I want to put forward a suggestion for removing random HP rolls, and just automatically setting all HP rolls to their maximum available value.
My primary argument for this is just because the existence of random HP rolls is incongruent with the rest of the character progression system. HP is, by and large, the main defensive asset of melee classes such as the Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin. On the surface, it seems pretty reasonable to include HP rolls - it makes every character have a unique value and maintains that characteristic RNG from dice rolling that D&D is known for - but dig a little deeper and it stops making sense when you compare HP as a defensive asset with the assets available to spellcasters.
A wizard, at 10 CON and no Toughness feat, has a maximum HP pool of 32 at level 8. His minimum HP pool is 22, accounting for the 3 max HP rolls from levels 1-3. This gives him a potential HP disparity of 10 points, which - while certainly worrisome in a high intensity fight with lots of healing flying around where those hit points could make the crucial difference between chugging a CSW and being subdued - is certainly not nearly as debilitating as the Barbarian's HP disparity. The Barbarian has a maximum health pool of 96 and a minimum of 66, making for a HP disparity of 30 - more than three times that which can affect a wizard. Whilst some might argue that losing 10 HP is not an enormous problem, anyone is going to blanch at the prospect of missing a whopping 30 HP from their pool, which is almost half the health of a minimum HP Barbarian at 8. It is clear, therefore, that high HP warrior classes are punished exponentially more than spellcasters with small HP pools by this system.
With this established, I want to point out what makes the system incongruous with the rest of character progression. Does a monk receive variable rolls on her saving throws, or her AC bonus, or the extra amount of damage potentially available for her fist weapons? These are the primary advantages that a monk possesses - a significant resilience to debilitating effects thanks to universally high saving throws - that is only differentiated from character to character by the level attained, the loot possessed and the scores selected at character creation. These are all values that are ultimately controlled by player agency, and the player's ability to gain strength and equip his character for combat.
Rogues do not receive variable amounts of skill points on level up - they receive a set value, based on their intellect, that is the same every time. Wizards and Sorcerers do not receive variable amounts of spell slots - they attain the same amount of spells, and no degree of randomness is involved in this; if I build a Wizard with the same stat scores as another Wizard and reach the same level as him, I am guaranteed to have an identical number of spells available to me - not accounting for loot. If I build a Barbarian, however, and follow an identical build to another Barbarian I have the potential of having almost a third less HP than his total, for reasons completely outside of my control. I fail to see why this should be the case, seeing as - much as the ability to cast a 4th level Stoneskin and Improved Invisibility a reliable, set number of times is the defensive asset of a Wizard - the defensive asset of a Barbarian should be a reliably large HP pool with which he can soak up damage thrown at him whilst he deals out his own.
EFU is a roleplaying server, and I get that there may be a general phobia/discomfort on wrangling with the minutiae of mechanics such as this in favour of realism, but EFU roleplay operates within the parameters of the D&D system. This system should be consistent with its own paradigms, and endeavour to maintain a degree of equality between the viability of different classes - if not between one another (Wizards are undeniably the most powerful class on EFU, and with good roleplaying reason) then between themselves at least. One warrior-class character should not be more powerful than another for reasons uncontrolled by player agency. Power should be determined by level attained, loot possessed, supply available and the player's mechanical proficiency - not by how much HP the system decides to spit out at you without taking into account any of your PC's characteristics or nuance.
And, yes, 30 HP isn't a huge amount either. Any player worth his salt can overcome a deficiency of HP through chugging that one extra healing potion than the other guy, but its the principle of incongruous disparity that I want to address more than the aggrieved unlucky Barbarian. It is - to use another luck-based analogy - the same as pitching a poker player against his opponent with less chips than his counterpart because a dice said so, even though the rest of the game revolves specifically around a hybrid of tactics and chance. There is no tactical decision-making in HP roll - other than killing yourself to retake the level.
Let's get rid of 'Barricade Madness'.
What's the solution, though? I always thought the issue here was that max HP rolls weren't considered especially balanced. Can the maximum value of HP rolls be modified with haks? And if so, how would you compromise to modify it?
Quote from: Pandip;n651517What's the solution, though? I always thought the issue here was that max HP rolls weren't considered especially balanced. Can the maximum value of HP rolls be modified with haks? And if so, how would you compromise to modify it?
Personally, I don't really see how a max HP Barbarian is overpowered in comparison to, say, a well-built wizard or even a bard/ftr. Barbarians are hardly the strongest of the melee classes, they just look intimidating because of their nominally high strength score and large HP pool. Since the nerf to their Charisma in relation to their rage, they're even less dangerous than before and I would argue that they need the health buff to remain competitive against other melee classes.
The fact remains that a wizard who knows what he is doing - or even a cleric, really - can undo a Barbarian in about 5 rounds flat regardless of how big their health pool is.
A very good suggestion and one that I can't really formulate an argument against.
~
Wizard - 4 HP/level + CON modifier
Sorcerer - 4 HP/level + CON modifier
Bard - 6 HP/level + CON modifier
Rogue - 6 HP/level + CON modifier
Druid - 8 HP/level + CON modifier
Cleric - 8 HP/level + CON modifier
Monk - 8 HP/level + CON modifier
Ranger - 10 HP/level + CON modifier
Fighter - 10 HP/level + CON modifier
Paladin - 10 HP/level + CON modifier
Barbarian - 12 HP/level + CON modifier
~
I believe standardized/non-randomized HP rolls are a welcoming change because classes are already balanced by their hit-die values. I don't find random rolls to be desirable or a necessary representative of any facet of a character or concept.
Even if maximum HP are somehow deemed overpowered, might it not be possible to make it yield a flat result each level? Such as 3 for d4, 5 for d6, 6 or 7 for d8, 8 or 9 for d10 and 10 or 11 for d12?
Everyone wants bad rolls to go away, but the DMs like to make us suffer so I doubt anything will change. This suggestion always turns into a circle jerk ending in "we have no intentions of changing the random rolls" and no one is happy.
I'm all for max rolls, nothing worse than a guy with 12 con who somehow with the luck of the rolls has more hp than some guy with 16 con (same class). Sadly it's been many years for EFU and I feel if this were to change it would have long ago.
Trust me, this won't change, just move on.
Praise the censorship overlords.
I'm all for this change. I've always found random HP rolls to just be frustrating.
I dislike this personally. If anything I'd say to maybe increase the minimum roll across the board by 1, bringing the low end up slightly. That would still leave room for a little random but reduce what I think is too low of a minimum.
Quote from: VanillaPudding;n651571I dislike this personally. If anything I'd say to maybe increase the minimum roll across the board by 1, bringing the low end up slightly. That would still leave room for a little random but reduce what I think is too low of a minimum.
Hm. I can see the merit in this, too. It would take the edge off the really bad rolls without actually make PCs as a whole that much more powerful HP-wise.
Quote from: VanillaPudding;n651571I dislike this personally. If anything I'd say to maybe increase the minimum roll across the board by 1, bringing the low end up slightly. That would still leave room for a little random but reduce what I think is too low of a minimum.
Can you present a counter-argument based on what I have said in my first post? That's not a challenge, its a genuine question, so I can work out an answer to every point of opposition to the change.
No I cannot. Your argument is solid and completely logical, but I personally just enjoy the touch of "random" (even if I agree that it is too much) to what is otherwise, as you greatly defined, a static set of numbers.
Just to clear up the discussion so it does not go astray with alternative suggestions:
There is one setting when it comes to hit points gained on level up:
- Either NWN random, which is between half hit dice and max. Never below half hit dice.
- Or max hit points always.
Default is random and that is what we like here.
Personnally I favor average HP, not pure random or always max. Or some randomness that has most chances of going to average value, not equal chances of giving you min max or anything in between. Or efu modes (lol) that allow a player to choose that kind of option (amongst others, all with drawbacks & whatnot) at pc creation. But it's a lot of work for little gain, tbh.
My biggest issue with the randomized HP rolls is the bigger your HD (d4 vs d12) the more HP you can potentially lose to randomness.
Ie, it is possible for a barbarian to have less HP than a monk or fighter for example, even with a higher HD.
Here is my counter argument.
Maximum HP would cause a massive change in class balance. Let's examine why.
Lets pick a level 8 barbarian, with 14 con and 8d12 HP. Without Max HP, he is expected to have an average of 36(base)+16(con)+6*5(min HP roll component)+0-6*5(random HP roll component, average 3*5 = 15, std 1.9053), which yields :
Minimum 82 HP, Maximum 112 HP, Average 97 HP
95% of all level 8 EFU barbarian will have between 91.5 and 102.5, which means that max HP policy would result in an HP increase of 9.5 to 21, which is 8% to 18 % more HP.
Such change across the board would affect burst damage dealing classes in a negative way (namely rogues and evocation wizard or sorcerers). In essence, it is equivalent to saying that your level 8 sneak attack needs to deal 8-18% more damage to achieve the same result on your target. Or decreasing the effectiveness of evocation even further in favor of transmutations, conjuration or necromancy. This is something we do not want.
Max HP is a bad policy. The good policy is 2/3 of max HP, which would require :
1. max HP policy + dirty script to reduce max HP to bring it to 2/3, or
2. a clean HAK that modifies class HP across the board to yield 2/3 of their current max rolls.
I think it would be cool to implement like temporary hit points on rest if you fall below a certain average and it can be reset through the crafting menu when you're at full hp(to avoid exploiting) or on resting. That way your 67 hp barb can be a 72 hp or 80 hp barb and not have you hoping to die on every quest. I mean ever since the question mark appeared when leveling people have found ways to lose exp to reroll hp like in Mistlocke with the cure curse potions and what not. I don't know how to implement my suggestion, but I think it would solve the issue better than just saying it's fine how it is and leaving everyone unhappy with the system.
Quote from: Talir;n651592Just to clear up the discussion so it does not go astray with alternative suggestions:
There is one setting when it comes to hit points gained on level up:
- Either NWN random, which is between half hit dice and max. Never below half hit dice.
- Or max hit points always.
Default is random and that is what we like here.
If alternatives won't be considered I think it's clear which option the community would pick.
Jack what Talir is getting at is this isn't a democracy and like I stated earlier this won't go anywhere, as much as the player base wants it to change.
Quote from: Pentaxius;n651601Here is my counter argument.
Maximum HP would cause a massive change in class balance. Let's examine why.
Lets pick a level 8 barbarian, with 14 con and 8d12 HP. Without Max HP, he is expected to have an average of 36(base)+16(con)+6*5(min HP roll component)+0-6*5(random HP roll component, average 3*5 = 15, std 1.9053), which yields :
Minimum 67 HP, Maximum 97 HP, Average 82 HP
95% of all level 8 EFU barbarian will have between 79.6343 and 84.3657, which means that max HP policy would result in an HP increase of 7.6343 to 12.3657, which is 10% to 15% more HP.
Such change across the board would affect burst damage dealing classes in a negative way (namely rogues and evocation wizard or sorcerers). In essence, it is equivalent to saying that your level 8 sneak attack needs to deal 10-15% more damage to achieve the same result on your target. Or decreasing the effectiveness of evocation even further in favor of transmutations, conjuration or necromancy. This is something we do not want.
Max HP is a bad policy. The good policy is 2/3 of max HP, which would require :
1. max HP policy + dirty script to reduce max HP to bring it to 2/3, or
2. a clean HAK that modifies class HP across the board to yield 2/3 of their current max rolls.
10% to 15% more health points is not going to make a realistic difference against a determined effort by an evocation wizard or a level 8 rogue with swashbuckler or arcane trickster to bring a Barbarian down.
Consider that your average level 8 rogue, finesse build with a rapier, at 14 strength, is hitting for a damage of 1d6+2+4d6 (average of 17) at 2 APR. He's dealing 34 damage per round, assuming he has a Barbarian flat-footed with a tanglebag or a stance breach (DC 15 reflex, when a barbarian with 14 dexterity at 8 has a reflex save of 4) or has him inside darkness. At that rate of damage, he's taking down a Barbarian in 3 rounds flat assuming he hits with every attack. Usually Barbarians have quite low AC, so this is not unrealistic - include a repertoire of AB buffs and haste to the Rogue and suddenly that Barbarian is in serious danger of being very quickly assassinated. I don't believe that a utility-based, support melee class with medium AB progression having the capacity of taking down a full AB, fully martial-focused class in 3 rounds is particularly underpowered in a 1v1 scenario. Turn that rapier Rogue into a shortbow Rogue with rapid shot and the Barbarian is saying goodnight even more quickly. At the current average indicated by your statistics, that Barbarian with an average HP pool is going down in only 2 and a half rounds, compared to 3 full rounds at maximum HP. Said Barbarian, assuming he has 18 Strength as a base statistic and 14 Charisma, has 24 Strength when raging (assuming he is optimising himself by playing a Default Barbarian, which the Rogue is not by playing a finesse rapier build); assuming he is using a Greataxe, he is dealing an average of 16.5 damage per hit, for a total of 33 per round. The Barbarian, in turn, has the capacity to defeat the Rogue (Average HP, 14 CON) in 2 rounds assuming he likewise lands every attack. This seems entirely reasonable to me, as a support class should not be able to stand up to a martial class in a pitched fight.
An evocation wizard shooting off Ice Storms whilst hasted is dealing an average of 42 damage per round with no DC. He is capable of destroying our current average HP Barbarian in 2 rounds, or a max HP Barbarian in 2.5 rounds. Hell,
he is capable of destroying multiple Barbarians in AOE range in this time - and he is guaranteed to land every hit, so the Barbarian is doomed unless he starts chugging healing the moment the first spell lands. Conversely, this buff to our Barbarian friend's HP
has no impact on the ability of an enchantment or abjuration wizard to incapacitate him; it merely allows him to survive the consequent onslaught a few moments longer, which could be the edge he needs to recover from the assault.
Fully martial, mundane classes are at the bottom of the food chain in EFU PvP. Rogue multiclasses can use wands and may have evasion, Paladins and Rangers may use divine wands and have some rudimentary spellcasting - but Fighters and Barbarians have nothing going for them other than their high AB, their mediocre AC and their gritty HP pool. Your evocation wizards and your pure rogues, whilst not at the top end of the hierarchy among their own class, are still more than capable of ripping apart a mundane martial with a minimal risk of failure. These classes also have significantly more utility and getaway mechanics, and are not nearly as reliant on a hefty supply as the martials. Your unoptimised, low-strength wizard is still going to tear an optimised Barbarian apart, so a buff of 10-15% HP to the Barbarians and Fighters is not going to revolutionise PvP and disenfranchise these flavour-built spellcasters because they are already superior to the martials regardless.
Again I point to the primary argument of remaining congruent in the system's mechanics - these Wizards all reliably have the same number of spellslots. These rogues all reliably have the same number of damage dice for their sneak attacks, and reliably have the same number of skillpoints to put into their hide, move silently and tumble. Why should the Barbarians and Fighters not reliably have the same amount of HP to resist attacks against them with? They don't have much else going for them.
Hound we have had this discussion so many times and gotten nowhere. As someone who had high hopes for this to change at one time, know that my spirit has been completely broken on this particular matter and the great majority of the server has been in favor of max rolls to no avail. The DM team has always had the same firm answer and that is no. None of our many discussions bared any fruit so I will save you any more math or logical discussion and let you know that even if every player agrees that we should have max hp rolls it will not do anything at all.
We're drifting off topic.
My point was that max HP policy affects class balance across the board in a way not initially stated. A clean 2/3 fix HP policy can be implemented with a Hak. This will remedy the unlucky barbarian from ever being born, stave off the level 4-6 HP re-rolling frenzies and frustrations of the perfectionist vet players while preserving the class balance status quo...
95% - of level 8 barbarians have between 91.5 and 102.5 HP in EFU, which is a 10HP discrepancy between the lucky and the unlucky ones, roughly equivalent to 1 bonus feat (toughness). It's quite significant.
79-84 hp at level 8 for a barbarian is absolutely terrible. I don't see how anyone would advocate for having that little hp as a barbarian as you would be like a fighter with less AC, less feats, and less damage with the same weapon except when raging. If my hp is anywhere near this low at level 8 I would just pray I die on quests over and over so I don't have to deal with horrible hp any longer. If I don't have at least 100 hp at level 8 as a barb I feel cheated.
how about changing hp rolls from 50%-100% of the hit dice to 75%-100% of the hit dice (similar to how cure light wounds would heal for a minimum of 4 from dice roll). That way you would still have randomized hp, i.e. characters still aren't identical mechanically but you also wouldn't have some classes outscaled entirely like barbs.
what i'm suggesting is:
barb hp rolls 9-12 from 6-12
fighter/paladin/ranger hp rolls 7 or 8-10 from 5-10
cleric/druid hp rolls 6-8 from 4-8
rogue/bard hp rolls 4 or 5-6 from 3-6
wizard/sorcerer hp rolls 3-4 from 2-4
Quote from: Pentaxius;n651650We're drifting off topic.
My point was that max HP policy affects class balance across the board in a way not initially stated. A clean 2/3 fix HP policy can be implemented with a Hak. This will remedy the unlucky barbarian from ever being born, stave off the level 4-6 HP re-rolling frenzies and frustrations of the perfectionist vet players while preserving the class balance status quo...
That said, I'm not all too certain it is really that desirable, after all - 95% - of level 8 barbarians have between 79 and 84 HP in EFU, its a big story for a 5HP difference.
I don't think it is off-topic, to be honest. The link I'm trying to establish here is that every class has their own defensive strategies that they can use in combat to their advantage. Rogue stealth, Paladin wands, Cleric & Wizard spells, Monk saves and AC. These values are always static in character progression, and do not change from PC to PC if built identically. It's only health that does, even though that health is the defensive asset of the Barbarian. They're designed to soak up damage, that's why they have these immunities - but that's of scant use to them if they have less HP than an opponent Monk or Cleric. If the other classes' advantages are static, the martials' should be too. A class-wide HP buff is to the advantage of all, sure, but its exponentially more helpful the higher the classes' hit die - so Barbarians will benefit the most, with Fighters coming in second; two of the weakest classes in EFU at the moment.
One of the biggest argument in favor of the static HP policy in my mind is the grey zone when it comes to "rerolling" HP by forcefully killing your character in the lower levels. It's frowned upon but not expressively forbidden, and great many of us (myself included) have done it once or twice. It feels petty, unnecessary, and causes self-loathing - but the lingering and exagerated feeling of having a "failed" character due to horrible HP rolls is just something most of us have a hard time coping with.
Overall, this whole ordeal, as irrational as it may seem, does contribute to a suboptimal EFU experience at the lower levels...
Quote from: Pentaxius;n651679One of the biggest argument in favor of the static HP policy in my mind is the grey zone when it comes to "rerolling" HP by forcefully killing your character in the lower levels. It's frowned upon but not expressively forbidden, and great many of us (myself included) have done it once or twice. It feels petty, unnecessary, and causes self-loathing - but the lingering and exagerated feeling of having a "failed" character due to horrible HP rolls is just something most of us have a hard time coping with.
Overall, this whole ordeal, as irrational as it may seem, does contribute to a suboptimal EFU experience at the lower levels...
This resonates with me, because I admit, I want the chance to "fail" at my character, to screw up irreparably and suffer doom for my mistakes... but I want those mistakes to actually be mistakes, not purely random rolling (life in the DnD system is already subject to random dice rolls enough as it is). Let my character fail because she picked a fight with a Balor, not because she rolled low on a level-up screen you can't avoid nor approach any differently!
Quote from: Talir;n651592Default is random and that is what we like here.
I would sincerely like to know why, from a DM's perspective, this is desirable at all.
- We know that NWN is not balanced for PvP and was never intended to be.
- PvP is a large part of EfU, and it often determines major outcomes for both PC and DM plots.
- Static HP would improve PvP balance in this setting, as our OP so ably pointed out.
- There is quite enough randomness in the 3.5 system already.
- It makes some sense in single player or pen and paper campaigns, but in this setting only adds to player frustration and burnout.
I am at a complete loss to explain how there can such unanimity of opinion among both DMs and players about which system should be preferred, and why they are in complete opposition to one another. I can easily understand the player perspective, as I share it, but I really can't see what the DM team gets out of of random HP rolls that is so valuable that it's worth all the downsides. At the very least, static HP means the DMs have to do less math when designing dungeons and quests.
I just don't see the upside here.
It's our DMs being stubborn and not wanting to change their minds :P. Or maybe they think it weeds out the ''bad'' players whom they think might be more interested in the game's mechanics than in the story.
It's more that this is the standard and has always been in DnD. You have to go out of your way to deliberately enable max hit points gained by hit dice, akin to a cheat toggle which adjusts system behaviour.
Don't see any arguments here that sways the opinion against what about 10 years has shown. Of course people would love more hit points but it does not have the miraculous benefits you guys seem to think. It is upon you to argue that a change would make it better -- thus the suggestion forum -- but I recommend letting this one go. I don't see a change in this ever happening.
I'm not entirely sure what the last decade has shown, other than martial class characters suiciding themselves on the sly to try and get better HP rolls at the lower levels. As far as logical arguments on PvP balance are concerned, I think I made an excellent case in my initial post and my response to Pentaxius' counter-arguments. Tradition isn't always a good thing.
Everywhere other than HP, we see static values for defense and random values for offense. Characters have static saves, AC, amount of DR received from blur or stoneskin, immunity to death and negative energies, the amount of DR provided against elements when protection spells are cast, the amount of health summoned creatures have when conjured. Only in HP rolls do we see a deviance from this norm.
It's in offensive values that the RNG of D&D takes place. Rolling 20s to attack, rolling a 20 to resist a spell, rolling a dice to determine damage from a physical attack or an evocation spell, rolling dice to determine spot and listen vs hide and M/S, rolling dice to determine resistance to Knockdown and Called Shot.
Quote from: Talir;n652228Don't see any arguments here that sways the opinion against what about 10 years has shown. .
Well I mean, Barbarian rage and multi-classes were fine for just as long but they got changed.
Here's the thing.
What we know is that random vs guaranteed full hp - of course full hp is better. Everyone enjoys it more than low rolls.
While Efu is very much it's own entity, it is still running D&D spirited engine and build around those things, with the intention that creators liked nwn and D&D rules. Whether one likes all of the rules or not, it's a choice that was made intentionally. Big spirit of this has always been dice rolls in some aspects. For greater good, it was not made that every character is randomly rolled, because that takes too much freedom of choice away. We've even brought an optional option where even more aspects are decided by the roll of the dice just because we enjoy the challenge there.
This is not a matter of logic, but a matter of choice. It can be argued against, but like with all games and rules, people choose to follow them for some reason. Not logic. It's because it's preferred for challenge, different approach or whatever other reason one may have. This is it for us. We've long decided that we prefer this variety, whether it's for good or bad. It's not logical decision, it is a choice to follow this old style and mechanic. In it's own little way, it has a meaning. In order for there to be true moments of triumph, feeling of success or absolute streak of luck, the moments one remembers over 90 other times they've had mediocre or less memorable events, it is those few where everything clicks that you remember - it is because they are out of the norm and average. Again, I can easily argue myself over this, but as I said, it is choice to aim for that. It's not a logical or iron clad argument.
There is a reason why many new games don't do this, and that's fine. It may not be a form that majority likes, but that's why we have this kind community that still sticks to these kind games. In the end Efu is one of them, and more so, Efu was build with certain vision and has grown and changed according to all people involved. It's core vision still remains and few things have not changed - because of the choice to keep it that way.
If this is a game breaker for you, I am really sorry about that. This is not something any of us wants, but some people accept and maybe even like the possibility of it.
This one thing is certainly not a game-breaker for me, and with the admission that, "It's not logical, it's just one of the components that arbitrarily makes EFU what it is," I can accept it with no true problems, whatever my preference may be.
I wish we could do all min rolls, honestly. A world is a lot more interesting when that scummy vagabond can put a knife in you and you don't just flinch it off like a bee sting.
I personally enjoy the random HP rolls. Sure, when I roll the minimum I make a sad face and curl up into the fetal position on my bed and sing Celine Dione's "My Heart will go on" to myself for an hour, but peaks require valleys. When I roll that sweet max I get to run around fist-pumping for an hour.
But, let's face it, it's me, I'll lose the PvP no matter how many HPs I have.
-gracken
Quote from: Paha;n652263In order for there to be true moments of triumph, feeling of success or absolute streak of luck, the moments one remembers over 90 other times they've had mediocre or less memorable events, it is those few where everything clicks that you remember - it is because they are out of the norm and average.
I have not played EfU in quite a long time because I
never experience these moments of triumph any more. Since shortly after the beginning of EfU:M, my consistent experience here has been one of repeatedly beating my head against a wall to see what sticks. I spent three years after that trying to make it work, believing that the problem was something I was doing wrong. If it were a matter of luck, I should have gotten lucky at least once by now. Somewhere along the way, EfU strayed from its original mission of a grimdark and difficult setting to being needlessly frustrating. Thwarting player ambition is a poor substitute for challenge. When I found myself getting angry every single time I tried out a new concept, that's when I realized it was time for me to play something else for a while.
These days, I occasionally drop in and read the forums to see if anything has changed. That's why this thread caught my eye.
Quote from: Paha;n652263If this is a game breaker for you, I am really sorry about that. This is not something any of us wants, but some people accept and maybe even like the possibility of it.
Random HP rolls is not a game breaker for me. It was never a problem before. Extreme difficulty is not a game breaker for me, we've always had that here. Not even the removal of player storage was a game breaker for me, despite the fact that it makes the use of the crafting system obnoxiously frustrating. No, the game breaker for me is the answer I just got to my question. The policy is bad, you know it's bad, and you won't change it because that's the way it's always been.
There is something that a new player said a couple of years ago in the Improving Player Retention thread that really comes to mind right now:
Quote from: EmeraldFalcon;n487876But you're trying to be too many things as a server. You're trying to maintain a high level of RP, but you don't want people to act rudely to new players. You're trying to encourage people not to powergame, but you've made a set of rules so harsh that that feels like the only option. You cannot be everything to everyone.
There was once a time when all these various issues were balanced out. It was possible to balance out all the competing goals of the server because the DM team accepted constructive feedback and listened to the community. That is no longer the case. I had some good times here, and I'm going to miss this place. If anyone wants to find me, look me up on Steam.
You can now lock this thread. Good dark.
It is honestly quite unbelievable that this thread has reached three pages. I will not address the mechanical arguments presented by the OP because I find they are an oversimplification of pvp. No pvp happens in a vacuum, and I dare any sane mage to enter pvp using his four fourth level slots to memorize four ice storms. I will just say that if 10 more or less hp make or break your character, you're clearly doing something wrong and would better take a few moments off to consider if cooperative storytelling really is your cup of tea.
Quote from: Haer Dalis 83;n652304It is honestly quite unbelievable that this thread has reached three pages. I will not address the mechanical arguments presented by the OP because I find they are an oversimplification of pvp. No pvp happens in a vacuum, and I dare any sane mage to enter pvp using his four fourth level slots to memorize four ice storms. I will just say that if 10 more or less hp make or break your character, you're clearly doing something wrong and would better take a few moments off to consider if cooperative storytelling really is your cup of tea.
I've already addressed both the vacuum principle and the argument of the matter being insignificant in the grander scheme of PvP in a previous post - it isn't the 10 HP or 33 HP disparity that is the issue, it is the fact that the existence of random HP rolls is incongruous with the rest of the character progression system, which is static in every way. It is not internal attributes that are randomised in D&D - it is external ones outside of your character, that your character applies their static abilities in an attempt to overcome. I refer again to my poker analogy - even though the hand you are dealt, and the hand of your opponent, is randomised and changes turbulently throughout the course of the game, the number of chips you started with is static and it is a variable you can rely on in your tactics when addressing the obstacles set in front of you.
And no, EFU is not a game of poker, but it is very much a game of probabilities, so the principles are not entirely unrelated.
Well regardless. The points Paha makes stand and this won't be changing. An interesting discussion, but that's all.
I sympathise with the frustration of the HP rolling system sometimes. It is however a hard coded aspect of NWN. As Tailr said, the choices are between maximum for everyone, or random.
A middle-of-the-road average system would be fine from my personal perspective, but it's just seemingly not possible to implement. So of the two systems we have to choose from, we've chosen randomness.
It can really suck sometimes if you get entirely too unlucky and end up substantially below the average (though this isn't as common as you might think). There are many ways you could attempt to roleplay that frailty in-game though. Old war wounds, or the result of various traumas, etc. If it's something you do well, it's entirely possible a DM might take notice of it and give you something to even the playing field a bit.