[3.5] Toughness

[dndnewbie]

I have a question about the Toughness' feat. A character that gets this feat on level 1 will receive +3 Hit Points per level or +3 Hit Points every time that he takes the feat?

[Aricandor]

+3 each time he takes it. It's widely considered a poor feat past level 1 (or possibly 2) for that reason.

In Complete Warrior there is Improved Toughness (with a base Fort save prerequisite) that is +1/HD instead. Still not great, but certainly an improvement.

[Lateral]

+3 every time he takes it. There is a feat called Improved Toughness which gives them one extra HP per hit die, and is usually a much better use of a feat, although it's worse at levels 1 and 2 and can only be taken once.

@V: Thanks for the POINTLESS and VERY RUDE extra post that said NOTHING except that you ninja'ed me. :smallmad:

[Aricandor]

You have been swordsaged. :smallbiggrin:

[gbprime]

There's another better feat in Players Guide to Faerun. Dauntless. Can only be taken at 1st level, but gives you +5 HP.

I wouldn't bother with either one unless you're going to be low level for a LOOONG time or unless you need Toughness as a prerequisite to something truly bad ass.

[Person_Man]

Superior related feats:

Fearless Destiny: Once per day when you are reduced to -10 or fewer hit points, you are instead reduced to -9 and stable. Human only. Races of Destiny pg 152.

Shape Soulmeld (Rageclaws): Gives you the Diehard feat while shaped, and it can be improved by 3 hit points for each point of essentia you invest in it. Note that the only requirement for Shape Soulmeld is 13 Con, with no level or essentia requirement. This bypasses the need to take Endurance if you want Diehard. Magic of Incarnum pg 40.

Heart of Incarnum: You gain hit points equal to your essentia pool. That's about 1 per class level for a Totemist and slightly more for an Incarnate, plus bonus essentia gained from your race, feats, spells, magic items, several alternate class features, etc. For a Necrocarnate your essentia and bonus hit points can be huge, limited only by the number of recently dead corpses (ie, your slain enemies). Only down side is that the feat has a pre-req of being able to bind a soulmeld to your Heart chakra, so level 15 is the earliest anyone can get it. Magic of Incarnum pg 38.

Minor Shapeshift: As long as you have any Polymorph spell of 4th level or higher memorized, you can spend a Swift Action to give yourself temporary hit points equal to your Hit Dice. (Thus you can refill them every round. It's great for Gish builds). Complete Arcane pg 45.

[ericgrau]

+3 each time he takes it. It's widely considered a poor feat past level 1 (or possibly 2) for that reason.

In Complete Warrior there is Improved Toughness (with a base Fort save prerequisite) that is +1/HD instead. Still not great, but certainly an improvement.

I once made a core level 4-5 barbarian build for a one off adventure and after doing some minor calculations I determined that all or maybe all but one of his feats should be toughness. 1-3 levels later and it might have become obsolete though. Improved toughness OTOH is better than most any other core feat.

[Essence_of_War]

As other people have said "yes".

As a side note, there are many people who house rule any prerequisite of "Toughness" to be "Improved Toughness" just because outside of a 1-3rd level 1-shot adventure, there really isn't a good reason to take it.

[Jude_H]

With retraining, it's not the worst feat for a level 1-2 Wizard. Especially if the alternative is a metamagic or crafting feat that doesn't see play until ECL 3. But the cases where it's actually worth using there are pretty scarce.

Pathfinder's Toughness combines Improved Toughness with Toughness (giving +3 HP up front, and scaling to level at ECL4+). By filling the low-level niche, being moderately useful at higher levels and not needing retraining to do so, it's definitely my preferred version.

[averagejoe]

Minor Shapeshift: As long as you have any Polymorph spell of 4th level or higher memorized, you can spend a Swift Action to give yourself temporary hit points equal to your Hit Dice. (Thus you can refill them every round. It's great for Gish builds). Complete Arcane pg 45.

That's Complete Mage, I believe.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Yeah... Core Toughness is hilariously bad. I'm pretty sure it was WotC's little joke on newbs.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

They should have saved it for the Monster Manual; where it gets all it's play time.

[cfalcon]

The Pathfinder version is either three extra hitpoints, or 1 hit point per hit die, whichever is greater- in other words, it starts at 3 and goes up from there.

It's still not that great :P

[Whammydill]

Even though it still isn't that great, I have a rule in my games that if you take toughness or improved toughness, your hitpoints for that level are considered to have rolled maximum as well.

[ILM]

They should have saved it for the Monster Manual; where it gets all it's play time.
Yeah, poor Tarrasque :smallfrown:. 858 hp, and THANK GOD it had Toughness 6 times otherwise it'd only have been a piddly 840.

[Essence_of_War]

Yeah... Core Toughness is hilariously bad. I'm pretty sure it was WotC's little joke on newbs.


Eh. It is bad if you're building a long term character. If you're running a short campaign, say from levels 1-3, or if you're playing a one-shot at a convention, it is a perfectly reasonable feat to take. It doesn't make a lot of sense to take metamagic feats or the power attack lines, or item crafting feats in those situations.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Eh. It is bad if you're building a long term character. If you're running a short campaign, say from levels 1-3, or if you're playing a one-shot at a convention, it is a perfectly reasonable feat to take. It doesn't make a lot of sense to take metamagic feats or the power attack lines, or item crafting feats in those situations.

Fair point. Not that I've played a great deal in general, but everything DnD-related that I've ever been a part of has lasted at least a semester, so I guess I tend to think in terms of long-term. Oh well, I'm going to have to deal with Toughness anyway, as I'm playing a drow sorcerer-blood magus in the fall:smalltongue:. Great class, but the prereqs are a nightmare, even if your DM (like mine) houserules away any penalties related to death.

[Koury]

Would Toughness be worth the feat if it maxed your HD at all levels?

As in, 14 Con Fighter 2 (15 HP) levels up and takes Toughness. His HP becomes 36.

Obviously you'd have to strike the "can be taken multiple times" line.

Or what about making Toughness do what Imp. Toughness does now, then making Imp. Toughness require Toughness and do the HD maxing?

Would you ALWAYS spend two feats for max HP? One? Or would you only do it on some builds (as it should be)?

[Etrivar]

That would be ridiculously OP.

A d12 hit die would get an average of 6.5 extra HP at every level if they took that feat. But a mage would only get a measly 1.5

If I were a DM, I would never let this into my campaign.

[Tyndmyr]

That would be ridiculously OP.

A d12 hit die would get an average of 6.5 extra HP at every level if they took that feat. But a mage would only get a measly 1.5

If I were a DM, I would never let this into my campaign.

Agreed. It would become a feat tax on every barbarian to be made. I dislike feat taxes in general.

[Vladislav]

I just houserule Toughness and Improved Toughness into one feat: you gain 3 hp now, and +1 hp on every future level for the rest of your life. Makes it actually worth taking.

[Koury]

That would be ridiculously OP.

A d12 hit die would get an average of 6.5 extra HP at every level if they took that feat. But a mage would only get a measly 1.5

If I were a DM, I would never let this into my campaign.


Agreed. It would become a feat tax on every barbarian to be made. I dislike feat taxes in general.
Fair enough, it was simply an off the top of my head idea. I auto max all HD for my players anyway, as is.

I just houserule Toughness and Improved Toughness into one feat: you gain 3 hp now, and +1 hp on every future level for the rest of your life. Makes it actually worth taking. And I would still never really take that feat. A feat that is worth less then a 4000 gp item seems less then useful.

[Veyr]

I agree that it seems feat-taxy for Barbarians, but I rather do like that it favors big-HD classes, since they generally need the help.

What about a feat that says if, after you roll your HD, it is less than average, you may take average for that HD instead?

[Tyndmyr]

I've taken improved toughness on many a character. Typically low HD characters where I've been rolling poorly. This does not happen instead of the 4000g item. This happens in addition to it.

Auto-maxing HD will make them both less useful. When you have giant piles of HP, a few more is not very important. When you're rolling stats, and pulled an 11 in con, on a d4 class, and hp isn't maxed....investing a feat into not dying becomes much more attractive.

[Etrivar]

@ Veyr: Now that's not bad. not enough to take as a feat separately, but rolled into Improved Toughness it would make a beautiful addendum. Its a nice safety net for rolling a nat one on your HP.

EDIT: Although, any DM that didn't let you reroll a nat one on HP is a douche IMHO.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Would Toughness be worth the feat if it maxed your HD at all levels?

As in, 14 Con Fighter 2 (15 HP) levels up and takes Toughness. His HP becomes 36.

Obviously you'd have to strike the "can be taken multiple times" line.

Or what about making Toughness do what Imp. Toughness does now, then making Imp. Toughness require Toughness and do the HD maxing?

Would you ALWAYS spend two feats for max HP? One? Or would you only do it on some builds (as it should be)?

I... actually kinda like this. It would make my blood magus prereqs a bit more tolerable at any rate :P What I would do is just make it one feat, Toughness and forget improved Toughness even exists.


That would be ridiculously OP.

A d12 hit die would get an average of 6.5 extra HP at every level if they took that feat. But a mage would only get a measly 1.5

If I were a DM, I would never let this into my campaign.

Is it... bad that a barbarian can take significantly more damage than the guy who can, to use what is now a cliche, Gate in Solars? Yeah, your wizard's going to be a little flimsier by comparison, but he's still infinitely superior to any of the d12 HD classes.

EDIT: Wow, swordsaged like a boss.


I just houserule Toughness and Improved Toughness into one feat: you gain 3 hp now, and +1 hp on every future level for the rest of your life. Makes it actually worth taking.

That's not bad, though as someone else said, is that really worth blowing a feat on, something that amounts to maybe two hits from an average monster at higher levels?



And I would still never really take that feat. A feat that is worth less then a 4000 gp item seems less then useful.

This


I agree that it seems feat-taxy for Barbarians, but I rather do like that it favors big-HD classes, since they generally need the help.

What about a feat that says if, after you roll your HD, it is less than average, you may take average for that HD instead?

First part: Basically what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

Second part: Interesting. I've thought of making something similar as a general houserule: my players could either roll health as normal, and live with the result, or take average. I think it provides a nice risk/reward system. Thoughts?


I've taken improved toughness on many a character. Typically low HD characters where I've been rolling poorly. This does not happen instead of the 4000g item. This happens in addition to it.

Auto-maxing HD will make them both less useful. When you have giant piles of HP, a few more is not very important. When you're rolling stats, and pulled an 11 in con, on a d4 class, and hp isn't maxed....investing a feat into not dying becomes much more attractive.

Not a bad point, and I think one or the other would be good, as opposed to both, but the first one is preferable, simply because it leads to PCs with bigger health pools, which is good for PCs for obvious reasons, and I like it personally as a DM because a favor long battles with either humongous strong enemies or a ton of little ones. Both are easier to scale for heartier characters.

[Etrivar]

Is it... bad that a barbarian can take significantly more damage than the guy who can, to use what is now a cliche, Gate in Solars? Yeah, your wizard's going to be a little flimsier by comparison, but he's still infinitely superior to any of the d12 HD classes.

That's a fair point, my only qualm is that would be 240 HP as a base onto which you add your con mod (which will probably be 4 at the very least), which equates to another 80 (ATL) for a minimum total of 320. That's HUGE! (10-93 :smallamused:).

EDIT: @lvl20

[Mr. Zolrane]

That's a fair point, my only qualm is that would be 240 HP as a base onto which you add your con mod (which will probably be 4 at the very least), which equates to another 80 (ATL) for a minimum total of 320. That's HUGE! (10-93 :smallamused:).

EDIT: @lvl20

True, true, that's a pretty beastly health pool. Once ol' Ragey McGreataxe eats a couple of Harms, it seems a lot less impressive. And he will eat them, seeing as his Will save is a bad joke, even with the +2 from rage.

EDIT: 10-93? I'm sorry, I think I missed something here. What does that mean exactly?

[Koury]

I've taken improved toughness on many a character. Typically low HD characters where I've been rolling poorly. This does not happen instead of the 4000g item. This happens in addition to it.

Auto-maxing HD will make them both less useful. When you have giant piles of HP, a few more is not very important. When you're rolling stats, and pulled an 11 in con, on a d4 class, and hp isn't maxed....investing a feat into not dying becomes much more attractive.

I can see how it may be attractive in that scenario. I tend away from rolling for stats and therefore tend to not think of scenarios like that. Fair enough. :smallsmile:

[Etrivar]

EDIT: 10-93? I'm sorry, I think I missed something here. What does that mean exactly?

Hehe, sorry. It's a code inside my circle of friends. Ya know how police use 10 codes (like 10-4 means affirmative) with us 10-93 means "that's what he said" :smalltongue:

10-94 is "that's what she said"

[Mr. Zolrane]

Hehe, sorry. It's a code inside my circle of friends. Ya know how police use 10 codes (like 10-4 means affirmative) with us 10-93 means "that's what she said" :smalltongue:

Ah. Gotcha. Hehe.

[Thurbane]

If you made Toughness increase quadratically (the way Font of Inspiration does), would be worthwhile, even then?

[Koury]

If you made Toughness increase quadratically (the way Font of Inspiration does), would be worthwhile, even then?

Probably not, but at least Big T would make much more sense. :smalltongue:

[Veyr]

Hmm.... are we starting with 3?

{table=head]Times Taken | (starting at +3) | Bonus HP (total)
1 | — | +1
2 | 1 | +3
3 | 2 | +6
4 | 3 | +10
5 | 4 | +15
6 | 5 | +21
7 | 6 | +28
8 | 7 | +36
9 | 8 | +45
10 | 9 | +55
11 | 10 | +66
12 | 11 | +78
13 | 12 | +91
14 | 13 | +105
15 | 14 | +120
16 | 15 | +136
17 | 16 | +153
18 | 17 | +171
19 | 18 | +190
— | 19 | +210[/table]

19 feats is how many a Human Fighter 20 would get. This is literally your entire character, if you do it this way. You'd have BAB +20, +12+Wis Fort, +6+Dex Ref, +6+Wis Will, and, on average, 325+20*Con HP.

Notice that this only surpasses a single use of plain old Rage on a 20th level character after you take it nine times (did anyone else hear that aloud in their head as spoken by Ferris Bueller's principal?) (it's 8 times if we start with +3). Notice also that if you took Improved Toughness as many times, you will pretty much always get more HP. I don't think it's enough.

[NineThePuma]

Make it a Base 3 instead!

{table=head]Times Taken | (starting at +3) | Bonus HP (total)
1 | — | +3
2 | 3 | +9
3 | 6 | +15
4 | 9 | +24
5 | 12 | +36
6 | 15 | +51
7 | 18 | +69
8 | 21 | +90
9 | 24 | +114
10 | 27 | +141
11 | 30 | +171
12 | 33 | +204
13 | 36 | +240
14 | 39 | +279
15 | 42 | +321
16 | 45 | +366
17 | 48 | +414
18 | 51 | +465
19 | 54 | +519[/table]

NOW is it useful? :P

[Veyr]

A 5th level character who takes Improved Toughness three times gains the same +15 that you get with three of these feats, at any level. That character becomes level 6, and they're up to +18. At 20, it's +60, beating out twice as many of this feat.

For a level 20 character, this feat is only better than Improved Toughness if you're taking 15 copies of one or the other feat.

I don't know if you can take Improved Toughness more than once, but consider also that Improved Toughness has the same effect on HP as +2 Constitution.

[NineThePuma]

Can't take improved toughness more than once.

Maybe this would be useful on a Gestalt Fighter/Cleric who is focusing on Shield Other spells.

[Dark Herald]

The obvious answer is to roll your hit die twice and take the better one. It works out to about 30% more hit points. On a Barbarian, that's 39 hit points on average at 20th level, and on a wizard it's 15 hit points. It increases the disparity between the classes, but I don't see barbarians taking it anyways because they get so much from constitution and rage. Make this the new toughness and leave improved toughness as an option.

I don't know. The edge is a bit higher for the higher hit die classes, but the feat has simplicity that makes it appealing to me.