Grimrock

Drax wrote:

dbgager wrote:
D&D was that way for 20 years...MAny people enjoyed the system immenselly.

This isn't D&D. Whilst LOR certainly has some D&D heritage, trying to debate about one videogames design choices based on the design choices of another isn't productive. They're share a genre, but so do CoD and Tribes Ascend and they play very differently.

Randomness is good upto a point. Random AI keeps you guessing in fights. But an RPG is a Role-Playing Game, you should feel like you are the character and part of that is ensuring you feel like you're in control of his/her/it's progression.

Don't be ridiculous..You have enough control. Obviously you lack understanding of the system and all the factors that control HPs.

dbgager wrote:D&D was that way for 20 years...MAny people enjoyed the system immenselly. You have plenty of conttrol..Not exact control..but randomness is good . Its a role playinng game. Not a spreadsheet.

D&D was that way when launched, but...

1. In all editions of D&D, so far as I know, changes to con that affected your hit die modifiers were retroactive.
2. People very frequently house-ruled hit points; I don't know that I ever met a DM who didn't habitually order players to re-roll 1s, for one thing.
3. They eventually moved to fixed hit points per level because the randomness was not, in fact, particularly good.

Keep in mind that D&D was at its roots a tactical wargame with magic bolted on. Insofar as there are stats at all, it really is intended to be thought of in spreadsheet terms. (And your assertion about understanding is hilarious coming from someone who has repeatedly misunderstood how the game works.)

And yes, we're all aware that you think everyone who has ever proven you to be totally wrong about your factual claims about the game should go away so you can be better than us. It's cool. You're super awesome, and we are all really, really, impressed. I totally need your approval to enjoy my hobbies.

dbgager wrote:
Don't be ridiculous..You have enough control. Obviously you lack understanding of the system and all the factors that control HPs.

"Control" is subjective. I don't feel like I have enough control, because part of the control is an illusion. I have control over my sword skills, thus I have control over my damage output (I'm using one character to keep it simple). I don't have that much control over health so I suffer defensively. The main problem I have is that illusion. If vitality was only added to on level, I could probably just roll with it. But, because of gear and talents, it makes you think you have some sort of choice with it.

This thread clearly states how vitality affects health, thanks to some theorycrafting of earlier posters. Disagreeing that vitality needs change is perfectly acceptable; trying to imply that everyone is ignorant of its use is rather asinine.

Different classes gain HPs at different rates. It has always been that way in role playing games. Mages do not get as many HP as rogues..Fighters get more than rogues.

Using D&D as an example

Mages get 4 per level plus a random factor decided by CON and a dice roll
Rogues get 6 per level plus a random factor decided by CON and a dice roll
Fighters get 8 per level plus a random factor decided by CON and a dice roll

Most role playing systems are some variation of this system


What is it that you are having problems with...

seebs wrote:

dbgager wrote:D&D was that way for 20 years...MAny people enjoyed the system immenselly. You have plenty of conttrol..Not exact control..but randomness is good . Its a role playinng game. Not a spreadsheet.

D&D was that way when launched, but...

1. In all editions of D&D, so far as I know, changes to con that affected your hit die modifiers were retroactive.
2. People very frequently house-ruled hit points; I don't know that I ever met a DM who didn't habitually order players to re-roll 1s, for one thing.
3. They eventually moved to fixed hit points per level because the randomness was not, in fact, particularly good.

Keep in mind that D&D was at its roots a tactical wargame with magic bolted on. Insofar as there are stats at all, it really is intended to be thought of in spreadsheet terms. (And your assertion about understanding is hilarious coming from someone who has repeatedly misunderstood how the game works.)

And yes, we're all aware that you think everyone who has ever proven you to be totally wrong about your factual claims about the game should go away so you can be better than us. It's cool. You're super awesome, and we are all really, really, impressed. I totally need your approval to enjoy my hobbies.

D&D was that way from the time it launched in the early 1970s ..till they got past revision 3 in the 1990s.

dbgager, I am truly sorry to say so, but you are an incredibly stupid person. I feel dumber just reading your comments. You are mashing together arguements from A to Z, connecting the unconnectable, contradicting yourself in the most fundamental ways. Please, just make it stop.

Drax wrote:Level 12 Insect Mage with 12 Vitality has 74hp, level 12 lizard rogue with 11 Vitality has 63hp. They both started with the exact same Vitality, so at some point over the course of the game they've drifted 1 apart, resulting in a 9hp increase.

Different party:
Level 12 Mino fighter, 21 Vitality and 217hp. Level 12 human fighter, 21 vitality, 220hp. Human started with +2 vitality perk, leading to a 3hp difference over the course of the game.

Different party again:
Level 12 Insect Mage, level 12, 12 Vitality has 80hp(note difference from first Insect mage). Level 12 lizard rogue, 14 vitality, 113hp. That's a 33hp increase despite the fact they both started once again with the same vitality. Presumably the Rogue got "lucky" and had a vitality boost earlier on.

3 different parties, similar members in each, very different results. Random isn't cool.

Your actually comparing a Mage with a Rogue..Rogues have always in every role playing system I have ever seen aquired more HPs than Mages..regarless if there Vitality ( Constitution ) is the same.

mystrdat wrote:dbgager, I am truly sorry to say so, but you are an incredibly stupid person. I feel dumber just reading your comments. You are mashing together arguements from A to Z, connecting the unconnectable, contradicting yourself in the most fundamental ways. Please, just make it stop.

All I can say..is I could not care less about your opinion. If that is the only debate you have to offer who does that make the fool...genius. You added absolutely zero to the conversation.

dbgager wrote:
Your actually comparing a Mage with a Rogue..Rogues have always in every role playing system I have ever seen aquired more HPs than Mages..regarless if there Vitality ( Constitution ) is the same.

Once again, "every role playing system" is not a good argument. Giving reasons reflected from LOG is great, I look forward to them. But what other games do or do not do should not affect what LOG does or does not do.

Also, while we're here, compare the Rogue from party 3 with party 1. There's a 3 vitality difference and a 50hp increase.

e: Or the Mage from party 3 with party 1. Same vitality, different HP.

dbgager wrote:All I can say..is I could not care less about your opinion. If that is the only debate you have to offer who does that make the fool...genius. You added absolutely zero to the conversation.

Oh I did try to reason with you, boy I did. Yet, it seems impossible to make you undestand even the mere topic of what is being debated here.

To recapitulate for others, we got 2 separate issues that I'm sure the devs would appreciate some more feedback on.

The first one, in the OP post, mentions that health gains aren't retrospectively recalculated, making early vitality the best choice and late vitality the worst choice.

The second issue, brought up later in the thread, is the random +d3 health roll per level, which doesn't seem to be the best choice for a game that has a save/load feature and in regard to how it's other skills work.

We could use some more opinions for both in here really, so let's continue that route.