Various HD feats

[Scion]

Not sure what to call them..

Feat 1: Increase all of your hd by one step, if you already have a d12 then gain +1 hp per level instead (yes, in my campaign toughness gives 1hp/hd anyway, so this feat would replace the other hopefully in an interesting way).

Feat 2: Lower all of your hd by one step and gain two bonus feats that are good for anything the feat used to get this feat could be used for. Special, any bonus feat may be used to gain this feat.


At least they seem interesting to me not sure if I should put them up as an option for the campaign though. Both of them would effect all previous hd and all future hd, rerolling for each level if necissary, or just make it easy and reduce by 1/hd. They might even be alright taken more if able to be taken more than once, but with a max of once per some number of levels.

Thoughts?

 

[the Jester]

Feat 1: Increase all of your hd by one step, if you already have a d12 then gain +1 hp per level instead (yes, in my campaign toughness gives 1hp/hd anyway, so this feat would replace the other hopefully in an interesting way).

Feat 2: Lower all of your hd by one step and gain two bonus feats that are good for anything the feat used to get this feat could be used for. Special, any bonus feat may be used to gain this feat.

Both of 'em are overpowered, imo.

Feat 1 gives you, on average, 20 hp at 20th level. This is equivalent to the Epic feat (Epic Toughness?) that gives you 20 hp. If you're gonna replace Toughness with something, it shouldn't equal or exceed this, even if it takes 20 levels to do it.

Feat 2 lets you gain two feats for maybe giving up hit points, basically. And what if you have a rogue with crappy hp and he rolls better when he goes to d4?? Too much payoff for something that may not have a cost.

Also, changing a creature's HD is hard to justify in the context of the world, especially retroactively (and if it's not retroactive there's no point in changing the HD). How do you explain this? Feats also usually shouldn't have costs per se (the choice of which feat to take is the cost, really).

Sorry, I just don't like them. No offense intended.

 

[AeroDm]

Couple of problems with the second feat especially. What if they have d4? Do they drop to d3 and then gain 2 feats? Also, what if they take your toughness that grants +1 hp/hd? Going from d4 to d3+1 and another feat is quite beneficial. In fact, going from d6 to d4+1 and another feat is quite beneficial since d4+1 = d6 on average.

 

[Scion]

I'm not sure if you caught all of my post like I said, I already changed toughness to be +1hp/hd anyway (it actually reads +1hp/hd min of +3) so this feat actually doesnt do much more than allow me to through toughness out completely.

Feat 2 costs a feat and an average of 1hp/hd. That is a pretty heafty cost, but you gain 2 feats out of it with the same restrictions as the first. If someone took the feat with d6 hd and somehow managed to roll 'better' on the d4's than the d6's then I would have to congradulate them and feel happy that my feat was undoing their successive rolls of 1 After say 10HD, rolling better on d4's than d6's would be an increadible amount of bad luck the first time (d6) and good luck the second time (d4). I did mention below the feat that it might be easier simply to add or subtract 1 from each hd depending on the change though. (min of 1 as always, hd rolls should always be recorded in order)

Every feat has its own opportunity cost attatched, but most feats in the phb dont really have a cost. That is ok, just because it doesnt fit a mold already made doesnt make it bad. Just trying to make it fair to everyone involved.

What is the justification though? I am treating it something like this in my campaign (though it is mostly flavor text so wasnt in the feats description). You must take a month out and go into deep study with *insert groups name here* to study. Most of these groups use magical infusions to help you progress, while they make your ability increase they are also very taxing on your body causing one to be slightly less robust. (sorry, cant enter the groups name in case players come by, must make them do research ). I suppose I could add this flavor text on, but I feel that however the dm feels is appropriate to make it work in their campaign is what they should do. Justifications or lack thereof are up to individual dm's, not so much the feat.

 

[Scion]

Couple of problems with the second feat especially. What if they have d4? Do they drop to d3 and then gain 2 feats? Also, what if they take your toughness that grants +1 hp/hd? Going from d4 to d3+1 and another feat is quite beneficial. In fact, going from d6 to d4+1 and another feat is quite beneficial since d4+1 = d6 on average.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean aerodm. The first feat would replace toughness in my campaign so no harm done. I havent decided what to do about the d4 hd, was hopeing to get suggestions here. Going to d3 or d2 both sound all right, not sure which I would pick to actually use.

Even useing your example though what you say wouldnt make any sense.

I get a feat (say level 3), I spend this feat and lower my hd by one to gain two feats, I use one of these feats to gain the hd raiser. Now, my hd is exactly the same as before, and I have one feat. Effectively nothing has changed. So where is the problem? I started with one feat, gained no benefit, and now have one feat with the same restrictions as the initial feat. So that seems ok.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Not sure what to call them..

Feat 1: Increase all of your hd by one step, if you already have a d12 then gain +1 hp per level instead (yes, in my campaign toughness gives 1hp/hd anyway, so this feat would replace the other hopefully in an interesting way).

Feat 2: Lower all of your hd by one step and gain two bonus feats that are good for anything the feat used to get this feat could be used for. Special, any bonus feat may be used to gain this feat.

Thoughts?

Erm, why exactly wouldn't someone take Feat #2, then take Feat #1 and another feat?

Personally I don't believe that penalty-reward systems work very well, so I'm disinclined to like the second feat.

 

[AeroDm]

True, True.. I can't believe I didnt notice that.

A few other points though- I'd require these to be taken at 1st level. Having a 15th level fighter suddenly up his HD to d12 is pretty crazy, even moreso if you allow him to then reroll.

It has also been suggested on these boards that the +1 hp/hd versions of toughness are too powerful, so that is something to consider as well. Obviously your game may find this more or less balanced.

I would certainly use d3 over d2, although I find the entire thing undesireable. Dropping any class to d2 just doesn't seem very nice. Moreover, I know that if I had d2 HD I'd get as low a Con as possible. Minimum of 1 hp/level isn't much different than my max of 2 hp/level, and I am dead if I am touched no matter what. I really doubt that a bunch of wizards permanently on the cusp of death is what you wanted when designing these feats.

 

[Scion]

I would certainly use d3 over d2, although I find the entire thing undesireable. Dropping any class to d2 just doesn't seem very nice. Moreover, I know that if I had d2 HD I'd get as low a Con as possible. Minimum of 1 hp/level isn't much different than my max of 2 hp/level, and I am dead if I am touched no matter what. I really doubt that a bunch of wizards permanently on the cusp of death is what you wanted when designing these feats.

They know the drawbacks when/if they take the feat, so if that is ok with them then there must be a reason. More power outside of combat for less in is a decent restriction I would think (at least for the game I run). Versitility over power..mmm..

 

[Scion]

Erm, why exactly wouldn't someone take Feat #2, then take Feat #1 and another feat?

Personally I don't believe that penalty-reward systems work very well, so I'm disinclined to like the second feat.

Why wouldnt they? I'd have to ask why they would. I walked through it up above and am not sure how to say it more clearly I will try again though

Start with d6
Spend a feat to gain feat 2.
-Hd lowered to d4
-Gain two feats to spend (with the same restrictions as the first).
Take feat 1 with one of the feats.
-Hd up to d6 (same as initial).
Spend last feat on something else.

Or:
Have a feat. Spend on something other than feat 2.

There is effectively zero overall difference between the two methods.

 

[Beholder Bob]

Start with d6
Spend a feat to gain feat 2.
-Hd lowered to d4
-Gain two feats to spend (with the same restrictions as the first).
Take feat 1 with one of the feats.
-Hd up to d6 (same as initial).
Spend last feat on something else.
Or:
Have a feat. Spend on something other than feat 2.
There is effectively zero overall difference between the two methods.

Uh, I think you pointed out why he believes its balanced (if you try to 'trick the system' by buying both options, the total effect is nil). Gain 1 feat in exchange for 1 hp less per level. Done. You could do the same with class creation (make a variant fighter, lower the hd to add a 'few touches'), except the variant class is more open to abuse then getting 1 less hp per level no matter the class they take. You can't front load the hp penalty to gain a benefit, the penalty of 1 hp a level follows the PC for life. I would restrict this to being taken at 1st level only (no retro rolling of hp), or instead of rolling gaining 1 hp per prior lv (option 1) or -1 hp/lv (option 2), so luck has nothing to do with it. That should balance it out and prevent abuse. Final note: this shouldn't be a feat, but an option in character creation: spending a feat and gaining 2 feats is the same as saying -x hp for +1 feat, remove the redundant feat on either side of the equation.