NWN2: Deviations from 3.5

[Rotku]

Well, to remove the random factor we can just give the average. So for a d8, PCs would get 4.5. d10 5.5, so and forth. That would remove the random factor

[Veilan]

Having no randomisation is a plus

Why?

Removes exploitability and outliers, and makes the playing field level. That is good for a PW. We are a PW.

A level 8 spell caster casts the same dice for a fireball no matter how many HP the targets have. What the HP do is devalue direct damage spells while at the same time upgrading enchanting magics and the like.

Can you please explain what you mean here?

Direct damage spells do a set amount of damage. They become less relatively effective if targets have higher HP. At the same time, spells that neutralise a target - death magic, deep slumber - and spells that give buffs / debuffs become relatively more effective. A clever mage simply adjusts his spell selection and maybe for a start sees a benefit in not loading up on empowered fireballs only.

There's no persuasive benefit here that makes it at all expediant to try to get around what the game has given us.

Pillar of ALFA 1: D&D. ALFA uses Dungeons & Dragons ("D&D").

We do, maximum HP is not a deviation from the core game. It is, after all, technically possible. We still use the system, we do have to make amends though for the entirely different nature of a CRPG and a 24/7 PW. We're not suddenly playing Shadowrun because we don't doggedly cling to every little game quirk.

Pillar of ALFA 4: Permadeath. ALFA has permadeath for player characters.

This pillar is not at all affected. The consequences for death are still very much existant, you'd have more of a point arguing that resurrectiong spells harm this pillar than more HP. I'm curious why you would have mentioned it. Noone reversed the policy or says character should suddenly spring back to life.

Well, to remove the random factor we can just give the average. So for a d8, PCs would get 4.5. d10 5.5, so and forth. That would remove the random factor

Yes, I guess that's why I suggested that as my own opinion .

Regardless, I accept that some may disagree and feel their sentimentality to PnP numbers injured. But even if most of us - me included - would have no objections to using lower HP numbers, it's just not worth the effort and work related to it. We agreed on using the NWN 2 system before we went live, and I'm not a friend of revising everything spur of the moment. The discussion was made a long time ago, and no horribly unbearable faults have been proven to have come out of this decision.

Post Scriptum: Riot, you srlsy need to work on your quoting skills .

[Rotku]

Well, to remove the random factor we can just give the average. So for a d8, PCs would get 4.5. d10 5.5, so and forth. That would remove the random factor

Yes, I guess that's why I suggested that as my own opinion .

You don't expect me to read your posts, do you?

[Rotku]

A clever mage simply adjusts his spell selection and maybe for a start sees a benefit in not loading up on empowered fireballs only.

You're kidding? People give these things that much thought? And there I've always wondered why I can never keep a PC alive. I tend to either go the "Oooo, that spell looks FUN!" route, or sometimes when I'm feeling particularly keen I might take spells to build upon my character concept (such as an illusionist taking illusionisty spells). I always wondered where I was going wrong - never thought that the answer was adjusting my spells due to silly OOC things like the hitpoint systems

Seriously though. In the end of the day, as you say yourself, if most people - including you - have no big objection to lowering it, and it is something Riot wishes to see done (and is willing to put in the effort to do), why not do it? Just because the descision was made a long time ago, does not mean it was the best path to take - there have been numerous calls made before NWN2 came out that have since proven absolutely silly. It happens.

[Ithildur]

NWN2 isn't exactly pnp DND certainly, but it is DnD and uses DnD rules for the most part when it comes to numbers that effect outcomes. The entire system is called d20; it's based on random raw numbers influenced by modifiers which reflect controllable elements such as a character's skill, training, natural ability, etc (feats, lvls, etc).

For HPs you have hit DICE, which is fixed. You also have CON modifiers, and feats, and some buffs, etc.That's the fixed part of the system. Then you have the actual roll of the dice, which is random. DnD has always been based on this idea, that you have random numbers with modifiers that are fixed. 3e/3.5e/d20 ESPECIALLY makes this apparent. That's the heart of the game system. If someone has a problem with this random element then they have a problem with a core feature of DnD. Obviously if a DM is going to 'houserule' that this rule goes out the window and all creatures have max HPs, that's their perogative as the DM. As it is, Obsidian has made a 'houserule' choice for us by default that goese much further than what Bioware did with NWN1, BG1, BG2, etc. I think we all understand the suckiness of rolling a 1 for HP with a d10 for a warrior, although odds are the next lvl you roll better and you normally end up with a decent total. I liked NWN1's system as a compromise, max first 3 (iirc) lvls and then weighted rolls subsequently. All you guys that don't like random numbers, ALFA1 made sure the randomness after lvl 3 was upheld by having a hak that prevented you from rerolling for max HPs, remember? NWN1's system was generous but reasonable; Obsidian's 'house rule' goes WAY beyond BW and effectively DOUBLED the HPS of everyone (going by average rolls). The question ultimately is does ALFA follow this? I and others gave various reasons why some of us feel this is a bad rule tweak, bad enough that if a reasonable means to undo it is available, it's worth pursuing. I believe that especially for a project like ALFA this is the case.

1. ALFA shoots for an experience closer to pnp than vanilla nwn1/nwn2, that's a fundamental part of ALFA's flavor, and we even advertise ourselves that way.

2. There are subtle and drastic game balance issues that come into play when a vital number like HPs are suddenly doubled for all PCs and monsters, or for PCs only, or for monsters only, whichever. Fireballs are the most obvious example, but it's not just that.

3. There are aesthetic reasons as well for many people; like Dorn, the thought that every single lvl 10 fighter (PC or NPC) with con 14/15 runs around with EXACTLY the same amount of beefy HPS (without toughness) seems to take something away from the game.

4. When you take into consideration that said fighters will be running around with nearly twice as many HPs as the HP listed for canon NPCs, it's even more bothersome. Sure, we can double the HPs for every canon NPC as well, give Drizzt 200 HPs, Elminster what, 400 HPs, etc., since this is dnd and DMs can make calls like that even with canon, but I don't see things like that as representative of ALFA.

So in summary, it goes against every single official variation of DnD rules in existance (4th edition maybe has max HPs, I donno and don't really care atm), it's even more drastic than the compromise system nwn1 had, it flies right in the face of the hak we had in ALFA1 to ensure random rolls, it creates game balance shifts that heavily favor non spellcaster classes among other things (spells are gimped, warriors stand to gain the most HPs by maxing them), it feels aesthetically off, and it makes canon NPCs into wimps unless they also get beefed up, etc.

I don't see any other reason to keep max HPs for a project that aims to be faithful to pnp/canon other than 1. it's not readily fixable and/or 2. there are other issues that are far more urgent atm

[Ithildur]

Having no randomisation is a plus

Why?

Removes exploitability and outliers, and makes the playing field level. That is good for a PW. We are a PW.

Veilan, can you clarify? What exploitability are you thinking of?

And I for one do not feel that 'every lvl x PC with y con has z HPs=level playing field' is good for a PW. It's good for a pvp focused or Action PW, perhaps, but why would RPers feel that something that takes away from the uniqueness of a character is a good thing? I always thought that it was cool that there was some ALFA PC out there in alfa1 named Dorn who was much tougher than most folks, and that even people with similar training/class/feats might not be able to match his toughness. I did not fret that even if I rolled a barb and took the same feats, had the same con etc as him I might never match his HPs; I thought it was cool that PCs were unique, and sometimes you had guys come down the pipe that were unusually tough, and others that were less hale than average. I don't devalue people or characters in RL or RP because they have lesser 'stats', and certainly it would be a more boring world both in RL or virtually if everyone were to become MORE alike than more unique.

[Dorn]

...Dorn who was much tougher than most folks...

You know it.

Anyways, who decides on these issues? We have a few who like it, a few who dont like it, one who hatefully hates it with extra hate...but where does it go?

-Admin vote? (to allow someone to work on it, not to reprioritise tech teams work on higher priority stuff just because it's an idea)
-General membership vote? (i think its better for admin as elected leaders imo)
-10 page back and forth till one side loses interest?

Personally, although i honestly like the idea, i would be more inclined to leave it well enough alone if it's seriously going to upset a reasonable number of people. I dont buy the 'the horse has bolted' argument (a few rerolls is a poor excuse for not introducing a good idea), but if there's a feeling that we're continually nerfing stuff and people are starting to view things negatively then *shrugs* leave it.

[Riotnrrd]

I tend to mostly agree with Dorn... however...
I don't feel its a nerf, its a move towards canon which our charter and ALFA pillars support, and as such it should be seriously considered. Reading back over the threads I don't get the sense that many are opposed to the idea of changing it, but the amount of work appears to be the most significant argument against changing it.
I suggest that those that feel most strongly about it, be willing to offer some effort to correct Bioware's booboo. I'm willing to do some of this work myself, because as I stated above, it does bother me. I suspect Ithildur might be willing to assist as well, and if we have more volunteers then so much the better. I would imagine the formation of a 'tiger team' to get this corrected could fairly quickly come up with a workaround.
However, if there is a significant portion of the ALFA base whom are against moving towards randomized HPs, we need to understand why, and consider their arguments, and if there is serious resistance, then I suppose it would be up to the admins to gather information through polls and forum posts, then make a decision.

[HEEGZ]

Anyways, who decides on these issues? We have a few who like it, a few who dont like it, one who hatefully hates it with extra hate...but where does it go?

-Admin vote? (to allow someone to work on it, not to reprioritise tech teams work on higher priority stuff just because it's an idea)
-General membership vote? (i think its better for admin as elected leaders imo)
-10 page back and forth till one side loses interest?

I believe this falls under Standards which is in the DM Admin domain. It certainly affects players and the tech department for implementation as well though. This wasn't brought up during the recent DM Admin election, and so it was not part of my platform. I'm assuming that only the handful of people posting in this thread actually care too much about this change. For that reason I consider it a very low priority, considering how many other things need to be done in the Toolset for our Live servers.

However, I will shoot a couple of you PMs as I think there is a productive next step for this idea.

[Veilan]

I appreciate the polemical hyperbole, but we're not at double HP from ALFA 1 by a long shot. ALFA 1 was max for first 3 levels, then at least half hit die per level. Means for a fighter with con 14, most extreme point in life, level 20: ALFA 1: 3 * 12 + 17 * 9.5 = 197,5 vs. ALFA 2: 20*12 = 240. That's not even +25%, and this is level 20, a point mostly irrelevant for this discussion. The lower level you look, the more close are ALFA 1 and ALFA 2. I hope this adds some perspective to the "almost double" HP being tossed around.

Personally, I think it's actually an advantage that the person with higher con and higher toughness has more HP than the guy who hasn't invested in those stats / feats.

Oh, and we are a CvC PW. Which is another reason why a level playing field is good - even if you don't personally mind it, and a lot of people aren't going to stand up and say "but I'm jealous", equality is of some importance in a PW made for more than 4 players with 1 DM.

The gameplay balance issues are exaggerated. Consider that a wizard now survives the onslaught of a fighter longer as well, giving him just that time to cast the 2nd finger of death, actually more than doubling his own average damage output (double the chance - against more HP that are instantly neutralised). There's drawbacks and advantages everywhere, adjust, roll with it - it's not gamebreaking. Be creative, make the best out of the situation, if gameplay prowess really is what you are worried about.

Now, I also respect and admire that some may extol our virtues and honestly promise they have no hard feelings about randomisation, and I believe them. However, some brief examples of things that actually happened in ALFA 1:

- people asking for, and getting, rerolls on low level up rolls
- tech raises often saw rerolls if the HP roll was lower, but very seldom when it was higher
- people oocly planning their character progression to maximise the guaranteed max rolls for the first 3 levels

Opportunity for abuse always creates abuse. Our policy should be one that requires the least policing.

So, I strongly disagree on randomisation.

I don't disagree on lowering HP numbers, but this is a question of expediancy and efficiency to implement. At this point, there have been no severe disadvantages laid out to convince me that the effort is an investment critical to our interests and functionality.

[Kest]

Are we ready to make the NWN2 murder engine more deadly then? Everyone's agreed? Marvelous! Full steam ahead!!

[Riotnrrd]

I appreciate the polemical hyperbole, but we're not at double HP from ALFA 1 by a long shot.

The question is whether we're double the HPs of canon averages, and the answer is yes.

Personally, I think it's actually an advantage that the person with higher con and higher toughness has more HP than the guy who hasn't invested in those stats / feats.

If you believe this (and I agree with you), then its even more true with random hitpoints. Consider: a fighter with 14 con gets 2 extra HPs per level. Assuming an average of 5.5 on a d10 roll, that's roughly a 45% increase for having the higher CON. If HPs are max, you're only gaining 20%. The situation is even more important for all of the classes with fewer HD. By maxing HPs you are LESSENING the importance of CON, and toughness, and other such feats.

we are a CvC PW. Which is another reason why a level playing field is good - even if you don't personally mind it, and a lot of people aren't going to stand up and say "but I'm jealous", equality is of some importance in a PW made for more than 4 players with 1 DM.

Max HPs creates greater inequality between classes and levels, as Ithildur has pointed out. You may be introducing a straw man by suggesting anyone is speaking against a level playing field.

The gameplay balance issues are exaggerated. Consider that a wizard now survives the onslaught of a fighter longer as well, giving him just that time to cast the 2nd finger of death, actually more than doubling his own average damage output (double the chance - against more HP that are instantly neutralised).

What you're saying is that wizards now need twice as many spells to have the same effect. Wizards don't have twice as many spells in ALFA, and the damage is variable, not maxed. I don't understand how this could be interpreted as balanced.

if gameplay prowess really is what you are worried about.

Gameplay balance and our charter is what I'm worried about. Your arguments against it aren't yet convincing me.

However, some brief examples of things that actually happened in ALFA 1:

- people asking for, and getting, rerolls on low level up rolls

If this was true, it was wrong

- tech raises often saw rerolls if the HP roll was lower, but very seldom when it was higher

If this was true, it was wrong

- people oocly planning their character progression to maximise the guaranteed max rolls for the first 3 levels

If this was true, it was wrong

this is a question of expediancy and efficiency to implement.

Agreed, and as such we need to identify people whom are interested in fixing it and willing to help.

[Veilan]

I appreciate the polemical hyperbole, but we're not at double HP from ALFA 1 by a long shot.

The question is whether we're double the HPs of canon averages, and the answer is yes.

Then you're being hypocritical by not having made the same push in ALFA 1, where we were pretty close to current numbers.

Personally, I think it's actually an advantage that the person with higher con and higher toughness has more HP than the guy who hasn't invested in those stats / feats.

If you believe this (and I agree with you), then its even more true with random hitpoints. Consider: a fighter with 14 con gets 2 extra HPs per level. Assuming an average of 5.5 on a d10 roll, that's roughly a 45% increase for having the higher CON. If HPs are max, you're only gaining 20%. The situation is even more important for all of the classes with fewer HD. By maxing HPs you are LESSENING the importance of CON, and toughness, and other such feats.

This was an argument against randomisation, not for max HPs. I'm not for max HPs, you're misrepresenting. On average the affect is greater, but if we used set dice - like always the average - we'd be golden. With max HP, however, there's no possibility that someone has more hp with less invested stats. With random rolls, there is. In fact, one of the arguments for random HP was that it's somehow "cool" if someone got more hp than someone else even if they had invested.

The gameplay balance issues are exaggerated. Consider that a wizard now survives the onslaught of a fighter longer as well, giving him just that time to cast the 2nd finger of death, actually more than doubling his own average damage output (double the chance - against more HP that are instantly neutralised).

What you're saying is that wizards now need twice as many spells to have the same effect.

Think again. I said that a wizard has a better chance to use a spell twice now. Getting to force two saving throws vs. death magic is vastly more powerful than the ability to survive one fireball more. Balance, it seems, is affected both ways, with no clear conclusion to be drawn.

However, some brief examples of things that actually happened in ALFA 1:

- people asking for, and getting, rerolls on low level up rolls

If this was true, it was wrong

It was, and it would happen again.

- tech raises often saw rerolls if the HP roll was lower, but very seldom when it was higher

If this was true, it was wrong

It was, and it would happen again.

- people oocly planning their character progression to maximise the guaranteed max rolls for the first 3 levels

If this was true, it was wrong

It was, and it would happen again.

Opportunity creates abuse, that is a simple fact. Did you know that in the real world, induction to criminality - even by negligence - in itself is punishable? We can't trust everyone, so we should make rules and systems that require no trust, let alone DMs to be on the lookout. Noone likes to police, it is the suckiest business we have in this community.

this is a question of expediancy and efficiency to implement.

Agreed, and as such we need to identify people whom are interested in fixing it and willing to help.

Well, we agree on a lot actually - I'd prefer HP averages to max HPs, and if there's people doing the work, let them at it. Randomisation is a non-starter with me, and I'm still curious how to get around the re-roll issue, since that would include hassling those players, as well as DMs.

Once that is solved, we're good.

[HEEGZ]

Noone likes to police, it is the suckiest business we have in this community.

QFT

[Ithildur]

Just to clarify, for my own sake as well, you guys are both right. It's double HPs (nearly double, to be precise; 10 isn't exactly doubling 5.5, but close enough) before Con bonuses/feats etc of CANON/PnP HPs, the totals being less than double on average after you calculate Con bonuses. Going by averages, the difference is smaller still with ALFA1 vs ALFA2 PC's due to NWN1's weighted rolls. So we're talking about a lvl 10 ftr /w con 14, about 75 HPs average in pnp/canon; someone like the Steel Regent of Cormyr is a lvl 10 warrior with 85 HPs per FRCS with CON 16. A typical ALFA1 lvl 10 fighter with CON 14 would've had 103 HPs on average, 113 with CON 16. On AVERAGE. This is why I stated NWN1's system is a GENEROUS compromise. You still had the possibility of rolling low enough to get maybe something close to... the Steel Regent! So you roll terribly in NWN1 and you still are as tough as she is

But NWN games are real time games, lag happens, DMs make mistakes and can't undo stuff as easily as pnp, etc etc. so I think NWN1's system was arguably reasonable. GENEROUS, but reasonable. You still could potentially roll poorly enough that you end up with HPs closer to pnp. But not in NWN2; it's just not possible to have any PC end up with less than the equivalent HP of a canon NPC on steroids; it's impossible to have less than 130 HPs as a lvl 10 fighter with con 16. Compare that to the Steel Regent's 85 HPs; it means that every Joe Fighter that comes down the pipe with decent CON is going to be significantly tougher than well known NPCs, including some of the legends of Faerun eventually (45 HP difference is huge, or should be, even at lvl 10, although the inflated HPs of NWN2 make it seem more trivial... for the sake of perspective, keep in mind an average lvl 10 rogue might have 45 HPs in pnp!) At least with NWN1 you could've potentially rolled totals somewhat close to the Steel Regent if you were really unlucky; the NWN2 guy is going to have 45 HPs more every single time.

Once again I do try to keep in mind this isn't pnp strictly, and so we make concessions here and there, including the HP system alfa1 went with using the nwn1 system. But NWN2 goes too far; we're locked in, no options or choices in the matter; everyone at max HPS, not even 'hardcore dnd' setting will change that currently.

HEEGZ, quick question, so ALFA2 monsters are all topped out currently at max HPs, what about canon NPCs and non hostile NPCs in general?