I have a quicker way to say what you're trying to say: while it makes you tougher than you were, but it doesn't make you tough. Like platform shoes make Tom Cruise taller, but they still don't make him tall.
Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?
- Thread starter Tequila Sunrise
- Start date
I have a quicker way to say what you're trying to say: while it makes you tougher than you were, but it doesn't make you tough. Like platform shoes make Tom Cruise taller, but they still don't make him tall.
Could the feat have been mechanically better or better named? Sure.
As to the Tom Cruise analogy, it isn't like the Feat is called "Toughest"- like height, toughness is all relative. If there were a Feat that called "Smarts" and gave you +2Int, it would be the same issue: it improves the PC in that aspect, but it doesn't necessarily make him a genius.
Or consider a black belt in martial arts. That denotes a certain level of training within the form. But not all black belts are equal, and it doesn't mean you're a badass street-fighter. One can earn a black belt and still be weak, slow, and fragile.
As far as it being a good choice, yes, if it fits the PC narrative. If you're designing a PC and looking for some extra HP- for whatever reason- and can't afford to boost your Con score, Toughness is the perfect choice.
But why don't we end this tangent in this thread and get back to WotC vs Paizo. Maybe we can discuss it in its own 30 page thread.
Last edited:
Doubled
It seems to me you are conflating two separate issues. Does it make the character tougher? Sure. It gives him more hp, so he is tougher. Power Attack is a popular feat, but it won't make my 8 STR Wizard a melee monster - like it says on the tin - will it?
Does it add enough toughness when compared to other options for using that feat? Well, I can't think of a lot of other feats that give me more hp, so what am I comparing to? Really, I'm questioning whether my "tough" concept character is mechanically competitive against a character with a different concept. Is 3 hp enough? Not for me - I see lots of other things I could do with a feat. But if my character is on the ground with -8 hp instead of -11, that sure seems significant!
I note that Paizo took the feat and said "not tough enough - how do we make it a viable choice?". Their solution - you get +1 hp per level, with a minimum of +3. Is that enough? Well, I still don't take it, but it's half the benefits of a +2 CON, and the greater half in my view. Did 4e make a better approach for my character to be tougher? Does 5e propose one?? How many extra hp before it's "must have", passing "viable choice"?
Hussar
Legend
Thank you. That's what I was trying to say.
You say "fits the PC narrative", then talk about "lookinf for extra HP", which is a mechanical rather than a narrative conception of the PC.
Once you are thinking of your PC in mechanical terms than, provided that you're capable of doing the mechanical calculations, you will not encounter "trap choices" - because you'll know what mechanical benefits you're receiving, and will choose on that basis.
I think the idea of "trap choices" has more application to players who are thinking of their PC in narrative terms (eg what they want their PC to be like, or to be able to achieve, within the fiction of the game) and who get misled by the failure of mechanics to live up to their superficial narrative promise.
Begone, double post!
This will be my last comment on this in this thread:
In an RPG, they are intertwined. If you say you want your PC to be tough(er), you have to do that with the tools he RP gives you, its rules & mechanics. In 3.X, making a tough(er) PC can only be done in certain ways, one of which is by increasing HP. The Toughness Feat does this.
If the other ways of making a PC tough(er) in 3.X are at odds with your PC concept- wrong class, cant improve the PC's Con further, he's not resistant to energy types, etc.- then Toughness may be the only way to go.
"Trap choices" is not a meaningful term in the context of modeling the PC concept without concern for mechanical optimization.* When your goal is modeling the PC concept first, then tweaking, then there are no "trap choices."
* this is my personal PC design style.
In an RPG, they are intertwined. If you say you want your PC to be tough(er), you have to do that with the tools he RP gives you, its rules & mechanics. In 3.X, making a tough(er) PC can only be done in certain ways, one of which is by increasing HP. The Toughness Feat does this.
If the other ways of making a PC tough(er) in 3.X are at odds with your PC concept- wrong class, cant improve the PC's Con further, he's not resistant to energy types, etc.- then Toughness may be the only way to go.
"Trap choices" is not a meaningful term in the context of modeling the PC concept without concern for mechanical optimization.* When your goal is modeling the PC concept first, then tweaking, then there are no "trap choices."
* this is my personal PC design style.
The PC build rules are pretty much how people make NPCs for Runequest. Take a race, add a background, add a prior career, add any other relevant factors like cult abilities, then use a few free points to customise. The race gives stats and certain things unique (and ubiquitous) to that race, such as troll darksense; the background covers things common to people from a particular place such as languages and cultural knowledge; and the career covers what you're trained to do. So if you want a wyvern who is a priest of the Sun Dragon, take a wyvern, add the priest career, stick the cult magic in there, and you're mostly done.
That most people usually prefer to simply eyeball it rather than go through the whole process is one reason why I've never been convinced by the concept. But it's how RQ works, and has for a long time.
Similar Threads
