New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SangoProduction's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Male

    Default An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Youthful Enthusiasm.
    Benefit: Gain +8 HP. On reaching second level, gain an additional +6, at third gain + 4, and at fourth gain +2. (These level up bonuses are not retroactive.)
    Special: You also increase the amount of negative HP you can sustain without dying by the bonus HP granted by this feat.
    Essentially front loading the toughness feat, where it is most needed, along with giving a lower chance of dying from a random great sword from out of nowhere.
    Just taking the power of something considered weak, and condensing its progression to the period of time that it has the most impact.
    Last edited by SangoProduction; 2019-10-19 at 05:56 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    MesiDoomstalker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Penthouse Suite
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Still really weak since it's now functionally a Level 1 only feat that only front loads something, doesn't scale well. Frankly, you could probably triple the values and get rid of the non retroactivity and it still be weak. A feat to be passively harder to kill is not a feat worth taking unless it makes you nigh unkillable.
    Awesome Avvy by Sizlord!

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    An Enemy Spy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Right behind you
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    What if Toughness was +3 HP every level instead of just the one?

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by An Enemy Spy View Post
    What if Toughness was +3 HP every level instead of just the one?
    The question you'd want to ask yourself is 'how much would 60 extra hp make to a Level 20 player of any given class?'

    For a caster? Not much, HP isn't typically their problem. For a full-BAB d10 or d12 martial class? Not zero difference, but is not-enough-HP really their biggest issue at Level 20?



    I think I'd still call it a sub-optimal feat choice, in most cases, but it would be better than the near-total waste that the current version is.
    "I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want." -Rich Burlew, author of OoTS, and founder/owner of this very website you're reading this text on.

    Grod's Law of game design: "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use"

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crichton View Post
    The question you'd want to ask yourself is 'how much would 60 extra hp make to a Level 20 player of any given class?'

    For a caster? Not much, HP isn't typically their problem. For a full-BAB d10 or d12 martial class? Not zero difference, but is not-enough-HP really their biggest issue at Level 20?



    I think I'd still call it a sub-optimal feat choice, in most cases, but it would be better than the near-total waste that the current version is.
    The value of a feat isn't only measured at 20, though. It should be measured at as much of the progression as possible.

    If a feat made a ton of difference from 1-10 and very little difference from 11-20, you bet your ass I'd still take it most of the time unless I was starting at 11+. Even if I were starting at, like, 6, that's still a good chunk of time when it matters.

    Using a theoretical example that I hope everyone can recognize isn't realistic, let's say there were a feat that let a wizard cast a 3rd level spell at level 1. (Like Precocious Apprentice, only more extreme.) Even if we were to stipulate that it explicitly does not let you qualify for literally anything at all, that's still a big boost right away, right? Even in that level 5-8 range where you have 3rd level spells naturally, having an extra one makes a noticeable difference in your daily load at that point. Does it make a difference at level 16-20? Nah, not really. You barely need to keep track of your 3rd level slots at that point. But there's a big part of the game where having that spell slot (either early or extra) would be a really nice-to-have bonus, and I'd take that feat basically every time I wasn't starting in the mid-teens or later. It would be a good feat. (Arguably too good, which is one reason why it doesn't exist.)

    Now, a feat that only matters right when you take it? Yeah, that's still garbage most of the time. But there's more to value than just "how does it help in a level 20 context."
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    ~ Gay all day, queer all year ~

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaq View Post
    The value of a feat isn't only measured at 20, though. It should be measured at as much of the progression as possible.

    If a feat made a ton of difference from 1-10 and very little difference from 11-20, you bet your ass I'd still take it most of the time unless I was starting at 11+. Even if I were starting at, like, 6, that's still a good chunk of time when it matters.

    Using a theoretical example that I hope everyone can recognize isn't realistic, let's say there were a feat that let a wizard cast a 3rd level spell at level 1. (Like Precocious Apprentice, only more extreme.) Even if we were to stipulate that it explicitly does not let you qualify for literally anything at all, that's still a big boost right away, right? Even in that level 5-8 range where you have 3rd level spells naturally, having an extra one makes a noticeable difference in your daily load at that point. Does it make a difference at level 16-20? Nah, not really. You barely need to keep track of your 3rd level slots at that point. But there's a big part of the game where having that spell slot (either early or extra) would be a really nice-to-have bonus, and I'd take that feat basically every time I wasn't starting in the mid-teens or later. It would be a good feat. (Arguably too good, which is one reason why it doesn't exist.)

    Now, a feat that only matters right when you take it? Yeah, that's still garbage most of the time. But there's more to value than just "how does it help in a level 20 context."


    Not that you're incorrect in any way, but your post didn't provide any answer to the question. I chose a single level to use as a benchmark, but sure, it's better to say 'how much difference does it make to change my martial character's hit dice from d10 or d12 to d10+3 or d12+3?'


    Rather than expending your efforts to just poke holes in the over-simplistic benchmark I chose, what's your actual answer to the question?
    "I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want." -Rich Burlew, author of OoTS, and founder/owner of this very website you're reading this text on.

    Grod's Law of game design: "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use"

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    I'd say it matters a lot between level 1 and 8 for most characters; 3-24 extra HP can be the difference between life and death.

    Given that you can most likely retrain it once it becomes redundant, I'd say it has value.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    +3 HP per level isn't bad. At most levels of play (using the term "level" in multiple ways, by design), HP damage is still the most common way to die. There's a noticeable cushion in 3 * HD extra points. I would argue that the feat is not embarrassing. It has a reasonable chance of letting you survive at least one round longer than you otherwise could, and that's not actually a terrible return on investment. (Consider that Improved Init is not a bad feat--if still a bit situational--and its best-case effect is basically "one extra round in a combat that you wouldn't otherwise get to take," right? Just in reverse here.)

    Would I take this proposed "Triple Improved Toughness"? I can't say I've ever had a character who was simultaneously able to spare feats to spend on something that wasn't "build-critical" (prereqs, elements in a character-defining combo/tactic, etc.) and whose greatest single problem was a paucity of HP. So in that regard, I've never had a character where I'd take that feat. But I wouldn't call it a bad feat and I wouldn't necessarily look down on someone who chose to take it, assuming they weren't then complaining that they didn't have enough feat space to do what they cared about doing.
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    ~ Gay all day, queer all year ~

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    I think that, depending on the DM, it'll either be a no-brainer to take it, or it still won't be taken except as a prerequisite. Like Crichton, I feel like the HP gain needs to be more than what even Improved Toughness gives, or it needs to give some other bonus in addition. Something like:

    Just a Scratch

    Requires: Base Fortitude Save +2

    Benefit: Gain additional hit points equal to your current hit dice. Whenever you gain a level, gain an additional hit point. Furthermore, whenever you roll a 1 or lower on a hit die gained from class levels, treat that roll as a 2.

    Special: You may take this feat multiple times; its effects stack. Each time you take this feat, increase the minimum hit point values by 1. (For example, if you take this feat a second time, then whenever you roll a 2 or lower on a hit die gained from class levels, treat that roll as a 3). You can never gain more than the maximum number of hit points for any hit dice you gain, before modifiers.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by MesiDoomstalker View Post
    Still really weak since it's now functionally a Level 1 only feat that only front loads something, doesn't scale well. Frankly, you could probably triple the values and get rid of the non retroactivity and it still be weak. A feat to be passively harder to kill is not a feat worth taking unless it makes you nigh unkillable.
    Are you serious? A 1st-level Wizard going from 6HP to 30HP is "still weak"? Low-level casters are one good hit away from death, it's not until they reach about level 7 they get really hard to kill. That's 30% of the game, more when you consider that most games never make it to level 20.

    I agree that Toughness as written is a weak feat, but this seems a bit OTT.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    MesiDoomstalker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Penthouse Suite
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biggus View Post
    Are you serious? A 1st-level Wizard going from 6HP to 30HP is "still weak"? Low-level casters are one good hit away from death, it's not until they reach about level 7 they get really hard to kill. That's 30% of the game, more when you consider that most games never make it to level 20.

    I agree that Toughness as written is a weak feat, but this seems a bit OTT.
    A Wizard who burned their first level feat to not die from a stray crit is a wizard who didn't use their 1st level feat to proactively kill things before they die. Or at least delayed their feat progression by 1. Sure great, your Wizard didn't die right away. In my experience and those of my friends who have played at dozens of tables collectively, the lethality of low level is such that its always a crit or deliberate stupidity. If you want to solve low-level lethality, grant a baseline HP score above what already exists and slightly up tick the DPR of low CR creatures. After a certain point, an extra 10 (random number) isn't enough to warrant a numerical change to keep things challenging.
    Awesome Avvy by Sizlord!

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    I like the idea that characters start with hp equal to their con score, then on level up get what would be there otherwise normal level up rate.
    the first half of the meaning of life is that there isn't one.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by vasilidor View Post
    I like the idea that characters start with hp equal to their con score, then on level up get what would be there otherwise normal level up rate.
    This is a better and non-feat-taxing approach. Heck, give 'em their whole con score +class HD. Just means you can hit 'em harder.

    ---
    I also give my players -con score to death for free. All it means is that hardy characters take longer to die and frail ones die faster.

    I'm also a fan of straight "max HP" at every level. I really don't understand why HP is rolled to begin with. Like, oh hey I leveled up but I didn't level up so well this time? Lolwut. Skill points are fixed. Spell numbers are fixed. BAB and saves are fixed, but HP is random? Why?

    Also, due to 3.5's design, investing in defense is a losing game. You'll never be able to raise your defenses high enough, fast enough. All it tends to mean is that fights will last longer, which just means more opportunities for the enemy to wear you down and get lucky. More turns=more chances to die.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Allanimal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Freiburg, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post

    I'm also a fan of straight "max HP" at every level. I really don't understand why HP is rolled to begin with. Like, oh hey I leveled up but I didn't level up so well this time? Lolwut. Skill points are fixed. Spell numbers are fixed. BAB and saves are fixed, but HP is random? Why?
    Just out of curiosity, is the max HP for PCs only, or do the monsters get it too?

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    What if Toughness doubled your HP gained from Con mod.?

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by SangoProduction View Post
    Essentially front loading the toughness feat, where it is most needed, along with giving a lower chance of dying from a random great sword from out of nowhere.
    Just taking the power of something considered weak, and condensing its progression to the period of time that it has the most impact.
    Well, I'd have to say I think that if you need all characters to have access to that many hp at 1st level, the game should probably not start there. And/or make a general change to the death and dying rules. A random greatsword crit is supposed to pretty much insta-kill any 1st level person (in fact a single non-crit is supposed to nearly kill most of them), which is a highly likely explanation for why most 1st level foes are not equipped with greatswords.

    This has a particularly massive effect on non-elite NPCs, ie: the other 95% of the world. Toughness is already very strong, but not necessarily mandatory feat for them. An average-roll warrior with Toughness is as about tough as one with a different feat who rolled max, a max roll or elite like 40% tougher (or nearly as much as the average barbarian), and commoner (or sor/wiz) with a 1 becomes as tough as the average warrior, or if elite can almost match the elite warrior. Those are some good breaks.

    Make it +8 at first and your sor/wiz/commoner becomes as tough an an elite Fighter, tougher than an elite warrior even on a 1. Maybe that sounds appropriate to some, but considering what 1st level feats should do at 1st level, I don't think that's quite appropriate. As for the cumulative declining bonuses, it's different. On its own it sounds interesting enough, like if this was a feat that could only be taken by child characters specifically to shore up their survivability for narrative purposes and in spite of penalties. But by being positioned directly as a comparison to Toughness, the illusion is broken.
    Fizban's Tweaks and Brew: Google Drive (PDF), Thread
    A collection of over 200 pages of individually small bans, tweaks, brews, and rule changes, usable piecemeal or nearly altogether, and even some convenient lists. Everything I've done that I'd call done enough to use in one place (plus a number of things I'm working on that aren't quite done, of course).
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Insanity View Post
    What if Toughness doubled your HP gained from Con mod.?
    For one, it would make the feat far less useful for Undeads and such creatures without a Con score

    Quote Originally Posted by MesiDoomstalker View Post
    A Wizard who burned their first level feat to not die from a stray crit is a wizard who didn't use their 1st level feat to proactively kill things before they die. Or at least delayed their feat progression by 1. Sure great, your Wizard didn't die right away. In my experience and those of my friends who have played at dozens of tables collectively, the lethality of low level is such that its always a crit or deliberate stupidity. If you want to solve low-level lethality, grant a baseline HP score above what already exists and slightly up tick the DPR of low CR creatures. After a certain point, an extra 10 (random number) isn't enough to warrant a numerical change to keep things challenging.
    I'd love to know which lv 1 feat is making your Wizard so much better at killing enemies that making him literally unkillable by CR appropriate enemies is considered by you to be such an interior choice.

    Remember that both PF and 3.5 have restraining rules and, though I can't say so for PF, the 3.5 rule isn't a 'variant rule' or anything like it, but an actual rule that happens to be present on a splat book, just like many others

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GrayDeath's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Heart of Europe
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Since we dont roll HP (we instead use the following Rule: Subtract 1/4th from the possible max roll, or 2pts, whichever is more; so a Wizard gains 3+Con, a Sorcerer 4+Con, a Ranger 6+Con, a Fighter 8+Con and a barbarian 10+con).
    Or, if players insist on rolling, we allow to reroll each roll below 25% of max once. But thats becoming more and more rare.


    As for the Toughness Theme: Triple Toughness is a Feat msot of my nonf eat starved Characters would take. You enver know when you need those extra HP.

    Spending multiple feats to get more HP however is a trap unless your Class uses HP as ana ctive ressource as well.
    A neutron walks into a bar and says, “How much for a beer?” The bartender says, “For you? No charge.”

    01010100011011110010000001100010011001010010000001 10111101110010001000000110111001101111011101000010 00000111010001101111001000000110001001100101001011 100010111000101110

    Later: An atom walks into a bar an asks the bartender “Have you seen an electron? I left it in here last night.” The bartender says, “Are you sure?” The atom says, “I’m positive.”

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Insanity View Post
    What if Toughness doubled your HP gained from Con mod.?
    My dragonborn mongrelfolk dragonfire adept would take it at level 3.


    Quote Originally Posted by vasilidor View Post
    I like the idea that characters start with hp equal to their con score, then on level up get what would be there otherwise normal level up rate.
    My last few e6 games starting at level 1 did this with max hp for players and monsters. It works really well.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aotrs Commander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allanimal View Post
    Just out of curiosity, is the max HP for PCs only, or do the monsters get it too?
    When I do it, it is for pretty much everything, except some monsters when the PCs are at bottom level (that's my concession to the lethality of low-level fights, along with changing the death threahsol to be negative Con stat or half max hp, which ever is best) and for PC summons.

    And boss monsters, which get maximum hits times between 2 to 4. (Depending on many levels of my defiant template I apply, which also allows them to burn one lot of max hit points to effectively Iron Heart Surge Stuff away or make a save reroll at the cost of an effective negative level.) I don't THINK I've used anything more than a Defiant 4, anyway.



    Toughness and Improved Toughness (the former which we use is PF toughness, I think) have their uses, but mostly as monster feats for low-intelligence monsters or just on something that I don't want to give something more effective to for whatever reason.
    Last edited by Aotrs Commander; 2019-10-20 at 09:05 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by heavyfuel View Post
    For one, it would make the feat far less useful for Undeads and such creatures without a Con score
    Undead use Cha in place of Con.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allanimal View Post
    Just out of curiosity, is the max HP for PCs only, or do the monsters get it too?
    Just for the PCs unless there's a reason a monster needs to be tougher than usual. The point of the exercise is to let me throw more dangerous things at the party without worrying about a single arrow taking the PCs down. Monsters (and random townsfolk) will get a random 1/4 for weak, 1/2 for average or 3/4ths for tough and 100% for "special" (like leveled or named NPCs). Too much monster HP and all you get is a boring slog.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Insanity View Post
    Undead use Cha in place of Con.
    Is this a proposed house rule? Because by RAW, only undead with a special ability to that effect (usually, but probably not always, called Unholy Toughness) actually add CHA to HP.
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    ~ Gay all day, queer all year ~

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aotrs Commander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaq View Post
    Is this a proposed house rule? Because by RAW, only undead with a special ability to that effect (usually, but probably not always, called Unholy Toughness) actually add CHA to HP.
    It's standard in Pathfinder, but not in 3.5.
    Last edited by Aotrs Commander; 2019-10-20 at 09:57 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander View Post
    It's standard in Pathfinder, but not in 3.5.
    I honestly forgot it's not a thing in 3 ed.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Apr 2016

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allanimal View Post
    Just out of curiosity, is the max HP for PCs only, or do the monsters get it too?
    In my current game, giving everyone (including the monsters or NPCs adversaries) maximum health hasn't been an issue.

    It gives the characters a little more breathing room, especially the martials who are in the dangerous position of being close to the enemies attacks.

    The characters tend to hit hard too, so monsters last a little longer, without having to put six extras into the battle and skew the action economy against the characters.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by MesiDoomstalker View Post
    A Wizard who burned their first level feat to not die from a stray crit is a wizard who didn't use their 1st level feat to proactively kill things before they die. Or at least delayed their feat progression by 1. Sure great, your Wizard didn't die right away. In my experience and those of my friends who have played at dozens of tables collectively, the lethality of low level is such that its always a crit or deliberate stupidity. If you want to solve low-level lethality, grant a baseline HP score above what already exists and slightly up tick the DPR of low CR creatures. After a certain point, an extra 10 (random number) isn't enough to warrant a numerical change to keep things challenging.
    I'm trying to figure out the statistical likeliness of this. In 3.5 your 1st level Wizard has like 5-6 HP, max. That's out of the realm of "a stray crit kills me" and into the realm of "a random Longbow arrow from some dude with 12 Str is statistically probable to knock me unconscious".

    Your GM sounds like he softballs low level combat because a 1st level Wizard doesn't have the same tools to survive that even a 3rd level Wizard has.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aotrs Commander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ualaa View Post
    In my current game, giving everyone (including the monsters or NPCs adversaries) maximum health hasn't been an issue.

    It gives the characters a little more breathing room, especially the martials who are in the dangerous position of being close to the enemies attacks.
    Especially if you tend to play with large 6-8-character parties, where there are more enemies who might go for a character at once (not even delberately on the part of the DM, but if the character ends up in a bad position...!) where it can get a bit messy, it helps!

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    material & internet plane
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Does Toughness really have to correlate to HP? I've played games with a DM who houseruled it to instead increase hardness by 3 (no hardness is equal to hardness 0). It was pretty interesting to say the least, but not what I would consider gamebreaking.
    Quote Originally Posted by MERC_1 View Post
    I find it very amusing that a very theoretical discussion of how to Optimize Bardic Music, turns into a discussion on how much worms you can eat in 7 minutes.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: An inverted toughness. What do you think of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    I'm trying to figure out the statistical likeliness of this. In 3.5 your 1st level Wizard has like 5-6 HP, max. That's out of the realm of "a stray crit kills me" and into the realm of "a random Longbow arrow from some dude with 12 Str is statistically probable to knock me unconscious".

    Your GM sounds like he softballs low level combat because a 1st level Wizard doesn't have the same tools to survive that even a 3rd level Wizard has.
    Take a look at all the CR 1 and lower foes: how many have longbows? Aside from DM designed NPCs and the elf warrior entry, I don't think there even are any, though if you found some they're worth noting. But the monsters in particular (because monsters have CR based on challenge while NPCs have CR based on "eh maybe it equals their level I hope?"), do not start with the ability to insta-kill wizards without crits. Char-op'd NPCs (and monsters) are only the balance point of the game if you've made it that way.

    Incidentally, max hp on all PCs *and* monsters, is probably an effective rule change for games where the assumption is all spells will be metamagic'd and all attacks will hit.
    Fizban's Tweaks and Brew: Google Drive (PDF), Thread
    A collection of over 200 pages of individually small bans, tweaks, brews, and rule changes, usable piecemeal or nearly altogether, and even some convenient lists. Everything I've done that I'd call done enough to use in one place (plus a number of things I'm working on that aren't quite done, of course).
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •