Toughness is a Terrible, Awful Feat [3.5]

[Keinnicht]

Seriously. Why does this feat exist? The only characters it'd be useful to are very, very low level wizards and sorcerers, and it would be basically useless to them by 6th or 7th level.

Are you just expected to retrain it? Or what? Is one of these a good fix:

Toughness [General]
Effect: You gain 2 additional hit points each level.


Enhanced Toughness [General]
Prerequisite: Toughness
Effect: You gain 1 additional hit point each level, which stacks with those from Toughness.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.

Those two are meant to go together, obviously. Alternatively, there's this:


Toughness [General]
Effect: All of your future HD increase by one step, as follows:

1D4 to 1D6
1D6 to 1D8
1D8 to 1D10
1D10 to 1D12
1D12 to 2D8

Do not recalculate hit points.




I'm not sure if these are overpowered or not, but they certainly are worth a feat slot a lot more than three more hit points.

[TroubleBrewing]

There is an Improved Toughness feat out of PHB2, I believe, which functions exactly like the "Enhanced Toughness" that you provided. It has the prerequisite of Endurance, however, so it isn't quite as good. Both of those feats, however, are decent choices for animal companions/familiars.

[The Glyphstone]

It requires a base Fort save of +2.

[Chilingsworth]

If you used these varrients, you could end up with much tougher zombies, that's for sure. (Zombies get toughness as a bonus feat.) Other than that, I'd specify that the 2d8 "hit die" only applies con once per level, or remove it all together.

Basically, toughness is supposed to be a way to add a few extra hp to low level characters, and to serve as a prerequisite feat foe other feats/PrC's.

[Sillycomic]

I'm fairly certain toughness was one of those feats you take because you absolutely need it at first level, but by 4th level or so it is pointless.

I would imagine a fighter or human taking it as his first level bonus feat, and then swapping it out for something better right about the time he becomes more awesome at... whatever it is he's supposed to be doing.

[Techsmart]

I do agree that it is a weak feat. Personally, I like the pathfinder version.
You gain +3 hit points. For every Hit Die you possess beyond 3, you gain an additional +1 hit point. If you have more than 3 Hit Dice, you gain +1 hit points whenever you gain a Hit Die (such as when you gain a level)

[hamishspence]

There's an official Improved Toughness feat (that doesnt actually require you to take Toughness) in MM3.

It requires a base Fort save of +2, but grants 1 hit point per Hit dice.

And, if you continue gaining hit dice (including from character levels), you continue gaining that extra hit point.

[Chilingsworth]

There is an Improved Toughness feat out of PHB2, I believe, which functions exactly like the "Enhanced Toughness" that you provided. It has the prerequisite of Endurance, however, so it isn't quite as good. Both of those feats, however, are decent choices for animal companions/familiars.

actually, it's in complete warrior. As Glyphstone said, it requires base fort +2. This is its only requirement.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes. Toughness is a terrible feat.

Especially when you're a Knight with 18 Con.

[Ravens_cry]

Dodge is worse. A pitiful bonus that requires active work to get even that minor benefit against one target.

[Chess435]

That why I use Pathfinder's version. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/toughness---final)

[Vladislav]

Yes. Toughness is a terrible feat.


Dodge is worse. A pitiful bonus that requires active work to get even that minor benefit against one target.

I will use this opportunity to plug my house rules regarding both

Dodge:
- This feat provides a flat +1 Dodge bonus to AC. There's no need to designate an opponent.
- Upon gaining this feat, you gain Lightning Reflexes as a bonus feat.

Toughness:
- Upon gaining this feat, you will, in addition to its normal benefits, gain a bonus +1 hit point whenever you level up, for the rest of your character's career.

[Flickerdart]

Dodge is worse. A pitiful bonus that requires active work to get even that minor benefit against one target.
Dodge has some splat support though - Tome of Magic has an awesome martial art that, among other benefits, gives you total concealment against your dodge target. Toughness doesn't have even that.

[Chilingsworth]

Dodge is worse. A pitiful bonus that requires active work to get even that minor benefit against one target.

At least dodge is the basis of a decent feat chain that's in Core.

[Yuki Akuma]

That feat chain can be better accessed with Midnight Dodge or Desert Wind Dodge, though.

[gbprime]

I'm fairly certain toughness was one of those feats you take because you absolutely need it at first level, but by 4th level or so it is pointless.

That's why you look at Dauntless, from Players Guide to Faerun. 1st level background feat, +5 HP. Then if you still need the HP, retrain it to something else and take Improved Toughness at level 6.

[Scorpions__]

Seems like Improved Toughness is in a few books. It's in Libris Mortis as well.






DM[F]R

[Templarkommando]

I will use this opportunity to plug my house rules regarding both

Dodge:
- This feat provides a flat +1 Dodge bonus to AC. There's no need to designate an opponent.
- Upon gaining this feat, you gain Lightning Reflexes as a bonus feat.

Toughness:
- Upon gaining this feat, you will, in addition to its normal benefits, gain a bonus +1 hit point whenever you level up, for the rest of your character's career.



My house rule for that one is that unless otherwise indicated you are dodging whatever you are actively swinging at.

[Heliomance]

Seems like Improved Toughness is in a few books. It's in Libris Mortis as well.


And one of the MonMans. 3, I think.

[KillianHawkeye]

Obviously, Toughness exists to give the Tarrasque something to do with all its feats. :smallamused:

[Foryn Gilnith]

Why does 1d12 go to 2d8? That's an extra 2.5 hp per hit die, more than double the bonus anything else gets.

[KillianHawkeye]

Why does 1d12 go to 2d8? That's an extra 2.5 hp per hit die, more than double the bonus anything else gets.

I assume it's because 1d12 has the same upgrade as 2d6?

[Heliomance]

Name a die size in between 1d12 and 2d8?

[Vladislav]

Name a die size in between 1d12 and 2d8?

A lot. 3d4 (average 7.5) or 2d6+1 (average 8) or 2d8-1 (same)

[Eldariel]

At least dodge is the basis of a decent feat chain that's in Core.

...which is? 'cause Mobility and Spring Attack are absolutely horrible; Mobility is even worse than Dodge and Spring Attack is hardly ever worth using for things other than earthgliding monsters (incorporeals can have Flyby Attack instead which is the same, except better, without all the wasted feats).

[Keld Denar]

The only 2 feats I can think of that absolutely NEED Dodge, as in the ACTUAL Dodge, rather than Expeditious Dodge or Desert Wind Dodge are Titan Fighting and Elusive Target. ET lets you negate the bonus damage from Power Attack against your dodge buddy, and Titan Fighting allows you to apply your +4 racial dodge bonus vs giants against ANYONE who is bigger than you, who is also your dodge buddy. Titan Fighting only works for dorfs and gnomies though, as they are the only ones with a racial dodge bonus vs giants...Elusive Target is pretty sexy though.

Note, the other 2 abilities of Elusive Target don't require a dodge partner, so if you don't mind losing the negate PA part, you COULD use Expeditious Dodge or Desert Wind Dodge...

[Shade Kerrin]

The only characters it'd be useful to are very, very low level wizards and sorcerers, and it would be basically useless to them by 6th or 7th level.

I dunno, there was always that 4-Con wizard in my party, who had 6 hp at level 6....

[nightwyrm]

Seriously. Why does this feat exist?


That's because the feat was designed as a skill-tester.

[some guy]

I dunno, there was always that 4-Con wizard in my party, who had 6 hp at level 6....

Ye gods man! How did he ever make it to that level?

But, yeah. Toughness is mostly terrible. My players get automatically Improved Toughness if they want Toughness. But even then, I tell them there are more interesting choices for a feat.

I give unexperienced players it when I'm running a one-shot, though. My one-shots are usually level 1-2 and 3 hp make a difference at those levels.

[Saint GoH]

As I recall, in the 3.0 masters of the wild book there are a serious of feats (dwarf's toughness, giants toughness, dragons toughness) that grant increasing benefits to Toughness, and each have toughness as a prereq.

If I recall, it works out to Dragon's Toughness Granting +15 extra HP, and you can retrain each other Toughness to Dragon's Toughness for some awesome sauce extra hp.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If I recall, it works out to Dragon's Toughness Granting +15 extra HP, and you can retrain each other Toughness to Dragon's Toughness for some awesome sauce extra hp.
If Toughness is a prerequisite for Dragon’s Toughness, then retraining it to something else would mean you no longer gain the benefit of your current or any other applications of Dragon’s Toughness you may have. You still need to meat a feat’s prerequisite to gain its benefit.

[Thurbane]

Toughness does indeed suck..I have seen people houserule rolling it into one feat with Great Fortitude and/or Endurance.

[AtomicKitKat]

Toughness is indeed a wall-banging feat. It MIGHT be useful as a pre-requisite for some PrCs, but really, forcing someone to take a useless Feat as a pre-requisite is just poor design.

[The Big Dice]

Monte Cook admits that they delibarately made Tougness into a Timmy Card (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142). And it's not the only one.

[Dr.Epic]

Seriously. Why does this feat exist? The only characters it'd be useful to are very, very low level wizards and sorcerers, and it would be basically useless to them by 6th or 7th level.

Just take a frog familiar at level one. They don't even need toughness.

Yeah, you're right. It is kind of a dumb feat. I had this one idea about making a fighter that only took toughness. I sometimes use it when making NPCs with class levels I don't want to be too powerful.

[nightwyrm]

Monte Cook admits that they delibarately made Tougness into a Timmy Card (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142). And it's not the only one.

Timmy cards aren't necessarily bad. They have their place in limited formats. Toughness is Eager Cadet (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=83064).

[Dacia Brabant]

...which is? 'cause Mobility and Spring Attack are absolutely horrible; Mobility is even worse than Dodge and Spring Attack is hardly ever worth using for things other than earthgliding monsters (incorporeals can have Flyby Attack instead which is the same, except better, without all the wasted feats).

What about Telflammar Shadowlord?

[Vladislav]

Timmy cards aren't necessarily bad. They have their place in limited formats. Toughness is Eager Cadet (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=83064).
Not really. It is a Timmy card, because it can seem powerful to new players. When you're a new player playing a level 1 Wizard with 4 hit points, a feat that almost doubles your hit point total seems very very very good. It seems like a very impressive effect for a feat.

[Thiyr]

If it was meant to be a Timmy effect it...did it kinda poorly. At first I kinda thought it was good in that whole "don't know what else to take" filler feat capacity. It took all of making my first character to realize that feats weren't that common. The only thing that really seemed to be impressive about it was the "taking it a lot" bit, but that was still more "if there's nothing else it kinda works." So I agree with nightwyrm, toughness is eager cadet: rather unimpressive, but something you consider early on before you realize the situation to use it is rarely going to come up. Whirlwind attack is more of a "Timmy card": Big and shiny and deadly looking.

I also like how Monte Cook completely misses the point of the whole Timmy bit. For a better explanation, this article (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) covers Timmy (and the other 2 major card design archetypes and their combinations).

[The Big Dice]

I also like how Monte Cook completely misses the point of the whole Timmy bit. For a better explanation, this article (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) covers Timmy (and the other 2 major card design archetypes and their combinations).
The pointis, D&D 3.X was delibarately designed with a similar philosophy to a CCG. Which explains a few things. It explains why rules lawyers became respeced parts of the cmmunity instead of the dregs of society. It explains why some options suck and othres are must haves. And it explains why it looks like the people who came up with the later stuff didn't read the feats, spells and so on that came before.

[Thiyr]

And, strangely, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think people who understand the system would ever become the "dregs of society", really. And it means that instead of expecting everybody to enjoy the game the same way, some can look at a PrC and say "How can we make this interesting?" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182492) It means that others can say "Oh man, fireball, best spell evarrrr", and it means that some can say "Well, fireball isn't that great, I'll take haste instead." Or any combination of the above. And -still have a good time-. Some of it was done poorly. Other parts were things that are bad but get people's creative juices going. The truenamer isn't just a bad class: It's a challenge. Some people (or at least myself) look at it and say "I want to see how I can make this work". In fact, the Truenamer, if we're making Magic analogies, is One With Nothing (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=One%20With%20Nothing). It is, undoubtedly terrible.

Unlike a CCG, I suppose, resources are far more limited, so each "bad card" hurts a lot more. Because the objective isn't winning or losing, but being capable, there is a slightly different mindset to things. But as far as stuff like this goes, that just means there's a different spread of player mentalities. You still have the players who get excited when they get to do something big and spectacular (Timmy), you still get the people who want to stretch their creative muscles to do funky stuff (Johnny), you still get the people who want only to be the best at what they do (Spike), you still get the guys who are in it for the cool background fluff (Vorthos (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mc2)). And in the CCG mindset, something was included for all of them. Nothing wrong with CCG design

[pwykersotz]

I play a very high powered game, so I ruled that Toughness adds 20hp. It's fun to watch my players struggle with taking it as a desirable feat. I don't allow retraining though, so if they use it to super power their level 1's, they're stuck with it.

[Coidzor]

Name a die size in between 1d12 and 2d8?

Meh, just go digital. If you can access GITP, then you can access random.org at the very least. And monsters just get average HP per HD anyway.

[Kerrin]

Not really. It is a Timmy card, because it can seem powerful to new players. When you're a new player playing a level 1 Wizard with 4 hit points, a feat that almost doubles your hit point total seems very very very good. It seems like a very impressive effect for a feat.
I think this is a fine use for Toughness, if you can retrain it later.

For example: one of our groups uses retraining, the other doesn't.