Remove Toughness as a pre-req

[varusso]

No, CON should NOT replace the feat as a pre-req. That effectively removes the ability for many toons to even get the AP-based toughness enhancements. It also says to every single player that the only important thing in the game is to get your HP as high as possible, sacrificing anything you have to, including other stats in order to get your CON high enough to qualify for even more HP. Your suggestion would not help in any way to de-emphasize the need for the toughness feat. It would only tell every player that the only acceptable build is to jack up your CON in order to achieve the same end. Not to mention the fact you effectively strip away the only means low-CON toons have of making up for the deficit in HP they already have, since by definition they would not qualify for the toughness enhancements anymore.

There have been enough game-mechanic changes recently, borking various races and classes and changing fundamental design for our toons that are already built. We dont need the rug pulled out from under us yet again with another change that would suddenly make many toons no longer qualify for the toughness enhancements they already have,

Now, making BOTH toughness feat AND high CON scores satisfy the pre-req condition -- that would be just fine. Being able to CHOOSE between them would accomplish what you are trying to do, without penalizing existing (or future) toons.

[CheeseMilk]

If you don't want to take toughness, then don't take it.

It's fine as it is right now.

Fair point, but this is a minority view.

The, "must have MOAR HP" idea pervades, and I'd like to be able to do so with more ability to customize.

Now, in order for a drow or an elf to receive the second tier of the toughness enhancements based upon this suggestion, they are required to max out their constitution. Very few classes can afford to do this. Since they cannot afford to do this, drow and elves would not take the second tier, and would therefore become even less durable.

It is a vicious cycle.

Since they have less constitution, and therefore need more hit points to make up for it, this suggestion makes it harder for them to gain more hit points.

On the other hand, dwarves and warforged, which have always been blessed with more hit points, have an easier time getting more hit points now.

It simply does not seem fair.

Perhaps making the requirements for racial toughness 14 con OR the toughness feat? Since there's no requirement for the feat itself, this would keep the options as they are for elves and drow (which are classically kind of fragile), with a little more room for feats, but add a bit more for dwarves and warforged (which are clasically tough) and humans (who are supposed to be versatile,) again adding more room for customization.

As far as "fair" goes, I don't think it's fair that any given feat has become "necessary" in the context of most character builds, and I'd like to see it changed a bit.

/notsigned

Thanks for your input!

Now, making BOTH toughness feat AND high CON scores satisfy the pre-req condition -- that would be just fine. Being able to CHOOSE between them would accomplish what you are trying to do, without penalizing existing (or future) toons.

Yes, thinking about it, an either Toughness OR 14 con would be preferable, as above.

[dng242]

toughness is a must have for the vast majority of builds. Hits points are King because DPS is the Emperor of this game. Add in the new found power of enemy casters and doing without isn't a viable option for the vast majority of builds, especially less geared players.

As a general principle I don't like being forced into taking something with what is suppose to be an option. It reduced innovation and fun.

Not certain on the answer, not certain I like the OP's idea. I'm simply certain the current situation is not what I want.

[daniel7]

Interesting idea, although I'd prefer that the toughness feat still qualifies as the prereq.

-1: 14 con or toughness
-2: 16 con or toughness
-3: 18 con or toughness
-4: 20 con or toughness

would be preferable

This option would be better.

[karatemack]

As I suggested in this thread, I propose removing Toughness as a pre-requisite for the various AP Toughness lines. As mentioned in that thread, the feat is pretty much a "must have" which kinda limits character customization to a certain point. It definitely can't be made "free," (power creep) but neither should it be made useless. I think the following could be a rough idea of how to keep the feat attractive, but allow a bit extra survivability for those who don't want to take it.

My suggested implementation:

Racial Toughness:
-1: requires 14 con.
-2: 16 con
-3: Human (Greater) Adaptability: Con, Dwarf Con 1, WF Con 1
-4: Dwarf Con 2, WF Con 2

Fighter/Barb/Paladin Toughness:
-1: 14 con
-2: 16 con
-3: 18 con + Toughness Feat
-4: no other requirements, other than lvl 1-3

I think rangers should get two or three tiers of AP toughness as well.

Open to suggestions, tweaks, and critiques.

Sometimes you should have to choose one thing or another. Those decisions should be difficult. That's what leads to a variety of customization instead of cookie-cutter builds. I say leave it as is.

[Persiflage]

What about adding a Toughness-style enhancement line that doesn't have Toughness as a pre-requisite but costs the same as the existing enhancement line. Call it Enhanced Durability or something and have Heroic Durability as a pre-requisite, which means everyone gets it. Keep the existing Toughness enhancements with Toughness as a requirement for access, but make the tiers cheaper; say 1/2/3.

This gives a load more customisation options. Classes with feats to burn or for whom huge piles of hit-points are mandatory can take both enhancement lines by taking the Toughness feat, and they get a small additional reward for spending a feat by getting the higher tiers of extra hp for fewer AP. This would be especially beneficial for classes who are very tight on AP but can usually spare a feat, like Wizards. Classes for whom some extra hit-points are necessary can make the trade-off between the feat and fewer AP's, or no feat and more AP's, or spend lots of AP's and take the feat but for a significant cost in other areas of the build.

Not only is this more flexible, but it doesn't break anyone's existing build except causing them to have a couple of extra action points to spend if they've already taken the higher tier of the Toughness enhancement line (in which case, they'll probably spend them on the first two tiers of Enhanced Durability for another 20hp, which is hardly game-breaking!).

What do you think?

[samthedagger]

Interesting idea, although I'd prefer that the toughness feat still qualifies as the prereq.

-1: 14 con or toughness
-2: 16 con or toughness
-3: 18 con or toughness
-4: 20 con or toughness

would be preferable

I love this. Brilliant in its elegant simplicity.

[Xezno]

Interesting idea, although I'd prefer that the toughness feat still qualifies as the prereq.

-1: 14 con or toughness
-2: 16 con or toughness
-3: 18 con or toughness
-4: 20 con or toughness

would be preferable

A perfect KISS

I would however lower the requirements by 2. Paladins, Monks and Drow would have problems reaching Tier 3 short of a +4 tome since they would have a difficult time starting above 14 (12 for drow).