3rd edition bonuses for ability points

[Shaitan]

Then we'll see a revised Mods component soonish

[Jarno Mikkola]

I think that the Con bonus should be double for the Warriors than for the other classes, and it's implementable with the current double Constitution system.

No, because than those damn dual classes would be even more overpowered than they already are with all those hit points (1d10 + double CON per lvl instead of 1d4 + CON).

Did I say double Con? No, I said double the amount than for the others, see the mages 18 con would still give him just the +2 per level, but the Con 15-17 would just give him +1, while the fighter gets +1 in Con 15, +2 in Con 16, +3 in Con 17, and +4 in Con 18... yes, I am using the old table, but if you do this with the new 3ed, it's easy to implement..., but then the it goes to 1d4+4 with Con 18, which is a bit too much perhaps. And the Mage with Con at 3 is dead.

[Demivrgvs]

If you don't patch all in-game creatures (they don't get those hp imo) you'll be granting players a huge unfair advantage, and even if you do that I think such a drastic increase of hit point may alter the game balance (e.g. damage dealing spells would be much weaker).

I've been thinking about damage values before. They're near the same as 3E, where it's common case to have over 100hp for wizards and over 300 for warriors. Moreover, Disintegrate and Harm use 3E values, SR's elementals use 3E hp values, SCS beefs fiends, celestials and dragons. And still, it's quite balanced yet, no?

Thus you'd vote to remove the cap and let everyone get much more hit points?

 

 

I think that the Con bonus should be double for the Warriors than for the other classes, and it's implementable with the current double Constitution system.

No, because than those damn dual classes would be even more overpowered than they already are with all those hit points (1d10 + double CON per lvl instead of 1d4 + CON).

Did I say double Con? No, I said double the amount than for the others, see the mages 18 con would still give him just the +2 per level, but the Con 15-17 would just give him +1, while the fighter gets +1 in Con 15, +2 in Con 16, +3 in Con 17, and +4 in Con 18... yes, I am using the old table, but if you do this with the new 3ed, it's easy to implement..., but then the it goes to 1d4+4 with Con 18, which is a bit too much perhaps. And the Mage with Con at 3 is dead.

Perhaps I'm tired but if a mage with CON 18 gets +2 hp per level while a fighter gets +4 hp isn't it it twice as much?

 

Anyway, what I said is still valid.

[Ardanis]

Thus you'd vote to remove the cap and let everyone get much more hit points?

Nah, I'd only say it might be an interesting experiment to try.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Perhaps I'm tired but if a mage with CON 18 gets +2 hp per level while a fighter gets +4 hp isn't it it twice as much?

Well, considering that the original balance was 1d4 to 1d10 with the same con bonus up to the 16 Con which was +2, this would keep the same balance but it would just get rid of the mages cap but also make it harder fro them to gain massive benefits from it, like they would from the Con=18, bonus of +4 . Or from their Con is 24, so they just gain 11 hitpoints per level.

[Demivrgvs]

Perhaps I'm tired but if a mage with CON 18 gets +2 hp per level while a fighter gets +4 hp isn't it it twice as much?

Well, considering that the original balance was 1d4 to 1d10 with the same con bonus up to the 16 Con which was +2, this would keep the same balance but it would just get rid of the mages cap but also make it harder fro them to gain massive benefits from it, like they would from the Con=18, bonus of +4 .

I remove the cap because:

1) it doesn't make sense (why on hearth a mage or thief with CON 18 can't be tougher than one with CON 16?)

2) I don't want single class non-warriors to be so heavily disadvantaged compared to their dual class versions

You are suggesting to "fix" 1) but then re-introduce 2) in another way. And what you suggest is even worse than before imo, because forcing those classes to have CON 18 to get +2 hp per lvl (which they currently get with CON 16) means making them weaker than before, and sounds as an invitation for power-players.

 

I suppose that behind your suggestion there can be two reasons:

a) you're afraid mages would get too much hp

b) you think fighters should have much more hp

 

a) well, mages in theory need to heavily "invest" into other stats too (e.g. warriors don't need INT 18), but even if you want to power play your mage the change seems balanced to me. In BG1 you'd get +2 hp at the start of the game (players always complained mages were really too weak early on), and up to +12 at the end of it (enough to resist one more hit, but not more, and surely not enough to survive a backstab). In BG2 you could get up to +20 hit points, but even if it's a solid advantage it cannot compare to having the mage take a few levels in a warrior class (10hp for those levels instead of 4, 6 or 8), which is what 90% of players currently do in BG2 because you can have them for free, and add on top of them uber combos like kensai-mage and berserker-cleric. Not to mention that all multi and dual mages/thieves/cleric already benefit from CON 18, making this tweak a must for me in terms of "fairness".

 

b) if that's the case then I think there's a better way to handle it. After the 10th lvl cap instead of granting them fixed 3 hp per lvl we may grant them 4 or 5. That would also increase the value of being a single class warrior, thus I'd be quite more interested in doing something like this.

 

EDIT:

Thus you'd vote to remove the cap and let everyone get much more hit points?

Nah, I'd only say it might be an interesting experiment to try.

Speaking of granting more hp to warriors I remembered what I wanted to say to you about this matter. Within AD&D instead of getting the hit dice roll after the 10th lvl cap you get a fixed number of hit points. That's why the current system isn't dramatically different from 3ed (though clearly inferior), because instead of 1d4 you get 1 point, instead of 1d6 and 1d8 you get 2, and instead of 1d10 you get 3. If we want to improve this aspect I'm all for it (e.g. priests may get 3 and warriors may get 4) but I'd prefer this solution over granting further HD after the 10th lvl, mainly because 99% of players would maximize those HD instead of rolling them as per PnP (4, 6, 8 and 10 hp per lvl is really too much).

[Jarno Mikkola]

I remove the cap because:

I am not talking against the removal of the Con bonus cap, I am all for it...

 

1) it doesn't make sense (why on hearth a mage or thief with CON 18 can't be tougher than one with CON 16?)

Nor for that... because the mage with a Con 16 would only get 1d4+1 Hit Points... while the Con 18 Mage would get 1d4+2.

 

I am talking about removal of the Con bonus cap, but it needs to be done so that it's balanced in my eyes, and that's not the 3ed way of (Con -10)/2... which grants the mages the +4 at Con 18, alike the warriors gain. The games using the third ed also had the stats cost more to increase with +1 for a reason...

 

Now here's the original table:

		OTHER	   WARRIOR   
1	   -3		  -3		
2	   -2		  -2		
3	   -2		  -2		
4	   -1		  -1		
5	   -1		  -1		
6	   -1		  -1		
7	   0		   0		 
8	   0		   0		 
9	   0		   0		 
10	  0		   0		 
11	  0		   0		 
12	  0		   0		 
13	  0		   0		 
14	  0		   0		 
15	  1		   1		 
16	  2		   2		 
17	  2		   3		 
18	  2		   4		 
19	  2		   5		 
20	  2		   5		 
21	  2		   6		 
22	  2		   6		 
23	  2		   6		 
24	  2		   7		 
25	  2		   7

 

3ed table:

		OTHER	   WARRIOR   
1	   -5		  -5		
2	   -4		  -4		
3	   -4		  -4		
4	   -3		  -3		
5	   -3		  -3		
6	   -2		  -2		
7	   -2		  -2		
8	   -1		  -1		
9	   -1		  -1		 
10	  0		   0		 
11	  0		   0		 
12	  1		   1		 
13	  1		   1		 
14	  2		   2		 
15	  2		   2		 
16	  3		   3		 
17	  3		   3		 
18	  4		   4		 
19	  4		   4		 
20	  5		   5		 
21	  5		   5		 
22	  6		   6		 
23	  6		   6		 
24	  7		   7		 
25	  7		   7

 

My table:

		OTHER	   WARRIOR   
1-12   0		   0
13	  0		   1		 
14	  0		   1		 
15	  1		   1		 
16	  1		   2		 
17	  1		   3		 
18	  2		   4		 
19	  2		   5		 
20	  2		   5		 
21	  3		   6		 
22	  3		   6		 
23	  3		   6		 
24	  4		   7		 
25	  4		   7

 

4th possibility:

		OTHER	   WARRIOR   
...
10	  0		   0		 
11	  0		   1		 
12	  0		   1		 
13	  1		   1		 
14	  1		   2		 
15	  1		   2		 
16	  2		   3		 
17	  2		   3		 
18	  2		   4		 
19	  3		   5		 
20	  3		   5		 
21	  3		   6		 
22	  4		   6		 
23	  4		   6		 
24	  4		   7		 
25	  5		   7

Or some such.

 

I also agree on the top level(10+) increased hit point...

 

Edit:

e.g. warriors don't need INT 18

Yeah, they just need 16 to be able to not instant death up on seeing a Mind Flayer, let alone to melee against a one. 17 to dual to a mage, and 18 to have 18 castable spells on the level, plus half the maze effect, and give ~16% more chance not to fail at scripting a scroll.

[Demivrgvs]

1) it doesn't make sense (why on hearth a mage or thief with CON 18 can't be tougher than one with CON 16?)

Nor for that... because the mage with a Con 16 would only get 1d4+1 Hit Points...

Can you please read what I wrote? I said "you are suggesting to "fix" 1) but then re-introduce 2) in another way". And I think I've explained very well why I don't want CON table to work in a different way for non-warriors, haven't I? Just to give you another example I don't want Draw Upon Holy Might to grant tons of hp (up to 30!) if cast by a fighter-cleric and none (or half as much) if cast by a true cleric with CON 16.

 

That being said, both our positions are quite clear by now, thus let's wait for some other player to comment if they wish, if most of them agree with you then convincing me might be easier.

[Kalindor]

And I think I've explained very well why I don't want CON table to work in a different way for non-warriors, haven't I? Just to give you another example I don't want Draw Upon Holy Might to grant tons of hp (up to 30!) if cast by a fighter-cleric and none (or half as much) if cast by a true cleric with CON 16.

 

That being said, both our positions are quite clear by now, thus let's wait for some other player to comment if they wish, if most of them agree with you then convincing me might be easier.

I have to agree with Demi on the functionality of the statistical tables being consistent between classes. Lowering the temptation of dual-class munchkin cheese is also a good idea whenever the option presents itself. However, I do like the idea of single-class warriors becoming more HP-bulky with respect to mages. Honestly, any bone you can throw to fighters and their ilk that makes them more attractive options compared to the power and versatility of the sorcerer and druid club would be appreciated. I would rather have such a solution be part of a listed class bonus instead of something hidden in the statistical machinery of the game that sacrifices cross-class consistency, though.

Concerning the mage with CON 18 discussion... I can't recall ever having a single-class mage with a CON score that high. If a mage player truly wishes to invest so many points in CON, then it seems like the relatively large HP boost is okay to balance out the consequently lower STR or DEX points they would be able to afford. (Man, I wish this game had a NWN-style point buy system instead of a random dice-rolling system.)

[Dermit]

If you do move in this direction I vote for keeping it simple. Extend CON bonuses across the board, and don't remove the 10 HD cap.

[Ardanis]

10 HD Cap

Speaking of granting more hp to warriors I remembered what I wanted to say to you about this matter. Within AD&D instead of getting the hit dice roll after the 10th lvl cap you get a fixed number of hit points. That's why the current system isn't dramatically different from 3ed (though clearly inferior), because instead of 1d4 you get 1 point, instead of 1d6 and 1d8 you get 2, and instead of 1d10 you get 3. If we want to improve this aspect I'm all for it (e.g. priests may get 3 and warriors may get 4) but I'd prefer this solution over granting further HD after the 10th lvl, mainly because 99% of players would maximize those HD instead of rolling them as per PnP (4, 6, 8 and 10 hp per lvl is really too much).

Frankly, I simply don't like random rolls with permanent effects in CRPGs, so I usually do install 'max HP'. Heck, NWN2 doesn't even have an option for random HP rolls, it always grants max value.

 

That said, I likely want it this way:

wizard, sorc - 1

thief, bard, druid - 2

cleric, monk, ranger - 3

paladin, fighter - 4

barbarian - 5

 

CON bonus

Let's keep it the same for all classes.

[Salk]

Ok... so if I don't want to risk screwing up balancing, I'll have to skip 3rd-ed tables, or wait for IRv4 (please don't start implementing it for v3 now )

I couldn't resist the temptation to think about these tables...and I have to say that implementing them would actually be much much better than I thought. There are countless of advantages, and I previously missed many of them somehow (sorry Mike).

 

I am strongly against it.

 

Item Revisions seems like is more and more drifting towards becoming the Great Equalizer and honestly, that is not what I want in a game. I still like to think that some classes (even dual and multi) can pull out a little extra if a player can think of how to use them at best. Also, while smoothing hard edges is a welcome change, it is somewhat "disturbing" to think that this mod is now attacking the core of the AD&D 2nd. Edition rules on which the game is based.

 

Such change would make this mod a Total Conversion, no longer a simple modification.

 

In short, should IR v3 (or later) go for 3d Edition ruleset, I will have to either stick to version 2 or, more likely, leave IR out altogether.

[Mike1072]

That being said, both our positions are quite clear by now, thus let's wait for some other player to comment if they wish, if most of them agree with you then convincing me might be easier.

I originally posted the same idea in bigg's SHS thread, but you and bigg have convinced me that having equal bonuses for warriors and non-warriors is the fairest option.

 

I am strongly against it.

 

Item Revisions seems like is more and more drifting towards becoming the Great Equalizer and honestly, that is not what I want in a game. I still like to think that some classes (even dual and multi) can pull out a little extra if a player can think of how to use them at best. Also, while smoothing hard edges is a welcome change, it is somewhat "disturbing" to think that this mod is now attacking the core of the AD&D 2nd. Edition rules on which the game is based.

 

Such change would make this mod a Total Conversion, no longer a simple.

 

In short, should IR v3 (or later) go for 3d Edition ruleset, I will have to either stick to version 2 or, more likely, leave IR out altogether.

This would more logically be a component of KR than IR. But even if it did end up in IR somehow, it would obviously be optional.

[Salk]

Thus you'd vote to remove the cap and let everyone get much more hit points?

 

I definitely would do it (for gameplay's reason), though this might seem a contradiction with my former post.

 

Most hostile NPCs have in fact their hit dice maxed out.

[the bigg]

Most hostile NPCs have in fact their hit dice maxed out.

They do not - the bg2tweaks "Maximum HP Creatures" component increases HPs for about 80% of .cre files (unmodded BG2).

 

Also, having full HP at levels 11 and up is massively overkill - bombardment spells would become useless (E.G. a 20th mage with 16 con and good saves will almost always survive 3* ADHW)