KarinsDad said:
For a player who does not want or need more hit points...
This is the crux of the issue: There is no such player. Or at least, there are very few such players, and they consist mostly of people who rolled crappy stats and want to get their characters killed so they can make new ones.
Everybody
wants more hit points. There is no down side to having more hit points.
The question is, what do you have to give up to get them? If the cost to get +2 hit points/level were "spend 5 gp," you'd be crazy to say no. If the cost were "give up all your class abilities for 10 levels," you'd be crazy to say yes.
In the case of Toughness, the cost is "give up a feat/stat boost." To determine if Toughness is balanced, we need to know if that's a fair trade. So we pick a feat/stat boost that we agree is balanced, and do the comparison. If we all agree that +2 Con is balanced, then it's the logical choice for comparison, since the difference between the two is relatively small.
If Tough were really close to +2 Con, then I might agree with you.
But the difference isn't small. It's substantial.
Why?
Because the only way to compare Tough fairly to Con is to compare it to +4 Con. Ignoring the ASIs for the moment, we know that +4 Con is slightly better than Tough in the long run because it eventually has the +2 Con saves and +2 Con checks that Tough does not. But the +2 Con saves and +2 Con checks is not worth an entire ASI. Nobody who knew the math would pay that.
But, let's do as you suggest and compare Tough to +2 Con at various levels (both get +1 hit per level, so we'll concentrate only on the differences)
4: +4 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
5: +5 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
6: +6 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
...
20: +20 hits points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
First off, there is no scaling for +2 Con. This means that +1 to Con saves/checks is better at lower levels than it is at high levels because at higher level, there is a greater chance of failing a Con save because the monsters hit harder and/or more monsters probably have Con save effects without the 5% mattering. Tough scales.
The only question here is whether +1 to Con saves/checks is worth the hit points. That's real easy to determine for a non-spell caster. If everyone truly wants more hit points as you claim, then 5% of all attacks that require a Cons save (say 25% of all creature attacks which is probably generous) is 1.25% of all attacks. Obviously, the extra hit points are more useful than 1 attack out of every 80. The extra hit points probably save the PCs bacon 1 encounter in 4 to 8 (some encounters, it is not enough). It can pretty much be assumed that a non-spell caster will be in trouble and into low hit points at least once every few adventuring days, probably a couple of times. The 1 time in 80 probably saves the PCs bacon 1 encounter in 12 (assuming the PC gets attacked 7 times per encounter which is high and generous, but might happen sometimes for fighter types).
It's more obscure for spell casters. Here 5% of all attacks that require a Cons save (again 25% of all creature attacks) is 1.25% of all attacks plus 5% of all attacks where the caster has a concentration spell running. Even if the caster starts every encounter with a concentration spell up (which is a bit absurd, but for argument sake), those spells will sometimes drop if attacked without the 5% coming into play and it doesn't matter anymore. The DC is 10. A 14 Con spell caster saves on an 8 or higher, a 16 Con spell casters saves on a 7 or higher, etc.. So as a general rule of thumb (PC dependent), 25% to 40% of the time, concentration is broken on each hit. So, 100% of the start of encounter * 2 attacks per encounter 30% chance it gets knocked out already without +2 Con * 5% attacks where it exactly matters = 49% * 5% = 2.5%.
Note also that a PC loses concentration if knocked unconscious. So the additional hit points will sometimes prevent a PC from going unconscious and hence, prevent him from losing concentration due to unconsciousness. So maybe -1% (1 attack in 100 which would be 1 encounter in 15 to 30, it's probably higher than this). This is an advantage that Tough has over +2 Con.
So overall, this might be 1.25% plus 1.5% (2.5% - 1%) = 2.75% or 1 attack in 36. For a spell caster that gets attacked a lot (like maybe a cleric at 6 times per encounter), that's 1 encounter in 6. For a spell caster that rarely gets attacked (like maybe a wizard at 3 max times per encounter), that's 1 encounter in 12.
So assuming that a spell caster has a concentration spell up at the beginning of every single encounter (which is a huge assumption), than +2 Con helps a non-spell caster about 1 encounter in 12, a non-melee spell caster about 1 encounter in 12, and a melee spell caster about 1 encounter in 6.
Tough helps out a PC about 1 encounter in 4 to 8.
Note: Instead of subtracting the unconsciousness from +2 Cons, one could add it to the Tough side. It just makes it easier to do it this way. The results are the same, Tough is generally superior to +2 Con.
Now, let's compare Tough to +4 Con (which is a much easier and fair comparison)
4: +4 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
5: +5 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
6: +6 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
7: +7 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
8: ASI vs.+2 to Con saves/checks
...
20: ASI vs.+2 to Con saves/checks
An entire ASI is obviously superior to +2 to Con saves/checks. If used for ability scores, it's +1 to some other saves/checks, maybe +1 to attack (and possibly damage), +1 to multiple skills, possibly +1 to AC, possibly more spells to use, or it can be used for a different feat.
For example of an ASI over +2 to Con saves/checks, let's compare Tough and Resilient to +4 Con
4: +4 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
5: +5 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
6: +6 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
7: +7 hit points vs.+1 to Con saves/checks
8: +1 Con plus +1 to Con saves vs.+2 to Con checks
9: +1 Con plus +2 to Con saves vs.+2 to Con checks
...
13: +1 Con plus +3 to Con saves vs.+2 to Con checks
...
17: +1 Con plus +4 to Con saves vs.+2 to Con checks
Nobody who knew the math would pay for +4 Con vs. Tough and another ASI. ASIs are just too rare.
And nobody who knew the math would pay for +4 Con vs. Tough and Resilient.
So more or less, Tough is better than +2 Con for most PCs and it and another ASI is better than +4 Con for any PC.
Yes, someone might find some weird corner cases where this is not true (e.g. some class gets some kind of extra bonus or ability for bumping Con), but it is generally true.
If Tough were not generally better than +2 Con, nobody would take it until their Con got to 20 (this of course is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum, but I'm throwing it out there anyway
).
Put another way, you claim that +2 to Con is balanced. I say that it isn't. It's much better to take a different ability score which does saves and skills and other game aspects (like AC and init, or like extra spells, or whatever), Tough if one wants hit points, or a different feat. +2 Con is relatively weak. It hardly helps non-spell casters and really only helps a little for melee spell casters that might get attacked a lot and who also might use a lot of concentration spells. The wizards in the back can jump back and forth into cover.
Feel free to post some math disproving this. I was trying to be very generous in my estimates and lean this towards +2 Con, but it just doesn't work.
PS. An archer who can jump back and forth into total cover (or at least half or 3/4ths cover) might not really want or need extra hit points if he almost never gets attacked. Disproving your other claim above.
