How often do you use Toughness?

[Iron_Chef]

It's one of the worst feats ever, along with Endurance and Run; even more shocking is that they didn't bother to fix it in 3.5e, despite everybody complaining about it...

You have to assume your character (even if it has puny hp) will survive to higher levels, or what's the point of playing? That makes toughness a wasted feat slot. +3 hp are meaningless in the long run, heck, even in the short run, and even for the 1d4hp/level classes.

Taking toughness seriously sabotages your ability to climb the cool feat chains, let alone maximize your feat potential. You only get so many slots. Toughness can be mimicked (and with far better results) by spells like bear's endurance and false life, or with magic items that boost CON. So, nobody needs Toughness!

 

[Dinkeldog]

I don't think toughness is horrible.... Just not that great. Most players should be able to do something more exciting with a feat than gain 3 hp. In the long run getting 3 hp pales in comparrasion to getting feat such a power attack or any of the meta-magic feats.

I agree with everything you just said, except that by your reasoning (and mine) I think it is horrible. If the definition of a too-good feat is that everyone needs to take it, then you can pretty much say that a feat is horrible if you'd always rather take a different feat.

 

[Creamsteak]

Well, Run is a good feat in my opinion. I've never actually used endurance though, though I do understand why it is there.

 

[gunter uxbridge]

I house ruled Toughness so that it not only adds three HP, but it also extents the threshold for charcter death. What that means is if you take it once you die at -13, -16 if you take it twice and so on. Nobody has taken it yet, but I think it is a good compromise for a weak feat.

 

[Mark]

Toughness and Combat Reflexes make good Feats for town guards, IMO.

It's impossible for all feats to be equal so there will always be one that is the worst. Why complain because you happen to be able to identify it?

 

[Sejs]

I also use the NWN version of Toughness, where you get +1hp/level. Can be taken multiple times, and by exention, do not use any of the Dwarf's/Giant's/Really Big Cockroach's Toughness feats.

Endurance is boosted to have you be able to get by with 75% of the sleep you would otherwise require, in addition to it's normal benefits.

I let Alertness let you spot secret doors ala an elf.

I have Skill Focus give +2 to two related skills, such as Climb & Balance, or Spellcraft & Knowledge(Arcana).



In my oppinion, no feats should be worthless. There should be no 'throw-away' feats that are only useful as prerequisites for other, cooler things.

 

[Vymair]

I have never seen a character in any game I play in take toughness. We did like the Giant's Toughness and Dragon's Toughness feats from Masters of the Wild.

 

[takyris]

Lessee...

1) Agree that it's a good feat for town guards and kobols -- probably better than for the average PC as written.

2) I'd be interested in seeing the ratio of gamers who think Toughness sucks the brass off a doorknocker and gamers who are playing in campaigns with Improved-Hit-Point House Rules. When you start the "Roll or take the average", "Roll, reroll if you want but have to take it", and so on, you get inflated hit point totals. And once you get inflated hit point totals, 3 hit points start meaning less.

3) That said, I still don't like Toughness, not because it's not useful, but because it's use lies in its ability to help recover from a bad hit point roll more often than it helps add to a good one. If someone just rolled max hit points, they don't bother to take toughness. No, toughness is the one that they grudgingly feel that they ought to take when they roll terribly and they realize that monsters of their CR will be hitting them really hard a lot of the time.

Taking a feat to make up for one bad roll is not fun. That's why I go with standard numbers for characters at level gains -- in normal campaigns you generally get the average, rounded up. In truly heroic campaigns, it's closer to the maximum -- it's max-2 for d6, d8, and d10, max-1 for d4, and max-3 for d12. So you KNOW that you're getting 3, 4, 6, 8, or 9 hit points per level -- you never get shafted by one bad roll. And if you want to take Toughness then, it isn't about "dang, I got boned on my HP roll, now I have to take Toughness." It's about "Hey, I'm even toughter now, I can take more punishment than the average dude."

 

[Daedrova]

I also very much agree that Toughness is a very underpowered feat. The only time I can see it as useful is when it would be taken by a first level NPC, or possibly sorcerer or wizard. It does, without argument as we have seen, become quite undesirable, and quite worthless at any level higher than 3. That being said, I have also never seen the feat taken by any gamer I have played with, or in any game I ran. I have seen the NWN version of the feat used often, but this version makes the feat only useful at higher levels. I do like the EQ "Toughened" feat better, but then the feat looses its usefulness for casters (who would seem to need this type of feat most).
I have never cared enough to make a fix for it other than telling my players they may use the NWN version (still no one did).
Perhaps if the feat added 3 (4, 5?) hp + 1/2 level? Not overly generous, but still useful as levels are gained.

 

[Darklone]

I houseruled Toughness too... the first time you take it, you gain 3hp, the second time it works as the NWN feat.

Warriors get it for free at lvl1.

Yes, most humanoid monsters are warriors.