Improved Toughness?

[Gort]

In the 15th level game I'm in (we've been playing since 3rd) only my character has this feat. And that's only because I've got more or less every feat I need. (plus a couple of flavour ones, like Tyrant (from a book labelled EVIL), which has only seen use once in twelve levels)

Sure, it's a decent feat. But 15 hitpoints is an average blow from my character (longsword +4, weapon spec, 6 strength) so it's of questionable worth.

I'm glad I have it, but it's never come up that the feat saved my life, which I can truly say of dodge and mobility seperately. (Two twelve-headed hydras, a cleric to save, 24 attacks of opportunity to take. Result? Four hits, cause they needed twenties...)

 

[jgsugden]

Think of it this way:

Weapon focus gives you a +1 to your attack roll - roughly a third of the benefit of increasing strength by +2 (you don't get the bonus to damage, to lifting ability, to skills, etc ...).

Spell Focus gives you a +1 to your save DCS - roughly a third of the benefit of increasing a spell-casting attribute by +2 (you don't get bonus spells, skill bonuses, etc...)

Dodge gives you +1 dodge to AC - roughly a third of the benefit of a +2 to dexterity (you don't get a bonus with missile attacks, with reflex saving throws, dexterity skills, etc ...)

Improved Toughness gives you +1 hp / lvl - roughly half of the benefit of a +2 to constitution (you don't get the fortitude save bonus, the bonus to concentration, etc ...)

The first three feats I mentioned (weapon focus, spell focus, dodge) are often called a bit underpowered. Improved Toughness is nice, but it is not overpoweringly nice.

 

[AeroDm]

I think the feat is simply poorly named. (All of the following is imo).

They created it to replace toughness because toughness is terrible. Unfortunately the name implies that it should require toughness.

Gaining 1 hp/level never amounts to much. If you look at CRs that will almost always be less than standard damage in a round, so at most it stretches your life out one round. Probably worth it, but not by much.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unfortunately the name implies that it should require toughness.

Why? There are seventeen feats named "Improved..." something-or-other in the Core Rules alone.

Only two of those seventeen have a feat prerequisite of the 'non-improved' something-or-other - Improved Precise Shot and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

And of those, the two that you mentioned are the only ones with a non-improved prereq whose name is otherwise identical. The implication is easy to draw.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

And of those, the two that you mentioned are the only ones with a non-improved prereq whose name is otherwise identical. The implication is easy to draw.

Exactly!!!

 

[Sejs]

But not needed. Chalk it up to lazy naming or whatever you like - bogging down Impr Toughness with a Toughness pre-req would take it from being decent to not worth taking.


1 Feat = 1hp/hd: worthwhile.

2 Feats = 3+1hp/hd: not worth sinking the feats into.

 

[James McMurray]

Right, its not needed, but Hyp wasn't saying it wasn't needed, he was just inferring that making the assumption that the two feats are tied together isn't valid. There's definite evidence for Improved Feats being the second step in a two feat chain when there is a lower rung to climb onto.

 

[Gaiden]

Right, its not needed, but Hyp wasn't saying it wasn't needed, he was just inferring that making the assumption that the two feats are tied together isn't valid. There's definite evidence for Improved Feats being the second step in a two feat chain when there is a lower rung to climb onto.

Going to have side with James on this one. It seems an oversight - either with the naming, or with the prereq's that toughness was not included as the prereq. While perusing CW I wondered the same thing.

Of course, my first thought was - oh look, another terrible feat to fill space or give to the bad guys I want to die more easily. But that is another matter.

The benefit of the feat would seem to warrant a prereq of toughness as well. However, going along with the concensus of this thread, toughness SUCKS and would make this feat equally worthless. The reason for that is precisely because this feat is not gamebreaking - nevermind gamebreaking, it really isn't even all that appealing.

If it could be taken several times, then it would be a slight bit better. But as the other feats surrounding the "punching bag" build also suck (except maybe for the MotW feats) it is still subotimal.

Think about this: if the net hit points are only worth one hit at the respective level, and creatures get multiple attacks at higher levels with iterive attack bonuses, wouldn't an AC bonus be tremendously better - even if it was the +1 dodge bonus from Dodge?

 

[Darklone]

Well, that's the first time (not really) I hear Weapon Focus called weak.