PDA

View Full Version : Toughness Remake [3.5 Feat]



Temotei
2013-03-27, 02:18 AM
Toughness [General]
You are tougher than you look.
Benefit: You permanently have a number of temporary hit points equal to your Hit Dice plus your Constitution modifier (minimum 1). You may rest for 1 minute to restore these temporary hit points.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. You still need only rest for 1 minute to restore your temporary hit points.

Temotei
2013-03-27, 02:19 AM
This is just a port from a different thread in which I created (with Draz74's recommendation of having a rest period included) Toughness anew.

SowZ
2013-03-27, 02:22 AM
Seeing as they reset after 1 minutes rest, this feat would be good enough without the Con boost, IMO. I'd rather say 3+your HD, since this feat becomes sub-optimal on certain builds and too good on others. Regardless, it is a neat idea. I like the base mechanic of it.

Debihuman
2013-03-27, 02:45 AM
Why call it toughness? Why not Temporary Toughness so you could have both?

Debby

SowZ
2013-03-27, 02:53 AM
Why call it toughness? Why not Temporary Toughness so you could have both?

Debby

Because it is probably an effort to make crappy feats not so crappy, one feat at a time.

Ashtagon
2013-03-27, 03:08 AM
Toughness [General]
You are tougher than you look.
Benefit: You permanently have a number of temporary hit points equal to your Hit Dice plus your Constitution modifier (minimum 1). You may rest for 1 minute to restore these temporary hit points.

This feat is strictly an improvement over the raw version at low levels (a very good thing).

Analysis of fighter with 16 Constitution (+3) who consistently rolls a 6 for his hp (9 hp per level), fighting against "brutes":


L1 vs goblin: Hero gets +4 for feat. Goblin does average 3.5 hp per hit. Fat represents about 120% of a typical hit.
L4 vs ogre: Hero gets +7 for feat. Ogre does average 16 hp per hit. Feat represents just under 50% of a typical hit received.
L12 vs hill giant: Hero gets +15 for feat. Hill giant does 19 average damage. Feat represents about 70% of a hit.
L17 vs cloud giant: Hero gets +20 for feat. Cloud giant does average 32 hp per hit. Feat represents about 65% of a typical hit received.


Overall, this seems to average out as "take one free hit per encounter".

Temotei
2013-03-27, 03:08 AM
Seeing as they reset after 1 minutes rest, this feat would be good enough without the Con boost, IMO. I'd rather say 3+your HD, since this feat becomes sub-optimal on certain builds and too good on others. Regardless, it is a neat idea. I like the base mechanic of it.

The Constitution modifier doesn't really change all that much, though. People on the lower end of the Constitution pool are safe because of the minimum of 1 on the Con modifier part (so HD + 1 minimum) and people at the higher end are gaining a little more out of it, which they probably need anyway. It's not that much more in the first place since the main scaling factor is Hit Dice. Even assuming someone focuses on Constitution (dragonfire adept, maybe?), the bonus only gets, what, 10 or so higher than others at high levels? That's really not a huge deal.

The 3 + HD compromise is good, though. I could definitely see it working.


Why call it toughness? Why not Temporary Toughness so you could have both?

Debby

Because Toughness sucks, frankly speaking. A +3 bonus to hit points is a waste of a feat past very early levels (and even then, there's probably a better choice). I see no reason to involve it at all. Besides, this feat is permanent, despite the name of the hit points you receive.


Because it is probably an effort to make crappy feats not so crappy, one feat at a time.

Eh. If I was out to fix every feat, I'd just make them all in one thread and all at once, like I did with the epic feats. Everyone remakes the +2 to two skills feats, though, and several other feats have already been remade. There's not really much reason in making the rest better when others have already fixed them.


This feat is strictly an improvement over the raw version at low levels (a very good thing).

Analysis of fighter with 16 Constitution (+3) who consistently rolls a 6 for his hp (9 hp per level), fighting against "brutes":


L1 vs goblin: Hero gets +4 for feat. Goblin does average 3.5 hp per hit. Fat represents about 120% of a typical hit.
L4 vs ogre: Hero gets +7 for feat. Ogre does average 16 hp per hit. Feat represents just under 50% of a typical hit received.
L12 vs hill giant: Hero gets +15 for feat. Hill giant does 19 average damage. Feat represents about 70% of a hit.
L17 vs cloud giant: Hero gets +20 for feat. Cloud giant does average 32 hp per hit. Feat represents about 65% of a typical hit received.


Overall, this seems to average out as "take one free hit per encounter".

Pretty close. It gets a tad higher when you get items that modify your Constitution modifier. Other than that, though, yes, you're pretty much right on the money, as they say.

Greenish
2013-03-27, 04:07 AM
I like it. It would actually make you feel tough for more than one encounter, at least on lower levels. Can you take it several times like normal Toughness?

TuggyNE
2013-03-27, 06:20 AM
I like it. It would actually make you feel tough for more than one encounter, at least on lower levels. Can you take it several times like normal Toughness?

As written, you can't; not quite sure how you'd best scale multiple copies. (Just straight up add more temporary HP at the same rate?)

Jane_Smith
2013-03-27, 07:14 AM
Actually, their is a way to get it multiple times, up to 4, if you used some supplements like complete miniature. The war Hulk gains toughness 3 times during its progression. Even if you changed toughness to only be taken once, the progression of a class would be unchanged (core triumphs brew unless specifically stated otherwise - even then its a game to game basis). Though, that prestige class is mostly for monster races, large+ requirement, and it kinda needed the boost, all it had going for it was splash style 3-6-all around attacks.


Overall I like the change, reminds me of malphite's passive from league of legends, the "shell" that recharges every 6 seconds when not damaged.

Greenish
2013-03-27, 07:15 AM
As written, you can't; not quite sure how you'd best scale multiple copies. (Just straight up add more temporary HP at the same rate?)If the stats posted here are any indication, it should work. Each feat you spend is about an attack you avoid in a given fight. That might actually be unfavourable trade, given that at higher levels you get more attacks.

Still, I don't see straight-up scaling as being too strong even on lower levels. Sure, if you were a human with Con focus and a pair of flaws, you'd be difficult to kill, but you'd still be afraid of going against two or three MM standard orcs.

Temotei
2013-03-27, 01:55 PM
If the stats posted here are any indication, it should work. Each feat you spend is about an attack you avoid in a given fight. That might actually be unfavourable trade, given that at higher levels you get more attacks.

Still, I don't see straight-up scaling as being too strong even on lower levels. Sure, if you were a human with Con focus and a pair of flaws, you'd be difficult to kill, but you'd still be afraid of going against two or three MM standard orcs.

Makes sense. I'll add a "Special" section.

eftexar
2013-03-27, 02:07 PM
This is a rather interesting way to remake the feat, but I have concern with any feat with a recharge time of minutes, especially when it provides hit points.
I think it might be better to make it restored at the start of each encounter. Encounters, I think, are really underused and it prevents shenanigans with time altering spells.

edit/ Besides that this feat promotes stopping every combat and forcing other player's to wait for a minute. That and it provides quite a few temporary HP to be giving so often.

Temotei
2013-03-27, 02:30 PM
This is a rather interesting way to remake the feat, but I have concern with any feat with a recharge time of minutes, especially when it provides hit points.
I think it might be better to make it restored at the start of each encounter. Encounters, I think, are really underused and it prevents shenanigans with time altering spells.

edit/ Besides that this feat promotes stopping every combat and forcing other player's to wait for a minute. That and it provides quite a few temporary HP to be giving so often.

I previously had it so that it would automatically restore after 1 minute of not taking damage. The problem with making it restore at the start of every encounter is that it gets fuzzy with traps and such. Is a trap an encounter for you or just the characters who are affected? What about social encounters?

Besides, if you're wasting a spell to make a minute go by, I think it's okay. :smalltongue:

eftexar
2013-03-27, 02:38 PM
Hmm... You could label it specifically as a 'combat' encounter to eliminate alot of the vagueness with it. Still my problem with a one minute time stands; it promotes waiting around alot. Irregardless...

You should probably also clarify if the hit points are lost first or not. While it is inferred they are for spells, class abilities that provide temporary hit points often function differently and feats are new territory.

And a concern with stacking. If I take a flaw and human, I can take it three times at 1st level. I could get +15 temporary hit points over normal repeatedly through the day (meaning why would I not take do this at 1st level).
You might want to add Endurance or something else arbitrary to limit how many times it can be taken then.

Temotei
2013-03-27, 02:50 PM
Hmm... You could label it specifically as a 'combat' encounter to eliminate alot of the vagueness with it. Still my problem with a one minute time stands; it promotes waiting around alot. Irregardless...

I'll definitely consider it. I'm on the fence.


You should probably also clarify if the hit points are lost first or not. While it is inferred they are for spells, class abilities that provide temporary hit points often function differently and feats are new territory.

Good point. Done.


And a concern with stacking. If I take a flaw and human, I can take it three times at 1st level. I could get +15 temporary hit points over normal repeatedly through the day (meaning why would I not take do this at 1st level).
You might want to add Endurance or something else arbitrary to limit how many times it can be taken then.

This is assuming flaws are allowed (and if they are, why aren't you taking two? :smalltongue:), which are an alternate rule that not many DMs are comfortable with (or if they are, the flaws "must be relevant," as vague as that is). Even assuming the +15, you just used all of your feats to get hit points. Whoo, I guess. You're really hard to kill early on. I don't see a problem with that.

Also, the +15 is assuming a +4 Con modifier, which is unlikely for a human at level 1. Regardless, even 9 hp is a lot at first level, but that's kind of the point. If you spend three feats to get to that point, you deserve to be hard to kill.

eftexar
2013-03-27, 03:05 PM
I suppose it is a hard point to argue, that that many hit points are unbalanced, considering how easy it is to die at first level. Hit points are the reason why most games I've played have started at 3rd level instead of 1st.

Still let me throw out a couple of ideas that could eliminate both my minute problem and prevent stacking, while keeping a character just as tough as if they had stacked the feat here.

While I don't particularly like 4e it did have some good ideas. Instead of having the feat stack hit points totals, why not give charges for each time the feat is taken (reminiscent of 4e's surges or whatever their called)?

From there you could create a string of feats that expend charges for other effects, like making a fortitude save to reduce damage or bypass a massive damage saving throw. I think that beyond a certain point active ways to reduce damage are more interesting than straight hit points.

Temotei
2013-03-27, 03:12 PM
I suppose it is a hard point to argue, that that many hit points are unbalanced, considering how easy it is to die at first level. Hit points are the reason why most games I've played have started at 3rd level instead of 1st.

Still let me throw out a couple of ideas that could eliminate both my minute problem and prevent stacking, while keeping a character just as tough as if they had stacked the feat here.

While I don't particularly like 4e it did have some good ideas. Instead of having the feat stack hit points totals, why not give charges for each time the feat is taken (reminiscent of 4e's surges or whatever their called)?

From there you could create a string of feats that expend charges for other effects, like making a fortitude save to reduce damage or bypass a massive damage saving throw. I think that beyond a certain point active ways to reduce damage are more interesting than straight hit points.

This is a good idea, but at the same time, I feel like it belongs in an entirely different feat chain. This was just a quick remake of the Toughness feat.

It's an interesting idea, though, and one that would be kind of fun to implement.

Andion Isurand
2013-03-27, 07:36 PM
How about making the total "equal to your HD + the number of feats you permanently possess from the list of fighter bonus feats"?

Plus, add the feat itself to the list of fighter bonus feats.

arguskos
2013-03-27, 10:18 PM
How about making the total "equal to your HD + the number of feats you permanently possess from the list of fighter bonus feats"?

Plus, add the feat itself to the list of fighter bonus feats.
Nah, not a fan of that change. I really don't think that this increase is an issue. It makes tough characters tougher, which doesn't sound like an issue IMO, especially given that HP is not really the best defense ever and that damage scales far better than health ever has, this included.

Temotei, if it makes you feel better, I love what you've done here and may co-op it myself. Have you any other similar brews these days?

Temotei
2013-03-27, 11:56 PM
Temotei, if it makes you feel better, I love what you've done here and may co-op it myself. Have you any other similar brews these days?

By that, I assume you mean remakes. Not recently, no.

Greenish
2013-03-28, 04:37 AM
Hmm... You could label it specifically as a 'combat' encounter to eliminate alot of the vagueness with it.It'd be weird if you were only tough against enemies, not for traps, wouldn't it?


You should probably also clarify if the hit points are lost first or not. While it is inferred they are for spells, class abilities that provide temporary hit points often function differently and feats are new territory.Temporary HP are always lost first (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#temporaryHitPoints), which is why they have to specify that things like Rage which temporarily grant you more hitpoints aren't Temporary HP. :smalltongue:

Ashtagon
2013-03-28, 05:29 AM
I'd leave it as these temp hp getting restored any time you rest for a minute. I personally prefer to standardise the "short rest" at five minutes (long enough that you can't possibly do it during a single extended fight), but one minute works well enough for most purposes.

Making the recharge time-based rather than encounter-based sidesteps all questions about what qualifies as an encounter.

Deviston
2013-03-28, 07:08 AM
Irregardless...

That's not a word.

I think it's a wonderful fix! I feel the stacking is odd just because it's so vastly different from the standard schematic of feats. That being said however, I did like the "3 + HD + Combat/Fighter feats" approach because every new little combat trick you learn improves your ability to fight. I've never been a fan of hitpoints being looked at as strictly your physical stamina. With this change to toughness, it makes it look more like a "second wind". As you train further in combat, your ability to recover from a fight (the size of your second wind) increases.

In addition to that thought, maybe another special to the feat would be "if you have levels in a class that provided full base attack bonus count the levels in that class you have in addition to your hit dice". And then remove the stacking option. Or make the "stacking" option just be a generic bonus to your temp hp's. Say every time you take it after the first it increases your temp hp's by "5 + the number times you have taken this feat".

Ashtagon
2013-03-28, 08:07 AM
I think I'd be cool with 3 + character level + number of feats tagged as endurance feats.

Adding something BAB-related merges "good at attacking" with "can take a pounding", which aren't necessarily related.

Deviston
2013-03-28, 09:58 AM
In a sense. I've never understood how a sword in the gut deals less physical trauma to a seasoned warrior than to a shop keeper. I see hit points as a million different things but eventually total up to how long you last in a fight (hps as they are).

Whether a hit point is expended from dodging a blow ever so barely and the stress of the lurch to the side hurts you, or internal damage from a arm sprain when stopping a hammer blow with a shield, or a loss in stamina from a long fight, hit point loss does not always mean you have taken a pounding.

BAB relates to combat experience and training in combat. Just as some feats have BAB requirements but do not modify attack rolls at all, BAB is a relevant combat "experience" adjudicator. Notice how only a few feats require specifically "Fighter" levels and most require a certain BAB. This is a tip of the hat to combat EXPERIENCE. Not always accuracy in combat.

SO! the end result is that your temporary hit points are not necessarily a hearty body being refreshed, but maybe relaxed muscles, or steady breathing when another man (one without the feat) would be huffing an puffing, or even perhaps he has excellent knowledge in fighting tactics that allows him to exceptionally parry blows. Whatever the explanation, the subject lasts longer in battle. I.e. more hit points.

Network
2013-03-28, 12:32 PM
I don't think boosting the fighter with that feat is a good idea, but I agree with Ashtagon on the ''5 minutes instead of 1'' thing.

Deviston
2013-03-28, 12:40 PM
Yeah, terrible idea actually. No one wants a balanced fighter. That's just not the D&D way.

Zaydos
2013-03-28, 12:41 PM
I don't think boosting the fighter with that feat is a good idea, but I agree with Ashtagon on the ''5 minutes instead of 1'' thing.

I like the 1 minute thing because the (well 3.0 at least) DMG actually states that typically a battle time rounds up to 1 minute because there is assumed to be some breathing space after a battle and checking bodies. So it really becomes a if combat ends you regain things situation as opposed to actually forcing additional rest on the party.

eftexar
2013-03-28, 02:24 PM
That's not a word. Some links below:
Irregardless (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?show=0&t=1364498254) at Merriam Webster.

Irregardless (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/irregardless?q=irregardless) at Cambridge.

Irregardless (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/irregardless?q=irregardless) at Oxford.

But I guess you have a point Greenish. It might be weird for it not to work against traps, but I think as far as abstract game mechanics it's no worse than armor increasing miss instead of actual protection (ie AC instead of DR).

Still I wonder if you could key it off of taking damage somehow? How about "the first time you take damage in an encounter" Would that make more sense or would it be too restrictive?

I wasn't aware of the rule for temporary hit points. My bad.

Otherwise I think maybe going with Ashtagon's five minutes might be better than one. It's a good standard.

Deviston
2013-03-28, 02:41 PM
Just because a word is in a dictionary does not mean it is a standard word. Ain't is in some dictionaries and that doesn't make it a word. A dictionary also includes words that are commonly in use.

The word regardless means "without regard". The prefix "ir-" is a negative. When you put them together you are saying "without without regard". Which means WITH regard. I could also say unirregardless. Doesn't make it a word. Here, this link should help.

Linky. (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/irregardless.aspx)

EDIT: Notice the word irregular underneath the entry, that is essentially the source telling you it's a word in use, but not a standard (or official) word.

Sorry guys, I would have just sent this via IM, but one has professional integrity to protect and all that. Back to the thread.

The fighter can always use a boost. Upon looking back over the posts, I still like my thoughts on adding "fighter/combat" feats to the temp hp count, but I also admit that 5 minutes is better than just one. I've never been able to fully rest or relax in only a minute.

Greenish
2013-03-28, 03:00 PM
Still I wonder if you could key it off of taking damage somehow? How about "the first time you take damage in an encounter" Would that make more sense or would it be too restrictive?First time only would make it worse against bunches of weak enemies and enemies who rely on several less damaging attacks instead of a few big ones.

I'm actually in favour of the encounter idea, but I can see how it'd lead to interpretation problems. Requiring short breather is a good compromise.

I wasn't aware of the rule for temporary hit points. My bad.What with how they've worded it, I can't blame you. Seriously, what sort of editor let that go through?


Notice the word irregular underneath the entry, that is essentially the source telling you it's a word in use, but not a standard (or official) word.There ain't no rule as says only standard words are real ones (even if I, too, loathe the word "irregardless").


The fighter can always use a boost. Upon looking back over the posts, I still like my thoughts on adding "fighter/combat" feats to the temp hp count, but I also admit that 5 minutes is better than just one.Adding the fighter bonus feat number to the HP would be a really tiny increase in benefit, for a minor increase in fiddliness.

eftexar
2013-03-28, 03:51 PM
Good point there Greenish. How about giving the option to activate it when you take damage, but only once per encounter? Then it wouldn't matter how much damage was taken because you wouldn't have to activate it. Compromising for a short rest isn't a bad option, but if we can figure out a more mechanically sound way of doing it I think we should.

I don't tend to use irregardless too often and, I admit, often by accident. At this point I'm just enjoying the argument though. I'll agree the word isn't a good word to use, but I see no need to correct my English, when the word doesn't lend to confusion or risk muddling mechanics.
Besides that, the logic of that article, Deviston, is etymologically flawed.
While nonstandard English it is most certainly a word. Read here (http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/) before I continue on, proving Greenish's point actually, though this article might make our argument moot.

To continue my argument, as noted in the Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?show=0&t=1364498254) dictionary, the word has been in use since 1927. In fact the main backlash against the words seems to be specifically by educated people with elitism it's driving force, mostly to separate themselves from uneducated people.

The further three points were points made in the comments below your article, which I double checked myself:

For example, I can 'bone' or 'debone' a chicken. Isn't 'debone' a double negative? And yet it is a word. I can't remove remove the bones.

For another example, the word 'ravel' can be used to mean to entangled or to untangle something, and, yet, 'unravel' exists for the purpose of untangling something. Is unravel not redundant in this case?

Further. English is derived from a combination of Latin and Greek. In Latin double negatives negate one other, but in Greek double negatives instead place added emphasis. See here (http://ntgreek.org/pdf/Word%20Order%20and%20Emphasis%20in%20Greek.pdf), here (http://blogs.blueletterbible.org/blb/2012/05/23/emphatic-negations-in-biblical-greek/), and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm). So arguing that a double negative makes it improper grammar is flawed.

Ashtagon
2013-03-28, 04:03 PM
The fighter can always use a boost. Upon looking back over the posts, I still like my thoughts on adding "fighter/combat" feats to the temp hp count, but I also admit that 5 minutes is better than just one. I've never been able to fully rest or relax in only a minute.

Rather than make it a boost specifically for fighters, I'd rather give certain feats "endurance" tags, and then those feats get extra bonuses the more "endurance" feats you have.

Deviston
2013-03-28, 04:04 PM
Vollinarakeshindult are correct greenish. There is in fact nothing that says that. So, in light of that, i'll use a made up word too! Instead of using the outdated and acient word "you" I will be using vollinarakeshindult.

Anyhow, vollinarakeshindult are also correct that it is a minor increase. Let's play with some numbers.

Toughness [General]
Vollinarakeshindult are tougher than you look.
Benefit: Vollinarakeshindult permanently have a number of temporary hit points equal to your Hit Dice, plus your Constitution modifier, plus the number of (Fighter) feats vollinarakeshindult have, plus the number of level vollinarakeshindult have that grant full base attack bonus (minimum 1). Vollinarakeshindult may rest for 5 minutes to restore these temporary hit points.
Special: Vollinarakeshindult can gain this feat multiple times. Each time to take this feat beyond the first, vollinarakeshindult gain an increase to your temporary hit points derived from this feat equal to 5 + the number of times vollinarakeshindult have taken this feat. Vollinarakeshindult still need only rest for 1 minute to restore your temporary hit points.


Assume a 10th level fighter who has spent his level 1, 3, 6, and 9 feats on this feat again. That's 6 fighter feats granted from his class on top. Oh, and Con of 18 for grins.

Total of...
Levels: 20
Con: 4
Fighter feats: 6
Toughness feats: 24
Total: 54 temporary hit points with a 5 minute refresh.

Ok, that's a decently large number. Keep in mind this is for the fella who spends his entire life training and honing his combat prowess. Once again, hit points don't necessarily mean sturdiness, they could represent the will power to fight on as well. Not to mention he is sinking a lot of feats that could make more useful into an extra round or two of staying power. Melee range probably 3-5 rounds. A fireball however might take that hunk out right away.

EDIT: Ashtagon, the feat isn't only FOR fighters. It just benefits them most simply because they are granted bonus fighter feats. Is the endurance line able to be take as fighter feats? I can't quite remember (I've graduated to Pathfinder) and if they are able to be taken as fighter feats, then the distinction is rather moot unless the attempt is to "nerf" the fighter and limit his "toughness benefiting feats" to only the endurence line.



P.S. Aren't made up words rather annoying? For all of you who know vollinarakeshindult isn't a word, it sticks out like an immensely massive sore thumb. Why? Because you know it is made up, makes no sense, and has no place being used. That's how I (and most likely many others) feel about irregardless.

EDIT P.S.S. I too am enjoying the little back and forth haha, as long as we are both clear it's just for fun. I just read your links, and I think that at this point we can agree that "american english" is just a crappy bas**rd language and not many standard rules (except those we have made up in the past and that keep evolving) apply. I agree that 90% of people know what one means when someone says irregardless, but it's still REAL ugly and why tack on the extra two letters when the word means the same thing with them missing?

Greenish
2013-03-28, 04:06 PM
I dunno about purposefully triggering it (which would have either be a free action that you can use outside your turn (a deviation from the norm) or an immediate action (meaning you can't use it if surprised)), and I find simplicity has great value when it comes to rules.

And I ain't never seen much point in the "no double negatives" anyway. Language isn't math.

[Edit]:
Vollinarakeshindult are correct greenish. There is in fact nothing that says that. So, in light of that, i'll use a made up word too! Instead of using the outdated and acient word "you" I will be using vollinarakeshindult.If vollinarakeshindult can make that stick and become widely used, I'll tip my hat for vollinarakeshindult. Though, please tell me there's also a plural form. :smalltongue:

Anyway, all words are made up. Some are just more recent than others.

Temotei
2013-03-28, 04:09 PM
I'm actually in favour of the encounter idea, but I can see how it'd lead to interpretation problems. Requiring short breather is a good compromise.

I like the idea of per encounter abilities. Things like this, though, get really vague, since (I think) in Tome of Battle the authors say that you can use 1/encounter abilities once every five minutes, making this feat automatically restore every five minutes out of combat or just immediately upon starting an encounter, which is vague by itself. Abilities have more guidelines for encounters because they must to be balanced, but a feat like this hasn't really been done with per-encounter guidelines before, so there's no precedent, for one, but also a lot of interpretation going on that can slip by the intention of the feat and a DM.


What with how they've worded it, I can't blame you. Seriously, what sort of editor let that go through?

Seriously, though. :smallyuk:


Adding the fighter bonus feat number to the HP would be a really tiny increase in benefit, for a minor increase in fiddliness.

Yup. It doesn't really seem worth it to me. Making it 3 + HD + feats lowers the bonus for most people anyway, even with fighter feats (except maybe at higher levels).


Good point there Greenish. How about giving the option to activate it when you take damage, but only once per encounter? Then it wouldn't matter how much damage was taken because you wouldn't have to activate it. Compromising for a short rest isn't a bad option, but if we can figure out a more mechanically sound way of doing it I think we should.

If you're able to take a minute to rest for the temporary hit points during a combat encounter, you're either in a huge army-type fighting situation or you've got the situation cut out for you already. I don't think there's a reason to limit it to once per encounter when 1. encounter is poorly defined, and 2. it'll likely only be done once per combat encounter anyway.


Rather than make it a boost specifically for fighters, I'd rather give certain feats "endurance" tags, and then those feats get extra bonuses the more "endurance" feats you have.

Sounds like a separate project. This was just a quick rework for those who need a simple fix. Maybe Endurance feats can be done later, but for now, the ones I would tag from core are Diehard, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Toughness. Those are most likely definite, with a few other edge cases. I included Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes because Great Fortitude is included, really.

Deviston
2013-03-28, 04:24 PM
@ Greenish: lol, Ill keep vollinarakeshindult updated on my progress XD

I have never taken Toughness, nor do I know anyone who has unless it was a requirement for a better feat (i.e. homebrew feat most proabably). I feel like my build (a few posts up) makes it a game changer and perhaps a little strong. The way I built it, it feels like one HAS to take it.

However, anything less just seems lacking and I feel one STILL wouldn't take it, even at only a 10 round cooldown. I just feel... the new improved toughness would only be taken by barbarians and fighters (not only but obviously mostly) and that lends to their need for retouching.

I guess what I'm saying is that this thread in and of itself makes me think "Toughness Remake (because fighters need a buff)".

Andion Isurand
2013-03-28, 04:30 PM
The reason I added in the bit about fighter feats, is that I wanted characters with a martial bent to receive a greater benefit than those who lacked such a bent, in an effort tilt the feat towards non-casters.