No to full hp's

[Zelknolf]

Of course, I am planning on helping measure and norm CR and such, while I'm testing AI revisions.

See here:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpBB3/view ... =3&t=48482



Figure that the HPs don't really matter as long as we slap a CR on the finished product that's an accurate representation of the critter's challenge/ threat.

[Hialmar]

There are technical reasons we use full HP. I'll let others chime in on that, but starting threads about DMs vs players really is divisive and abusive.

I'm really not too happy to see multiple threads that basically complain about everything that we are doing wrong...

The complaint engine's really been revved up this year for some reason. Let's do a short overview of the year in ALFA whine:

1. There's no content - add more static activities
2. We add more, and the day after MS copied a few tiny scripted hunts from BG(mushrooms etc.) to give people motivation to explore:
3. Giant thread in DM forums on how mushrooms are killing ALFA, so we stop, inevitably there are new grumblings about how there's still not enough content.
4. DM comes back and starts a campaign - gets deemed "exclusion-ist" because it is a dwarf group - even though we have temp retirement and all are welcome to join
5. Months long complaints from various members about not having pet DMs to run plots purpose built for individual PCs, including tells in game bitching about it to DMs
6. Anger when we enforce the rules against cheating, anger when we don't. Discussion about how it's improper to dock XP earned by cheating (some believe a DM may not take XP from a player despite the DMG rules), then anger when the formal dispute process is used instead.
7. Not enough loot dropped by DM X, too much loot dropped by DM Y
8. Numerous complaints about the way areas in various modules look, down to the quantity and type of grass used by the builder

I have to ask who the F would admin or DM this project today? This is not some country club where you pay 50K a year in dues and can complain about the grass height on the putting green.

Quoted for truth.

[t-ice]

Figure that the HPs don't really matter as long as we slap a CR on the finished product that's an accurate representation of the critter's challenge/ threat.

Yes, from a DM point of view.

From a player experience point-of-view it's also important how these products are placed into the world for PCs to meet as static content. Players don't see the CR, after all, they just either win or get their arses handed to them. And there seems to be two philosophies there:
1) It's stupid to risk a good PC and story to a static mook, static content (when not stupidly played) shouldn't pose a threat (or much of a reward), but something fun to bide the time while waiting for a DM.
2) Statics should provide an interesting challenge and corresponding rewards. Something to (role)play when a DM is not there.
Lately the latter seems to have been the most vocal one, and statics have been moved to that direction. Which means that spawns have become more unpredictable and dangerous, in particular the highest CR you might encounter in a given place, to counter "safe and boring day-to-day farming". But the other side of the coin is as the OP says: Looks like the DMs and builders are out to get the PCs, and the players feel threatened and oppressed. As if there's a "rofl-stomped-on-you-ha ha!" penalty chance build in just to spite players who play static content. Seems the call against full hp comes from this, where it seems everything in the world would be increased in danger to the PCs by full hp, when especially the low-level PCs and lonely PCs already spend their time huddling in fear. Which is certainly not fun. Reduction in player numbers coinciding with increased server count also makes for much more parties of less than 4 PCs.

Since both philosophies are congruent with the kind of game we wish to build, it follows that we'd need to have separate areas that allow for both kinds of game. Those who want a challenge can go to a dangerous area, whereas those who do not can bide their time elsewhere without a roflstomp quilloitine hanging over their heads. Which needs well-built CRs to assess the risk to give corresponding rewards. And full hp creatures far better estimate the dnd-intended risk to full-hp PCs than half-hp creatures (and no, no-one is going through every single creature to modify them from canon specs in some other way than hp to match our PCs who are more powerful than canon). We might have to adjust the eqution "lvl N player defeated a CR M creature, how much xp to give?", too. So that you can't farm the "CR in a narrow range so it's safe" areas for easy gains, but you still get something for defeating a challenge, and that you don't get ridiculously high rewards for defeating something you must have metagamed to defeat, eg. kiting or min/maxing.

It's my own view that there's no way to provide a good assessment of risk vs reward in static content, and trying to do so will only instigate a arms race of PC powerbuilding and AI abuse (or "nwn2 tactics", if you will). Because a powerbuild is just that, built to win against CRs supposedly above his head, and we don't want to give big rewards for that. Thus err heavily on the side of 1) in terms of risk/reward (risks are taken for the RP, not for xp and loot, although they do provide somewhat of a bonus in the latter, too). Full hp also makes it harder to powergame static content by the likes of sniping and kiting.

[zilvai]

From my experience in ALFA the whole working together thing just did not work out. Staff can't work together with players, players can't work together with staff and even the two sides can't work together with each other in their own groups.

I hear complaints from player A about Staff A, then Staff B about Player B aswell as Player B complainging about Player A and lastly Staff B about Staff A. It's a lil silly and makes the environmental less fine, and one reason the forums have grown to my distaste, open and DM side.

As for statics, I know things were in the works to change them and make them more "Today-ALFA" friendly, as I used to help Paazin with testing the various statics together. It's a fact we do not have enough players for them, unless you as a level 3 want to watch your lvl 10+ buddy kill stuff for you whilst you stick behind, loot corpses you did not even touch and then hand in the quest for XP.

[t-ice]

From my experience in ALFA the whole working together thing just did not work out. Staff can't work together with players, players can't work together with staff and even the two sides can't work together with each other in their own groups.

*shrug* There's been disagreements, but in the end it's always been respectful. I've never truly had a problem with "working together" with folks here.

But this isn't a thread about grievances against people, is it? It's about the way we construct creatures that our PCs face in the game.

[zilvai]

But this isn't a thread about grievances against people, is it? It's about the way we construct creatures that our PCs face in the game.

Truefax. Could just give it a go at half HP npcs, if no one likes, revert. Beta the idea ja?

[Brokenbone]

As noted in the discussion thread DMA kicked off in Standards, we have both kinds of critters. Many max, many half. Some smaller number also meant to simulate NPC class guys within reason, made some max looking 8hp "Warriors" with awful class skills and no bonus feat, despite looking like a Fighter on char sheet. Things do get built to discretion.

There's some fairly good mathy arguments that max hp more closely approximates listed CR, and that centralized blueprints or tools for on the fly NPCs are best kept on the max side of things.

Admit I adore mooks who explode when the right party sneezes on them as an occasional heroic moment kind of thing. I like there to be lots of mooks, and only leader types in some reasonable proportion. But if you wanted perfect pnp random encounters of like "10 cr 0.5 kobolds and one leader who is a fighter 2, accompanied by two dire weasles" the game will slow down like mad and with the amount of solo or "can't find group 90% of the time" play, no ones fun is going to be high.

[oldgrayrogue]

PCs have max HP, mobs should have max HP.

If the encounter is too difficult for your PC, perhaps consider fleeing? It makes for interesting RP. You can come back with friends which is even more interesting.

My experience as a DM in ALFA is that even "beefed up" mobs are mowed down by most midlevel PCs without too much risk of death. The PC deaths I have witnessed have been due more to wonky AI targeting of casters or poor tactical choices. Of course if a level 1 or 2 goes off wandering in the forest or a cave alone they take their life into their own hands.

[Curmudgeon]

Static Monsters shouldnt have full hp's, everything in dnd is based on a roll of the dice. The only advantage pc's have is they can stay a little longer and the ai sucks some times.
I keep reading about fireballs and high level spells taking out a group. And yes a group of archers can shoot the enemy to pieces before they go hand to hand. But full hp's will lead to more low level stupid deaths(rats,chickens,deer, a blind one legged old man who cant hear).

Some of you are starting to sound like you have a dm vs players mind set. Over twenty years of rpiing either by pnp or outlooks like alfa, one thing i know is that when dm's start to get that mindset and they are telling THEIR story and the pc's are nothing but npc tag alongs.....well the players will find somewhere else to play.

The players have a advantage in dnd because ITS THEIR STORY, not goblin spawn version 2.5.

Stormseeker, I've added your comment to the ongoing discussion thread in Standards. Your point of view has some validity and I'd to see it addressed.

Standards Forum is viewable by all members, but posting is limited in the hope of maintaining some focus on actual game issues in a civil and reasonable manner. Any member who has a strong opinion on a matter under discussion in Standards is welcome to PM their opinion to members of the Standards group or any active DM for reposting in the appropriate place.

Thanks,

[Stormseeker]

Hey thanks, and from now on i will do as you say.*grins and gives a sloppy salute*

[maxcell]

Perhaps a script that rolls as a dm would roll for the HP when the beasties spawn. It's what we do in pnp as dms, when there is an encounter, we roll for the monster's hp based on dnd rules. Could we add a few lines of code to the spawn system "if spawn=monster x then roll y number of hit dice per spawned creature" or what ever that would be in smart person talk.

there would be an actual, if small chance of the hitdice being max, buy equally likely and more common random numbers as in pnp.

The players would not be going into an encounter knowing that they face 3 goblins at max hp so they are a certain toughness. Or that there are 3 at half etc.....it would be random dice rolls and variable therefore more like table top, more exciting, and imo fun.

(please note, the above is the only suggestion I will provide,...ever)

[Zelknolf]

Trying to code variety of hit points into mobs got touched on briefly in the Standards thread-- the safe scripts we can write always give max HP.

[Witchdoctor]

*Insert Rodney King quote here*

[gonz.0]

Stormseeker, I've added your comment to the ongoing discussion thread in Standards. Your point of view has some validity and I'd to see it addressed.

Standards Forum is viewable by all members, but posting is limited in the hope of maintaining some focus on actual game issues in a civil and reasonable manner. Any member who has a strong opinion on a matter under discussion in Standards is welcome to PM their opinion to members of the Standards group or any active DM for reposting in the appropriate place.

Thanks,

*applauds* A good response, giving a hearing in proper forum is all anyone can reasonably expect.