Improved Toughness
- Thread starter Cybern
- Start date
Flyspeck23
First Post
PHB p. 117 and 118Darklone said:Barbarians usually wielding greatswords... as long as they wear kilts, I'm happy. But where is the good old stylish greataxe in 3rd edition?
I would like to make it clear that I don't think either the Barbarian or the Fighter are unbalanced with relation to each other or in general. What I should have made clearer is that it is unlikely that any other PC class would take all 4 feats besides the fighter and that such a large bonus wouldn't be unprecedented as it emulates an existing class ability/mechanic. Given that the feats are not exclusive to the fighter; however, means that a Barbarian could take even one of them and be superior in HPs.
The point that the Barbarian gets the Extra HPs to offset the AC penalty is totally valid but not a perfect analogy. I could contend that it offsets the attack and damage bonus in the same vein as the charge action does. Adding in bigger HD and scaling DR is what evens out the lack of Heavy Armors.
Now the barbarian can wear medium armors and that choice is made optimal with his fast movement offsetting the base speed penalty imposed by said armors. The fact that the iconic Barbarian doesn't use a shield doesn't mean they can't use shields, just as the fact that the fighter should because it's icon does. In fact with a feat like Power Lunge (and/or Reckless Charge and/or Reckless Offensive), it's not a suboptimal choice for a Barbarian.
Now the fact remains, however, that anyone in their right mind would build a damage output monster with a Barbarian using Power Attack and a two handed weapon. But that's still a choice, and one that wasn't quite so cut and dry before 3.5 Power Attack.
My point is that the Fighter has so many feats that a single classed one with a theme (Swashbuckler/Archer/Cavalier) sometimes runs out of feats to take. His feats are supposed to be his power base that enables the creation of the dominant general combatant. I would argue than that many defensive or utility feats should be expanded into long, sometimes track-bridging chains along the lines of whirlwind attack or shot on the run. If the goal is to play an unglamorous but undropable tank/meatshield, he really should have feats to make that an outstanding option in every facet- not just a reliance on ability scores and magic items.
To that end, I'd like to see more feats in the Endurance and Run chains and more higher level feats with the Save feat prerequisites in them. If John Travolta can make Stayin' Alive sexy so can Gimli, dammit.
Again, using my feats analogy about emulating a mighty rage, a fighter would need:
-As many Toughness feats as possible (Let's say four)
-Weapon Focus
-Weapon Specialization
-Greater Weapon Focus
-Greater Weapon Specialization
-Iron Will
-Great Fortitude
That's 10 feats and the effect isn't exactly as powerful and slightly more restrictive. It will work all the time unlike the Barbarian, which makes it undeniably superior, but it's still 10 feats in a theme- it should have a huge payoff. (And if the Barbarian goes the total battle-rager route with Extra Rage/Extended Rage/Instantaneous Rage, he can have his game face essentially on at all times too)
So, yes, the fighter should always come in second in offense to a raging Barbarian (even if it's by a slim margin) but if he wants to play serious defense it should be an option (though a pretty major investment) without having to take a PrC. Spells, Class Abilities, and even Turn Channeling feats can great extra HPs, can't a fighter get in on the heavy HP/HD action?
Anyway, since feats reflect training (in the case of toughness, improvement of one's body), consistent adherence to a discipline up to roughly 18th level (using the MotW prereqs) should reap substantial rewards. 4 feats should not necessarily grant 80 HP by CL 20, mind you that's rather high though not unprecedented, but not 30 either IMHO.
That said I can't see a PC taking such unglamorous feats. D&D combat is, frankly, much about offense and the glory that comes with it. But it's continually cranking out good options.
The x HP/HD mechanic I like better since it mirrors the Con bonus mechanic and just seems more elegant. The MotW style has its place for bolstering multiclassed character builds and templated monsters quickly. I doubt that the two can stand side by side as it's a glut of feats with similar names and similar effects.
So that's where I was coming from.
The point that the Barbarian gets the Extra HPs to offset the AC penalty is totally valid but not a perfect analogy. I could contend that it offsets the attack and damage bonus in the same vein as the charge action does. Adding in bigger HD and scaling DR is what evens out the lack of Heavy Armors.
Now the barbarian can wear medium armors and that choice is made optimal with his fast movement offsetting the base speed penalty imposed by said armors. The fact that the iconic Barbarian doesn't use a shield doesn't mean they can't use shields, just as the fact that the fighter should because it's icon does. In fact with a feat like Power Lunge (and/or Reckless Charge and/or Reckless Offensive), it's not a suboptimal choice for a Barbarian.
Now the fact remains, however, that anyone in their right mind would build a damage output monster with a Barbarian using Power Attack and a two handed weapon. But that's still a choice, and one that wasn't quite so cut and dry before 3.5 Power Attack.
My point is that the Fighter has so many feats that a single classed one with a theme (Swashbuckler/Archer/Cavalier) sometimes runs out of feats to take. His feats are supposed to be his power base that enables the creation of the dominant general combatant. I would argue than that many defensive or utility feats should be expanded into long, sometimes track-bridging chains along the lines of whirlwind attack or shot on the run. If the goal is to play an unglamorous but undropable tank/meatshield, he really should have feats to make that an outstanding option in every facet- not just a reliance on ability scores and magic items.
To that end, I'd like to see more feats in the Endurance and Run chains and more higher level feats with the Save feat prerequisites in them. If John Travolta can make Stayin' Alive sexy so can Gimli, dammit.
Again, using my feats analogy about emulating a mighty rage, a fighter would need:
-As many Toughness feats as possible (Let's say four)
-Weapon Focus
-Weapon Specialization
-Greater Weapon Focus
-Greater Weapon Specialization
-Iron Will
-Great Fortitude
That's 10 feats and the effect isn't exactly as powerful and slightly more restrictive. It will work all the time unlike the Barbarian, which makes it undeniably superior, but it's still 10 feats in a theme- it should have a huge payoff. (And if the Barbarian goes the total battle-rager route with Extra Rage/Extended Rage/Instantaneous Rage, he can have his game face essentially on at all times too)
So, yes, the fighter should always come in second in offense to a raging Barbarian (even if it's by a slim margin) but if he wants to play serious defense it should be an option (though a pretty major investment) without having to take a PrC. Spells, Class Abilities, and even Turn Channeling feats can great extra HPs, can't a fighter get in on the heavy HP/HD action?
Anyway, since feats reflect training (in the case of toughness, improvement of one's body), consistent adherence to a discipline up to roughly 18th level (using the MotW prereqs) should reap substantial rewards. 4 feats should not necessarily grant 80 HP by CL 20, mind you that's rather high though not unprecedented, but not 30 either IMHO.
That said I can't see a PC taking such unglamorous feats. D&D combat is, frankly, much about offense and the glory that comes with it. But it's continually cranking out good options.
The x HP/HD mechanic I like better since it mirrors the Con bonus mechanic and just seems more elegant. The MotW style has its place for bolstering multiclassed character builds and templated monsters quickly. I doubt that the two can stand side by side as it's a glut of feats with similar names and similar effects.
So that's where I was coming from.
Last edited:
