Suggestion - Can we have a generic toughness enhancement?

[QuantumFX]

Is there any way that you could make the toughness enhancement based off of taking the feat rather than taking a class? Toughness is one of those feats that's supposed to benefit all classes equally. Here in DDO land it's now a highly desirable feat/enhancement chain for Fighters/Paladins/Barbarians/Dwarves while making it less desirable for everything else.

My suggestion is to base the class toughness enhancements off of base hit points. This makes it a more aggressive enhancement chain for fighter types but allows everyone the potential to gain some benefit from it.

ex.
- Enhanced Toughness I - AP Cost: 1 Requires a minimum of 10 base hit points.
Increases the total benefit you receive from the toughness feat by 5

- Enhanced Toughness II - AP Cost: 2 Requires a minimum of 40 base hit points.
Increases the total benefit you receive from the toughness feat by 10

- Enhanced Toughness III - AP Cost: 3 Requires a minimum of 70 base hit points.
Increases the total benefit you receive from the toughness feat by 15

- Enhanced Toughness IV - AP Cost: 4 Requires a minimum of 100 base hit points.
Increases the total benefit you receive from the toughness feat by 20

[jaitee]

i like this idea, i would take the feat on my sorc

[Tenkari_Rozahas]

depends, would it stack with other Toughness lines or not?

[QuantumFX]

No the idea is to have one generic enhancement chain rather than 3 class specific enhancement chains. (Especially since the feat isn't a class specific or bonus feat for any of the classes.) The dwarven enhancement chain could either follow the same format or follow the current pattern.

[WilbyZ]

I see this would 'channel' people to build Squishy Toons with Max Con (ie, Max Con on Wiz/Sorc's) to gain the most benefits from Toughness feat.

If people want to start with 10 or 12 Con on a Caster, then they might not get access to Toughness IV (or III)

Not to mention the future of Toughness V and VI?

[Staedtler]

ex.
- Enhanced Toughness I - AP Cost: 1 Requires a minimum of 10 base hit points.
Increases the total benefit you receive from the toughness feat by 5

- Enhanced Toughness II - AP Cost: 2 Requires a minimum of 40 base hit points.
Increases the total benefit you receive from the toughness feat by 10

- Enhanced Toughness III - AP Cost: 3 Requires a minimum of 70 base hit points.
Increases the total benefit you receive from the toughness feat by 15

- Enhanced Toughness IV - AP Cost: 4 Requires a minimum of 100 base hit points.
Increases the total benefit you receive from the toughness feat by 20

Better read this carefully, you squishy casters. Under this system, wizards and sorcerers will only reach 80 base hp at level 20. (base hp = no con bonuses, no feat bonuses, no enhancement bonuses, just your level x your hit dice.)

I really don't agree with the reasoning for this. Just because something could benefit all classes doesn't mean all classes should have it. All classes could benefit from the bonuses granted by human versatility. It's a matter of balance.

As it stands, all classes do have the ability to get the toughness enhancement -- so long as they are dwarves or warforged.

[QuantumFX]

I really don't agree with the reasoning for this. Just because something could benefit all classes doesn't mean all classes should have it.

I didn't say could I said it should give a benefit to all classes. It's still a generic feat and it's never given to any of the current races/classes for free.

All classes could benefit from the bonuses granted by human versatility.

If you followed through with my second post I left racial enhancements out of the equation. (Leaving Dwarven/Warforged toughness as an optional leave it as is or have it follow the same formula.) This isn't about racial bonuses at all this is about how class enhancements need to be based off of class abilities and that toughness is a generic feat that deserves a generic enhancement chain.

It's a matter of balance.

Which is exactly why we need a generic enhancement. It's currently unbalanced.

As it stands, all classes do have the ability to get the toughness enhancement -- so long as they are dwarves or warforged.

And thats a better solution because?

[QuantumFX]

I see this would 'channel' people to build Squishy Toons with Max Con (ie, Max Con on Wiz/Sorc's) to gain the most benefits from Toughness feat.

If people want to start with 10 or 12 Con on a Caster, then they might not get access to Toughness IV (or III)

Not to mention the future of Toughness V and VI?

Not really. High Casting Stat/High CON builds have been around since day 1 in DDO. Turbine killed off DEX as a great stat for pure casters the minute they got lazy about coding touch attacks.

[Seneca_Windforge]

I think that all classes should have access to the Toughness enhancements if they take the feat...with a simple level requirement, not a base hit point requirement. If a wizard/sorcerer wants to take away AP (and spend a feat for Toughness) from his spell-enhancing stuff for additional hit points, more power to them.

[Staedtler]

stuff about how toughness is "generic"

Lots of feats are generic and that presents a problem. Just saying, if you base your argument off of "because anyone can take the feat anyone should get the enhancement line" let's just make everyone get skill boost as well. My cleric has maximize but he doesn't have access to the wiz/sorc enhancement line to make it cheaper; should he? My wizard can do sonic damage but he doesn't have the enhancement line to make it any stronger. Where are you going to draw the line? Any reason why we shouldn't make everyone have the same enhancement set and you only get to take what you qualify for from feats and class features?

The reasoning behind this idea is pretty flawed and opens a back door for a lot of other complaints about enhancements that stem from greed rather than balance. I'm not saying the current enhancement system is perfect or that it shouldn't change. I just find "I want more hitpoints!" a pretty lame reason to change something.

[Girevik]

...Leaving Dwarven/Warforged toughness as an optional...

There is no Warforged Toughness Enhancements of which I am aware. Dwarves are the only race with a Racial line of Toughness Enhancments.

Go Stunties!

(Though Warforged really should get one as well. Come on, they are Warforged.)

[Arlith]

Oh yes, absolutely. However, any caster spending so much time training their physical body, cannot have as much time to train their mental abilities, so in taking the toughness enhancement are ineligible to take the SP enhancements.

Come on! Fighters get toughness because thats what they do, they swing swords... Wear armor, carry shields and are strong enough to carry a Fiat under each arm. Casters spend time focusing their brain power, and they get extra spell points. If a caster wants a toughness enhancement, then take a few levels of fighter!

[tihocan]

I think the problem is more that they totally overpowered the toughness enhancements. For some unknown reason it's the only enhancement whose power scales linearly with its cost.
I'd vote for nerfing the enhancements back to what they were (or at least finding a middle ground) rather than buffing up everyone.

[Tenkari_Rozahas]

There is no Warforged Toughness Enhancements of which I am aware. Dwarves are the only race with a Racial line of Toughness Enhancments.

Go Stunties!

(Though Warforged really should get one as well. Come on, they are Warforged.)

true, but the WF get the power attack and brute line of enhancements, which i dont think any other races have, classes have them though, adding toughness onto those might make WF a little overpowered.

[llevenbaxx]

The only reason I could see not implimenting something like this is that it would become what Turbine seems to be trying to avoid, staple enhancements. Toughness is prolly the closest thing we have to a staple enhancement currently with the demise of HV.

Kinda why it blows me away that dwarves have a stackable version of it.

Otherwise I think it would be a good idea.

[Roguewiz]

Good suggestion, however, I still like the suggestion I had in the other Toughness thread. It should be based on the Hit Die of the class in question, not the HP of the character. It is easier implement and keep track of.

[QuantumFX]

Good suggestion, however, I still like the suggestion I had in the other Toughness thread. It should be based on the Hit Die of the class in question, not the HP of the character. It is easier implement and keep track of.

Well the devs have already announced that they can't make class levels synergize for the purposes of determining when you can take an enhancement. I felt the base HP total would be an easier variable to base it off of.

Also, the base HP values are a suggestion based off of the basic values that a fighter would have at levels 1/4/7/10 and could be based off of other values.

Staedtler: My reasoning is much more sound than the False Dichotomy you offer as a counter argument. Skill boosts aren't based off of feats and Wizards do have a special attachment to metamagic feats so your "arguments" lack any basis to defend your position.

[Staedtler]

Staedtler: My reasoning is much more sound than the False Dichotomy you offer as a counter argument. Skill boosts aren't based off of feats and Wizards do have a special attachment to metamagic feats so your "arguments" lack any basis to defend your position.

There is no false dichotomy. It would be a false dichotomy if I said "everyone should either have all the enhancements or no enhancements." Hello, straw man! If anything you should accuse me of using argumentum ad consequentiam.

Oh, and sorcerers have no special tie to metamagic. Barbarians have no special tie to power attack or improved critical. Lots of enhancements that should be "generic" are specialized to a certain class; like toughness. My problem is that if you let toughness in you should logically let in all the others. I'm willing to accept the minor injustice of my fighter not having an improved crit range so that the game has distinct classes, hence making the game more varied interesting.

[QuantumFX]

There is no false dichotomy. It would be a false dichotomy if I said "everyone should either have all the enhancements or no enhancements." Hello, straw man! If anything you should accuse me of using argumentum ad consequentiam.

OK, I'll happily withdraw False Dichotomy and retreat to a "You had to resort to a logical fallacy". If you want to keep this friendly then either show that I have flawed reasoning or simply disagree.

Oh, and sorcerers have no special tie to metamagic. Barbarians have no special tie to power attack or improved critical. Lots of enhancements that should be "generic" are specialized to a certain class; like toughness. My problem is that if you let toughness in you should logically let in all the others. I'm willing to accept the minor injustice of my fighter not having an improved crit range so that the game has distinct classes, hence making the game more varied interesting.

Barbarians and sorcerors got grandfathered in thanks to fighters and wizards. (This is another topic though and just FYI: I would be all for gutting those enhancement chains or making them generic and basing the enhancement levels off of STR or BAB.)

The Improved Crit feat is not required for the Barbarian rage crit enhancement. (They may have no special affinity for improved crit but the do have an affinity for rage.)

Lastly, when has less choices made something more varied?

[Staedtler]

OK, I'll happily withdraw False Dichotomy and retreat to a "You had to resort to a logical fallacy". If you want to keep this friendly then either show that I have flawed reasoning or simply disagree.

Okay, I'll be explicit.

Your premise can be summed up as "if a class does not have any particular claim to a feat or enhancement chain then it should be available to all classes." (e.g. wizards get metamagic because of bonus feats) My position is that, following these rules, you run into a lot of undesirable consequences and find that the current system is full of flaws and inconsistencies. (e.g. barb power attack, bard sonic damage, sorcerer metamgic.)
As for the soundness of this argument, if I left my position at this step and asserted "and because an inconsistent system is undesirable your premise is incorrect" I would indeed be guilty of argumentum ad consequentiam. However, the subtle difference is that I made no claim that an inconsistent system is undesirable. As stated in previous posts, I claim that the consequence of "de-classifying" enhancement trees is that a large number of the enhancement feats can be taken by any class. It is at this point I invoke the notion of balance, particularly that there should be pros and cons to each class. The current uniqueness of the enhancement system makes these pros and cons more distinct because by choosing one class over another you gain access to more exclusive enhancements and lose out on others. In essence, my argument against a generic set of enhancements available to all classes is that it would be too easy to cherrypick only the best enhancements, thus throwing off the balance of power.

I really thing I've talked about the nuts and bolts of logical arguments enough in this thread and have bored many people. I'd be more than willing to discuss the nuances of logic with you via PM