Improved Toughness

[Jdvn1]

I've been thinking about that. Technically, it would qualify for a lot of epic feats, so...

*ahem*

Well, okay, I might run tarrasques differently from a lot of people. I also might have to add +1 to its CR.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I pretty much use Toughness solely for monsters. If a 1st-lvl PC wants to take Improved Toughness, I give them regular Toughness at 1st and then switch over to Improved at 3rd.

When I give Toughness to monsters, it's either b/c I can't be bothered to look at other feats or b/c I genuinely believe that Toughness suits the monster (everything need not be min-maxed ya' know). If the monster has 3 or more HD/levels, I make it Improved Toughness.

Feats needn't all be balanced with each other for all scenarios. Sometimes Toughness is worth taking, but usually it isn't. I'm fine with that.

 

[Thanee]

Why isn't Toughness a prerequisite for Improved Toughness?

Because it is probably meant as an alternative version rather than an enhanced version, despite the name.

And I agree with most others here, that Toughness is not a feat worth taking normally (that is, unless you play low level one-shot adventures). Improved Toughness, however, is a decent enough feat. Making Toughness a prerequisite for Improved Toughness would drag it down into the realms of ultimate crappiness, too.

Bye
Thanee

 

[MoonZar]

How would this affect the x Toughness feats from Masters of the Wild? Or should those feats just be ignored altogether?

Hello,

I agree that toughness should be a prerequisite for improve toughness who's published in complete warrior and libris mortis (two source)

About Master of the wild, this a 3.0 book who's not balanced with the 3.5 book (complete warrior and libris mortis)

I think that this a huge mistake to mix 3.0 and 3.5 book, this affect balance a lot...

 

[MoonZar]

Because all the Toughness feats suck enough as it is?

I don't agree, in a campaign when your DM give you the HP you got on the HD. You'll want more HP with these feats, that can save the day if you're unlucky.

If you got a level 4 fighter with 25 Hp, you would want these feat, trust me.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

I don't agree, in a campaign when your DM give you the HP you got on the HD. You'll want more HP with these feats, that can save the day if you're unlucky.

If you got a level 4 fighter with 25 Hp, you would want these feat, trust me.

IMO blowing a feat on 3 measly hitpoints has got to be one of the biggest sucker deals in D&D.

 

[MoonZar]

Well, i still think this could be usefull for a fighter with very low hp to save the character usefulness.

I agree if your DM allow at least the average of the Hit Point you should get if you roll bellow it, this feat is totaly useless because people have already many HP.

But if the game is balance and character have average HP or low constitution this could be a blessing.

BTW i think the worst feat is endurance

 

[Seeten]

Endurance is horrendous.

 

[Crothian]

Endurance is a good feat but DM's make it horrible. It adds a nice bonus to things DMs never use.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Endurance is an extremely nice feat if people play by the RAW. Also, it's a prereq for Diehard, which I highly recommend for any barbarian raging types.