A Land Far Away

Hi,

I have an (old) idea, can we get randomised hit points on level up?

More fun that way, right?

Or maybe max hit points for the first 3 levels, then random after that (or average?)

I remember Foam saying it is feasible, so its worth being discussed for desirability.

It is feasible, but figuring out how to fairly handle legacy characters is a hell in itself. Nerf them to mach? Have fun with that. Grandfather them out of the change for their current level? Then it's not fair the other way.

It's one of those changes that would be hard for a community to make, I think.

I would asterisk that "feasible"-- this would fall into the category of things that tech is pretty sure we can do, but is also something that folk who work on NWN2 would generally call not possible. OE didn't hand us a cozy "set max hit points" method to call. So there may be unpredictable or unforseen things in that bag.

(and we'd also likely have the situation we had in NWN1, wherein people kept finding ways to check what their HP roll was before finalizing the level up, and then canceling it and trying again).

While a low CON fighter is questionable, a couple low rolls has a greater effect on HP. PnP DMs have much greater control over what they put in their campaigns, and can fudge the rolls on occasion. This adds the headache for all existing servers (including beta) to re-balance everything over ~3rd level to account for the new ~2/3 HP characters - I can't see the value-add in this.

I seem to remember a debate on this a while ago, something about less than full hit points on character & npcs both.

HP rolls are very unfair. If you want to do something other than max hp then just do average hp for everyone instead.

will the critters be adjusted too?

This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Why does ALFA need this tweak? The current system is predictable, and in that predictability there lies a certain fairness which allows both Players and DMs alike to judge the strenght and weakness of creatures and characters. I do not see any advantage to ALFA at all in having random hit-points.

I don't think I am stepping out on a limb in predicting monumental flame wars over this one should it get to the point of serious discussion.

Plus, I don't like the idea of random screwage.

I like it.

I'll take a re-level also for my PC and take random rolls as long as "Average rounded up, minimum average +1" is also used for each level. Even if the decision was to allow a Grandfather rule for current PCs. I'll still re-roll.

No DM in their right mind would ever make a player keep a 1 or 2 on a HP roll in PnP. If yes, he/she should never be allowed to own the DMG.

Kind of like this:

d4: 3-4
d6: 4-5-6
d8: 5-6-7-8
d10: 6-7-8-9-10
d12: 7-8-9-10-11-12


FLAME ON

If there's too much hp, I'd look into tweaking the -6 floor instead. Either make it fail with a small probability at high levels, or incapacitate the pc somehow more permanently if saved from by-the-book death by the floor (for simplest examples, deal ability dmg and neg levels). And/or keep saved-from-death PCs down for the count for, say, at least a minute, regardless if hps are healed. (Note that PCs who just fall to negative hps legit shouldn't be affected, only those saved from -10 by the -6 cap) Far more effective in creating non-godlike PCs than shaving a couple hps.

We don't need fights to go to whack-a-moling faster, but maybe we should increase PC risk by making whack-a-moling less reliable a "tactic" when it does happen.

I think the time for making this decision has long ago passed us by. Same with the wealth issues brought up last week. Some things, while I may agree with in principle, are no longer practical or create more problems than they solve.

NO!

If the problem is too much HP on chars i'd rather see everyone geting the average roll instead of a random roll. Never personally liked the fact that the big mighty barbarian could get 1 and the rouge a six. However, I think max hp is fine, it's not like alfa isn't build on the soil of dead adventurers any way

HEEGZ wrote:I think the time for making this decision has long ago passed us by. Same with the wealth issues brought up last week. Some things, while I may agree with in principle, are no longer practical or create more problems than they solve.

Again, this.