I used to back in the vanilla BG, where you couldn't choose a game setting that allowed for auto max on each roll. For BG2 and BG:EE, I've typically played on normal setting, which maxes HPs on level ups. However, I'm thinking of doing my next playthrough on core, because I'm looking to add a bit more unpredictability to my next run.
In your case, you may want to consider setting "rules" for yourself - for example, make a "single reload rule" for whenever you level up, in which you give yourself a single chance to possibly get a better HP score.
@SCARY_WIZARD - For a brief instant I misinterpreted that as how you roll for hit points when you level up in real life - I should probably go to bed.
I took the test for real life ability scores and am a pretty good Thief (or Magic-User/Thief), so... Yes. I roll 1d6. And I use a house ruled advancement system.
I was average or higher in every category.....I think my top score was like 14 Con and Int >< as either a 4 Wizard, 2/2 Paladin/Wizard or 2/2 Monk/Wizard
*gee 'arry I think yer a wizard*
Edit: Just took that same test again for another thread, modifying a few answers this time based upon mood and now I'd be a LG paladin 4, but still have 15 int, which IMO is just BEGGING for a multi-class to wizard.
After seeing the name of this thread I was tempted to yell out "oh my god", if it wasn't for the fact that I don't believe in any god at all. So, basically we have another thread, when people seem to being unable to cope with a consequence of playing above "normal" difficulty or no-reload playthroughts.
Randomized hit points are integral part of "core rules" and above difficulties. You might not like that big difference in recieving hit points, but that's the part of the rules. I don't see people complaining about that big difference between minimum and maximum damage that weapons have, I don't see them complaining about how few bad rolls (or even just one!) in a row can be the end of your character. People managed to cope with it, yet they are still butthurt over their HPs. Do you all really want your Minsc/Dorn/Edwin/Whoever to posses exact the same HP ammount in each of you playthrought? Isn't that a bit boring?
While I can agree that recieving a little hp after a level up can be annoying, this is a game when you control entire party of characters - one or two bad rolls on one character cannot be considered a game killer. Furthermore, you have wands, scrolls, powerful magical items, lots of potions and spells avaliable... All that gives you opportunity to somehow cope with low HPs. In my recent pre-BG2:EE playthrought, Neera had a miserable HP rolls twice in a row. So what? I just made her memorize more defensive spells, and gave her some items with bonus ac against missiles, so that she wouldn't go down so easily durning ambush. Or maybe Dorn isn't good at tanking with bad HP rolls? It doesn't matter, since he is a heavy damage dealer instead of tank. Let Kagain do the tanking. I could go and go on with it.
It irritates me, when people want to play on higher difficulties and no-reload, yet they are cheating when it comes to rolling HPs. If you're not up to the job, then don't do it. For example, I'm pretty sure that I won't ever be able to finish Ascension mod, so I simply won't consider installing it - that's right, I would rather skip the mod completely than complain on the forum that difficulty is unfair or cheat/use cheese.
Randomized hit points are integral part of "core rules" and above difficulties. You might not like that big difference in recieving hit points, but that's the part of the rules. I don't see people complaining about that big difference between minimum and maximum damage that weapons have, I don't see them complaining about how few bad rolls (or even just one!) in a row can be the end of your character. People managed to cope with it, yet they are still butthurt over their HPs. Do you all really want your Minsc/Dorn/Edwin/Whoever to posses exact the same HP ammount in each of you playthrought? Isn't that a bit boring?
The difference is a weapon will roll for damage hundreds or thousands of times. You only get a handful of HP rolls. A few bad rolls can reduce your effective health significantly and affect your game for hours down the road.
Saying "Throw up defensive spells and potions" doesn't really apply, since those buffs will more often than not be applied to high HP characters as well. Rolling poorly on Charname can be particularly hurtful since it's game over if they die. You make some bad HP rolls, and the entire tone of the game can change, especially in low reload/no reload runs.
There is no "right" way to enjoy the game. Some people prefer max HP rolls, others like rolling. If that annoys you, that's your problem, not everyone elses.
Thank you, genius. OP has expressed himself, I have expressed myself. Now, people, do me a favor and stop treating me as a pest just because I disagree with majority.
@ZelgadisGW You know, I am somewhat inclined to agree with some of what you said originally, particularly the bit about (paraphrasing) "If you set yourself a challenge, you shouldn't cheat your way out of some of it."
I also think that Core Rules should stay as it is, because (as far as I know) it is more faithful to AD&D 2nd PnP rules.
However:
1) I agree with the sentiment that 'Normal', or a new difficulty setting, should provide players with the safety from chunking, failing spell learning and maxium (or perhaps average) hp rolls, to minimise the potential impact of really bad luck, but not reduce incoming damage by 25%.
2) You had a right to express that some players' attitudes irritates you. I disapprove of powergaming/cheese, sometimes I point it out, but most of the time I don't care enough to comment, and even when I do comment, I do it in a reasonably polite way.
3) @Wanderon (kinda in jest) points out that he has a right to express that he is irritated by your irritation.
4) Thus You have not been trolled or treated unfairly or "as a pest". (thus far).
So please my friends, let us share some Butternut Beer and not be so quick to anger.
As far as faithfulness to 2E PNP goes, it is worth reiterating that every DM I ever gamed with had some house rule to avoid terrible hit point rolls. Common house rules being; roll two dice, take the high one, a minimum roll of some sort (like any roll less than a 5 on a d10 is considered a 5) or my own version, any player can re roll any time they want, on the next die smaller (don't like the result on your d10 hit die? Fine, re roll on a d8, but there's no going back).
I have no problem with any player reloading to get a better roll. Max hit points are not terribly unbalancing, and poor rolls a very frustrating to many players. I really prefer the IWD system where a "max hit points on level up" option is available separate from difficulty.
Thats why I said it was a subjective opinion - I have a full right to express myself. Live with it.
As do I and I did - get over yourself - you are not the only person out there that may be irritated by the manner in which others play single player games (thus irritating me) but if the shoe fits you are certainly free to wear it.
It looks to me like monsters all get maximum hit point rolls, which means they have on average about twice as many hit points as they typically would in a PnP game. You also face far, far more combat than you would in any reasonable PnP game, and almost every enemy will attack you with suicidal determination, no matter how impossible the odds. You could argue that maximum hit points and 100% spell memorization make up for these handicaps (FWIW, I don't think there are any "essential spells" or essential items, for that matter, unless your play style is extremely inflexible and uncreative) but I think you already have a huge advantage that you never would in a PnP game, which is that your enemies are all pretty stupid and will easily fall to tactics that even many low intelligence monsters would adapt to in a PnP game, even without resorting to cheese like off-screen cloudkills or the fact that you are the only person in Faerun who knows how doors work. Also, even if you try to RP from your character's perspective, you already know the game, you know the encounters, and that can't help but make the game much easier. (Remember how hard it was the first time through compared to the 5th or 10th?)
Personally, I'm willing to accept character deaths, including permanent deaths (I generally have a no resurrection policy in BG and only use the 3 rods of resurrection in BG2/ToB) and I am happy not knowing at the outset what my party is going to look like at the end of the game or the exact path I'm going to take to get there. It makes it more interesting than playing more or less the same game over and over. In my current game (BG1) I've lost Kaigan, Ajantis, Kivan and Faldorn; Viconia left me (and took lots of nice stuff) when my reputation hit 20; and am going to finish with a group I didn't really anticipate at the start, which is probably a more interesting outcome than it would have been if my original party remained intact. Also, my character is a cavalier and my main damage sponge, but she has only 34 hit points at level 6 (which is just slightly below an expected average of 38 for a character with no constitution bonus) but she's made it work, and I haven't had to reload.
@belgarathmth Wow for once, our views are not quite in alignment Though they don't diverge much either...
The reasons I prefer core rules and random hp level ups are:
1) I felt that some characters get too much hp with maximum rolls. I equate hp (perhaps wrongly) with size to an extent. You may remember that at the very start of BG 2, I used ShadowKeeper to reduce Jin’s Con (and also took a Con hit in the Spellhold dream sequence) because I felt he had too much hp for what I’d pictured him to look like. I feel that small-ish men/elves, even warriors, should only have 60-80 hp, at least until they get to much higher levels.
In first edition DnD their is an explanation in the Dungeon Master's guide. It talked about how a 0 level man at arms could have 1-6 hit points, but a fighter level 1 can 5-14, depending on con. at level 4 they can have 20,-56, the equivalent to like four horses worth of hitv points. The reasoning for this is that within the melee, when you get hit, and as you gain experience in fighting, there are many blows, glancing, bruising, etc. SO, the massive hit points are a reflection of stamina, combat skill, etc not a raw representation of life. However, when you look at the damage for a knife it is like 1d2, this would be a relatively large kitchen knife. There have been stories of people being stabbed like 17 times+ and surviving, even at 1 hp of damage that is 17 hit points, for a 0 level person. Remember, that a PC is an exceptional character, and as such they are supposed to be heroic, on par with super heroes, and real life heroes such as Audi Murphy, Alvin York, etc.
Holy necromancy, Batman! I don't even remember what we were talking about in this thread. December 2013? That's almost a year and a half ago. It woudn't bother me, but I just got tagged here by being quoted in someone else's quote of a quote by someone else. And it wasn't even a quote of me, just a mention of my name in someone else's quote. Arrrgh.
Comments
In your case, you may want to consider setting "rules" for yourself - for example, make a "single reload rule" for whenever you level up, in which you give yourself a single chance to possibly get a better HP score.
I guess I'd have to be a sorcerer.
*gee 'arry I think yer a wizard*
Edit: Just took that same test again for another thread, modifying a few answers this time based upon mood and now I'd be a LG paladin 4, but still have 15 int, which IMO is just BEGGING for a multi-class to wizard.
After seeing the name of this thread I was tempted to yell out "oh my god", if it wasn't for the fact that I don't believe in any god at all. So, basically we have another thread, when people seem to being unable to cope with a consequence of playing above "normal" difficulty or no-reload playthroughts.
Randomized hit points are integral part of "core rules" and above difficulties. You might not like that big difference in recieving hit points, but that's the part of the rules. I don't see people complaining about that big difference between minimum and maximum damage that weapons have, I don't see them complaining about how few bad rolls (or even just one!) in a row can be the end of your character. People managed to cope with it, yet they are still butthurt over their HPs. Do you all really want your Minsc/Dorn/Edwin/Whoever to posses exact the same HP ammount in each of you playthrought? Isn't that a bit boring?
While I can agree that recieving a little hp after a level up can be annoying, this is a game when you control entire party of characters - one or two bad rolls on one character cannot be considered a game killer. Furthermore, you have wands, scrolls, powerful magical items, lots of potions and spells avaliable... All that gives you opportunity to somehow cope with low HPs. In my recent pre-BG2:EE playthrought, Neera had a miserable HP rolls twice in a row. So what? I just made her memorize more defensive spells, and gave her some items with bonus ac against missiles, so that she wouldn't go down so easily durning ambush. Or maybe Dorn isn't good at tanking with bad HP rolls? It doesn't matter, since he is a heavy damage dealer instead of tank. Let Kagain do the tanking. I could go and go on with it.
It irritates me, when people want to play on higher difficulties and no-reload, yet they are cheating when it comes to rolling HPs. If you're not up to the job, then don't do it. For example, I'm pretty sure that I won't ever be able to finish Ascension mod, so I simply won't consider installing it - that's right, I would rather skip the mod completely than complain on the forum that difficulty is unfair or cheat/use cheese.
That's all from me.
The difference is a weapon will roll for damage hundreds or thousands of times. You only get a handful of HP rolls. A few bad rolls can reduce your effective health significantly and affect your game for hours down the road.
Saying "Throw up defensive spells and potions" doesn't really apply, since those buffs will more often than not be applied to high HP characters as well. Rolling poorly on Charname can be particularly hurtful since it's game over if they die. You make some bad HP rolls, and the entire tone of the game can change, especially in low reload/no reload runs.
There is no "right" way to enjoy the game. Some people prefer max HP rolls, others like rolling. If that annoys you, that's your problem, not everyone elses.
Just sayin'... ;-)
You know, I am somewhat inclined to agree with some of what you said originally, particularly the bit about (paraphrasing) "If you set yourself a challenge, you shouldn't cheat your way out of some of it."
I also think that Core Rules should stay as it is, because (as far as I know) it is more faithful to AD&D 2nd PnP rules.
However:
1) I agree with the sentiment that 'Normal', or a new difficulty setting, should provide players with the safety from chunking, failing spell learning and maxium (or perhaps average) hp rolls, to minimise the potential impact of really bad luck, but not reduce incoming damage by 25%.
2) You had a right to express that some players' attitudes irritates you. I disapprove of powergaming/cheese, sometimes I point it out, but most of the time I don't care enough to comment, and even when I do comment, I do it in a reasonably polite way.
3) @Wanderon (kinda in jest) points out that he has a right to express that he is irritated by your irritation.
4) Thus You have not been trolled or treated unfairly or "as a pest". (thus far).
So please my friends, let us share some Butternut Beer and not be so quick to anger.
I have no problem with any player reloading to get a better roll. Max hit points are not terribly unbalancing, and poor rolls a very frustrating to many players. I really prefer the IWD system where a "max hit points on level up" option is available separate from difficulty.
Personally, I'm willing to accept character deaths, including permanent deaths (I generally have a no resurrection policy in BG and only use the 3 rods of resurrection in BG2/ToB) and I am happy not knowing at the outset what my party is going to look like at the end of the game or the exact path I'm going to take to get there. It makes it more interesting than playing more or less the same game over and over. In my current game (BG1) I've lost Kaigan, Ajantis, Kivan and Faldorn; Viconia left me (and took lots of nice stuff) when my reputation hit 20; and am going to finish with a group I didn't really anticipate at the start, which is probably a more interesting outcome than it would have been if my original party remained intact. Also, my character is a cavalier and my main damage sponge, but she has only 34 hit points at level 6 (which is just slightly below an expected average of 38 for a character with no constitution bonus) but she's made it work, and I haven't had to reload.