No, it cannot.
However remember that you can take an extra HP per level for your favored class. If you are human, there's even a feat to let you take both a HP and a skill point.
As the subject, can Toughness be taken multiple times to gain even more HPs?
The feat "Toughness" does not list anything specific within the description that says you can choose the feat multiple times for increased health, meaning that you cannot select the feat multiple times. Weapon Focus/Specialization is a prime example of a feat you can select multiple times; however, it only applies to one group/set/type of weapons each time you select it, and you cannot select the group/set/type you chose previously again until you get the Improved/Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization feats.
If you are looking for extra health, getting a Con belt/item isn't a bad solution, as well as selecting the extra hit point per level for favored class. Another solution is looking into methods for Damage Reduction to savor what little HP you have left; one of the most common is finding Adamantine armor. Costly, but every little bit helps.
I believe the Toughness feat also grants you an additional hit point per level. Hope that helps! :)
As the subject, can Toughness be taken multiple times to gain even more HPs?
Back in D&D 3.x, when Toughness granted a flat +3 hp, you could take it as many times as you wanted.....each time wasting a feat. Some splat books introduced an Improved Toughness feat that granted +1hp per level. Pathfinder just updated it to that, so it is (barely) worth a feat. So, now you can't take multiples.
Back in D&D 3.x, when Toughness granted a flat +3 hp, you could take it as many times as you wanted.....each time wasting a feat. Some splat books introduced an Improved Toughness feat that granted +1hp per level. Pathfinder just updated it to that, so it is (barely) worth a feat. So, now you can't take multiples.As the subject, can Toughness be taken multiple times to gain even more HPs?
Honestly, the Toughness feat isn't that worth it in my opinion, and I agree.
As a Character Trait, though? It would definitely be a nice addition to the traits you can select.
For our houseruling, we use a "Special Points" system. Every time we would perform unique, strategic maneuvers within combat or devise strategies to defeat foes, the character(s) would gain a "Special", and when they obtain 10 Special Points, they can 'cash in' their Specials for a Character Trait.
A Toughness feat (which honestly, seems like half a feat, since it doesn't grant the entire bonus of a +2 Con, like it) should might as well be considered a Character Trait instead of a feat due to its lack of benefits. If it gave +1 Fortitude saves, it'd be worth the feat...
Toughness is a great feat because you can never have enough hit points.
I sometimes wonder where do people get their ideas on the usefulness of feats?
Toughness, though thematically would seem something martial classes would have, are really more appealing to squishy folk with a d6 hit die.
It's no more useless than weapon focus, spell focus, or eschew materials.
It's no more useless than weapon focus, spell focus, or eschew materials.
I have to disagree with you. +1 hp per level isn't useless, but an extra plus to hit if you're the weapon specialist type is always nice (lose one of those negs from power attack or dual wield shortswords and lose half of your negative) and +1 to a DC is incredibly handy (of course you have to specialize to get the most out of it but if you're going to anyway...). Eschew Materials is closer to Toughness is usefulness because in my experience most DMs assume you'd have a little bag of spell components and it only really comes up in circumstances like "well now you're captured and stripped."
I guess you all have never been hit to negative hit points and had 5-6 hps more would have survived...
Any bonus to hps or saves is extremely useful in my eyes. Then again I play with tough DMs. Canned adventures are usually pretty easy, so if that's your primary experience I can see how toughness might seem useless.
Never really played any modules or anything, but with various DMs I've played with I'd still consider the other listed choices better. I have a lot more experiences with an enemy barely making a save or suck DC or me barely missing when it counted. That said, if I rolled terrible on HP, I'd consider taking it.
No feat can be taken more than once unless a specific execption is written into the feat itself.
This is my understanding as well, but reading the Feats section I am unable to find this rule. Could someone point it out to me?
No feat can be taken more than once unless a specific execption is written into the feat itself.This is my understanding as well, but reading the Feats section I am unable to find this rule. Could someone point it out to me?
It's not explicitly stated, because it is implicit in the rules. If you could take any feat more than once, there'd be no reason to state that you can in the descriptions of specific feats you can take more than once and have the abilities stack.
I don't think there's a rule saying "You can't take a feat more than once", but it can certainly be inferred by the fact that several feats specifically state they can be taken more than once. Exemplified by Extra Ki:
Special: You can gain Extra Ki multiple times. Its effects stack.
However, there is a rule which specifies that Toughness wouldn't grant you additional hit points, even if you can take it multiple times:
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
Its an implied rule from the fact that feats that can be taken again have text permiting it.
double ninja'd
Toughness is a great feat because you can never have enough hit points.
I sometimes wonder where do people get their ideas on the usefulness of feats?
Well, feats are very precious in the game (even more so in D&D 3.x, which I was referencing), and most rare and precious to the characters who needed hp the most--spellcasters (no Fighter bonus feats, or Rogue talents, etc.).
It was a tempting little morsel, but in the long run proved a waste. After the first couple builds in 3.0 back in 2000, no one took that feat in my group for the next 12 years.
And when referring to the Pathfinder version, I said barely worth a feat, not "useless". In retrospect, when one considers the rate of feat accrual in Pathfinder, perhaps it is a solid choice now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of months back, my kingmaker ranger died by 1 hp. At that moment I was really wishing I had taken toughness instead of quickdraw.
I don't think there's a rule saying "You can't take a feat more than once", but it can certainly be inferred by the fact that several feats specifically state they can be taken more than once. Exemplified by Extra Ki:
Special: You can gain Extra Ki multiple times. Its effects stack.However, there is a rule which specifies that Toughness wouldn't grant you additional hit points, even if you can take it multiple times:
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere. I guess you can take feats more than once, they just don't do anything.
However if thats the case why do feats like weapon focus say in the special line.
You can take this feat more than once its effects do not stack each time it applies to a different weapon.
If you could take it again but it didn't stack then this line wouldn't be needed you could simply do it.
However if thats the case why do feats like weapon focus say in the special line.
You can take this feat more than once its effects do not stack each time it applies to a different weapon.
If you could take it again but it didn't stack then this line wouldn't be needed you could simply do it.
Because you can take Weapon Focus multiple times and apply the benefits to different weapons. If not for that line, you could take Weapon Focus as many times as you want, but only the first time would it actually do anything, the other benefits (i.e. bonuses to other weapons) would not apply.
Except the qouted rule simply says they don't stack unless they say so nothing is stacking in having weapon focus longsword and weapon focus longbow. The feat even calls it out as not stacking so weapon focus wouldn't even be subject to that rule.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description
Except the qouted rule simply says they don't stack unless they say so nothing is stacking in having weapon focus longsword and weapon focus longbow. The feat even calls it out as not stacking so weapon focus wouldn't even be subject to that rule.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description
Under the interepretation that you can take any feat multiple times, but with no effect, then without that line, Weapon Focus would give you +1 to attacks with a single weapon. Ever. You could take it 5 times and still only have a +1 with one weapon. Because the benefits of the feat (+1 to a weapon) wouldn't stack. You still might need to waste a feat on it for prerequesite reasons, but you wouldn't benefit.
With that line, each time you take it you pick a different weapon and get the bonus. You can take it as many times as there are weapons and you'll benefit from all of them. You're restricted from chosing the same weapon again, but the feat itself applies every time.
I'm merely arguing this from Devil's Advocate standpoint but the term Stack has game meaning nothing about those two feats requires stacking to occur hence if I can take a feat multiple times then if it doesn't stack (really only a couple of feats I can find would be affected) they all function.
I suppose technically, you can take a feat however many times you want, but the RAW states you're still only receiving the benefits of the feat as it is, the feats not stacking (or being under a separate category, for that matter) unless otherwise stated in the feat's description.
Weapon Focus applying to separate weapons is a prime example of selecting the same feat, but not stacking it on top of itself.
I'm merely arguing this from Devil's Advocate standpoint but the term Stack has game meaning nothing about those two feats requires stacking to occur hence if I can take a feat multiple times then if it doesn't stack (really only a couple of feats I can find would be affected) they all function.
"Stack" is actually used a number of different times in a number of different contexts. "Stack" referring to the adding of numerical bonuses is only one use.
In the Magic section, the PRD writes,
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
When stacking magical effects, "Stack" can refer to whether multiple effects all apply at once, the entire effect, not just the numerical bonuses. Similarly, the "effects" of feats, the entire effect not just the numerical bonuses, don't normally stack when taken multiple times.
The absence of the "can't take a feat more than once" is probably because you can end up with duplicate, but non-stacking feats by taking certain classes.
IE, you picked endurance, then took levels of ranger at some point in time, and got endurance again as a free feat. You technically have both, but only get the effects of one, and you don't have to deal with rules lawyers arguing you can't level up ranger because you'll get duplicate feats and break the rules.
Actually, any player who insisted on taking Toughness multiple times would be welcome to do so at my table. Of course, the character would only get the additional Hit Points once, as multiple instances of the Feat do not stack with one another.
However, if you are dead set on wasting a Feat, go ahead. Might I suggest you take Prone Shooter, as well?
|
Having more hit points is just one way of enhancing your chances of survival. Having more healing options (Dawnflower Sash, anyone?), better saving throws, and better defenses will all aid you every bit as much as more hit points, as is the ever popular "go first and kill everything" method.
If you're really interested in not dying, try the Dream Journal of the Pallid Seer. It lets you reroll one saving throw or attack roll against you that led to your death.
Or play a human and take that feat from the ARG which allows you to get the extra hitpoint per favored class level and the extra skillpoint/other benefit per level, too.