D&D 5E Wizard with 20 CON and the Durable feat

[Ceylin]

How did the alpha word this feat? Was it something along the lines of you're guaranteed a minimum of your con modifier on each die ?

Did they change the wording to what we have now, which is equivalent and more ambiguous?

 

[Remathilis]

How did the alpha word this feat? Was it something along the lines of you're guaranteed a minimum of your con modifier on each die ?

Did they change the wording to what we have now, which is equivalent and more ambiguous?

When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the
minimum number of hit points you regain
from the roll equals your Constitution modifier.

 

[Tormyr]

When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the
minimum number of hit points you regain
from the roll equals your Constitution modifier.

If that is what the feat was in the alpha, then it definitely had to be changed as you now get your Hit Die plus your CON mod automatically. Looking at the alpha wording, I think they were going with "the minimum number of hit points you regain is double your CON mod" for this version. Too bad on the wording, which can totally be either that way or as a 10 on a 1d6. Since a 10 on a 1d6 does not really make sense, and they were trying for common sense interpretations, my guess is minimum regained is double CON mod.

 

[jgsugden]

Feat:

When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, thje minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier (minimum 2).

Basic Rule Set:

A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest, up to the character’s maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the character’s level. For each Hit Die spent in this way, [the player rolls the die and adds the character’s Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total.

The rule set establishes that you roll, and then add to get a total. To me, this clearly states that you get hp from the roll and from the modifier. Pending errata, I'd say that a wizard with a 20 Con and this feat would recover 15 hp (10 from the 'roll' plus 5 from con) exactly every time they spend a HD to heal at the end of a short rest. Yes, 10 is more than the potential result of the d6 roll, but there is nothing in the game that prohibits the value of a roll from exceeding the die face when there is a modifier such as this in place.

Further, given what a substantial investment this is in the abilities of the wizard, I see no problem in allowing it. The number of PCs with this type of investment in their HPs will be few and far between.... and their durability will be offset by their reduced offensive capability.

 

[Remathilis]

I will accept the 10 or 11 interpretations, but the 15 one is right out. Even if that is what Mearls wanted, I'm not "rolling" a 10 on a d6.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Dear WotC:

STOP using the words 'roll' & 'total' interchangeably. I've seen discussions drag on just this long for the very same point of confusion when trying to parse the minimum damage rule from 3.5.

NO! BAD DEVS! NO XP!

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't see how this is inconsistent. A "Roll" has always meant "the dice, plus the modifiers."

If they had just meant the die itself, they would have worded it like the Rogue thing.

 

[Mirtek]

Personally, I'd slowly back away. Anyone that can do that is some sort of wizard already.

I'd think that's the domain of either wild magic sorcerers or warlocks with a great old one as patron

 

[Plaguescarred]

FYI Here's Mike Mearls' interpretation of Durable when asked;

[MENTION=2465]jason[/MENTION]Brock20 There has been confusion over the durable feat and the meaning of "roll" does a 20 con wizard regain a min 10 or 15 hp w/ feat?
‏@mikemearls 10 - roll means die roll + mods. Anything that affects only the number yielded by the die will say so specifically.

 

[Ashkelon]

How did the alpha word this feat? Was it something along the lines of you're guaranteed a minimum of your con modifier on each die ?

Did they change the wording to what we have now, which is equivalent and more ambiguous?

The alpha version had the exact same wording it just set the minimum of the roll to Con mod instead of 2x Con mod.

If "roll" meant die roll + bonuses, then this feat would have done nothing in the alpha version. The designers may not be infallible, but I refuse to believe they could willingly create a feat that does absolutely nothing.