Should Consitution Regeneration Be Fixed?
bigdogchris
Member Posts: 1,336
As discovered on page 5 of the 20 Constitution thread, Baldur's Gate constitution regeneration rate is not set correctly according to how BG handles time (10x PnP). The current time settings for regen gives you approximately the 25 constitution regen bonus at the time for the 20 constitution (a factor of 6x over what it should be in BG time). So not only is the game speed 10x in BG, but the regen bonus is 6x compounded on top of that. The fix I provide would be very easy to implement. I have provided the time in seconds needed to correct this.
2nd Edition Con Regeneration Rates:
----------------------
20 Con = 1 HP/6 Turns
21 Con = 1 HP/5 Turns
22 Con = 1 HP/4 Turns
23 Con = 1 HP/3 Turns
24 Con = 1 HP/2 Turns
25 Con = 1 HP/1 Turn
BG Con Regeneration Rates from hpconbon.2da (in seconds):
-----------------
20 Con = 60 (1 hp/turn)
21 Con = 50
22 Con = 40
23 Con = 30 (1 hp/5 rounds)
24 Con = 20
25 Con = 10
CamDawg confirmed value 60 = 60 Seconds.
@DinsdalePiranha confirmed 20 Con is 1 HP every 60 seconds in game (30 seconds @ 60 FPS).
So as you see, in BG 20 constitution gives you the bonus of what 25 constitution should.
If I've done the math right, the following values (in seconds) should be used, relative to how BG handles time:
1 Turn = 1 Minute.
Set hpconbon.2da to the following values:
Con 20 = 360 (6 minutes/6 Turns)
Con 21 = 300 (5 minutes/5 Turns)
Con 22 = 240 (4 minutes/4 Turns)
Con 23 = 180 (3 minutes/3 Turns)
Con 24 = 120 (2 minutes/2 Turns)
Con 25 = 60 (1 minutes/1 Turns)
Could I get a rule lawyer to back me up on this? @AndreaColombo
2nd Edition Con Regeneration Rates:
----------------------
20 Con = 1 HP/6 Turns
21 Con = 1 HP/5 Turns
22 Con = 1 HP/4 Turns
23 Con = 1 HP/3 Turns
24 Con = 1 HP/2 Turns
25 Con = 1 HP/1 Turn
BG Con Regeneration Rates from hpconbon.2da (in seconds):
-----------------
20 Con = 60 (1 hp/turn)
21 Con = 50
22 Con = 40
23 Con = 30 (1 hp/5 rounds)
24 Con = 20
25 Con = 10
CamDawg confirmed value 60 = 60 Seconds.
@DinsdalePiranha confirmed 20 Con is 1 HP every 60 seconds in game (30 seconds @ 60 FPS).
So as you see, in BG 20 constitution gives you the bonus of what 25 constitution should.
If I've done the math right, the following values (in seconds) should be used, relative to how BG handles time:
1 Turn = 1 Minute.
Set hpconbon.2da to the following values:
Con 20 = 360 (6 minutes/6 Turns)
Con 21 = 300 (5 minutes/5 Turns)
Con 22 = 240 (4 minutes/4 Turns)
Con 23 = 180 (3 minutes/3 Turns)
Con 24 = 120 (2 minutes/2 Turns)
Con 25 = 60 (1 minutes/1 Turns)
Could I get a rule lawyer to back me up on this? @AndreaColombo
- Should Consitution Regeneration Be Fixed?109 votes
- Yes, change it to reflect PnP43.12%
- No, leave it alone43.12%
- Undecided/No Opinion13.76%
Post edited by bigdogchris on
0
Comments
Plus, there are many, many other ways to "break the rules" for "more noticeable impact" on game mechanics. Why this one? I think I made a decent case as to how it may be a bug/unintentionally implemented wrong.
If the developers wanted players to be regenerating a lot of HP, wouldn't it be easier/better to implement HP regeneration on items, like they did in BG2.
p&p doesn't play in real time like BG. there's a "live action" component here that you can't ignore. if regeneration is to be unnoticeable and useless, wouldn't that be a deterioration in terms of playing experience?
i don't think that 1hp every 10sec at *25 con* (that's some epic con) is a massive regeneration rate. it sure is useful, but doesn't affect anything drastically i'd say.
if a battle lasts two turns, you'd have recovered 12hp this way. not exactly dramatic.
i accept that could be lowered to reflect p&p more, but the original p&p values would be pointlessly slow - imagine in a p&p game how turns are measured during various transitions, non-combat interations etc. and how regenerating a dozen hp in between battles might be life saving. in BG we just rest after a battle and move on to the next one anyway.
outside of combat, in BG, time basically stops for all practical purposes (unless you're poisoned etc.).
I totally and completely understand why some PnP rules had to be changed for a video game. In those cases I can't argue because it's a different medium. Regeneration is not something that had to be changed.
Plus, I don't like the argument about it's usefulness because characters are already overpowered in the game compared to PnP, even without the regeneration bonus. While this may only be considered a minor thing, or something that only rarely applies, the little things add up.
I'd rather the game be more challenging and rewarding than easier, dumbed down, and 'arcadey'. You can only face one way with decisions and I think that allowing this oversight to stay in game is facing the wrong direction. This game isn't Diablo, lets not treat it like that.
Don't lose sight that i'm not positive that it should remain as is, but i'd actually be the most ok with taking p&p values as a starting point and speeding things up by, say 50%, or 75%.
I don't think that game difficulty figures significantly in this discussion because neither alternative is going to noticeably affect that. I really think we're talking about flavor here. Aesthetics.
And don't pull the Diablo card on me, that's a cheap move bro.
Fair enough. The Diablo comment was not directed at you. I was pointing out my stance that Diablo type games are not in the same ballpark as BG.
Yes, Baldur's gate is based upon 2nd edition dungeons and dragons, but does not follow its rules entirely. It is still a unique beast of it's own; much like Neverwinter nights and 3.0 dnd these games are still very different and with reason in mind. I do not believe Baldur's gate was ever mean to precisely mirror 2nd edition dnd, but rather follow the rules as closely as possible while still keeping it fun. (I'd really rather not have to bother carrying around rations, lockpicks, changes of clothes, or calculate the carry weight of all the gold I have when I play this game either) There are two reasons why this rule is different than in the core rulebook, convenience and the ability of a player to actually notice it.
As far as I'm concerned, the reason we don't "break the bank" on everything else is because there's no need to, and that would be ridiculous. What you said is not an argument. Going along that train of logic is like saying you need to stab someone because they got a paper cut. This game is already made, this is already coded in, and it's incredibly insignificant albeit slightly interesting. Ultimately though, this really doesn't matter to your style of play. It's just a little flavor feature added in, and while maybe it didn't /expressly/ need to be changed from pen and paper's rules I think it's certainly an improvement.
The regeneration feature is more /tangible/ in its current incarnation in a pc game than it would be if changed in accordance to the proposals here. This feature will literally be indistinguishable in it's usefulness to a player if the suggested changes come into effect. A 20 con mechanics-wise would be the same as 25 with regards to the regeneration, or at least it may as well be. It would become a "click the rest button or go travel somewhere to be healed" ability. I know for a fact no one is going to go buff their con and stand around staring at a screen for an hour to watch their pc be healed when they just as easily click the "rest" button, or cast spells, or anything like that. In pnp, where a dungeonmaster can simply say, "four hours, fifteen minutes minutes, or ten days pass" and allow for circumstances where regen rules have merit and use if you ever somehow managed to get your score that high there is no such simple mechanic in this computer game that does this. At least right now it adds a little flavor as it is for someone playing through BG 1 at low levels. This thread just doesn't make sense to me.
If you're really worried about this then don't cheat and buff your character's con to high heaven, and it will never be an issue. This little thing will never "add up" in your "arcadey" equation, I promise. You're really getting carried away.
This feature only exists for when players want to play a character with super high ability scores. I believe it was intentionally implemented the way it was to actually be noticeable and tangible. It does not detract from the game in any way whatsoever for those that prefer the vanilla experience, but it certainly would for the former type of player if it was changed.
I think there about a million better things the staff could focus their efforts on than this. Getting upset about it is like worrying about a drop of food coloring put in the Pacific. Just let it go please.
You have the passion of a man who enjoys his characters 20+ constitution.
Why implement a rule system that you're not going to follow and why was this one particular rule not followed if it's so insignificant as you say? Plus as I mentioned, all other attribute rules were implemented per PnP, so I have made a good case to fix it because it's more likely this was implemented wrong rather than changed on purpose.
Mods/devs
Could we have this added to the bug tracker please?
What can I say? I like to keep my options open. I've also been thinking of making an Abdel clone to mirror the Bhaalspawn protagonist from the novel series. He could heal super fast in the books, to the point to where a snapped spine was a momentary inconvenience. I think the 25 con would simulate that pretty well.
Time runs very differently in a PnP game.
- You can burn away the clock just roleplaying and interacting with characters and things.
- You can tell the DM "we're just going to wait in this room for a couple hours" and you fast forward to when you're done waiting.
- There are many more non-combat events that occur and take time.
- Searching rooms for traps and treasure in PnP often takes hours.
Large chunks of time can evaporate in PnP. All things considered, the faster regeneration pace is very appropriate for how timing must be interpreted in a video game where the rate of encountering physical danger can be much "faster."
In BG 20 CON provides the same regen bonus (in terms of game time) as 25 CON does on PNP. Hell if you want to do that, why don't we have 18 INT in BG give the same bonuses as 23 Int in PnP. It's the exact same thing. It quickly gets out of control. If you say "we want to follow the way PnP handles attributes" why is CON regen singled out as not doing so? If you don't want to follow the way PnP handles attributes then let's increase everything. Do you see the point I'm trying to make?
There is a difference between rules that cannot be implemented right because this is a video game and rules that are not implemented right for the reason of just not wanting too. I just feel that the more you pick and choose things to change, it cheapens the rules. Plus once you start giving extra bonuses here, bonuses there, they're no longer bonuses. Ever heard the saying "When everything's on sale, nothing's on sale."
And even then, the regen is more a perk for transitions or rest attempts, if you're having to hide in a corner and let your hp regen, you've apparently messed up majorly in some way.
Of course I'm all for making the game more PnP-like. There's quite a few ridiculously overpowered things that shouldn't be that way, and other things that are nerf'd that shouldn't be.
If the change doesn't happen, I can happily continue my torture of Kagain for an increase in healing for the entire party
Again, main point, I don't care either way, I just want to be aware of what is accurate when/if a change happens/doesn't happen.
BG is not PnP, folks. The devs took many liberties with the rules and this is simply another example.
In PnP, due to roleplaying influences and things I listed above, very few events can occur within a period of time.
In BG, being much more trap/danger/combat oriented, a large number of events can occur in a short period of time.
Since the rate of events in PnP is often relatively small, a slow regeneration is well calibrated to the rate at which (dangerous) encounters are met.
Since the rate of events in BG is often relatively high, a faster regeneration is well calibrated to the rate at which (dangerous) encounters are met.
Also, I'm not convinced that a mathematical approach is best for this because the way a player experiences time between the two games is in no way analogous.
Lets not forget this is a D&D game for a reason, ie., to use the D&D rules. When the original developers chose to build this game a decision had to made, either attempt to faithfully follow the rules were possible or to not not try to faithfully follow the rules when possible. What do you guys think they chose?
Liberties were made because this is a video game and some things just needed to be changed, I'll give you that. However, BG has a clearly defined time keeping system to use in which regeneration could be matched to that exactly as PnP intended, as the majority of the attribute bonuses in the game follow PnP or are as close as you can implement in a video game.
If you want to use the argument you make that things taking longer in PnP, I say the regeneration should be flipped so that you regen faster in PnP than in the game. If in the game you're already on an accelerated clock, even at the PnP rates, you're going to see regeneration much faster than PnP.
How does your argument make sense that a guaranteed time keeping, running at 10x the speed of PnP, "isn't enough" boggles me. In PnP many don't track time and there is no guaranteed recovery, for the points you just made, thus the increase regen time would be much more noticeable in PnP than the game.
The choice is to either faithfully attempt to follow the rules or just blow everything open and change whatever you want to make characters more powerful.
If we're going to take the route of what you and some other board members want which is to do whatever you want rather than follow the rules the game is based on, then lets just start giving huge bonuses across the board because who here can label themselves as the judge to determine what is balanced and what's not. I clearly see a lot of unbalance suggested. If you faithfully follow the rules whenever possible you completely take the balance concerns off the table as you're simply following the pre-determined rules you licensed to use.
The reason I'm "into it" is because I don't like seeing every change made as a benefit (more power) to players. I'd like to see people challenge themselves and to check their 'power gamer' attitudes at the door when making game design choices, but I simply don't see it. It's easy to make decisions to give you more power but how about making a decision that may take away power for once?
I'm not full of it either. I started a thread about faithfully following the rules, the majority want to, yet when I start this thread and another one about Monks, I get heavy resistance to making changes because very few people seem to be able to give up something they already have.
To each his/her own.