I don't like random HP on level up
Soido
Member Posts: 338
So far played with random HP on level up but I don't like the concept anymore. Too many times I am getting low rolls. Unjustified. Clearly classes have different HD and not taking full advantage of this property is as if amputating the classes. Unacceptable. And emotionally not cool because leveling up is also a rewarding experience and when the dice is low it takes the pleasure of the reward away. Frustrating. Not fun. In some cases for example Dorn gets 40 HP at level 6. Ridiculous.
Fortunately there is an option to always roll max HP on level up and I strongly recommend turning it on.
Fortunately there is an option to always roll max HP on level up and I strongly recommend turning it on.
Post edited by Soido on
3
Comments
though it's nothing NearInfinity couldn't handle.
As for enemies getting max hp, I have to quote one of the oldest cliche sentences in rpg , "npcs don't need to follow any rules because they are narrative tools" .
I understand how random rolls can be frustrating (I turn them off myself), but the vast majority of enemies in the game do have hp values consistent with randomly rolling hit dice. That is why the Tweaks Anthology has a component to give both you and your enemies max hp rolls to remove the randomness while preserving fairness.
Sorry to be trying to be over-exact here, but the game rules applying equally for your party and the enemies is something I do value very much in BG.
EDIT: also note that AD&D 2nd edition is balanced around random hit rolls. It works with max rolls, but this makes constitution less important and changes the balance. Getting a +4 bonus for your Con 18 is more valuable when your expected roll is 5.5 instead of 10.
Personally I much prefer to play with random HPs. Baldur's Gate is by design a game with a significant random element. One of the reasons people have continued to play the game for so many years is to explore that random element and find ways to win even when luck is conspiring against you. Then of course, if you know you will get maximum HPs on level up there's not a lot of satisfaction to be gained from that. If there's a random element, it can certainly be frustrating if rolls are low - but it can also be exhilarating when they're high
Are you saying that all the bandits, gnolls, etc mook enemies are getting random HP on each encounter ?
The problem is that random is random for everybody, while an average is only an approximation to randomness in the very long run.
As for Drizzt, is 92 really the average ? I think he is well above the average for his class, something the main character cannot say because he is totally random. EDIT: Actually Drizzt seems to be slightly below the average.
Averages work in a very long run, let's say level 25 then you will likely be close to the true average. However, in early levels you might be far from it, thus comes the frustration.
Like others said, it is better either have an absolute max value for all, or absolute average value for all.
Absolute max values, or absolute average values, preserve the class properties, while randomness amputates class properties. To me class properties are more important than a game of dice.
Level 1
1d6 HP - on average 3
1d12 HP - on average 6
So 3 HP difference right ? By level 30 averages will be 90 HP difference.
Not quite right
Level 30
1d6 - max class HP 180
1d12 -max class HP 360
Now the difference went up to 180 HP.
You see why class HP property matters more in max rolling than in averages. Since RNG leveling tends to approach the averages, this means that RNG leveling amputates class properties severely
When I got acquainted with the community around BG, I learned about the culture of "no-reload" runs. BG veterans taught me to take all the consequences of actions in-game and live with them, adjusting my own strategy and approaches depending on the dice.
Now I'm a full adept of this philosophy:
I learned that 5E has introduced a workaround the gamble syndrome in levelup. Because when there is gambling, there is always cheaters as well. They introduce a failsafe mechanism of averages. But as I demonstrated in my previous post, such a system amputates class properties severely.
I believe the better system is of max HP, both on party and on enemy.
Even in my tabletop games, I use a house rule that all PCs get max HP on level up. It eliminates tension and jealousy among players, because if one player constantly gets poor rolls and their HP starts to lag behind, they'll naturally feel inferior and grumpy about it. (Especially if they're supposed to be a beefy class like a Fighter and they wind up with less HP than the Rogue!) From the opposite end of the table, I usually will use default (50%) HP rolls for minion-grade enemies (the standard amount they get in the MM), about 75% for elites (the Goblin Shaman, the King's Bodyguards, special "named" enemies and the like), and boss enemies always have max HP, the same as the players.
If you want maximum HPs for you, the facility is there in the game. If you want max HPs for enemies, you can do that using mods. Like many issues in the game, different people have different preferences and that's fine - everyone is free to play the way they want.
Die rolls for HPs only apply to the first 9 levels (10 for some character classes). Hence the higher level you are the less difference those initial die rolls make.
The point I was making before is that Baldur's Gate is a game designed to have a considerable element of chance - but also providing you with multiple ways to manipulate the random factors in your favor. When you try and hit an opponent there's normally a random chance of hitting, but you can improve that through higher levels, choice of weapons, spell buffs, ambush attacks, weapon proficiencies, special abilities etc. You can also make certain of a hit by using things like hold, stun, sleep and critical hit HLA. A significant element of the skill in playing the game is how you manipulate that element of chance so that you don't get killed when the die rolls are against you - that's not gambling in a purist sense, though there are certainly gamblers who are successful because of their ability to manipulate gambling systems. If you are very unlucky with HP rolls, that means that you need to adjust your strategy when playing to avoid dying. I do understand that can be frustrating if you've only played the game a few times. However, if you've played it hundreds or thousands of times, then having to adapt your strategies to events in the game is likely to seem like a good rather than a bad thing.
+ 1
There is another issue with RNG leveling, besides the emotional aspect as Zaxares described in his post about people getting discouraged due to low rolls, and even being bullied by other players on their weakness rolls.
The issue is that the game is being played by humans who look into forward time, while the enemy is abstract AI. The AI has tons of bandits at low HD, but each bandit has no purpose. It is just one among thousands of bandits without purpose. The AI does not "care" if one of thousand bandits will roll low. But the player has only 6 characters and only a limited amount of rolls.
In other words, the AI has lots of freedom to roll low HP among the thousand of enemies. But the player does not. All you have is 25 rolls/levels.
Furthermore, it also makes no logical sense to roll HP. Hey I am a warrior, I train hard, go to the gym every day, eat healthy, why on earth I got a 7 HP out of 17 possible ? Why ? Who said that ? I am disciplined warrior my class train hard all day and I get a 7 ? And the guy with the bow got a 10. Okay then, so be it, let's see if the guy with the bow can save your party then when I leave it.
There are serious inconsistencies with RNG leveling
Personally I always play with the random rolls. It makes each playthrough a little different, it adds some drama to level-ups when they're sometimes isn't all that much to them. And it makes things ever so slightly more difficult, which after years of playing is important for me.
Most strategy/tactics based single player games have a gambling element to them. War games and grand strategy games have attack rolls. XCOM has attack rolls, random RPG elements on soldier level ups. The gambling element has been a core element of these genre of games for a long, long time. It's one of the fundamental elements that gives these games replay value.
It might be seen as a cold deconstruction of video games to point this out, especially for gamers who might eschew gambling, but it's an undeniable truth. There's something compelling about the gambling element in a lot of video games. I don't think people would find these games as fun if they ended up playing in a completely predictable fashion like say chess.
If you want a "canon" version, the lowest-level version of Dorn in BG2 is level 8 with 70 HP. He rolled well.
Incidentally, while the other companions generally look to have been rolled using the usual random rolls, Rasaad and Neera in BG2 were clearly rolled with maximum hit points on.
As someone said above, it affects mostly warrior classes. I personally care less if my mage rolls 2 instead of 4. Neither the 2 nor the 4 will make him frontline warrior.
But it is important that my tank rolls 17 and not 7
I learned that 5E is going to change this. It will have a averages approach and a gambling approach.
I am not sure this new rule will solve things. Because yet again the "gamblers" will re-load on bad roll and cheat the system. While those who prefer the averages approach they severely amputate their class. Neither approaches is good. What had to be done is make max rolls for everyone, both npc and enemy
It is not important if Soido likes to max roll, or if you want to rng roll.
What is important however is how enemies are designed. Obviously if you implement both systems you will run into conflict.
Why ? Because me rolling max 17s would like maxed enemies, while you rolling rng will want rng enemies.
There is the clash and this affects both of us
And that is the beauty of BG.