Am I missing something about the toughness feat?

[Supercomputers]

What's the toughness feat for? It's always seemed really pointless to me. I'm wondering now because one of my players is INSISTING on taking it despite dubious questioning. Is there some sort of overpowered feat/PrC/turtle that toughness unlocks? Or am I just paranoid?

[Mystic Muse]

What's the toughness feat for? It's always seemed really pointless to me. I'm wondering now because one of my players is INSISTING on taking it despite dubious questioning. Is there some sort of overpowered feat/PrC/turtle that toughness unlocks? Or am I just paranoid?

You're just paranoid. The feat is terrible. Use the pathfinder version instead. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/toughness---final

[Serpentine]

It's possible that they think it applies to every level* rather than a one-off thing.

*which is what I do with it.

[Draz74]

It's great in games that never go beyond Level 1 ...

[Drakevarg]

It's possible that they think it applies to every level* rather than a one-off thing.

*which is what I do with it.

That's why I don't allow my players to take Toughness and just have them use Improved Toughness instead.

[Taverick]

There actually are quite a few feats that require toughness as a prerequisite. Don't ask me to name them, cause I don't wanna have to look them up, but they exist. However, most of the people I play with have a house rule that allows for a transparency; allows Improved Toughness to count as Toughness for these feats.

[Serpentine]

That's why I don't allow my players to take Toughness and just have them use Improved Toughness instead.Yeah, that'd probably be the simplest thing to do. Is having 3hp per level too much, though?

[Taverick]

Yeah, that'd probably be the simplest thing to do. Is having 3hp per level too much, though?

It's the equivalent of having a +6 con, which is a lot when you factor in multiple levels. That much health turns any class into a partial tank. It might not sound like a big deal, but when it comes up in play it can be. And as a standing rule for me; Whats good for the PC's is good for the NPC's. The party can get rather miffed at an enemy have a lot of hit points, and it can drag out needless battles.

[Eldan]

It depends on how far your games go, really. Until about level three, it's not even that horrible for a squishy guy. Sure, there's better things to take, but if it makes the difference between a crossbow bolt dropping you and leaving you barely standing...

[HunterOfJello]

If a DM makes players roll for the hp every level, the game will only last from levels 1 through 3, and you're going to play a Wizard or Sorcerer, then Toughness can actually be a decent feat.

Then again, Expertise would likely be a significantly better feat.

[Runestar]

I think the designers mentioned once how it was useful to a 1st lv character, and that the extra 3 hp may well make the difference between seeing 2nd lv and well, not.

By PHB standards, it probably is balanced as a low lv feat (along the lines of weapon focus or dodge).

[MammonAzrael]

No, you are not missing anything. The only reason to take Toughness, from a optimization standpoint, is if you're a 1st level Wizard and are allowed to retrain later, or if you need it as a prerequisite for something else.

It is simply a bad feat, which core especially is known for. And hopefully your player will learn that somehow.

[MeeposFire]

A designer once said that it was actually designed as a trap feat, so the vets could show their system mastery. Whether you believe that designer or not is up to you.

[Mastikator]

Yeah, that'd probably be the simplest thing to do. Is having 3hp per level too much, though?

Yeah, that's 3 times as powerful as improved toughness.
I'd rather go with 3 hp + 1/level or something.

[Firechanter]

Isn't even Improved Toughness (the CW version) generally considered a bad feat? Of course, much better than PHB Toughness, but still not very good.

I'm also quite convinced that the D&D material is full of intentional "trap" choices -- trap classes, trap feats, trap PrCs. The most infamous trap feats in PHB are probably Combat Casting and, well, Toughness.

Here's a little anecdote: I once joined a D&D dungeon run at a Con. Every player got to make a fresh level 3 character. When I joined the table, one guy (a D&D newbie) was statting a Dwarf Fighter, and another guy (self-appointed rules-expert) kept meddling by offering stupid advice like, and I quote: "Take Toughness twice! That's _six_ extra HP!"
(And yes I offered the newbie some alternative advice, which he took and was happy with during our 12-hour dungeon run. The Meddler kept being a pain in the butt all the time, by the way.)

[Yora]

What's wrong with combat casting?

[Boci]

What's wrong with combat casting?

Skill focus (concentration) is considered better. 25% less of a bonus, but also applies to casting against a distraction and to avoid loosing a spell. Tha or the "defensive casting is trap, just take a 5ft step back" which ignores the potential of reach, difficult terrain and obsticals.

[DeltaEmil]

Even without so, there needs to be serious pile-on of negative effects for a spellcaster who has maxed skill ranks in Concentration to possibly fail keeping up to cast his spell.

[Firechanter]

Since the original question is already answered, I take the liberty to exapend the scope of this thread a bit:
What other features are considered / do you consider traps in core material?

[Boci]

Even without so, there needs to be serious pile-on of negative effects for a spellcaster who has maxed skill ranks in Concentration to possibly fail keeping up to cast his spell.

Modifier of 9-11 (4-6 ranks, constitution of 16, masterwork tool) vs. a DC of 16 or 17, so at levels 1-3, combat casting can allow you to near auto pass the check. Its not a bad feat, especially for NPCs who won't be advancing any time soon. At higher levels its looses its potency, but not as quickly as toughness.

[Yora]

Traps? None. I firmly believe the designers did not think too much about how good and useful certain things really are.

Stuff that should be avoided? Well, that's a different thing...

Arcane Archer would be an obvious candidate. In a low op game, you can have a lot of fun with a half-elf monk. But the AA doesn't have any ability that you could do better by not picking that class.

[Aharon]

Monte Cook (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) claims that it was a design feature:



There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm also quite convinced that the D&D material is full of intentional "trap" choices -- trap classes, trap feats, trap PrCs. The most infamous trap feats in PHB are probably Combat Casting and, well, Toughness.

Combat Casting, at the very least, is a pretty common requirement for prestige classes. There's really no other reason that I would take it, but it does have a use.

[Razgriez]

Toughness is indeed a low level Feat designed to help some.

I do remember also, back in 3.0, in the "Masters of the Wild" class book (a book designed to expand on Druids, Rangers, and Barbarians) there being a set of better Toughness feats (With only a Character Level Requirement).

They were called Dwaven Toughness, Giant Toughness, and Dragon Toughness. Each time you selected one, you got +6, 9, or 12 additional HP added to your max HP.
I think I do recall it being stated, that one can also get one of those versions of Toughness, and have it count as having the standard Toughness for things such as Feat or Prestige class requirements

Overall, Toughness feats are designed to help the "Squishy" party members survive, as well as those who are playing the Party Tank to take more abuse before the cleric needs to run over to cast a cure spell. Alternatively, it's there to help frontline, high HD value characters, like Fighters, Paladins, and Barbarians, get some extra HP, if they had a few bad HD rolls at level ups.

[Firechanter]

FWIW, I hate the concept of PrCs (or feats) that require you to sink in one or more useless or junk feats as prereq. Especially if the feats required are in no way beneficial to the PrC you are taking.

The D&D sources are also inconsistent about that approach. Some PrCs require you to waste feats first, while others have prereqs that are actually synergistic with the class abilities and useful.

[lesser_minion]

A designer once said that it was actually designed as a trap feat, so the vets could show their system mastery. Whether you believe that designer or not is up to you.

No, he said it was for 1st level elf wizards and that he regretted not making that explicit in the feat's description.

[Mystral]

Toughness can be a requirement for prestige classes too, for example Dwarven Defender.

And improved toughness can be good if taken multiple times by a fighter.

[Amphetryon]

That's why I don't allow my players to take Toughness and just have them use Improved Toughness instead.

My solution has always been to have Toughness grant 2HP + Class Level. That way, at 1st level Wizard gets 3HP, just like the book says, while a 6th level Barbarian gets 8HP. It's not enough to make it a great feat, but it partially pulls it from the maws of trappishness while giving a minor benefit to eschewing multiclassing. It also meant I never dealt with Dwarves/Giants/Dragons/Improved Toughness.

[Yuki Akuma]

Take Azure Toughness instead.

It's in all ways like Toughness except it can get better if you take more Incarnum feats (and you can use the essentia you get from it to power better Incarnum feats).

It counts as Toughness for all purposes, so you can't even use "Toughness as a prerequisite" excuse.

The only downside is that it requires 13 Con, but... there's nothing bad about having 13 Con.

[Tyndmyr]

There actually are quite a few feats that require toughness as a prerequisite. Don't ask me to name them, cause I don't wanna have to look them up, but they exist. However, most of the people I play with have a house rule that allows for a transparency; allows Improved Toughness to count as Toughness for these feats.

Yeah, it's a prereq for a number of things. None of them are spectacular. It's not some crazy trick he's pulling off.

3 hp/level is generally too much. Improved Toughness is a reasonable feat. I take it occasionally. I'd be open to a Toughness-like feat that gave, say +8 hp, though. That's a much more balanced tradeoff with imp T.

That said, I've seen toughness used to good effect in level 1 one-off games. Taken three times, even. Sometimes being a giant pile of hp is damn useful.

[Fox Box Socks]

A designer once said that it was actually designed as a trap feat, so the vets could show their system mastery. Whether you believe that designer or not is up to you.
I believe it, seeing as how that designer was Monte Cook (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142).

[Vasja]

There is the Dragon Magazine feat Troll Blooded, which gives you Regeneration 1 and requires Toughness.

[MeeposFire]

No, he said it was for 1st level elf wizards and that he regretted not making that explicit in the feat's description.

Well if you read the whole thing he actually says that the wizard comment was how he thinks he would have done it in hindsight after he came to the revelation that designing with sheer system mastery in mind with no guide was not a good idea.

"Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others...

The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones...

Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea...

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"

As you can see from the story they started out with the idea that there should be no guidance and that some options were designed to be better so that those with system mastery could get a bonus (and feel good for avoiding the traps). Later on after reflecting on it and reading other people's work he decided that this was not a good design goal and stated they should have made it clear that the only time toughness was worth taking was in a very few situations.

[nedz]

Toughness can be a requirement for prestige classes too, for example Dwarven Defender.

Two traps for the price of one :smallsmile:

[sonofzeal]

Two traps for the price of one :smallsmile:
Dwarven Defender is only a trap if you play it the obvious-but-stupid way. It becomes much more effective with a Polearm instead of sword-and-board, since absolutely nothing in the class synergizes with that and reach weapons negate the movement difficulty pretty well. The Strength boost also plays well into a trip/lockdown build, which also lowers the need to move.

The other thing is to be careful when you use Defensive Stance. There's many fights when you need to stay mobile, but also many when you might never end up moving anyway. Also, the penalties for breaking Defensive Stance early are light, so you're not actually trapped if the situation changes.

Beyond that, you get a static AC boost, very nice DR, d12 HD, Improved Uncanny Dodge, and good Will saves. In a Core game, by the time a Fighter can take it he's likely run out of useful feats anyway, so it's an all-around upgrade. In a non-Core game there's certainly other options, but it's still viable.

[IthroZada]

A Crusader going into Dwarven Defender sounds like it might make for a potent build. Maybe weaker than straight Crusader, but it won't be useless, and flavor wise it would be great. Just use it where it's supposed to be used. A Dwarf defending a tunnel against a wave of goblins.

[Ashram]

Well if you read the whole thing he actually says that the wizard comment was how he thinks he would have done it in hindsight after he came to the revelation that designing with sheer system mastery in mind with no guide was not a good idea.

"Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others...

The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones...

Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea...

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"

As you can see from the story they started out with the idea that there should be no guidance and that some options were designed to be better so that those with system mastery could get a bonus (and feel good for avoiding the traps). Later on after reflecting on it and reading other people's work he decided that this was not a good design goal and stated they should have made it clear that the only time toughness was worth taking was in a very few situations.

So basically, at its core D&D is all about choosing the right mechanics and winning the game, rather than having fun with role play. >.>

[DeltaEmil]

Well hopefully those goblins are going to be high level, because butchering a bunch of half-HD whimps is hardly heroic or anything worthwhile once you're over level 6. Even worse if they can't even hit you.

What theoretically looks good in an image (a lone dwarven warrior standing on a bridge or before a mighty door and before him a horde of evil savages bent on annihilating the last remnants of civilization) could very well be a boring gaming session (rolling about how you hit the 20th goblin who can only hit you with a natural 20, *moan*).

And once the enemy stops being a bunch of weak-ass goblins and become creatures with magical abilities like shadows, teleporting fiends, flying creatures or ogres with bigger reach weapons, then your dwarven defender stops being useful...

[Amphetryon]

So basically, at its core D&D is all about choosing the right mechanics and winning the game, rather than having fun with role play. >.>
That's an interesting interpretation of the quoted comment.

[Thurbane]

Like everyone else has said, toughness is a pretty terrible feat. It's a prereq for some PrCs and feats, but that's about it.

It also is a bit better in an E6 game, where it's one of the few ways to increase HP past 6th level.

I've heard of houseruling rolling Great Fortitude, Endurance and Toughness into one feat.

Also, let Improved Toughness (a much better feat) count as Toughness for prereqs.

[Fox Box Socks]

This is what I take from that blog post:

There are certain feats and spells and classes that are "traps"; they look fairly impressive on paper, but in practice they fall flat (Toughness, Fireball, and Monks spring to mind).

There are also certain feats and spells and classes that don't look very useful, but are actually very, very powerful (Power Attack, Glitterdust, and Bards spring to mind).

This is not a quirk of design or something that just popped up inadvertently. This is intentional. The designers purposefully didn't tell people how powerful various options were in order to encourage "system mastery".

[Innis Cabal]

Yeah, that'd probably be the simplest thing to do. Is having 3hp per level too much, though?

HP doesn't help against Save or Die effects or Save or Suck effects. Honestly, having a ton of health at high levels only keeps you alive longer which in the Rocket Tag that high levels generally devolve into...probably not unbalancing no.

[MeeposFire]

So basically, at its core D&D is all about choosing the right mechanics and winning the game, rather than having fun with role play. >.>

More like that the original designers of 3e thought it would be a good idea to have very divergent good and bad options to reward system mastery in combat. Role playing has little to do with this since role playing is mostly divergent from combat skills. So you could have a nifty character to role play and you could be great or terrible at combat depending on your skill level. This is not so bad except for how easy it is to do unintentionally. Now in terms of 3e and up D&D editions and role playing the only area that is debatable in terms of role play as far as I can think is the actual use of mechanics for social skills and the like. That has some real advantages and disadvantages that can be debated for a long time but trap options in combat have a minimal impact on the role play vs roll play divide.

[Safety Sword]

This is what I take from that blog post:

There are certain feats and spells and classes that are "traps"; they look fairly impressive on paper, but in practice they fall flat (Toughness, Fireball, and Monks spring to mind).

There are also certain feats and spells and classes that don't look very useful, but are actually very, very powerful (Power Attack, Glitterdust, and Bards spring to mind).

This is not a quirk of design or something that just popped up inadvertently. This is intentional. The designers purposefully didn't tell people how powerful various options were in order to encourage "system mastery".

I prefer to think they are encouraging "system exploration" rather than mastery. They wanted you to think about your choices to make an effective character. Well, I think that was mission accomplished. You certainly can balls up a character if you make bad choices (or don't plan far enough ahead).

Then again, sometimes I intentionally build a sub-optimal character, because it can still be fun as long as you have the group and campaign that doesn't make that a completely useless choice.

[Doc Roc]

Since the original question is already answered, I take the liberty to exapend the scope of this thread a bit:
What other features are considered / do you consider traps in core material?

I would consider using core material to be a trap. Does that count?

[Lord.Sorasen]

I would consider using core material to be a trap. Does that count?

All of it? The cleric, druid, and wizard are core.

[MeeposFire]

I would consider using core material to be a trap. Does that count?

Wizards, clerics, druids, natural spell, power attack, and the majority of the most powerful spells are traps to you?

[Fox Box Socks]

I would consider using core material to be a trap. Does that count?
Short answer? No.

Long answer? Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Glitterdust, Sleep, Power Attack, Natural Spell, Wish, Miracle, Spiked Chain Tripping, various Save or Suck spells, Scribe Scroll, Wands of Knock, Improved Invisibility, Gate, and Plane Shift.

[Doc Roc]

Do you really, as a GM, want wizard in your campaign when 'zard is operating at near-full steam? Also, poorly built wizards are truly terrible. That's enough to count them as traps for me.

I'm not saying that these options are inherently weak. I'm saying that they can go off in your face like a bomb, destroying your entire campaign, causing players to ragequit because of a single solid fog, or simply infuriating the fighter because he's so horribly useless it's a bad joke.

I guess I've come to see game-breaks as just another flavor of trap. I would like to imagine that there's not any question about whether or not I know that natural spell exists.....

[JaronK]

Wizards, clerics, druids, natural spell, power attack, and the majority of the most powerful spells are traps to you?

To me? Absolutely. But the trap is set for the DM, not the player...

As for Monte Cook, he wrote all that LONG after the game was designed, and frankly it's a poor excuse. He's trying to justify his mistakes by claiming that he totally meant to do that, and made up this "system mastery" nonsense. The truth is, neither he nor the other designers of the original 3.0/3.5 had any idea how balance worked, and it really shows. Skip thinks Fighters are good leaders because they go in front, for example. And heck, just look at the advice given in Complete Mage. The simple fact is none of them really understood what they were doing. It was by no means intended that Fighters would be useless at higher levels (which, in core, they were), or that Wizards could use Glitterdust/Colorspray to destroy every encounter at level 3. They just got it wrong.

JaronK

[Serpentine]

A Crusader going into Dwarven Defender sounds like it might make for a potent build. Maybe weaker than straight Crusader, but it won't be useless, and flavor wise it would be great. Just use it where it's supposed to be used. A Dwarf defending a tunnel against a wave of goblins.So, uh... What about Knight into Dwarven Defender? <.<
(axe and bashing shield)

[Grelna the Blue]

The most infamous trap feats in PHB are probably Combat Casting and, well, Toughness.

However, in Pathfinder, Combat Casting is one of THE essential feats for a mage. They increased the Concentration DCs for spellcasting in combat at the same time that they made Concentration into a class ability, rather than a skill. It is no longer possible to take Skill Focus in it.

[Sith_Happens]

This is what I take from that blog post:

There are certain feats and spells and classes that are "traps"; they look fairly impressive on paper, but in practice they fall flat (Toughness, Fireball, and Monks spring to mind).

There are also certain feats and spells and classes that don't look very useful, but are actually very, very powerful (Power Attack, Glitterdust, and Bards spring to mind).

This is not a quirk of design or something that just popped up inadvertently. This is intentional. The designers purposefully didn't tell people how powerful various options were in order to encourage "system mastery".

More likely the designers all just have wounded egos and feel the need to justify having made some options weaker than others. Kind of like how almost every prestige class seems to require some combination of Weapon Focus, Combat Casting, and Dodge/Mobility, because otherwise people wouldn't take any of those feats that the PHB writers put so much effort into creating.

[Runestar]

Spell mastery.

Seriously, did anyone take them? :smalleek:

[nedz]

Dwarven Defender is only a trap if you play it the obvious-but-stupid way. It becomes much more effective with a Polearm instead of sword-and-board, since absolutely nothing in the class synergizes with that and reach weapons negate the movement difficulty pretty well. The Strength boost also plays well into a trip/lockdown build, which also lowers the need to move.

The other thing is to be careful when you use Defensive Stance. There's many fights when you need to stay mobile, but also many when you might never end up moving anyway. Also, the penalties for breaking Defensive Stance early are light, so you're not actually trapped if the situation changes.

Beyond that, you get a static AC boost, very nice DR, d12 HD, Improved Uncanny Dodge, and good Will saves. In a Core game, by the time a Fighter can take it he's likely run out of useful feats anyway, so it's an all-around upgrade. In a non-Core game there's certainly other options, but it's still viable.

DD is normally considered a trap because of the three feat feat-tax; and its not as if they are good feats. Oh and if you meet opponents who fly, or just like move, the Stance is somewhat irrelevant. If you are happy with the static bonuses, and are happy playing a fighter, then its probably OK.
That is: as a straight fighter upgrade. I can think of better options though.

[sonofzeal]

DD is normally considered a trap because of the three feat feat-tax; and its not as if they are good feats. Oh and if you meet opponents who fly, or just like move, the Stance is somewhat irrelevant. If you are happy with the static bonuses, and are happy playing a fighter, then its probably OK.
That is: as a straight fighter upgrade. I can think of better options though.
Oh, certainly there are other options. But a lvl 6 Fighter with seven feats on his hands is probably running out of important things to grab.

Let's take a Core-only Lawful Dwarven Fighter going for Lockdown, with EWP: Spiked Chain, Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip. He can have all that by lvl 4, with a spare feat, and future levels of Fighter are seriously losing their appeal. He may consider multiclassing, especially since Dwarves have FC:Fighter. Barbarian's out since he's lawful, Paladin's not worth it if his Cha's in the gutter. Rogue and Cleric are possible, but significant fluff departures.

Ranger becomes a good option - keep the full BAB, but with better saves/skills and actual goodies. And after three levels of Ranger he has Endurance for free and two spare feats, easily meeting the entry requirements for Dwarven Defender. And at that point, it's a pretty solid upgrade over either Fighter or Ranger levels.

Also consider that, for a mid level Core fighter, one of the most tempting feats (after their combat tricks are off the ground) is Iron Will. Dwarven Defenders effectively get it for free at 1st level. Any Dwarven Fighter considering Iron Will should probably take a solid look at Dwarven Defender instead.

[Calimehter]

Spell mastery.

Seriously, did anyone take them? :smalleek:

I did once, and occasionally still do! :smalltongue:

If your DM has not given specific guarantees that your spellbook will not be pilfered or destroyed, then Spell Mastery can be handy to have. Saved my bacon once back in the 3.0 days when I was involuntarily plane-shifted away from my spellbook and needed time to reconstruct it. I've always had a soft spot for it every since.

In my last E6 campaign (where your feat options are greatly expanded) I had a PC who made an agreement to "open up" his spellbook in exchange for services rendered . . . and then promptly used Spell Mastery to keep his best spells out of his spellbook. :smalltongue:

Please note that I'm not saying Spell Mastery is *great* - I'm just answering the question as asked.

[Cogidubnus]

It does qualify you for Pain Mastery, from Savage Species, which gives you a +2 to STR for every 50 points of damage you take in any given encounter.

That does leave you exhausted afterwards though, so unless you can mitigate exhaustion (certain healing magic at-will, Boots of the Unending Journey), even that's not that decent, and you're only taking that damage at high levels, AND you need fast healing to make the most of it.

[Yuki Akuma]

In my last E6 campaign (where your feat options are greatly expanded) I had a PC who made an agreement to "open up" his spellbook in exchange for services rendered . . . and then promptly used Spell Mastery to keep his best spells out of his spellbook. :smalltongue:

But... that wouldn't work, unless you had two spellbooks. In which case you could just hide your "better spellbook".

Unless you were ripping pages out of your spellbook after Spell Masterying the spells but that might be a little suspicious. :smallwink:

[Calimehter]

But... that wouldn't work, unless you had two spellbooks. In which case you could just hide your "better spellbook".

Unless you were ripping pages out of your spellbook after Spell Masterying the spells but that might be a little suspicious. :smallwink:

Good point. We had to have a discussion about whether he could apply Spell Mastery to spells he just learned (he took it pre-epic as his 5th level bonus feat, just as he was picking up 3rd level spells). I ruled that the wording for Spell Mastery didn't really allow that, and for various reasons he couldn't really hide a second "good" spell book from the other party in question (not long-term, anyways), so he went with a variation of option number 2.

Spellbook pages are expensive, though. Erase is free, and doesn't leave any ripped pages as evidence.

[Firechanter]

Spell Mastery ain't too bad for the aforementioned reasons, it could always happen that you are separated from your spellbook. I considered taking it, but then opted to swap out my Familiar for Eideetic Memory instead.

With the freed-up feat slot I took Alertness... no, just kidding!

But as a matter of fact, I consider those +2/+2 Skill feats traps as well, mostly. They may have some utility if you need to be halfway decent at skills you can only buy cross-class, or really _really_ need to pump maxed out class skills. But only last week I had to save a fellow player from taking such a feat for skills that he hadn't even maxed out.

What's also generally "trappy" is that some feats, while not bad as such, do not do what they sound like, while doing other stuff that you don't instantly see from their description.
For example, I remember my very first 3E character, back in 2000. I thought "Combat Reflexes, that sounds cool." and took it, although it was totally meaningless for my character as he was a Ranger fighting with bow or swords. Only much later did I find out that Combat Reflexes is only really good if you have Reach; and I didn't even realize that one myself but read it on a forum.

As for Dwarven Defender, I only played that one in an NWN online game. There the entry requirements aren't so bad (no Endurance, and Toughness works like Improved Toughness, so effectively you only waste Dodge), and there's no flying either due to the game engine, so DDs are the epitome of a tank. However, I did skill him as Waraxe-and-Shield meat shield going for Epic Damage Reduction, which means that while he was virtually invincible, combat also was a very tedious due to poor damage output. Usually I'd just plant him in the middle of a huge mob, hit the Stance hotkey, and left the room to grab a drink or something. Amusing at first, boring after a while.