Improved Toughness?

[jgsugden]

Fighting defensively, tumble, Shieldfeats, deflection bonus, miss chances, tower shield, higher dex bonus in a mithral armour, strange bonuses such as sacred to AC...

Woah. I see how that smackdown got AC above 200.

*Typical* ACs for melee combatant PCs in *many, if not most* games tend to be between 14 and 20 at 1st level, 20 and 27 at 5th level, 25 and 30 at 10th level, 30 and 35 at 15th level and 34 to 42 at 20th level.

There are many exceptions to these generalizations, but it does provide a pretty good set of expectations. Characters that specialize in AC can realistically get their AC to a point where an Ancient Red Wyrm only hits on a 20 with its primary attack (unless it uses spells), but doing so is often an inefficient way to go and is talked about far more often than it is used.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If it is the consensus that Improved Toughness is medium powered feat (or less), what insight does that grant us into the balance between the core classes?

Is a pure Barbarian under powered in comparison with a pure Fighter who has taken Improved Toughness?

 

[AeroDm]

No because the barbarians has a host of other powers that diverge from those of the fighter. HP are a small factor overall- a reason why many think this feat is not broken and possibly still underpowered (although certainly useable).

 

[Crothian]

I don't think so. A Barabarian is much more then a d12 HD.

 

[jgsugden]

If it is the consensus that Improved Toughness is medium powered feat (or less), what insight does that grant us into the balance between the core classes?

Is a pure Barbarian under powered in comparison with a pure Fighter who has taken Improved Toughness?

It is impossible to draw conclusions about the balance of whole classes by looking at small aspects of each class. Just comparing hit point totals doesn't do much for us. Rage, fighter feats, improved movement, different armor and shielf proficiencies, different skills, etc ... are a huge part of the balance equation.