D&D 5E Wizard with 20 CON and the Durable feat

[evilbob]

I also haven't read the thread, but this seems like a case where fewer words would have actually been more clear. If they had left out "from the roll" I think everyone would have been on the same page (not making a judgement on the intent, just saying that would have been more clear).

 

[Wormwood]

The answer is "No, sometimes he gets 11". <snip>

Honestly, this is the only reading of the feat that makes sense to me, and is the one I'm using at my table.

 

[The Hitcher]

Citation for that final ruling? The tweets posted so far in this thread say nothing of the sort.

The final ruling happens at your table, friend. Welcome to 5E!

 

[Dausuul]

The final ruling happens at your table, friend. Welcome to 5E!

Well, sure, the final-final ruling does. I always reserve the right to tweak things if they're causing problems at my table. That's been true in every edition.

But since I don't really have a sense of how these types of feats are balanced against each other yet, it sure would be nice to know what WotC had in mind for Durable. They spent a lot of time and money playtesting this stuff. It'd be a shame for that effort to go to waste because of poor editing.

 

[Ashkelon]

Well, sure, the final-final ruling does. I always reserve the right to tweak things if they're causing problems at my table. That's been true in every edition.

But since I don't really have a sense of how these types of feats are balanced against each other yet, it sure would be nice to know what WotC had in mind for Durable. They spent a lot of time and money playtesting this stuff. It'd be a shame for that effort to go to waste because of poor editing.

The feat sucks, thats how the math works out. Let us say that the feat should have said "result" instead of roll. With that change, a 16 Con fighter would regain between 6 and 13 HP (average 8.8) per HD spent. Without the feat the 16 Con fighter regains between 4 and 13 HP (average of 8.5 HP) per HD.

Since durable grants +1 Con in addition to its other benefit, it's other benefit needs to be worth +1 to an ability score, or half a feat. The tough feat grants +2 HP per level, so half of the tough feat is +1 HP per level. Tough has a comprable effect to durable in that they both increase your total HP per day.

So at 10th level, a 16 Con fighter will recover 5 HD per day. With durable he recovers 44 HP per day from his HD. Without durable, he recovers 42.5 HP per day from HD. Durable gives a whopping 1.5 HP per day. Compare this to half-tough which grants +10 HP per day.

Even at 20 Con, durable would only bring the fighter's average HP per HD from 10.5 to 11.5. So over the course of the day, durable gives the 20 Con fighter 5 more HP per day. Half-tough grants the fighter 10 HP per day, so is still twice as good as durable.

Also, having a higher max HP is more valuable than having additional healing over the course of the day. Some effects are based off of max HP, which means the higher max HP is more useful. Higher max HP also means you can take more damage in a single encounter and remain standing. Finally, there might be times where you don't need to spend all your HD every day or you don't ever take a short rest. These factors mean that higher max HP is significantly more useful than an equivalent amount of HP per day from HD.

 

[keterys]

Just think, the feat could have been a magnitude simpler if it just doubled the number of hit dice you can use for resting and would be a more solid feat for a majority of PCs (ie, without gaming the exact Con you have).

On the downside, it wouldn't have spawned pages and pages of outrage and debate across many forums. I'm unclear if that counts as advertising or not.

 

[pemerton]

This When Bless says, "Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw." Do you think they mean you can only apply the Bless d4 if you don't use your attack roll modifier?

I think it means that you roll the d20, then roll a d4 and add that to the result of the d20. Then you add the other modifiers that you enjoy to your attack roll. Nothing in the Bless spell says or implies that the 1d4 is the only modifier to be applied.

The feat says,
"When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifer (minimum 2)."

The Short Rests rules says,
"For each Hit Die spent this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character's Constitution modifer to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total."

I don't see why you think this supports your view. The word "roll" in ordinary English is not synonymous with the word "total", nor the phrase "the total of a die roll plus modifiers". [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION] has posted plenty of examples that show the 5e rules using the word "roll" to denote the die roll only.

I think it is a badly worded feat, and it would be helpful if WotC actually indicated how they intended it to be applied, rather than dealing with the matter through less-than-fully-clear tweets.

I think the best reason for interpreting it in the way Ashkelon has suggested is this: a feat that makes your character durable is most likely going to be chosen by a player whose PC is a fighter or comparable warrior class. And a typical CON will be something like 16 or 18. For a character with a d10 HD and 16/18 CON, on your (variant's) reading of the feat, the feat takes the recovered hit points from 4-13/5-14 to 6-13/8-14. The averages are 8.5/9.5 going to 8.8/10.1. In other words, the feat gives a bonus per HD of less than +1 hp healed. This is incredibly weak.

Whereas on Ashkelon's interpretation, the feat takes the results to 9-13/12-14, with averages of 10 and 12.3 respectively. So the feat gives in the neighbourhood of +2 hp healed per HD spent. That still doesn't seem super-powerful, but it might at least be worth thinking about.

 

[variant]

I think it means that you roll the d20, then roll a d4 and add that to the result of the d20. Then you add the other modifiers that you enjoy to your attack roll. Nothing in the Bless spell says or implies that the 1d4 is the only modifier to be applied.

You are assuming you add other modifiers based on the terminology used in D&D. Specifically the term "attack roll" which is explained under attacks.

I don't see why you think this supports your view. The word "roll" in ordinary English is not synonymous with the word "total", nor the phrase "the total of a die roll plus modifiers". @Ashkelon has posted plenty of examples that show the 5e rules using the word "roll" to denote the die roll only.

I think it is a badly worded feat, and it would be helpful if WotC actually indicated how they intended it to be applied, rather than dealing with the matter through less-than-fully-clear tweets.

The term "saving throw" means nothing in ordinary English. D&D has its own terminology.

I think the best reason for interpreting it in the way Ashkelon has suggested is this: a feat that makes your character durable is most likely going to be chosen by a player whose PC is a fighter or comparable warrior class. And a typical CON will be something like 16 or 18. For a character with a d10 HD and 16/18 CON, on your (variant's) reading of the feat, the feat takes the recovered hit points from 4-13/5-14 to 6-13/8-14. The averages are 8.5/9.5 going to 8.8/10.1. In other words, the feat gives a bonus per HD of less than +1 hp healed. This is incredibly weak.

Whereas on Ashkelon's interpretation, the feat takes the results to 9-13/12-14, with averages of 10 and 12.3 respectively. So the feat gives in the neighbourhood of +2 hp healed per HD spent. That still doesn't seem super-powerful, but it might at least be worth thinking about.

The feat isn't supposed to be a massive power increasing feat. It's a safety net feat that guarantees you get a certain amount of hit points back. Averages mean nothing if you roll all 1s on the HD you spend. It's on the same page as the Elemental Adept which let's you treat any 1 you roll as a 2 which only increases the average damage by 1.67 total for 10d6.

The logical reading of the feat says that you can't roll a 10 on a d6 or d8 and there is no precedent anywhere else to say you can.

 

[pemerton]

You are assuming you add other modifiers based on the terminology used in D&D. Specifically the term "attack roll" which is explained under attacks.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading the rules and applying them:

Basic D&D, p 73:
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits.

Basic D&D, p 85:
Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.

Basic D&D, p 17:
When you roll a 1 on an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll.​

Nothing on p 73 defines the term "attack roll". It tells you that making an attack roll involves rolling a die and adding appropriate modifiers.

Page 85 explains that the Bless spell permits adding 1d4 to the attack roll. That suggests to me that the 1d4 is one of the "appropriate modifiers" referred to on p 73. Nothing in the Bless spell description defines the term "attack roll".

Nothing on p 17 defines the phrase "attack roll" either, but it very strongly implies that "attack roll", at least on that occasion of use, refers to the actual roll of the d20. Otherwise, you could never apply the benefits of the Lucky ability to an attack with which you had a bonus to hit (which for most characters would be most attacks, between stat and proficiency bonuses).

The logical reading of the feat says that you can't roll a 10 on a d6 or d8 and there is no precedent anywhere else to say you can.

I'm not sure what you mean by "logical". There is plenty of evidence that the Basic rulebook, the text of which is meant to follow the PHB text closely or even exactly, uses the term "roll" on at least some occasions to refer to the result of a die roll. No one has yet posted an example that shows the term "roll" being used to refer to the result of a die roll plus modifiers - for instance, the short rest rule (Basic D&D p 67) refers to "roll[ing] the die", then "add[ing]" the CON modifier, and then regaining hp "equal to the the total."

Nothing on p 67 suggests that the word "roll" refers to the same thing as the word "total". Indeed, given that the "total" is described as a total of "roll + modifiers", that generates a strong implication that the roll and the total are different things, unless the modifier is equal to zero.

 

[variant]

Nothing on p 73 defines the term "attack roll". It tells you that making an attack roll involves rolling a die and adding appropriate modifiers.

...

I'm not sure what you mean by "logical". There is plenty of evidence that the Basic rulebook, the text of which is meant to follow the PHB text closely or even exactly, uses the term "roll" on at least some occasions to refer to the result of a die roll. No one has yet posted an example that shows the term "roll" being used to refer to the result of a die roll plus modifiers - for instance, the short rest rule (Basic D&D p 67) refers to "roll[ing] the die", then "add[ing]" the CON modifier, and then regaining hp "equal to the the total."

Nothing on p 67 suggests that the word "roll" refers to the same thing as the word "total". Indeed, given that the "total" is described as a total of "roll + modifiers", that generates a strong implication that the roll and the total are different things, unless the modifier is equal to zero.

logical [loj-i-kuhl]
adjective

1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.


A die without modifiers cannot roll higher than the highest number that is on the die. A six sided die has six sides numbered 1 through 6 and thus cannot roll higher than six. The number ten is higher than the number six and so the die cannot roll a 10. A statement that says it can roll higher than six without modifiers is illogical.