Paladin2019's post made at 6:21 pm PST (sorry, can't recall what that is GMT), let me know and I'll delete this to hold further confusion. Paladin2019 was trying to differentiate between requirements from a prestige class and prerequisites for feats. He acknowledged that requirements (for prestige classes) must be met the level before you take your first level, and was simply pointing out that prerequisites (for feats) don't work the same way, allowing you to take the feat on the level you meet the prerequisites, such as a certain number of ranks in a skill (taking a feat that requires BAB of +4 at level 4 for instance.)
risner 02-27-07, 01:50 PM	allowing you to take the feat on the level you meet the prerequisites, such as a certain number of ranks in a skill (taking a feat that requires BAB of +4 at level 4 for instance.) Except that isn't exactly true. A feat taken at 6th level that requires a number of skill ranks or a certain BAB can be take at 6th level (the same level you meet the BAB or Skill Ranks requirement) because BAB and Skill Ranks is calculated before you select a Feat. My point is that Paladin2019 is fundamentally confused and is making inaccurate statements. You must follow the PHB p58 leveling order and if you make a selection that has a requirement or pre-req, then you must meet the requirement or pre-req before making the selection. You can not make the selecting knowing you will meet the selection later. If I am wrong, I'd like to see the book/page ref saying PHB p58 is null and void.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 03:07 PM	Except that isn't exactly true. A feat taken at 6th level that requires a number of skill ranks or a certain BAB can be take at 6th level (the same level you meet the BAB or Skill Ranks requirement) because BAB and Skill Ranks is calculated before you select a Feat. That's what I said, it's just worded differently. Not sure where you believe we disagree. Though I think I see where you and Paladin2019 disagree now. Also, on the page you sited (58), I see the list of things that you change when levelling, but I see no indication that it has to be done in order on that page, unless you are inferring it from the fact that the list is numbered, which is probably too vague to cite as a rule of order. Adding to the evidence for your case, under #4 there is mention of these being "steps" which does signify a specific order. Starting to look a bit closer to what you're saying. The only thing I dislike about this is feats that require Spells and Class Features cannot be taken until one level later.
paladin2019 02-27-07, 03:42 PM	If youread the discussion of prerequisites at the beginning of the feats section, it specifically states that they may be met at the same time a character gains whatever they are prerequisites for. This is fundamentally different than a requirement, which must be met prior to, as in complete levels, gaining the prestige class it is a requirement for. Of the indicated items to be changed upon gaining a level, none must occur before any other EXCEPT choosing a class. This is a specific change from 3E, which did not have this explicit stipulation.
risner 02-27-07, 07:10 PM	If youread the discussion of prerequisites at the beginning of the feats section, it specifically states that they may be met at the same time a character gains whatever they are prerequisites for Of the indicated items to be changed upon gaining a level, none must occur before any other EXCEPT choosing a class. This is a specific change from 3E, which did not have this explicit stipulation. Feats do have text to all them to be taken the same level you gain a class feature, but that is an exception (and is written in the acquiring feats section.) Can you give me a Book/page where it says that all level advancing actions can occur in any order? To me PHB p58 is a clear indication the level advance is done in an ordered way and without exception for add a class with requirements or skills, you need to meet the pre-reqs before you gain the abilitiy in the order that page 58 shows.
JoAT 02-28-07, 03:19 AM	And there are plenty of reasons not to allow the swap. Namely, prestige classes that came out after CW had the chance to put Improved Toughness but they chose Toughness for a "reason". WOTC could have issued in its errata for CW that Improved Toughness can replace Toughness for purposes of meeting the requirement feats for prestige classes (or pre-reqs for feats if there are any feats that require Toughness as a pre-req). Personally, I don't see a good reason why there should be a swap. If Improved Toughness is not a game breaking swap then leaving Toughness as the requirement isn't game breaking either. I would really like to see a like of all the game-breaking prestige classes that require Toughness. I honestly don't think that there are any - from this thread, about 3 total have come up; the Dwarven Defender, the Blood Magus and the Primeval, none of which are powerful enough, or even have anything over a base class that would make it worthwhile dumping a feat for the purposes of taking the class (and if you're doing so, then that is what you're doing. Toughness does not give you 3 hit points. Taking Toughness as a feat means that either a) you're a first level elven wizard in a one shot game, or b) that you need it as the prerequisite for something, in which case this is it's only benefit.) It is a feat that gives you the opportunity to spend your feats on other feats or take levels in okay but not great PrCs. It's also interesting to note that Improved Toughness appeared right at the start of 3.5, before they had feats that could replace feats, and it appeared in the Complete Warrior - not a core book, and thus one that they could not reference for other sources (I think it also appeared once in Libris Morris), as they were attempting to limit interconnectivity at the time, so people would not be annoyed that they needed to buy 5 books to use their new one (this policy seems to have been waning, starting about 9 months ago), so adding a line to PrCs outside of the Complete Warrior to the effect of 'you can substitute Improved Toughness for the requirements of this class' simply would not have happened. Now, certainly, one can believe that those at WoTC know what they're doing all the time, and that, perhaps they have certain very specific reasons that Improved Toughness could not be substituted for Toughness. These reasons might be why the Planar Shepard came out with such an obvious loop-hole, or why a psionic kolbold can rise to ultimate power by level 7. But, me, I really don't think so, myself. Our understanding of the game is always evolving (both that of the players and of the designers), and this is why so many changes have been made so late in the game. Polymorph errata should have, perhaps, been addressed in the 3.5 change over, but it was not, and we've had Polymorph for far longer than we've had Toughness. Classes have been found to lag behind the titans of D&D (full spellcasters), in almost every respect, and so effort has been put in to making them better. And Toughness... poor Toughness has been left behind. No one really cares about it, because no one really takes it. Even those things that require it, few people really care about, because they're not particularly great. Improved Toughness doesn't fare much better. Sure it gives you about 20 hit points, yet, in the face of a potential 200+ for some characters, that... well, it's kinda underwhelming. Especially when you consider that, at higher levels, it doesn't even keep you alive one round longer - single blows will decimate double that, and full attacks.... Ow. The feat doesn't look to much better at that point, certainly not with all the alternatives out there, many of which function as requirements for much better things than Toughness does. Huh. I guess I rambled a bit too much there, since I don't remember where I'm going with this, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Roivas 02-28-07, 03:28 AM	I'm going to have to say I far prefer letting improved toughness substitute for the less optimal toughness for all possible situations. But then again I also let my players take max HP at every level so they are less fragile, so maybe I'm just talking crazy here. Also i gave the Tarrasque improved toughness instead of the toughness feat 12 times over and gave it more handy feats, the tarrasque in my game is a force of ultimate destruction with every possible destructive feat I could find. If you don't want to 'break' your game just letting the monsters use the same rules the players do makes the game much easier to deal with, and makes the players police their own rule jumps.