Increasing health with level = Stupidity

[Wyrmlord]

I remember SkeleTony talking about this once, and he's right.

It's not a matter of realism.

It's a matter of keeping the player challenged and on his toes. There is just no good reason for character hitpoints to perpetually keep increasing, until it is is 200+ or some other absurdly big number. Because he can just soak alot of damage from enemies and be careless in fights, and just rest afterwards without any care in the world.

There just has to be some element in the game that no matter how high your level is, you can still get killed or end up in an adverse situation from just about any enemy. In any other genre, like shooters, the player is as vulnerable at the beginning as he is at the end. He is always trying to survive. It's a part of the fun and RPGs can only benefit from it.

In old games, there used to be a thing called Critical skill. It was the chance to do an instant kill. And that is cool, right? Because you could be a fully armoured muscular brute, but all a hidden low level assassin has to do is take his aim at a crucial part of your body when he gets the chance, and kill you instantly. And then vice versa. Just because a player has a high level should not mean he should have an easy time in a fight. It should just help his chances. When he is aware that there is a character with a Critical skill in the enemy group, he makes sure to kill that one before anybody, because that's the one who can change the tide of the battle.

Of course, on similiar lines, there were also things like spellcasters with instant death spells. Or hold spells, which could allow the enemy to win the fight instantly, if he has your entire party Held.

But that stuff is no longer there. Back then, this was the balancing safeguard against uber high hitpoints.

But at the very least, shouldn't there be an upper limit to which you can increase your hitpoints? Or maybe keep base hitpoints fixed from the beginning of the game, and only allow it to be increased by items you wear, like armour? Perhaps both?

 

[Helton]

Yes, I agree, hitpoints should be a relative constant only going up if the system allows Ability increases and you put your points into Endurance but you need to pay for those hitpoints, it should not be passive.

Still I think levelling should be very important but more specific. More active choice. Ideally no passive shit at all. You should have a myriad of viable choices -- skills and abilities (a lot like Arcanum) but nothing that just goes up on its own.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Exactly.

When levelling up involves abilities that passively increase on their own, it encourages mindless grinding.

When you put your points into one particular skill, there is an opportunity cost for it. You have sacrficed your chance to put those points into every alternative available skill. You have paid a consideration to be good at something.

Hit points going up on their own is a free benefit. Why not introduce a skill in the game that increases hitpoints, like you suggest? Put points into that skill if you want to level up. That's much better.

 

[The_Pope]

I prefer games with near static HP as well. It would improve freeform games a lot as you can have goblins and wolves all over the place, rather than having to have hobgoblins and direwolves once the player gets to level 10. I guess you could have the wolves in a game with HP inflation, but it will look very silly to have one mauling your face for a few hours without any noticeable effect.

Not having the immershun breaking monster change also lets you see how the skills you have been improving work on a static target a lot better. Using a 10x damage attack on a target with 10x HP is nowhere near as effective as a 1.2x damage attack on 1x HP.

 

[Woreczko]

Fully agreed. Mount and Blade, while hardly a classic RPG, benefits tremendeusly from this simple thing. No matter, how macho you are, you may still get killed by an unfortunate headshot or an angry peasant woman with a butchering knife, if you get too cocky. There is a skill, which increases your hitpoints, however it`s your choice to invest in it (and not put points into something else).

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Dragon Wars has a system very similar to what you are espousing. I think you might get another +1 or +2 HP per level, but apart from that, it is only a couple of points to spend on your characters attributes or skills. This forces you to use whatever items, spells or experience you have to defeat tougher foes as the game goes on, because your characters don't look much different at the endgame statwise.

Wasteland also. Again you might gain a hitpoint or two per level. The rest is better equipment and whatever points you spent on your stats/skills. You don't get many points in either game.

 

[janjetina]

I think that AoD will have fixed hit points and that's a good thing. When that feature is in place, the combat system and encounters have to be carefully balanced to provide challenge for the player, reward good tactical thinking in combat and punish tactical blunders. A system like DnD isn't fit for that, as it relies too much luck, and damage values are all over the place and this would probably result in too frequent character deaths (not as a result of bad combat tactics, but bad luck) and reloading.

 

[St. Toxic]

Agreement from me also. I'd also, personally, disallow manually increasing, or rather buying, hp at level ups, in favor of purchasable dodge/parry points. Partly a realism thing for me however.

EDIT: And also, it really depends on what kind of game it is. The newer rt "rpg's" and most hack'n'slash titles are afterall married to the lvl = hp design scheme. It would require some rethinking to have a lvl 30 whatchamacallit with 45 hp in total fighting the LORD OF TEH UNDERWORLDS or some such shit, in a game that features no real tactical choices in combat, and we all know how devs hate thinking.

 

[Ebonsword]

But at the very least, shouldn't there be an upper limit to which you can increase your hitpoints? Or maybe keep base hitpoints fixed from the beginning of the game, and only allow it to be increased by items you wear, like armour? Perhaps both?

Yes, I do tend to think that this is one of the things that D&D got wrong. Armor should act more like damage resistance or a hit point boost instead of making you harder to hit.

I think that the Runequest RPG worked that way. I've always kind of wished someone would make a party-based Runequest CRPG. I think using those rules would be a breath of fresh air in the world of D&D clones.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

I am pretty sure the Magic Candle series also operates in the same manner. Only the Gods can give you a stat increase (skills can be trained/improved over time), which in turn can increase your maximum hitpoints.

And the 'armour stops damage, not makes you harder to hit' has long been in old RPG's. The reason a lot of people are whining about these things missing is because of the sheer laziness, poor design and merry-go-round of crap that keeps being churned out these days.

 

[Wyrmlord]

@St. Toxic
Aye, being an epic hero is always about having near divine power, rather than being merely a man relying on bare wits to survive.

The very idea of a superclimatic bossfight actually being a minimalist tactical battle would simply not concur. Such a thing would be more suited to low key settings, like a low fantasy barbarian tribal setting. Or a modern/post-apoc firefight-based RPG.

Also, tell if I am wrong here, but I have been hearing that in very very recent RPGs, a new trend is that damage with weapons is directly connected to skill in that weapon. :shock: Like a guy with really high small guns skill could do more damage with a pistol than a rocket launcher. Is this stuff true? It sounds kinda bad, and much worse than the idea of 300+ hitpoints.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

@St. Toxic
Aye, being an epic hero is always about having near divine power, rather than being merely a man relying on bare wits to survive.

The very idea of a superclimatic bossfight actually being a minimalist tactical battle would simply not concur. Such a thing would be more suited to low key settings, like a low fantasy barbarian tribal setting. Or a modern/post-apoc firefight-based RPG.

Also, tell if I am wrong here, but I have been hearing that in very very recent RPGs, a new trend is that damage with weapons is directly connected to skill in that weapon. :shock: Like a guy with really high small guns skill could do more damage with a pistol than a rocket launcher. Is this stuff true? It sounds kinda bad, and much worse than the idea of 300+ hitpoints.

What RPG?

 

[SkeleTony]

But at the very least, shouldn't there be an upper limit to which you can increase your hitpoints? Or maybe keep base hitpoints fixed from the beginning of the game, and only allow it to be increased by items you wear, like armour? Perhaps both?

Yes, I do tend to think that this is one of the things that D&D got wrong. Armor should act more like damage resistance or a hit point boost instead of making you harder to hit.

I think that the Runequest RPG worked that way. I've always kind of wished someone would make a party-based Runequest CRPG. I think using those rules would be a breath of fresh air in the world of D&D clones.

Exactly. Also in RQ you only improved skills by using those skills and, aside from magic items/spells the only thing making a more experienced adventurer harder to kill was having higher parry/dodge skills.

I understand why game developers take this shortcut of increasing HP with levels but really it is stupid. I think it is the result of simply not thinking about the design of the game usually and how it is really no easier to use the increasing HP system than it is to use a static HP system.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I have heard that it happens in Mass Effect and Fallout 3.

 

[someone else]

Its the old D&D HP too high again? They used to cap HP dice rolls at level 9 or 10.

A game with almost static HP is Darklands. Weapons also have to penetrate amour to do health damage. :D

 

[mondblut]

hitpoints ain't health.

 

[someone else]

When I was young, we used to call HP/the health bar/life: 'blood'.
Darklands use endurance and strength to represent HP, it should be:
"Weapons also have to penetrate amour to do strength damage"

But that will make even less sense to non-players.

 

[Wyrmlord]

hitpoints ain't health.

I know, hitpoints represent a combination of the character's energy, vitality, will to keep fighting, ability to minimize damage to his person, and his health.

But then again, the point is that it is better limited.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

no offense but that sounds like it would suck if it kept happening. what if the guy crits on his first hit and kills you instantly before the fight even gets under way?

Is it fair that you can do this to the AI? If you occasionally came against an opponent that was capable of this, it would add a tad more respect when facing such an enemy.

In any case, this happened quite often in old games, and continued to happen even in a newer game like Fallout.

 

[SkeleTony]

hitpoints ain't health.

I know, hitpoints represent a combination of the character's energy, vitality, will to keep fighting, ability to minimize damage to his person, and his health.

But then again, the point is that it is better limited.

The other problem with that rationalization is that you run into a clusterfuck of nonsensical crap with the D&D styled "HP = luck, divine fortune, life, toughness, will...etc.

*Why does a high level wizard have much LESS HP than a high level warrior if HP = "will/luck/etc."?

*Why don't a cleric's healing spells make you better at gambling?

*WHy don't items that boost willpower/luck/whatever also boost HP?

Etc.

 

[SkeleTony]

no offense but that sounds like it would suck if it kept happening. what if the guy crits on his first hit and kills you instantly before the fight even gets under way?

If one really thinks this is a problem which save/reload cannot cure then there are a vast number of better solutions than increasing HP with exp. But even as things stand(usually) in RPGs, don't low level guys start with just enough HP to be killed by a good dagger strike anyway and don't critical hits usually do multiple damage(x3 or x5 etc.)? So the danger would still be there of being taken out by a good or lucky hit anyway.

Making skills like 'dodge' or 'parry' important to the game design is a good start. Ideally, heroes should be damned hard to HIT at all by minions because they can typically dodge the attacks of peons or resist them via armor/toughness etc. but when hit they should take damage. "Bosses"(i.e. dragons, devils, main villains) should be capable of taking down at least one of the PCs during the course of a battle.

 

[Wyrmlord]

no offense but that sounds like it would suck if it kept happening. what if the guy crits on his first hit and kills you instantly before the fight even gets under way?

Well, that's what Save/Reload is for, no? I mean, that is part of the fun, saving at the right moments to be better prepared for uncertain events.

Save/Reload is an exploit afterall, so the only way of a game to balance with that is to throw in uncertain things like that. So that there is a reason to have Save/Reload at all.

But think about it - it's not much different from a stray enemy in Far Cry headshotting you. Meaning that you have all the more reason to keep your eyes peeled, and get them before they get you.

 

[Monocause]

Eh, this topic has been discussed previously. I'll tell you what happens: sooner or later someone will come out with the fun factor/realism factor dilemma. He'll say that insta-kills and static HPs are no fun, and that it just boils down to a savefest. Then someone will mention an old PnP RPG with an extremely realistic setting where every battle meant you could be permanently crippled. Then some codex veteran will come and say something on topic, probably with a lot of sarcasm, and he'll instantaneously gain four or five followers who'll do something like that:

Bullshit, crock, loads, fun, hey, Bethesda, Darklands

This.

And then the trolls will come.

 

[Liberal]

Yes, its stupid and unrealistic. It either rapes the balance, or makes level-upping meaningless (compare NWN to Oblivion).

 

[Liberal]

Increasing health with level is a necessary attribute, and actually PRESERVES balance, allowing harder enemies to be introduced, and reflecting the growth in experience and strength.