JE Sawyer on rolls and role-playing

[taks]

Yeah but the spread of the distribution is enormous. You basically have this enourmous standard deviation with the mean moving a tiny fraction of the distribution and that is ridiculous. If it was a sharper distribution ala poisson with large shifts based on constitution and remove the class qualification of determining the HP's the system would be better.

Hence, your constitution determines the mean and you roll a six sider for a +/- 3 random modifier. The problem is that would make sense.

well, 68% is within one standard deviation... it's not that bad

your idea is idential to SP's, btw. he just picked a mean for each type (0 for wizard, 6 for fighter, etc.) and applied a d4 to the result. CON bonus is added on. you'd still get a gaussian shape, but it would be 1) narrow and 2) shifted up to the higher mean.

taks

 

[triCritical]

well, 68% is within one standard deviation... it's not that bad

your idea is idential to SP's, btw. he just picked a mean for each type (0 for wizard, 6 for fighter, etc.) and applied a d4 to the result. CON bonus is added on. you'd still get a gaussian shape, but it would be 1) narrow and 2) shifted up to the higher mean.

taks

Yeah any distribution involving dice will ultimately be gaussian and anyone who has taken statitistics or DSP, knows why. I just mentioned Poisson because I think it is a rather k3wl distribution, although not even nearly as useful or ubiquitous as Gaussian. Theoretically, you can call the non random hp counting as Dirac delta distributions.

However, I am having trouble following your 68%. I am thinking that I did not read something. Are you saying that the CON bonus will cause a move of 68% which is within one standard deviation? I guess it would depend on the CON bonus if so. In other words if your bonus is +1 and the randomness leaves you with a 2 hp first level fighter then that sort of sucks, and that is what I meant. My point is that the effect that constitution has on a character should be larger then the standard deviation, otherwise the hp's and the constitution are contradictiory.

As for St's idea I guess I just don't see why different classses should have different hitpoints.

 

[taks]

no, 68% of a population lies within 1 sigma of the mean, at least, for P(z <= Z) for z = 0 to z = 1 you have 34% and for z = 0 and z = -1 you have 34%. i believe the book i was referencing uses z = sigma... the 6 sigma level is 5 9's i suppose (don't have the chart handy).
taks

 

[Avin]

Ferret, the developer, has answered the thread:

"There are some interesting points brought up here and there. And really some of you already brought up the points I was going to make.

I personally love point-buy because I was increasingly agitated in PnP games that one wildly bad or good set of rolls could completely and irrevocably change the flavor of your entire game. I was tired of situations where one player could roll like a minor god in character creation and become the dominant force in a multi-year campaign, primarily based off no merit on his part - just rolling great once.

So point-buy came onto the scene and evened the scales, making it so that all characters are created equally. Something I favor and something that's essential for PW and other forms of MP. For single-player, as has already been discussed, within days of release I'm sure NWN2's cheat codes will be out (if they even change from NWN1) and users can edit their stats to their heart's content.

If we support random rolls, we also have a wider range of balance problems for the single-player campaign because we should theoretically make the game playable for the poor sod who rolled all 3s as well as the majority of people who re-rolled a bajillion times and have mostly 18s.

So Frank's magic 8-ball doesn't have hopeful things to say about randomly rolling attributes making into the game.

-Ferret

P.S. I read somewhere that someone was wondering if it's even worth discussing some of these things. Some discussions have an impact on the game - not all of them... but some. So keep the faith. "

 

[taks]

As for St's idea I guess I just don't see why different classses should have different hitpoints.

one good reason: choice.

let me elaborate... CON is an inherent, genetic predisposition towards a healthy body. everybody is allowed to have a high CON and still progress reasonably well. HPs, however, are due to exercise, hard exercise... working out, lifting weights, swinging around a longsword (have you ever tried to do that?). HPs are a matter of what you do with your body, which is why fighters are stronger than wizards. remember, wizards are locked up in their towers studying books and doing research. their only recourse for a stronger body is to be born big (like me). whereas, even a wimp with low CON can improve his overall health simply by working out and busting ass (featherweight boxers, for example).

of course, this is only justification but you can look to real world examples... a modern day scientist, carl sagan, vs. sgt. bilko from the marines just off a two year tour of duty in the middle east... betcha that even though they may be genetically similar, perhaps even born with the same ability for strength, bilko is tougher now. sagan is sitting around munching donuts on his couch thinking up equations for the universe and what not while bilko was climbing mountains and shooting large calibre rifles... ok, facetious argument, but i think you get my point

taks

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Both for a touch of realism and a touch of gameplay. Like taks said, fighters are training to fight. They're trained to get hit where wizards are trained to read magic. When you're getting trained to take hits and move in a manner to reduce the damage inflicted by a grazing blow, you can get hit more often. A wizard lacks all that training. It's much more simple to say that the fighter can be hit by a dagger a few more times than a wizard because of that training than it is to adjust the damage of the dagger for the target's abilities.

It's also more intuitive that way. It's easier to grasp a rule system where the fighter simply has more hitpoints and can soak more attacks than it is to modify damage types based on some measure of the fighter's ability to resist what's thrown at him. The way RPGs are now with hit points and classes, you can simply roll the dice at each level and get said bonus to your damage soaking ability rather than modify each and every roll during combat. If it were like that, you'd have to roll, check some modifiers and then subtract those off, each time. It makes the system too complex.

It would also confuse the players. It's much easier to look at the fighter and see "143 hit points" and know he can soak some attacks, then look at the wizard and see "37 hit points" and know he can't. If they both had the same hit points, but the fighter had better resistances to attacks, you end up with the problem of having a player wondering why he's getting 30 damage from a sword while the fighter is getting 10 points on average.

 

[symposium]

It's interesting, if you look at the World of Darkness system, that is precisely what happens. 6 hitpoints that is the same for everyone (except a rare few with that merit). Don't say that it isn't possible. I don't recall seeing any randomisation at all in the WoD character creation.

 

[Spazmo]

Shadowrun just uses 10-ish hitpoints, sort of (it's not really hitpoints and it's not really 10). Then again, that games has no classes or levels.

 

[triCritical]

Well then why have a constitution stat? When it comes to saves wizards with a constitution of 16 are just as tough as fighters with a constitution of 16. But not when it come to how many physical blows one should take. For one thing training make you physically tougher, but perhaps the bonus should not be on your HP"s rather yoru constitution, other wise things become rather inconsistent, which is one of the things DnD rules are riddled in.

If anything constitution should indeed determine all physical durability including HP's and saves. Right now we have a marine contractor working in our office and he isn't the toughest cookie in the jar if you catch my drift. I would say a lot of us physicist, electrical engineers and math/computer geeks can easily endure more punishment.

As for choice, there is still plenty of choice. The only difference is that now a stat drives your HP count, rather then your chosen opponent. A fighter can still wear better armor and is still more deadly with melee weapons. And do you want to invest in a high constitution mage considering high hitpoints will not be that beneficial considering they will not be on the frontline, and a higher intelligence and possibly higher dexterity might be much more beneficial. There is still much choice, and I think this is much more logical if not realistic.

 

[Spazmo]

Well then why have a constitution stat? When it comes to saves wizards with a constitution of 16 are just as tough as fighters with a constitution of 16.

Erm... no. Wizards and fighters get different base save bonuses for will, fortitude and reflex. Wizards get strong will and weak reflex/fort while fighters get a strong fort save but the other two are weak.

 

[triCritical]

Well then why have a constitution stat? When it comes to saves wizards with a constitution of 16 are just as tough as fighters with a constitution of 16.

Erm... no. Wizards and fighters get different base save bonuses for will, fortitude and reflex. Wizards get strong will and weak reflex/fort while fighters get a strong fort save but the other two are weak.

Sorry I thought there was a constitution modifier.

Still it begs the question of why have a constitution stat. Its as if the constitution stat is meaningless, with the exception of being a slight modifier here, or there. Something that just adds complexity for no apparent reason?

 

[Volourn]

"Sorry I thought there was a constitution modifier."

There is. It helps with the fort save so if you a wizard with high con you will have higher fort but chances are your fort won't be as good as a fighter.


"Its as if the constitution stat is meaningless"

No, it isn't. It effects hit points, saving throws, certain skills, some feats, and probably miscellaneous stuff like how far one can travel in one day without tiring. It's far from a useless stat.

 

[triCritical]

The meaningless was a conscious exaggeration in that sentence. However, as DnD stats currently are then is that you have a ability score that for different classes means different things. The modification is always the same, but the ability score itself is inconsistent among classes. Its almost as a 10 CON for a fighter is a 18 for a wizard...

This is fine, however, I think a more logical and consistent system could have been developed that included classes. Suffice it to say that you can have skills, proficiencies and feats that make up for the modifiiers in a largely useless stat.

 

[Smiffus]

The problem most people have with the rolling for hit points stems from the fact that you use a one die system, you get a flat average, ie. the same change for abject failure (a 1) or lipsmacking success (max hp). Personally I am in favour of using a multiple die system so you get a bell curve average, instead of using 1d8 you could use 2d4 or even 4d2.

uh, this statement isn't entirely true. after multiple levels, it is a bell curve. in the end, you end up with nearly identical results... i can show you why if you'd like (actually, there's a thread i posted in a while back regarding just such an idea... similar at least).

taks

You're right of course, but having just rolled a 1 for your extra hit points with which you'll have to do the whole next level, with it's added difficulty, is what bothers people. Well,to be honest, it bothers me, I think it bothers other people as well

 

[taks]

You're right of course, but having just rolled a 1 for your extra hit points with which you'll have to do the whole next level, with it's added difficulty, is what bothers people. Well,to be honest, it bothers me, I think it bothers other people as well

that's why i'm on board with a system similar to SP's or triCritical's idea. each class starts out with a base amount somehow, then you add CON bonus, then roll for the random element. in SP's example (eleborated on by me), a fighter would be d4 + 6 + CON, a wizard, however, would be d4 + CON, etc.

triCritical, you do realize that fighters get a much large increase in fortitude saves as they progress, right? class based, of course. even with identical CON bonus, a fighter will far outpace a wizard in that respect. actually, wizard saves suck in general. that's why they have spells to overcome that difference.

taks

 

[triCritical]

triCritical, you do realize that fighters get a much large increase in fortitude saves as they progress, right? class based, of course. even with identical CON bonus, a fighter will far outpace a wizard in that respect. actually, wizard saves suck in general. that's why they have spells to overcome that difference.

taks

Yeah Spazmo corrected me.

But in a perfect world the constitution would be the determining factor for both HP's and saves. The point being in a point buy system do you really want to waste constitution on a wizard, or do you even want to waste you good rolls on that stat for a wizard given there are stats that can be far more usefuil for wizards. The same goes for all classes. You don't need classes determing character traits, which will make the characters ability scores largely inconsistent. But I imagine I am preaching to the converted.

Like SP said why do you want your wizard to work out, when he should be hitting the books. But that choice should still be there, because that not so smart wizard that consistently works out should be a playable character and should therefore be rewarded with their largley nonvaluable surplus of hitpoints.

 

[taks]

well, on one hand you do have the situation with inherent genetic ability. that's what CON represents to me. just because someone sits around and studies a lot and doesn't focus on his health doesn't mean he can't have some "built in" ability... the fact that he's training all the time (fighter) is the hit die plus auto bonus, and CON is the genetic enhancement he gets. the wizard still gets the genetic enhancement, just no training bonus and hence, low die roll and no auto bonus (in the case SP and then i favored).

i think balance is the key and there is a little bit of a problem with the way D&D has always approached it. really, we can justify one way or another and then provide rationalization to make our egos happy, but in the end, it's still just about balance. some of the concepts discussed in here seem more balanced and, all in all, seem to have a better rationale.

taks