3rd edition bonuses for ability points

[Salk]

Fighters having a special gain from high Constitution makes sense because fighters should be the most resiliant against damage. With the higher bonus to very high Constitution, chances that a mage or a thief having more hit points than a fighter at early levels are lowered and situations where a level 2 Thief has more hit points than a level 2 fighter are less likely (but still very possible!).

I see no problem with that. There can be weak fighter and tough, muscular thief. It's just natural.

 

That's not really the point.

 

The problem is that to balance classes, each has his own strenghts. If a thief, who can backstab and hide in shadow to take a lead in combat, is also stronger or have more hit points than a fighter, do you still see no problem when there is a confrontation?

[Demivrgvs]

As almost always Ardanis more or less said what I would say.

 

Regarding AD&D vs 3ed I never stand for one or the other, because I find that quite often the best solution is in the middle. For example my suggested tables are exactly in the middle, because 3ed tables grant bonuses every two ability points (e.g. STR 11 grants nothing, STR 12 grants +1 to hit and dmg) whereas "mine" would grant something for each point (e.g. STR 11 grants +1 to hit, STR 12 grants +1 dmg).

 

I do agree that having tons of hp is a fighter's defining feature, but their dice roll is there for that (1d10) and I'm all for improving their 'hp per lvl' bonus after the cap (which would also considerably improve the appeal of true fighters over dual/multi ones). There's no reason to also have CON work in a different way imo. Your worries about a thief with more hp than a fighter are quite unwarranted because a thief gets 6 hp per lvl (assuming we all maximize those starting HDs) while a fighter gets 10, which means a thief with CON 18 would have the same hit points of a fighter with CON 10. Do you think a thief with CON 18 shouldn't have more hp than a fighter with CON 8?

 

Then it's not true that DEX, WIS and INT work in a different way depending on the class, CON is the only stat that does that. DEX doesn't grant hide bonus to a pure fighter simply because he hasn't a hide ability (and thus it really doesn't matter), but a thief and a fighter-thief would get the very same bonus! Otoh CON would grant tons of hp to a fighter-thief, and very few to a thief.

[Salk]

As almost always Ardanis more or less said what I would say.

 

Regarding AD&D vs 3ed I never stand for one or the other, because I find that quite often the best solution is in the middle. For example my suggested tables are exactly in the middle, because 3ed tables grant bonuses every two ability points (e.g. STR 11 grants nothing, STR 12 grants +1 to hit and dmg) whereas "mine" would grant something for each point (e.g. STR 11 grants +1 to hit, STR 12 grants +1 dmg).

 

I do agree that having tons of hp is a fighter's defining feature, but their dice roll is there for that (1d10) and I'm all for improving their 'hp per lvl' bonus after the cap (which would also considerably improve the appeal of true fighters over dual/multi ones). There's no reason to also have CON work in a different way imo. Your worries about a thief with more hp than a fighter are quite unwarranted because a thief gets 6 hp per lvl (assuming we all maximize those starting HDs) while a fighter gets 10, which means a thief with CON 18 would have the same hit points of a fighter with CON 10. Do you think a thief with CON 18 shouldn't have more hp than a fighter with CON 8?

 

Then it's not true that DEX, WIS and INT work in a different way depending on the class, CON is the only stat that does that. DEX doesn't grant hide bonus to a pure fighter simply because he hasn't a hide ability (and thus it really doesn't matter), but a thief and a fighter-thief would get the very same bonus! Otoh CON would grant tons of hp to a fighter-thief, and very few to a thief.

 

First of all, you start with a wrong assumption.

 

The Baldur's Gate game provides random dice rolls for Hit Points at level up. Only through modification can a fighter mathematically have more hit points than a thief. You can't say that you agree that "having tons of hp is a fighter's defining feature" and then say that this is warranted by 10 hit points gained per each level up up to level 9 because it is true only in the case where the rules are changed from the original ones. Especially at low levels (and being a BGT player myself I have witnessed this several times), a cleric, with Con 16 or lower has a good chance to have more hit points than a fighter of the same level and with same Constitution.

 

Paradoxically even a mage could. If that happens where does your "having tons of hp is a fighter's defining feature" go?

 

It's not so likely (I won't bother with more chance calculations as I did here) but it is definitely a possibility. And to compensate this, the AD&D 2nd Ed. system has introduced greater Constitution bonus for warriors with Constitution 17 or higher (for 16 and lower the table is shared).

 

Also I never said that Int, Wis and Dex work differently for different classes. I said that there are abilities that are class defining.

 

A high Intelligence or Wisdom for a Fighter does LESS GOOD than a high Constitution for a Mage or Cleric. A high Dexterity benefits a Thief more than a Fighter. I find it only fair that a high Constitution benefits a fighter more than other classes.

 

I hope I have been clear.

[the bigg]

You can't fight a stupid rule (dice rolls rather than fixed amount) with another stupid rule (CON > 16 being totally useless to non-warriors) and expect to make sense.

 

The defining feature of F/R/P versus other classes is the fact they can have more than one attack per round (something that makes an huge difference, unlike 20 or so HPs).

[Salk]

You can't fight a stupid rule (dice rolls rather than fixed amount) with another stupid rule (CON > 16 being totally useless to non-warriors) and expect to make sense.

 

Then you'd rather introduce a "smart" (for you, at least) rule to run along with a "stupid" rule?

 

I am more practical and I look at the outcome. For me, your solution makes the game worse.

[the bigg]

The best way to balance a game is to ensure that every cost has an associated benefit, and the "investment in a stat is completely useless" you're campaigning for is the antithesis of that. Similarly, removing control from the player is another thing that should be avoided as much as possible, and HP rolls is the antithesis of that.

[Salk]

The best way to balance a game is to ensure that every cost has an associated benefit, and the "investment in a stat is completely useless" you're campaigning for is the antithesis of that. Similarly, removing control from the player is another thing that should be avoided as much as possible, and HP rolls is the antithesis of that.

 

Taking your reasoning to the extreme you should want to do the following:

 

1) Remove any Hit Dice rolls for attacks

2) Remove any randomness for weapon damage

3) Remove saving throws

4) Rewrite the abilities table so that changing the stats of one step from 9 to 14 would provide a benefit

 

Yes, we are all ready for the Total Conversion. I want still to play Baldur's Gate with the AD&D 2nd. Edition rules as core rules.

 

I see everyone here complains about rules, being so silly and in need of strong makeup. But why did Baldur's Gate become so famous, and liked, I wonder?

 

Must be because everyone knew that mods would save us in the future.

[Demivrgvs]

First of all, you start with a wrong assumption.

 

The Baldur's Gate game provides random dice rolls for Hit Points at level up. Only through modification can a fighter mathematically have more hit points than a thief.

I think the assumption is valid for 99% of players, because I don't think there are many players out there that would accept to get only a couple of hit points when they lvl up their fighters in BG1.

 

Anyway, let's not take that assumption. It's still highly unlikely that a mage (2.5 hp per lvl on average) or a thief (3.5) can have more hit points than a fighter (5.5), and on top of it it's unlikely that mages and thieves can invest as much as fighters in CON, because they both need other stats much more than a fighter, who really doesn't need INT at all, and can live without high DEX because he can wear heavy armors and shields.

 

After the 10th lvl cap the gap between the classes is guaranteed by the fixed hp per lvl bonus, and I'd gladly increase it in favor of fighters.

 

 

I see everyone here complains about rules, being so silly and in need of strong makeup. But why did Baldur's Gate become so famous, and liked, I wonder?

I'd guess because it was a very good starting point. But who said that something very good cannot be even better?

[the bigg]

Taking your reasoning to the extreme you should want to do the following:

 

1) Remove any Hit Dice rolls for attacks

2) Remove any randomness for weapon damage

3) Remove saving throws

The problem is when elements out of your control have the potential you for the rest of the game (or a long portion thereof). Having a front-line character with pitiful HP (for ex. Jaheira) will gimp you for the rest of the game, whereas bad luck in a battle will not gimp you long-term.

In fact, in PVP games with strong competitive scenes (where you can possibly win cash prizes over a five-minutes battle), options are made available that remove all sources of randomness ad/or remove player control (ex: TF2).

 

4) Rewrite the abilities table so that changing the stats of one step from 9 to 14 would provide a benefit

You're right, nobody did such a mod.

 

I see everyone here complains about rules, being so silly and in need of strong makeup. But why did Baldur's Gate become so famous, and liked, I wonder?

That's right, the game should be played as it came out (in its pre-patch state) in 2001, since all existing patches, mods and whatnot make the game worse.

[Salk]

I see everyone here complains about rules, being so silly and in need of strong makeup. But why did Baldur's Gate become so famous, and liked, I wonder?

That's right, the game should be played as it came out (in its pre-patch state) in 2001, since all existing patches, mods and whatnot make the game worse.

 

I follow this philosophy:

 

fixes are always welcome while mods are sometimes.

 

When you introduce rules changing mods you are not fixing anything. You are just changing something that worked with something else.

 

I am a huge fan of modifications but let's not forget that this game have been loved by most people when only official Bioware patches were out. And many loved it even before them.

[Constantine]

That's not really the point.

 

The problem is that to balance classes, each has his own strenghts. If a thief, who can backstab and hide in shadow to take a lead in combat, is also stronger or have more hit points than a fighter, do you still see no problem when there is a confrontation?

I don't think that classes are unbalanced at all. I'm sure you're well aware that increased HP die roll is not the only one benefit over the other classes that fighters receive.

 

The idea of battle between a generic fighter and some generic thief is a silly one. See, your avarage fighter have increased hp and way better fighting skills than the thief, which means that he will always prevail in "fair" combat. The thief likely have less HP and only one star in his weapon, meaning feable fighting skills. Now, you assume that the thief will not attack the fighter in open, but always backstab. Well, he will not, because his chance of hide in shadows in plain sight is second to none. So what class needs to be balanced now?

[Jarno Mikkola]

I am a huge fan of modifications but let's not forget that this game have been loved by most people when only official Bioware patches were out. And many loved it even before them.

Yeah, but did they love every bit of it, the bugs included? Why the cheese were they ever then fixed, hhmm? It's not like there are 4 different fixpacks for the second game, ouh, but ahh, there is!

 

Now, when it comes to modifying of the game the smart way, it's not about making more rules, "we are not the police", but about letting people to play the game the way they want to play it as, if they want to cheat, they can make themselves 1000 Rings of Gazz, etc, and be happy with them... and letting people to make the choices they want to make by allowing more choices...

[Dermit]

As almost always Ardanis more or less said what I would say.

 

Regarding AD&D vs 3ed I never stand for one or the other, because I find that quite often the best solution is in the middle. For example my suggested tables are exactly in the middle, because 3ed tables grant bonuses every two ability points (e.g. STR 11 grants nothing, STR 12 grants +1 to hit and dmg) whereas "mine" would grant something for each point (e.g. STR 11 grants +1 to hit, STR 12 grants +1 dmg).

 

In theory I like the idea of making mid range stats more useful (outside of putting you in range of a bonus from buffs). However a bonus for every point could stack up pretty quick and could be balance impairing.

 

Could you elaborate on your ideal tables a bit more?

 

I do agree that having tons of hp is a fighter's defining feature, but their dice roll is there for that (1d10) and I'm all for improving their 'hp per lvl' bonus after the cap (which would also considerably improve the appeal of true fighters over dual/multi ones). There's no reason to also have CON work in a different way imo. Your worries about a thief with more hp than a fighter are quite unwarranted because a thief gets 6 hp per lvl (assuming we all maximize those starting HDs) while a fighter gets 10, which means a thief with CON 18 would have the same hit points of a fighter with CON 10. Do you think a thief with CON 18 shouldn't have more hp than a fighter with CON 8?

 

CON still grants bonuses in other areas (though not many in CRPG), just not to HP. It only does this for warriors, so I think it is more of a class bonus than a penalty to other classes.

 

You seem to be worried about fighter dual classes being OP, but there are balance issues in opening up bonuses to other classes. Clerics for instance already get almost as much health as a fighter, with their spells granting bonuses they can quickly become OP, this was an issue in 3rd Ed.

 

 

Then it's not true that DEX, WIS and INT work in a different way depending on the class, CON is the only stat that does that. DEX doesn't grant hide bonus to a pure fighter simply because he hasn't a hide ability (and thus it really doesn't matter), but a thief and a fighter-thief would get the very same bonus! Otoh CON would grant tons of hp to a fighter-thief, and very few to a thief.

 

Strength works this way too.

 

I know I'm being argumentative, but I think this could be a neat feature. Sounds like you are heading this way already. Seems like it would fit better with Kit Revisions.

[the bigg]

This is the STR table from my mod (exceptional Strength is wholly ignored there):

 

2DA V1.0
0
TO_HIT DAMAGE BEND_BARS_LIFT_GATES WEIGHT_ALLOWANCE
0   -5	 -5	 0					0
1   -5	 -4	 0					4
2   -4	 -4	 1					9
3   -4	 -3	 2					15
4   -3	 -3	 3					20
5   -3	 -2	 4					30
6   -2	 -2	 5					35
7   -2	 -1	 6					45
8   -1	 -1	 7					50
9   -1	 0	  8					60
10  0	  0	  10				   70
11  0	  1	  15				   90
12  1	  1	  15				   100
13  1	  2	  15				   120
14  2	  2	  20				   140
15  2	  3	  20				   160
16  3	  3	  25				   180
17  3	  4	  25				   250
18  4	  4	  30				   250
19  4	  5	  35				   300
20  5	  5	  40				   350
21  5	  6	  45				   450
22  6	  6	  50				   550
23  6	  7	  60				   750
24  7	  7	  70				   1000
25  7	  8	  80				   1600

 

In this case, Exceptional Strength is ignored, chiefly because (in both standard BG2 and IR) progressing 18->19 would otherwise grant too many bonuses compared to any other stat boost.

[Dermit]

In this case, Exceptional Strength is ignored, chiefly because (in both standard BG2 and IR) progressing 18->19 would otherwise grant too many bonuses compared to any other stat boost.

 

That seems like a lot of bonuses. Isn't AC disadvantaged enough?