Barbarian feats: advice required

[gogmagog]

Any advice on this question would be gratefully received (or just correction of my shonky maths).

I'm playing a gnoll rageblood barbarian (Hrothgar) who has just gone from 3rd to 4th level. All ability stats were on evens anyway, so chose to increase STR and CON to 19 and 17 respectively.

When it came to the new feat I was going to choose Improved Rageblood Vigour because Hrothgar does tend to charge into the middle of the action because he is a) bloodthirsty and b) stupid and on AC 17 (when he was 3rd level, up to AC 18 now 4th) finds himself making a disproportionate number of death saves...

But I've just seen the Hide Armour Expertise feat in Primal Power which would allow him to use his CON bonus (+3) in place of his DEX bonus (+2) for AC.

But which is better? +1 AC bonus is something that is useful all the time OR the potential (but only potential) for 8 temp hps during encounter?

I've usually worked on the assumption that 'always active' trumps 'sometimes active' when it comes to feats. But I'm not sure tha maths supports the theory in this case:

+1 AC increase averages 1 fewer hit per 20 attacks. 20 attacks probably equals about 3 encounters. Average 9 damage per hit at 4th level. Therefore only 9 hps better off per 3 encounters.

Not sure what Hrothgar's kill-rate is per encounter, but since temp hps are pretty much useless when they come at the end of a fight, let's say he averages 1 kill / encounter early enough in the combat for the temp hps to be of use (and since temp hps don't stack 1/encounter is probably realistic). Over 3 encounters that comes to 24 hps better off (or 24 hps less damage to be strictly accurate about it).

So on that basis the Improved Rageblood Vigour is far better. Does my maths make sense or am I talking bollocks?

Btw, apologies for the shamelessly wanky power-gaming tone of the entire question. There's not a whole heap of characterisation difference between these two particular options is my excuse (and I'm sticking to it).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

lol. I don't really see a giant problem with your math. Its kind of hard to say. In some battles it may be better to get the thp and in others it may be better to have +1 AC. Mostly the type of battle is going to affect how many useful thp you end up with. In a tough boss encounter with a single enemy +1 AC is better. Even in more standard encounters by the time you get the thp you may already have been beat up. They could still come in handy, but what fraction of the time will you get hit AFTER you get them?

In all I guess probably having the thp works out better. The only downside you haven't factored in is conditions. thp won't help you avoid those. At high levels you may find a point of AC helping you avoid a nasty stun is worth more than deflecting part of the damage from the attack.

 

[gogmagog]

That, AA, is an excellent point about the better chance of avoiding debilitating effects and one that I hadn't taken into account explicitly.

But it's linked to my point about going for feats that have a guaranteed effect in every battle (e.g. Weapon Expertise, Improved Initiative, etc): it takes out some of the 'what if..?' elements. Is the smaller but reliable bonus better than the larger potential bonus?

 

[Atzilla]

hm, i think there is a problem with your math
1. you're a rageblood, you're going to pump con and str. So sooner or later the increase of your AC with the hide feat will be higher than +1.
2. Remind that your rageblood vigor without feat gives you 3 thp. So if i follow your further math, you only get 15 additional thp with the feat in 3 encounters.

You should also consider taking toughness. 5 additional hitpoints don't hurt. It also increases your healing surge value and scales with tier...

My Rageblood Barbarian took Toughness at lvl 4. He has 18 con and 12 dex, so taking the hide armor feat at lvl 6 is a no-brainer (angels decended from heaven to bring me this feat)