Improved Toughness?

I realize a fighter wouldn't see much of a difference at 15th-lvl, but for a wizard that's (on average) 6 levels worth of hp in one shot (2.5 x 6). And sometimes there IS a lack of good feats for a character. I know several players who have been unable to find a feat that suits their character and end up taking Skill Focus.

I guess the real issue is that Improved Toughness is incredibly better than Toughness, yet the former doesn't require the latter. That's the part I think is broken. Shouldn't you need the basic version of Toughness before you can take the Improved version?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

the basic version is basically a waste of a feat. Personally, I'd forget that it exists and just make the Improved Toughness the reguliar one.
 

Crothian said:
the basic version is basically a waste of a feat.

Toughness is better than Improved Toughness for people who will never be higher than second level. Like how Dirty Fighting is a decent feat for a first or second level NPC thug who never expects to be a 6th level NPC thug.

But both feats are lousy for PCs, because PCs do expect to be 3rd level, or 6th level, or 11th level some day. The PC takes Mobility, because he needs it for Whirlwind Attack some day. The thug takes Dirty Fighting, because it's a bigger immediate benefit than Mobility... and immediate is all he'll ever care about.

-Hyp.
 

Do any of you guys use the toughness feats from MOTW? One of the fighters in my party has taken dwarf, then giant, then a few dragon's toughness feats and has more HP than any other two party members put together.

The best thing that character does for the party? He runs in first, takes the first barrage of attacks, then let's the weenies come in with their flanking & such.

So he's decent offensively, but the player enjoys ribbing the other characters about why they never seem to want to fight as much as he does. Makes for a fun exchange amongst the characters, as they in response call him the big dumb brute who doesn't know any better, etc.
 


OK, we've got two different issues going on here. Forget about whether the feat is "useful" or not. Instead, does it make sense for Improved Toughness NOT to require Toughness. Hypersmurf has shown that, yes, it makes sense for a 1st-2nd lvl character who will never progress any further but for everyone else?

I know of the MotW hp feats but, IMO, a lot of the feats in splatbooks aren't exactly balanced. I'm wondering if Complete Warrior is the same way...
 


They both seem valid. Regular toughness is for kobolds and city guards. Improved toughness is for fighters, barbarians, and high level wizards. 20 extra hit points is only enough to stop a blow. You can take toughness multiple times, whereas you can't with improved toughness in such a way. Seems to make sense to me...
 

Wolffenjugend said:
I know of the MotW hp feats but, IMO, a lot of the feats in splatbooks aren't exactly balanced. I'm wondering if Complete Warrior is the same way...

Actually most of the feats from CW are fine. And people don't get enough feats to warrent toughness as a prerequite to improved toughness
 

The more I play 3.5E, the more I come to believe that hit points are critical to survival. Our necromancer is a dwarf - for the hit points as much as anything else, and has a lot of hit points (for a wizard) as a result and can take a hit or 2 without being overly scared (or dead).

I keep looking at Improved Toughness for my dwarven Monk to bring him on par with the fighter's d10 hit die (which is effectively what the feat does), but I keep finding better ways to spend the valuable feat slots, particularly with some the tactical feats from CW.

So yeah, it's attractive, but so much that it's an auto pick.

Now maybe a dwarf barbarian with Toughness and Improved Toughness could be fun.....
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top