Remove Random HP Rolls

[Letsplayforfun]

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.

[Vlaid]

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.

[Pentaxius]

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.

[TeufelHunden]

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.

[JackOfBlades]

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.

If alternatives won't be considered I think it's clear which option the community would pick.

[TeufelHunden]

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.

[Hound]

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 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.

[TeufelHunden]

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.

[Pentaxius]

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.





 

[TeufelHunden]

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.

[reborn]

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

[Hound]

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...

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.

[Pentaxius]

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...

[EventHorizon]

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...

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!

[PlayaCharacter]

Default 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.