Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FriendlyBiscuit 11-14-05, 04:19 AM	What are your thoughts on allowing players to take Improved Toughness as a substitute for Toughness for the purpose of qualifying for a PrC?
Silais 11-14-05, 04:42 AM	Honestly, I don't see why both feats still exist, as tougness becomes pointless after the third level compared to improved toughness, why do you think they call it "improved". But anyhow, to awnser your question... It depends As a matter of the rules the awnser is no. But you need to ask yourself: does it realy matter in a game ballance perspective. To me the awnser is no. In which case I can't possibly see how it matters. Were it me, I would simply allow it. But then again, I've disalowed the toughness feat, and replaced it with improved toughness. Have a tough day -Silais
fragnar0k 11-14-05, 04:54 AM	As a DM, I would either: A) make toughness a requisite feat for improved toughness (as is usually the case with any "improved ____" feat), or: B) Completely replace toughness with improved toughness. The toughness feat really doesn't make any sense in most *any* dnd game of measurable length. And I personally have chosen to allow improved toughness to be accepted for the purposes of required feats in my game. The DM should pretty much always do what he or she feels is balanced and logical when it comes to these kinds of things. For me, it was an easy decision.
FriendlyBiscuit 11-14-05, 05:10 AM	Why are you guys so keen on removing the original Toughness altogether? For a (admittedly insane) character with low Con and a d4 HD, Toughness is a huge feat (especially at level 1). Edit: for said insane players who really need those three extra HP, maybe making Toughness give 5 HP, and causing the Toad to do the same thing, will help them survive the lower levels while not becoming quite as obsolete later on.
a_psh 11-14-05, 07:08 AM	Toughness exists specifically to be a worthless feat at high levels. One way to balance PrCs and stuff a little is to require that players basically burn feat slots on total crap to earn them. The Dwarven Defender is the perfect example: the abilities are awesome, but you need to get Toughness (worthless, particular to someone who's likely to get +4 or +5 hp per level from Con alone), Endurance (never going to matter, most likely), and Dodge (a bad choice for a heavily-armored warrior type, usually) to qualify.
FriendlyBiscuit 11-14-05, 07:37 AM	Hmm, for such characters, 5 points instead of 3 wouldn't really matter anyway, then. They couldn't complain as much once I point out that I've nearly doubled the feat's strength, and the crazy low-level wizards to whom it will matter now get 2 or 4 extra HP. Which all amounts to: I don't have to let Imp. Toughness work for PrC requirements. I don't have to remove the Con mod prereq from the feat so that low-HP characters can get Imp. Toughness. Are there any further holes in my logic to fix?
a_psh 11-14-05, 08:58 AM	I don't see a particular problem with 5 hp Toughness (though, well, this does make it the best feat for first-level NPCs, hands-down). I do see a problem with replacing Toughness with "1 hit point per level" Improved Toughness, which is an actually good feat.
Mirage_1 11-14-05, 09:36 AM	I don't see a particular problem with 5 hp Toughness (though, well, this does make it the best feat for first-level NPCs, hands-down). I do see a problem with replacing Toughness with "1 hit point per level" Improved Toughness, which is an actually good feat. what problem do you see with replacing toughness with improved toughness?
celtredleg 11-14-05, 10:08 AM	what problem do you see with replacing toughness with improved toughness? I see a problem with low hp 1st level charecters. 3 hp is not a bad add if you need it. Only 1 is not so good even if it is more later. Depends on what level you play at. If you start above one, or just zip right through it as some do, no problem. But if you spend a fair amount of time at low levels, toughness is a much better choice.
Mirage_1 11-14-05, 11:52 AM	ahh...I had misunderstood you 1 option is to merge them. Basically 3 or 1/level, whichever is best. Basically 3 at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, the 1/lvl btw, for my campaign we use vitality/wound. To keep a bit more distinction, toughness adds to wound and improved toughness to vitality.
a_psh 11-14-05, 12:22 PM	what problem do you see with replacing toughness with improved toughness? As stated earlier, Toughness is a throwaway feat used specifically to balance some of the more powerful prestige classes, like Dwarven Defender. The idea is that you burn a feat or two on pretty worthless things (you see this with the less useful applications of Skill Focus, too, sometimes) in order to get into a slightly-beefier-than-average PrC without it being as much of a balance problem. Turning it into 1 hp / level means Toughness no longer fulfills that role. I would just leave it the way it is. It's still an awesome feat for lowbie NPCs and monsters, just like Alertness and Shield Proficiency. Not every feat has to be highly desirable to the PCs (particularly because of what I said above).
FriendoftheDork 11-14-05, 12:34 PM	What are your thoughts on allowing players to take Improved Toughness as a substitute for Toughness for the purpose of qualifying for a PrC? I'd not allow it. Improved toughness is already unbalanced as it is. In my game I have toughness as a prerequisite for the feat, so to allow it a purpose.
Mirage_1 11-14-05, 12:37 PM	I'd not allow it. Improved toughness is already unbalanced as it is. In my game I have toughness as a prerequisite for the feat, so to allow it a purpose. how is improved toughness overpowered?
MinusInnocence 11-14-05, 12:49 PM	The Gygax Squad isn't gonna bust down the door during your next game session and throw you in chains if you allow people to take Improved Toughness instead of Toughness as a prerequisite. Then again, I don't see a reason the two can't coexist in the gameworld; as many have said, they're both valuable feats but for very different characters. Go ahead and do it. If the game screeches to a halt as players perceive your small concession as an invitation for them to do their worst, so be it; at least you'll know for the future. At the moment, it seems relatively harmless.
FriendoftheDork 11-14-05, 01:18 PM	how is improved toughness overpowered? It does the same as an existing fear (extra hp) only ALOT better. As said no one takes toughness when you can take improved toughness. And it's prerequsite is a laugh.
Mirage_1 11-14-05, 01:22 PM	I argue that improved toughness is fine, it is toughness that is so pitifully weak. Even with specifically allowing it (with no prerequisites), I still have no one that wants it. If it was so uber, then all would want it (sort of like improved init)
a_psh 11-14-05, 02:17 PM	I argue that improved toughness is fine, it is toughness that is so pitifully weak. Even with specifically allowing it (with no prerequisites), I still have no one that wants it. If it was so uber, then all would want it (sort of like improved init) Given how no one cares about +1 to a Fort save, +1 more hit point per level is the equivalent of +2 Con, pretty much. it's pretty much strictly better than Psionic Body, actually, which is a pretty darn good feat. I don't see any character with d4 or d6 hit dice reasonably passing it up unless he's really pressed for feats (if we're talking about allocating attributes, one could at the very least take the Con hit, take Improved Toughness to balance it out, and put the higher stat in something else). If anything, the majority of classes don't benefit that much from going first, whereas everyone can benefit a lot from hit points. Also, as noted before, making it a "real feat" at all slightly overpowers the classes that used to use Toughness for balance. Toughness has a niche. That niche is low-level critters. A first-level NPC human commoner with the non-elite array can double his hit points by taking Toughness (he can also vastly increase his AC by taking Shield Proficiency, of all things, which is a feat I have never seen any PC even look at). While I can see it coexisting with Improved Toughness, I wouldn't replace it wholesale.
WCH 11-14-05, 04:33 PM	Where is Improved Toughness from, anyway? I keep seeing reference to it on these boards, but I can't remember seeing it in any of my books. :confused:
Zombie Carl 11-14-05, 05:23 PM	I found it in Complete Warrior. Also: It has a listing for Improved Two Weapon Defense, but not the feat Two Weapon Defense - where could I find it/could someone give me a quick overview of the feat? Thanks
Mystic Lemur 11-14-05, 05:39 PM	Zombie Carl: Two-Weapon Defence is in the 3.5 PHB. Imp Init isn't that great unless you are the only one to have it. If everyone (or most people) also have a +4 to Init, then what good is yours? On the other hand, Improved Toughness would only be balanced by something like Alternate Improved Weapon Specialization that let's you do extra damage based on HD w/ a joke prerequisite. I also agree that Imp Toughness is too overpowered compared to the Toughness Feat. To get what you would have to spent every feat on with one (3hp/3lvls), you could instead spend one feat slot as soon as lvl6 for those classes with a bad Will save. What's more, don't the two feats stack?
General_Ridley 11-14-05, 05:47 PM	It does the same as an existing fear (extra hp) only ALOT better. As said no one takes toughness when you can take improved toughness. And it's prerequsite is a laugh. I'm going to fix that. It does the same as an existing fear (extra hp) only ALOT better. As said, no one takes toughness to begin with.
Zombie Carl 11-14-05, 05:51 PM	Zombie Carl: Two-Weapon Defence is in the 3.5 PHB. Imp Init isn't that great unless you are the only one to have it. If everyone (or most people) also have a +4 to Init, then what good is yours? On the other hand, Improved Toughness would only be balanced by something like Alternate Improved Weapon Specialization that let's you do extra damage based on HD w/ a joke prerequisite. I also agree that Imp Toughness is too overpowered compared to the Toughness Feat. To get what you would have to spent every feat on with one (3hp/3lvls), you could instead spend one feat slot as soon as lvl6 for those classes with a bad Will save. What's more, don't the two feats stack? Duh me, I only have 3.0. Cheers! I think Improved Initiative is a great feat. Combined with a good DEX, it can put you leagues ahead of monsters and enemy partys - for example, a spellcaster preparing to counterspell needs to get the drop on the guy he is going to counterspell against. And say, readying to attack a hydra's head.
WCH 11-15-05, 02:11 PM	lol... now I'm envisioning an HP build... Human Fighter 20 with his first feat being Toughness, and EVERY OTHER FEAT being imp. Okay... base 18 Con, 23 after level bonuses, +6 from amulet... meaning base 20d10+180, and then +3 from Toughness, then Imp Toughness 18 times, working out to 360... so this character would have 19d10+553 hp, or about 657 in total. :schemes: Yeah, he'd completely suck at everything, but damn could he ever take a beating. Give him some kind of damage reduction (maybe Adamantine armour, maybe something better) and just have him stand there and let people pound on him until they grow tired and collapse, Homer style.
Gnomish Zombie 11-15-05, 02:24 PM	lol... now I'm envisioning an HP build... Human Fighter 20 with his first feat being Toughness, and EVERY OTHER FEAT being imp. Okay... base 18 Con, 23 after level bonuses, +6 from amulet... meaning base 20d10+180, and then +3 from Toughness, then Imp Toughness 18 times, working out to 360... so this character would have 19d10+553 hp, or about 657 in total. :schemes: Yeah, he'd completely suck at everything, but damn could he ever take a beating. Give him some kind of damage reduction (maybe Adamantine armour, maybe something better) and just have him stand there and let people pound on him until they grow tired and collapse, Homer style. Dominate person