For example, you could take Heroes' Feast at level 1. Heroes' Feast I, would probably be a pretty limited buffing spell, maybe just a +1 bonus to Fear and Poison saves and 2 or 3 temporary hp. But it would be a nice little bonus that lasts all day.
Magic Missile I - 1d4+1/missile (max 5 missiles)
Magic Missile II - 1d6+1/missile (max 5 missiles)
Magic Missile III - 1d8+1/missile (max 7 missiles)
etc.
The point to something like this would be to ultimately allow a caster to cast any I-IX version of a spell they know; they could choose how they wanted to use their slots.
It would be a ton of work to try and develop balanced versions of every spell for every level, and it would probably eliminate the Heighten Metamagic feat as well as require careful examination for exploits. I guess it just makes more sense to me that a caster could use their spells this way.
Also, there's probably quite a few spells for which this idea makes no sense. Some things just don't scale. However, looking over the list of spells, I feel like I could think of a way to scale most of them.
Honestly, this seems like a pretty obvious idea and I would not be surprised if it's thoroughly been discussed before. Your thoughts are welcome.
I want to offer an alternative Robe of the Archmagi in the campaign I'm GMing. I would like a Robe that does not offer an Armor Bonus, SR, or Save bonus. The bonus to help overcome SR is fine and so is the alignment requirement, but I'm not married to either of them.
Basically, I'm looking for a Robe that is worth at least as much as this one, but does something different than just give a few defensive bonuses, but still fits well with the name. Any and all help/brainstorming/advice/suggestions welcome and appreciated.
This normal-appearing garment can be white (01–45 on d%, good alignment), gray (46–75, neither good nor evil alignment), or black (76–100, evil alignment). To most wearers, the robe offers no powers or has no effects unless the wearer's alignment doesn't match that of the robe (see below). Only an arcane spellcaster can fully realize this potent magic item's powers once the robe is donned. These powers are as follows.
* +5 armor bonus to AC.
* Spell resistance 18.
* +4 resistance bonus on all saving throws.
* +2 enhancement bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance.
As mentioned above, all robes of the archmagi are attuned to a specific alignment. If a white robe is donned by an evil character, she immediately gains three permanent negative levels. The same is true with respect to a black robe donned by a good character. An evil or good character who puts on a gray robe, or a neutral character who dons either a white or black robe, gains two permanent negative levels. While these negative levels remain as long as the garment is worn and cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells), they are immediately removed if the robe is removed.
They don't feel very random and their deadly if you step on one. I was thinking of ways to keep from having to roll them, if at all possible.
When I'm running a game, if the bad guy wields a Scythe or Spiked Chain, I usually just roll a d8. I'm giving up a half a point of damage, on average, but that's okay. Then I thought, I've seen blank dice before, maybe I could make my own statistically accurate dice and never roll a d4 again.
2d4: Number a d8 with 2-3-4-5-5-6-7-8
Has the same Range as 2d4 and the same Mean and Mode. It flattens the probability curve a little, but I think that's a good thing.
3d4: Number a d12 with 3-4-5-6-7-7-8-8-9-10-11-12
Again, same Range, Mean and Mode, just a flatter probability.
5d4: Number a blank d20 with 5-6-7-8-9-10-11-11-12-12-13-13-14-14-15-16-17-18-19-20
Skews the Mode, but the Range and Mean are the same.
The government writes a check to every adult citizen every month for over $200 each. More if they have children. More children = more money.
I'm not commenting on whether it's a good plan, or a bad plan. I'm just surprised.
I know several people, personally, who would like to see the FairTax proposal made into law, and all of them are very conservative and furthermore believe that Obama is a socialist (and they believe that is a bad thing.)
I'm just wondering if the vast majority of people who like the FairTax Proposal know that it redistributes the wealth and are cool with that. I'm not trying to start anything; I'm just genuinely curious about that.
In the interest of full-disclosure: I'm very liberal, almost socialist, on the social liberal/conservative axis. Pretty libertarian on the libertarian/statism axis. I would describe myself as somewhat fiscally conservative.
I've found spells for protecting from Negative Levels, Poison, Disease, etc. but so far I have not found and have not heard of one that stops ability damage and drain.
I've been letting my players have 1 full round after falling past negative Con in which to still use a Cure spell to get them at least above the point of death. In any case, because they died, all their buffs are gone after being revived in this fashion.
I'm considering, instead, to allow them to make a Caster Level check with a DC that increases for each round past death. Also, maybe allowing a Heal check with a similarly increasing DC to return them to 1 hp better than negative Con, and stable. This allows more time to revive a fallen ally, but the DC would soon become so high it would take an Epic caster or heal check to revive them.
It seems cinematically appropriate as there are often situations where a hero dies, but his or her friends just keep trying to bring him back.
I guess my questions are:
1) What do you think? Balanced? Too nice? Obsoletes important game rules?
2) How should I set the DC? Equal to current (negative) hitpoints? Maybe a flat starting DC, independent of their hitpoints? Something else?
I plan to offer my players an alternative to the existing magic item system in the next campaign.
I'm basing this off a few facts, opinions and other people's ideas:
Why and how and I'm doing this:
-There is a similar system to what I propose: Innate Magic
-About 75% of the loot handed out in an adventure path is in the form of what I call "+" gear. Sometimes called Big Six gear, it's all the stuff your character has to have to maintain the power curve. [AC, Attack, Ability Enhancement, and Saves.]
-The difficulty of an encounter geared towards the assumption that PCs spend 75% of their wealth on such "+" gear.
-It seems as though most people feel they are required to spend all of their character wealth on these items to stay above the power curve.
-Most people think that being required to buy gear is Not Fun, and I tend to agree.
-If these bonuses are necessary to maintain the power curve, then why not make it part of the Level-Up process rather than tieing power to wealth in this fashion.
-If the bonuses received from loot are instead earned during Level-Up, then it really doesn't matter how much or how little the PCs receive in treasure, their power is tied much more closely to level rather than treasure.
I plan to completely eliminate all Big Six Items, both as treasure and as purchasable items. This will reduce looting quite a bit, but I believe will help to thoroughly lock PC power to their level.
This table has been calculated from the Character Wealth Table on p. 399 of the PRPG. It is simply 75% of the wealth from each level, divided by 1000 and rounded to the nearest whole number.
Primary Melee Weapon: [+1/2] [+2/8] [+3/18] [+4/32] [+5/50] [*+6/72] [*+7/98] [*+8/128] [*+9/162] [*+10/200]
This enhancement bonus applies to any Masterwork melee weapon wielded in the character's primary hand or two-handed. PC may not have a bonus to attack and damage beyond +5, except as added special abilities.
Secondary Melee Weapon: Same bonuses, costs and limitations as Primary, but applies to Masterwork weapon held in the off hand.
Ranged Weapon: Same bonuses, costs and limitations as Primary, but applies to Masterwork ranged weapons.
Armor: [+1/1] [+2/4] [+3/9] [+4/16] [+5/25] [*+6/36] [*+7/49] [*+8/64] [*+9/81] [*+10/100]
Provides an enhancement bonus to any Masterwork Armor worn by the PC. The PC may only have a total bonus of +5, with the rest applying as special abilities.
Shield: Identical bonuses and costs as the armor enhancement, but applies to any masterwork shield worn by the PC.
Unarmored Armor Bonus: [+1/1] [+2/4] [+3/9] [+4/16] [+5/25] [+6/36] [+7/49] [+8/64]
This mimics Bracers of Armor and does not require the character to wear armor. Like that item, the character only takes the better of their existing armor or this bonus.
Natural Armor Bonus: [+1/2] [+2/8] [+3/18] [+4/32] [+5/50]
As an Amulet of Natural Armor.
Deflection AC Bonus: [+1/2] [+2/8] [+3/18] [+4/32] [+5/50]
As a Ring of Protection
Ability Scores: [+1/1] [+2/4] [+3/9] [+4/16] [+5/25] [+6/36]
The costs and bonuses must be paid for and applied to each ability score separately (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom & Charisma.) Unlike the standard magic items, this system allows PCs to purchase odd bonuses.
The Final Fantasy XIII thread and everyone discussing which were their favorites of the series left me wondering what elements keep people coming back.
-What would a Final Fantasy game have to be like to make you say, "Wow, this one is even better than my favorite!"
-What common elements do you like to see in a Final Fantasy game?
-What common elements do you think are a bad idea?
-Are there certain themes or elements without which the game does not feel like a "real" Final Fantasy game?
Since 3rd edition began, I've always been a little confused about the continued necessity of using percentages in D&D. I'd find it less confusing if there were sometimes unusual percentage amounts like 37%. I suppose that sort of thing still happens on the treasure tables and random dungeon tables, but everything in combat uses percentages that are multiples of 5. This could just as easily be modeled with a d20. Call it a luck roll.
Attacking an invisible creature? Make a DC 11 Luck roll (50% miss chance.)
Shooting arrows at opponents in shadowy illumination? Make a DC 5 Luck roll (20% miss chance).
It would make dice rolling more streamlined than d100s and possibly more accessible to new players. Old players can change or keep using the old mechanic, their choice.
I've seen a lot of discussion on players being all but required to stick to the Big Six magic items at high levels of play, unable to branch out into the more exotic array of items out there. In my experience, this has always been the case.
In case you don't know what I mean by Big Six:
Magic Weapons, Magic Armor, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, Stat-boost items, Bracers of Armor
Virtually all magic items looted that are not one of the Big Six, are immediately sold to fund the improvement or purchase of Big Six items. Lots of suggestions have been proffered, but the necessity is built right into the game.
I talked it over with my players and we've all agreed to try the following THREE house-rules in an effort to un-trivialize other magic items. I'll try and keep this brief so I don't lose people to boredom half-way through.
The following rules only apply to the Big Six, plus the Amulet of Mighty Fists, which is really just like a Weapon.
Rule 1: Static Cost vs. Power
There are no more +1 or +2 items, there are just magic items. Furthermore, the value is locked at the most basic version of each of the above items. For example, there are no +1 Longswords, there are only Magic Longswords. A Magic Longsword is worth 2315 gold, never more. The character using the item does get a plus to attack and damage, but it depends. This sounds weird, I know, but please read on.
Rule 2: Power is tied to Level
As a character's level increases, so do the powers of his Big Six items. If a 3rd level character wields a Magic Longsword, he'd get +1 to attack and damage. If he keeps using the same sword all the way to 20th, it would be a +5 to attack and damage.
Basically, there is a table for each of the Big Six items, giving a plus based on the character's level. I could list the tables I've worked up so far, but I figure most people might prefer to write their own. Essentially, the "plus" is loosely tied to what level Wizard would be required to create an item of that "plus" under the old rules, then modified as necessary.
Rule 3: Modularity
Each item above is modular in some fashion. This is the most complicated part to explain. All those weapon and armor abilities that are worth a "+1" or "+2", etc. are instead treated sort of like Augment Crystals. They don't have to be crystals, but the idea remains the same. A +1 ability like Flaming costs 6000 gold and is purchased separately from the weapon. If you loot a Flaming Dagger. You can remove the Flaming portion, add it to your weapon, then sell the magic dagger. You can add a total of 5 "plusses" worth of abilities to your weapon, or possibly you may want to rule that you can only add a number of "plusses" equal to your current weapon bonus. Armor works similarly to Weapons.
Rings of Protection can be stuck onto other rings. They are the one exception to the rule that says "Only 2 rings per character." Like weapons and armor, the bonus changes depending on character level.
Amulets of Natural Armor become Chains of Natural Armor. You can remove the amulet from it's chain and hang it onto this chain, instead.
The Cloak of Resistance becomes a Clasp of Resistance, any cloak can be held on with this clasp so you can have your Save bonuses and wear your Cloak of Arachnia, too.
Stat-boost items and Amulets of Mighty Fists are probably not modular except where the mix with other modular items. For example, you could hang either a Periapt of Wisdom OR your Amulet of Mighty Fists from your Chain of Natural Armor.
Similar to the Ring of Protection, the Armor Bonus could be enchanted onto other bracers, or added like an Augment crystal. Like the others, the bonus changes by level.
So what is this supposed to accomplish?
First of all, these rules remove the necessity to constantly pour resources into upgrading items. There is only so much upgrading you can do and it's less expensive than before. A character could acquire a set of Big Six items in the early levels, then possibly never bother to acquire anything else and still be able to keep up with rising Challenge Ratings.
Also, the modular nature of these items allow the players to actually use the items they come across, rather than sell them off because they don't want to give up bonuses to wear them.
Won't this just escalate power creep?
Only if the DM wants it too. Item power levels are tied to character level. The DM controls that table. It doesn't matter how much money or stuff the PC has, items can't have their bonuses upgraded any further. Things like AC bonuses can be directly controlled in a very fair way.
Won't this dramatically increase the amount of treasure the PCs have?
Not necessarily. Treasure is more useful and the PCs do spend less of it on upgrades. However, at the same time, items are worth less. If some villain is carrying a +5 Dagger, though that used to be worth 50302 gold, if the PCs loot it under these rules, it's only a Magic Dagger worth 2302 gold.
I'm running an AP and it calls for a monster with a +4 Vorpal Halberd. What's that mean in terms of all these rules?
Have the monster wield it like it's a +4 Vorpal Halberd. When the PCs loot it, it's just a Magic Halberd with a Vorpal Augment. That Vorpal Augment can be removed and added to one of their weapons (so long as they don't have any other abilities on the weapon, Vorpal is a +5), or sold (it's worth 70000 gold), then if no one wants a magic Halberd, they can sell it for whatever they can get for one. It's worth 2310 gold, regardless of the fact that it was +4 in the monster's claws.
I wrote way more than I thought I would. I'd like to hear thoughts on this, though it's probably too radical a change for most people.
Disclaimer: I'm posting this as a house-rule suggestion. It's probably too radical to consider as a genuine suggestion for Pathfinder RPG.
While at a game shop on Free RPG day, I got into a friendly debate about Paizo. Long story short, the shop owner is angry with Paizo for making Pathfinder RPG, though I was not able to suss out exactly why. He contends that Paizo is only making it because they are mad at WotC for various reasons ranging from the magazines to Star Wars. I pointed out that if people at Paizo are angry with WotC for anything, they're being pretty professional about it: advertising 4e in their newsletters, not trashing it in their message boards, etc. He's telling me all this after I have told him that I'm a Paizo fanboy and I'm holding the Paizo freebie in my hand. He went on to complain that a lot of publishers are going to start publishing under PRPG rules because of the new GSL as though this were somehow Paizo's fault.
Needless to say, this confuses me to no end. Okay, so there will be a product that competes with 4e a little. It should all just be sales to him. Why should he really care if someone buys PRPG or 4e core books. Heck, a lot of people will buy both, which just means more money for him.
I've seen a lot of comments on the boards here about run-ins, friendly or otherwise, with angry shopkeepers trashing Paizo. Can anyone explain this to me?
Is it safe to assume that treasure is sufficiently listed in the adventures such that it is not necessary to add treasure unless you add encounters?
More specifically, every time the adventure lists a monster that normally carries treasure, should I be adding some kind of reward for that encounter?
For example, regular ogres are CR 3 encounters and their Treasure entry in the Monster Manual lists "Standard". There are a lot of regular ogres in Hook Mountain Massacre, but all the adventure says is "Ogre, MM 199". Maybe that standard treasure is figured in somewhere else, or maybe not.
I'm probably over explaining, but I'd like to be clear with my question.
One thing I like about shopping on Amazon is that I can add things I like to my Wishlist. I'm not an impulse buyer, I like to think about things for awhile before I purchase them. Consequently, I think I actually buy a lot less from the store here than I would were there a wishlist feature. I forget about products that intrigued me so much before. Also, I don't buy things here and there, I wait a couple of months and buy a bunch of things at once to save on shipping.
If there were a wishlist feature or some kind of "Save your cart" feature on your store, I think it might really increase your sales, or at least it would increase sales to me. :)
In 3.5, Wizards can leave spell slots open in the morning when memorizing their spells so that they can add spells later as needed.
Can they still do this in Pathfinder?
If so, because Wizards can use Cantrips in an unlimited fashion, can they drop one to memorize another, later in the day?
My guess is no, unless they leave a slot open, but the unlimited usage makes me unsure. I figure a player will ask me this question at some point and I want to be sure.
Is anyone around here working on a Pathfinder-specific Heroforge build?
I've been studying Excel quite a bit over the last couple of months and have learned quite a bit, though I'm not to the level necessary to attempt to build one myself (or maybe a really crude one). I'm wondering if anyone else has the necessary knowledge and is already working on it, or planning to start soon. If so, I'd be happy to help out. I'd be happy to do most of the grunt work like data-entry. I've got some time (I'm a teacher and Summer break is almost here.)
Please return to the flat +4 Cover modifier. While I admit the varying cover seems logical, it's unnecessary. Here's why:
While minis on the table look so stationary, they're supposed to represent a lot of fluid combat motion. If someone is participating in combat at all, they have to come out of cover a certain amount to do so. Any difference in how much cover they have (so long as it's less than total) doesn't really matter. They're moving around and anyone attempting to attack them is assumed to be waiting for the most opportune moment to do so.
3.0 used variable cover rules. Ultimately they decided to go to flat cover in 3.5 for the reason listed above. It's simple and elegant, easy to remember, and really makes the most sense.
The following passage is in the description of the Dwarven Race from version 2 of the Pathfinder Alpha:
"Greed: Dwarves treat Appraise as a class skill when
attempting to determine the price of nonmagical goods
that contain precious metals and gemstones."
With the current rules for Skills, a class skill is basically the same as a non-class skill, except you get a +3 if you have ranks. Does this mean that a Dwarf gets a +3 bonus to Appraise checks in the situation listed above, even if it's not a regular class skill?
The wording is a little vague. As a DM, I'd probably rule that Dwarves get a situational +3 to appraise checks, but the wording could probably be a little clearer.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
I have the Pathfinder Modules subscription and I really enjoy being able to browse the PDF as soon as each one ships. I've started working on ordering back editions of the Gamemastery Modules, but I don't get the PDFs when they ship. I recently ordered several modules and they arrived a few days ago, but still no PDFs. Is this a mistake, or do we only get free PDFs when we receive the items through subscription?
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Most of the things I'm about to say have been said many times on this message board, but now that the initial flurry of Alpha release posts has died down a little, I'd like to take a moment to "cast my vote" so to speak.
I'm pretty much committed to Pathfinder, so regardless of how it turns out, I'll still be buying a copy. I'd just like to write out my wishlist for the project for whatever that is worth. Thanks for reading.
Let me start by saying that I loved the changes. Every one of them. But I'm the kind of person who loves change for no other reason than to have change. I'm realistic enough to know that most people don't feel that way and, in fact, most people hate change. Therefore, I grudgingly vote to have as few changes as possible to maximize backward compatability.
Races - pp. 4-7
As much as I love them, I vote to scale back the changes to the races. Many seem to feel the half-elf is underpowered compared to the rest of the races, and I see what they are saying, but in the games I run, half-elf is the most popular PC choice for race for some reason. If most people really think it's necessary to give the half-elves a boost, then fine, but I'd prefer the races get scaled back to PHB 3.5.
I would, however, like to see some additional Pathfinder-influenced races added. PHB gnomes should probably originate from some other continent, but Varisian gnomes should have more fey-like abilities, like maybe a +2 to Charisma instead of Con and other, different flavor abilities.
I'd like to see some kind of Shifter-like race (a la Eberron) that originates primarily from the Lycanthrope town of Nybor.
I'd like to see some kind of Warforged-like race, recently discovered in a comatose state in ancient (Sloth) Thassilonian ruins.
I'd especially like to see an LA+0 Planetouched race or races. Devil-blooded people might originate from "Devil-haunted Cheliax" while Genie-blooded people might originate from Qadir. I've seen plenty of opportunity for other types as well. Nualia was an aasimar. There seems to be mention of Rakshasa crossbreed in Korvosa, so there are plenty of possibilities.
In all, I like the changes too much to throw them away, but I think it would be better to leave the races mostly unchanged, but include an Appendix at the back of the book or chapter titled something like "Option: More Powerful Races" with all of these changes in them.
Classes - pp. 8-19
Again, beautiful work here, excellent ideas. But also again, I'd like the classes left mostly alone, maybe with a few things added to fill out the "Dead Levels." Maybe give the Fighter just a little extra attention more than the others. Then throw in an appendix "Option: More Powerful Classes."
I would like to see additional Pathfinder-themed Base Classes. Really, the more the better. Not really a fan of Prestige classes. In fact, I kind of hate them, but a few carefully chosen ones may not be inappropriate.
Skills - pp. 20-31
The combining, adding and subtracting of skills that's been done seems fine to me. I don't see any reason to backtrack on that one. I don't see a reason for the fly skill, but then I don't think I know the full story on that one. However, I feel very strongly that the skill point assigning method of the PHB 3.5 is really the way to go here, but please include the skill assigning rules listed in the Alpha documents as an optional rule.
Feats - pp. 31-39
I haven't studied the feats enough to form an educated opinion on them one way or another. But I know I really like some of the new ones!
Combat - pp. 40-45
Many of the combat rules certainly needed some work and there's some good ideas here. The only one at this point that I wish was scaled back is the Cover rules. I don't really like variable cover rules and thought it was a good change when they got rid of them in the move from 3.0 to 3.5. If you are engaging in any kind of combat, you have to come out from behind cover to a certain extant to participate, so regardless of amount of cover, you just get a +4. The only exception to this is something like an Archer's slit. Okay sure, that should probably provide more cover, but I've always ruled that they still just get +4, but you can't really see them, so attacking them gets a %50 miss chance for full concealment and that pretty much balances out to a more realistic chance of missing an archer behind a slit.
Spells - pp. 46-59
Some of this falls under the purview of changes to Class. It pains me to say, but the domain and specialist powers may need to be relegated to optional rules, as much as I love them. I've heard several convincing arguments that spellcasters were nerfed in the change from 2nd to 3rd edition, so, I don't know, maybe keep them, but only after long and careful consideration of who might be alienated by such drastic changes to the class.
The Spells themselves certainly need fixing. I don't feel I've given sufficient time and study to what you've done here to say for sure that the changes are appropriate, but my initial impression is very good.
Conclusion:
I'm pretty much married to Pathfinder at this point, so almost no matter what's been decided, I'll come along like a good fanboy. I would love to see lots of new content added. However, I hope that great restraint is exercised when determing to change something to protect backward compatability as much as possible. Thanks for making a product that gives my passion for the hobby a renewed vigor.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
I just finished running the Skinsaw Murders for four players. I really loved it, but I have a few thoughts for DMs who have not yet finished it. I particularly want to share things that I wished that I had done.
I wish that I had made Aldern A LOT tougher. There's a massive amount of fun build-up to meeting him again as a ghoul and it was a real let down to my players when they killed him in 2 rounds. If I did it over again, I might add levels or give him potions to drink that would have extended his staying power so that he could have lived up to expectations.
There's some cool mechanics for fighting at the bottom of the Seven's Sawmill that my players missed entirely because they decided to enter the mill at the 2nd floor and work their way up. I think if I did it over, I'd redraw the map so that they would have had to go through every level. Also, I think I would have made the Cultists tougher. The party's fighter was killing two per round whenever they stood next to each other. If I could have gotten them into position, they might have gotten a few flanking sneak attacks in, but they just killed them too quick. Another level or two of Rogue might have been in order.
Xanesha was just way, WAY too hard. If I did it over, I'd either make her easier by changing her spell selection so that she had less buffs at her disposal and maybe more spells having to do with seduction. Or I would have given broad, obvious hints at just how tough she was going to be and what sort of tactics she would be using if she has time to prepare. It was a near TPK the firt time the PC's attempted to fight her (one PC death with the rest fleeing badly wounded.) They defeated her the next time with only limited trouble because of massive preparation that included lots of buffs, plus the use of the Silence spell and Invisibility potions to get them to her chamber without alerting her so that she would not have time to prepare.
I might have changed the way treasure is distributed throughout the adventure. There actually is enough treasure in the adventure, but the PC's don't get the better part of it until the end IF they kill Xanesha and get her stuff, plus the 6000 gold each from the lord-mayor. I think I would have spread that out a little more so the PC's would not have been a little bit poor when they went to meet the massively difficult final boss.
Thanks for reading, anything you wished you had done differently?
I like the changes to the hit die (attaching it on attack bonus.) That makes more sense to me. One suggestion I might make is to change the barbarian's hit die to a d10 like everyone else with the full attack bonus, but give them Improved Toughness as a bonus feat at first level. Statistically speaking, their hit points should be nearly identical over time, but maintains internal consistency with the system. Also, Improved Toughness fits the flavor of the barbarian nicely.
