Psion
Adventurer
Re: who you are . . .
Pet peeve: case in point.
First off, you seem to agree that toughness is weak to begin with for a feat at first level; that is a general consensus. Further, you neglect to mention that these larger feats are strictly limited by base saving throw and (consequently) by class and level. Sure, toughness is a fair feat fora 1st level wizard, but not so good for (say) a 1st level barbarian and nigh worthless for a 20th level barbarian.
Classes that have good fort saves are typically classes with high HD types, and the fort save restriction limit these saves for higher level classes. Further, feats are supposed to have power commensurate with their prerequisites and the minimul level at which you can take them. Linking these feats to fortitude saves was a very elegant way to give characters a hp-booster feat appropriate to the class and level of the character that would take the feat.
You are right... it is getting absurd. Your example, that is. There is a big difference between feats that provide a fixed allotment of hp and feats that give you max HP (which would scale by level). The latter would not pass muster as a balance feat as it scales too readily with level, and thus is not comparable with the * toughness feats.
Before you were speaking of thematic appropriateness, now you seem to have skipped tracks to balance. This debate has been had many times too, and I am sure you can find examples of it here with a simple web search. Suffice it to say that if you really think the monk is unbalanced, not only is it very much like your assessement of the toughness feats in that you obviously don't fully perceive the intracacy of the situation, it sounds as if you have not seen monks in play too much.
Edit: for example see this thread, in which the author exclaims about how WEAK monks are. When some people say the monk is two weak, and others too strong, one might suspect that the true answer lies somewhere in between...
Had you not questioned my judgement, you would not have earned the retort that I gave. By exclaiming "have I even read" the books in question, I felt the need to demonstrate that not only had I read all of the splatbooks, but have done in depth analysis of their suitability for use in a game.
That's very nice, and I too started with basic D&D.
Practice what you preach, and I'll consider following suit.
Sanackranib said:
Pet peeve: case in point.
First off, you seem to agree that toughness is weak to begin with for a feat at first level; that is a general consensus. Further, you neglect to mention that these larger feats are strictly limited by base saving throw and (consequently) by class and level. Sure, toughness is a fair feat fora 1st level wizard, but not so good for (say) a 1st level barbarian and nigh worthless for a 20th level barbarian.
Classes that have good fort saves are typically classes with high HD types, and the fort save restriction limit these saves for higher level classes. Further, feats are supposed to have power commensurate with their prerequisites and the minimul level at which you can take them. Linking these feats to fortitude saves was a very elegant way to give characters a hp-booster feat appropriate to the class and level of the character that would take the feat.
You are right... it is getting absurd. Your example, that is. There is a big difference between feats that provide a fixed allotment of hp and feats that give you max HP (which would scale by level). The latter would not pass muster as a balance feat as it scales too readily with level, and thus is not comparable with the * toughness feats.
Before you were speaking of thematic appropriateness, now you seem to have skipped tracks to balance. This debate has been had many times too, and I am sure you can find examples of it here with a simple web search. Suffice it to say that if you really think the monk is unbalanced, not only is it very much like your assessement of the toughness feats in that you obviously don't fully perceive the intracacy of the situation, it sounds as if you have not seen monks in play too much.
Edit: for example see this thread, in which the author exclaims about how WEAK monks are. When some people say the monk is two weak, and others too strong, one might suspect that the true answer lies somewhere in between...
Had you not questioned my judgement, you would not have earned the retort that I gave. By exclaiming "have I even read" the books in question, I felt the need to demonstrate that not only had I read all of the splatbooks, but have done in depth analysis of their suitability for use in a game.
That's very nice, and I too started with basic D&D.
Practice what you preach, and I'll consider following suit.
Last edited:
