Does this feat(from both Complete Warrior and Libris Mortis) give you bonus hit points equal to your current hit die? Example: A 1st level barbarian gains 12 hit points.
Or does it give bonus hit points equal to your current hit dice? Example: A 1st level barbarian gains 1 hit point.
This one doesn't seem very clear to me. If it's the former then it's really great for a 1st level barbarian. If it's the latter, then it's not so improved until you get up into higher levels, and even then it's not that much better than regular toughness.
M@
1 per hit dice.
I've always been very fond of this feat and find it WAY better than normal tougness. Very useful for a rouge or bard that finds it's way into combat a lot.
|
Does this feat(from both Complete Warrior and Libris Mortis) give you bonus hit points equal to your current hit die? Example: A 1st level barbarian gains 12 hit points.
Or does it give bonus hit points equal to your current hit dice? Example: A 1st level barbarian gains 1 hit point.
This one doesn't seem very clear to me. If it's the former then it's really great for a 1st level barbarian. If it's the latter, then it's not so improved until you get up into higher levels, and even then it's not that much better than regular toughness.
M@
It isn't very clear. It should have said "number of hit dice". The further explanation makes it a little more clear -- "Each time you gain a hit die, you gain 1 additional hit point."
Granted it isn't great, but it is at least as good as toughness at third level and the only prerequisite is Fortitude save +2 -- meaning all fighter types and clerics can get it at first level.
Hope that this helps.
Bill
On my first read I interpreted it to be the first way, but after a reread and some thought I realized it was probably intended to be the second way. Bummer.
Where are Dragon's/Giant's/Dwarf's Toughness when you need them?
M@
"Improved Toughness" is a feat whose utility depends entirely on when you expect to play your character.
In a game that will only go from levels 1-3? Take regular Toughness for the flat +3.
In a game where everybody's 15th level? Improved Toughness all the way, baby!
I think, if I had been designing the feat, I would have made "Toughness" a prerequisite, since Improved Toughness is so much better later on ... on the other hand, the way it stands the two feats stack, so YMMV.
-The Gneech
|
*nods* I have generally taken any creature with a single "toughness" feat and investigated whether it could use Improved Toughness instead. Aside from Toughnesss's limited superiority at low levels, it can also be taken multiple times, while Improved Toughness is a one-shot deal. Given that some of the larger dinosaurs and dire creatures take Toughness multiple times, I can understand why Improved Toughness was restricted.
But, I agree with you James that the feats should be rolled into the improved version, we would just have to come up with alternative feats for the beasties. :)
Side Note: Given the highly disputed nature of the half-orc's power in a camapign that uses non-Core creatures, I've included Toughness as a bonus feat to the race. The subpar nature of the feat has proven to avoid balance issues, and the extra three hit points balance the half-orc against the dwarf nicely.
|
|
*smiles* Thanks for the compliment, I've also toyed with a +2 racial modifier on Intimidate as well, which benefits the "Intimidator" PrC from Races of Destiny (Brute Enforcer?).
While the dwarves have often served to sway me away from half-orcs (and, of course, warforged do even more so in Eberron), it was the factor that an orc PC would net an additional +2 Strength for -2 to Wisdom, a mental score, which really does not balance out in my mind. Even with the light sensitivity of full-blood orcs (defeated by feats and low-cost items alike), half-orcs seemed the red-headed stepchild, as you agreed.
I won't pretend to imagine how human blood would toughen a half-orc and make him more imposing, and this facter has kept me from issuing orc double-axes as martial weaponry, but I'm hoping we will one day see a return to the half-orc being a viable option.
Side Note: Given the highly disputed nature of the half-orc's power in a camapign that uses non-Core creatures, I've included Toughness as a bonus feat to the race. The subpar nature of the feat has proven to avoid balance issues, and the extra three hit points balance the half-orc against the dwarf nicely.
How about just giving them +2 Con instead? I always kinda thought they should have that anyway, since they're generally depicted as being big brawny brutes. (Re: some stats being more equal than others, I'd say that the hit to skill points makes +2 Str for -2 Int a pretty even trade ... so the -2 Cha is just stickin' it to the poor half-orc.)
-The Gneech
I wonder how many people searching for the perfect makeup end up on Paizo? Or WotC, for that matter?
TK
/offtopic
Strength is better for fighters than an extra skill point is for a non-fighter. Strength, if you'll recall, adds to both attack and damage. If you play a wizard then the Int penalty and Strength penalty balance out on their own, but wizards don't really need Charisma.
Are half-orcs really that bad?
Are half-orcs really that bad?
I would never play one. Same goes for almost everyone I've played with. I'd rather play an Elven Barbarian than a Half-Orc Fighter. The bonuses to Listen and Spot can go a long way to increase survivability, and the con penalty is (in my mind) made up for by the dex increase. Strength is great and all, but really the only thing it's good for is combat and carrying capacity. You get out of combat and into town and a half-orc is just an ugly pack animal with a bad temper. :P
Hmmm... doesn't sound too bad.