Weird Barbarian HP problem

[Miloch]

Boy, has it really been a year since this was first mentioned?

I find that to be rather inexplicable, odd and disturbing. Maybe it was just lost in the shuffle. Hopefully, Nythrun's code works, even if it's "clunky." And if it doesn't, perhaps at least a warning that this component doesn't work for barbarians until a more permanent fix can be implemented.

[Nythrun]

There's also the option where the component as a whole is unchanged (including the bellcurved distribution) and only the barbarian clab is messed with: this would even work on imports (though hitpoints won't respond to the difficulty level anymore (and if you're installing this component, why would you care?) and some level-ups may look odd).

ACTION_FOR_EACH "index" IN 0x1 0x2 0x3 0x4 0x5 0x6 0x7 0x8 0x9 BEGIN
 COPY_EXISTING ~spcl131.spl~ ~override/fjbarb%index%.spl~ 
DELETE_BYTES 0x72 (SOURCE_SIZE - 0x72)
INSERT_BYTES 0x72 (0x28 + 0x30)
WRITE_LONG   0x64 0x72
WRITE_SHORT  0x68 0x1
WRITE_LONG   0x6a (0x72 + 0x28)
WRITE_SHORT  0x6e 0x0
WRITE_SHORT  0x70 0x0
WRITE_BYTE   (0x72 + 0x00) 0x1
WRITE_SHORT  (0x72 + 0x02) 0x4
WRITE_BYTE   (0x72 + 0x0c) 0x5
WRITE_SHORT  (0x72 + 0x0e) 0x1
WRITE_SHORT  (0x72 + 0x10) 0x1
WRITE_SHORT  (0x72 + 0x1c) 0x1
WRITE_SHORT  (0x72 + 0x1e) 0x1
WRITE_SHORT  (0x72 + 0x22) 0x1
WRITE_SHORT  (0x72 + 0x24) 0x1
WRITE_SHORT  (0x72 + 0x26) 0x1
WRITE_SHORT  (0x9a + 0x00) 0x12
WRITE_BYTE   (0x9a + 0x02) 0x2
WRITE_LONG   (0x9a + 0x04) (0x8 * ("index" + 0x1))
WRITE_LONG   (0x9a + 0x08) 0x1
WRITE_BYTE   (0x9a + 0x0c) 0x9
WRITE_BYTE   (0x9a + 0x12) 0x64
WRITE_LONG   (0x9a + 0x1c) ("index" + 0x1)
WRITE_LONG   (0x9a + 0x20) 0x4
END

COPY_EXISTING ~clabfi05.2da~ ~override~
 FOR ("i1" = 0x1; "i1" < 0xa; "i1" += 0x1) BEGIN
SET_2DA_ENTRY_LATER ~fj_clabfi05~ 0x8 "i1" ~AP_FJBARB%i1%~
 END
 SET_2DA_ENTRIES_NOW ~fj_clabfi05~ 0x1
BUT_ONLY

 

Cam will come up with something

[CamDawg]

The problem with trying to do barbarian hp via CLAB is that you have to disable the normal HP rolls in the tables, which in turn means you also have to do fighter. ranger, and paladin HPs via CLAB. This would introduce new issues for multi- and dual-classes--since the HPs are coming from a kit ability the engine doesn't know to apply the 1/2 or 1/3 multiplier for multi-class HP and you'll get full fighter HP for every fighter level gained. Dual-classes would also face issues as HPs could be gained at levels where they're not supposed to be.

 

Changing the rolls for fighter from the current 5d2 (which is 5d12 for barbs) to 1d5+5 (which is 1d12+5 for barbs) is closer to a solution. I think the best we can do for barbarians here is to do no harm. If we added a -5 HP penalty via CLAB barbarians are at least back to their base 1d12. (This would still introduce wonk if you try to dual-class a barbarian--since the penalties are now a kit ability, you'd actually gain 45 hit points if you dual-class a 9th level barbarian, and then lose them once the barbarian class became active again.)

 

In short, we can make the bugs less egregious but the best solution here is simply not to install this component if you want to play a barbarian.

[ronin69hof]

cool, I understand. How about a warning during install then that this component shouldnt be used if your going to use a barbarian.

[Nythrun]

Changing the rolls for fighter from the current 5d2 (which is 5d12 for barbs) to 1d5+5 (which is 1d12+5 for barbs) is closer to a solution. I think the best we can do for barbarians here is to do no harm. If we added a -5 HP penalty via CLAB barbarians are at least back to their base 1d12.

 

does having a die value and a constant modifier in a hp.2da work? I thought it didn't, for some reason.

 

Was proposing set maximum hitpoints rather than increment in the barbarian clab, but it's still yicky

[CamDawg]

does having a die value and a constant modifier in a hp.2da work? I thought it didn't, for some reason.

Yeah, my faulty memory. This is why it's 5d2 to begin with rather than 1d5+5.

[Nythrun]

Thanks, saves me some time

[Bursk]

Is the current solution to this issue still to not use the component for barbs? I assume so, but the last few posts make me wonder if maybe Nythrun was on to something as far as a fix is concerned.

[Caedwyr]

The current solution is to skip this component if you are playing a barbarian. Nythun may come along with a cure for cancer at some point that also happens to include a way to extend this component to barbarians properly as a minor side effect.

[Bursk]

The current solution is to skip this component if you are playing a barbarian. Nythun may come along with a cure for cancer at some point that also happens to include a way to extend this component to barbarians properly as a minor side effect.

Fingers crossed. Thanks for the response.