D&D 5E (2014) Durable feat

[NotAYakk]

I'm not sure why people are ruling it insanely conservatively. It is a half feat, and as written not that strong.

The die you roll (the d10) gets a min roll of (Con bonus*2). You usually then add your Con.

So a fighter with 16 con (+3) has a min roll of 3*2 (6), so heals 9 to 13 HP (usually 9). This min roll is worth a whole 1.5 HP per HD rolled.

On a 1d6 HD, you heal 9 HP per HD.

Amusingly, if you have 20 con, your min roll is 10 - so a d6 HD heals 15 HP, as does a d10 HD.

This is "worth" (con bonus*2)(con bonus*2+1)/(2*HD max) extra healing per HD so long as you don't over-shoot your HD max.

In comparison, a bare +2 con is worth 2 HP per HD (+1 max HP, then 1 extra when you expend HD). Even with this generous interpretation, Durable only gains marginally more HP than increasing con, and you lose out on con saves and con checks (etc).

 

[Salmonellius]

Thanks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not sure why people are ruling it insanely conservatively.

I mean, I think there's a very clear reason why.

 

[Salmonellius]

I mean, I think there's a very clear reason why.

And it is ?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And it is ?

Unfavorable interpretations that make things weaker than they really should be are very common in the 5e community. The community overall is hypersensitive to anything that might be potentially overpowered, except for Wizard options, which may or may not get a pass.

 

[Horwath]

Unfavorable interpretations that make things weaker than they really should be are very common in the 5e community. The community overall is hypersensitive to anything that might be potentially overpowered, except for Wizard options, which may or may not get a pass.

after Twilight cleric, I see every new mechanic as completely underpowered and useless until proven otherwise.

 

[Blue]

The Beyond First Level rules distinguish between "roll" and "total", where "total" applies after your Con mod is added. So, assuming the same terminology is being used (as it should be, and it's used similarly elsewhere), the feat's rule would appear to apply a minimum to the die roll itself, to which you add your Con bonus afterwards.

Thus the 16 Con fighter would have hit dice rolls that ranged from 6 to 10, rather than 1 to 10, and then add 3 Con to that. That gives you a final results between 9 and 13, and an average of 10 rather than 8.5. That's at least plausibly useful; applying it only to the final total would be a complete joke.

Have to agree, the CON modifier gets added after the minimum is invoked. Roll vs. total is used all over the place.

Here's in ability checks (PHB 174): "To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the De."

Here's making an attack (PHB 193): "To make an attack rol1,rol1a 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."

It's common terminology, there's a roll, and then after mods there's a total. So if this changes the roll, it's putting a floor on just the die, the modifiers come after.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

after Twilight cleric, I see every new mechanic as completely underpowered and useless until proven otherwise.

Twilight Cleric is in fact the reason I couldn't say "spellcaster options", because people freaked out about that one pretty hard. "May or may not get a pass" was because of the kerfluffle from silvery barbs, which was actually a huge nothing-burger but good Lord people were crying apocalypse about it.

 

[Horwath]

Twilight Cleric is in fact the reason I couldn't say "spellcaster options", because people freaked out about that one pretty hard. "May or may not get a pass" was because of the kerfluffle from silvery barbs, which was actually a huge nothing-burger but good Lord people were crying apocalypse about it.

I still do not understand the point behind silvery barbs outrage either...
It does nothing extra besides what the original effect would do or not do. It just raises(or lowers) reliability of effect.
What? one extra advantage on one roll? wow...

 

[dave2008]

Unfavorable interpretations that make things weaker than they really should be are very common in the 5e community. The community overall is hypersensitive to anything that might be potentially overpowered, except for Wizard options, which may or may not get a pass.

I might revise this to say: "...very common in my 5e community."

I do feel for you @EzekielRaiden, you do seem to be stuck in the most conservative and unforgiving 5e community for you. Your experience has definitely not been mine!