Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Varianor Abroad" data-source="post: 1138093" data-attributes="member: 12425">This feat is not going to give any kind of an advantage over Sturdy to the witch, runethane, magister, greenbond or akashic, all of whom get d6 hit dice. You will roll average (3.5), so this would give you +3 at any given level. Sturdy gets you more. Even mageblades, unfettereds and oathsworns as d8 classes do not gain much benefit.Now, as a jumping off point to the next feat, I can see taking it, but I think that a feat that doesn't have a consistent benefit needs work. Also, please see below.  Now, am I seeing this right? You get 1/2 your hit dice every subsequent level? This also doesn't scale comfortably for me. A warmain who took these two feats at first level is going to get waaay too many hit points quickly. Let's assume a warmain with a 17 Con (ignoring first level). Each level it's 6+3+1d12 for hp. That means that they get an average of 15 hp? I went back and I think that it's possible to parse it differently. (I think what you intended.) It's going to give you 1/2 of the hit die plus the Con plus the hit die. That still gives you an increase that scales better for high hit die classes than low hit die classes. Champions and most Totem Warriors will get +5 for taking the feat. The Warmain will get +6. It benefits those three classes. The rest will get +4 (3 more classes), which is no better than Sturdy, which can be taken multiple times, or +3, the remaining 5, who are worse off than just taking Sturdy. What is it you want to do with the feat? Just give more hit points? In that case I'd suggest just writing in a Sturdier feat that gives triple Con or +6. (I'm not recommending this in general for an AU campaign, but I'm trying to help Negative Zero since he's already got this approach in mind.)</blockquote>

Verification