Base Hitpoints: Containing the Ripple.

[Hawken]

Instead of changing the rules by giving extra hit points (rather than just HD + Con mod + feats), how about a "hit point pool"? The way it would work would be a number of points that can be applied toward HD rolls.

Let's say the pool has 24 points and you've got three 2nd level characters, a wizard, rogue and barbarian all with Con 10.

At first level, they roll a 2, 6 and 5. The 2 for the wizard is 2 points less than his max of 4 for a d4 roll, so the wizard subtracts 2 points from his pool and effectively gets 4 hit points for his 1st level. The rogue got a 6 out of 6 (d6 hd), so no points are taken out of his pool. The barbarian got a 5 out of 12 (d12 hd), so he takes 7 points out of his pool to get 12 hit points.

The characters now have 4, 6 and 12 hit points at 1st level; with 22, 24 and 17hp left in their hit point pools. For 2nd level, they roll 3, 3, and 10. The wizard takes another 1 point out of his pool to get 8hp at 2nd level, and leaving 21 points in his pool. The rogue takes 3 points out to get 12hp total and have 21 points in his pool. The barbarian takes another 2 points from his pool to get 24hp, and has 15 points remaining in his pool.

Characters get the most hit points for their HD without breaking the rules or even really having to house rule anything like max hp at 1st level or giving a Con score bonus. Depending on how good or bad the HD rolls are, the pool could last for 3-4 levels but will likely be depleted around 6-8th level or so.

 

[Tilenas]

I've always liked the Vitality/Wound Point System from UA. It gets rid of several issues at once:

1. high mortality rate at low levels.
2. arbitrary connection between size or body mass and hit points via hit dice.
3. long recuperation periods for characters with many hit points.
4. nigh invulnerability of high level characters pitted against lower level monsters.
5. player arrogance resulting from 4.

I'm going to post my house rule on this in a couple of days.

 

[Hawken]

As the UA writes it, Wound/Vitality is only good for low level characters and at mid or high level its easily abused by both the DM and players.

It does get rid of deaths at low level, but deaths for EVERYONE, monsters included. Instead of 5hp killing a goblin, that goblin could survive indefinitely, taking dozens or even hundreds of points of damage, as long as he makes a DC 15 Fort save. A 9th level rogue with as many dice of sneak attack damage as the goblin has hit points (vitality points, excuse me), would still not be able to kill the goblin unless it failed its Fort save.

2. arbitrary connection between size or body mass and hit points via hit dice.

However, there is a connection and its not too arbitrary. Bigger things are harder to kill and take less damage from smaller weapons. You could impale a halfling on a dagger, but its not going to do much at all to a hill giant but give it a scratch.

3. long recuperation periods for characters with many hit points.

Are you thinking 2nd edition here? Characters in the HP system recover 1hp/level. Con bonuses and random HD rolls aside, a 1st level fighter recovers as much proportionately as a 10th level fighter.

4. nigh invulnerability of high level characters pitted against lower level monsters.
5. player arrogance resulting from 4.

The W/VP system doesn't solve this. In just about any game a high level character is pretty much invulnerable to a low level character. In the W/VP system, a low level character has a chance at inflicting W damage, and even if it were enough to reduce a high level character to 0, he would still make his Fort save DC 15 easily, failing only on a 1. Oh, there's a feat that can be taken where a 1 isn't an automatic failure on a save also!

And its more accomplishment arrogance not player arrogance. Anyone able to kill someone (except in the W/VP system) in a single hit, is going to have scads of confidence.

 

[Tilenas]

I see your points, and I'd like to clarify mine:

As the UA writes it, Wound/Vitality is only good for low level characters and at mid or high level its easily abused by both the DM and players.

It does get rid of deaths at low level, but deaths for EVERYONE, monsters included. Instead of 5hp killing a goblin, that goblin could survive indefinitely, taking dozens or even hundreds of points of damage, as long as he makes a DC 15 Fort save. A 9th level rogue with as many dice of sneak attack damage as the goblin has hit points (vitality points, excuse me), would still not be able to kill the goblin unless it failed its Fort save.

Succeeding in an infinite number of Fort Saves isn't helping the goblin to stay conscious once he's on 0 WP, though. And as for the dying part: If you want to play it strictly by the rules, that's fine, but it's akin to keeping track of all enemies' negative HP, rolling every round to see if they become stable, and so on. I for one, usually hand-wave that part. So if the player's got the kobold down to -1 HP, it's usually still alive after the fight, but if he was dropped to -9, it's not so lucky. Same with the Fort Save under the WP/VP system.

However, there is a connection and its not too arbitrary. Bigger things are harder to kill and take less damage from smaller weapons. You could impale a halfling on a dagger, but its not going to do much at all to a hill giant but give it a scratch.

I agree. I didn't express myself clearly there. What I meant was the arbitrary connection between size and hit dice, with hit dice granting not only HP, but also attack and save bonuses, skill points and feats.

Are you thinking 2nd edition here? Characters in the HP system recover 1hp/level. Con bonuses and random HD rolls aside, a 1st level fighter recovers as much proportionately as a 10th level fighter.

Again, my bad for not being clear. Recuperation time doesn't change with level, but depends on your class. Wizards heal up to 100% faster than Fighters. Depending on how you visualize the HP system, this might not be a problem (as the Fighter at 50% HP might already have a greater total than the fully healed Wizard).

The W/VP system doesn't solve this. In just about any game a high level character is pretty much invulnerable to a low level character. In the W/VP system, a low level character has a chance at inflicting W damage, and even if it were enough to reduce a high level character to 0, he would still make his Fort save DC 15 easily, failing only on a 1. Oh, there's a feat that can be taken where a 1 isn't an automatic failure on a save also!

And its more accomplishment arrogance not player arrogance. Anyone able to kill someone (except in the W/VP system) in a single hit, is going to have scads of confidence.

Again, true that it's difficult to kill a character, but for my gaming purposes being at 0 WP, unconscious and out of the fight, is just as bad.
I still believe this system keeps players very well in check. They are going to think twice before they pick a fight in the Pirate Lord's tavern, even if they have 50, 100, or more VPs, as a couple of good swings are going to take them out like they would a low-level character.

 

[Kerrick]

I'd have to go with Hawk on this one. The W/VP system has been almost universally panned as badly designed, and I don't know many folks who use it anymore.

 

[Hawken]

Tilenas, I do see where you're coming from and for a time, I liked the WP/VP system too when I was getting tired of the HP system.

Why don't you take a look at the Star Wars Saga rules. They use hit points, but they also have this Damage Threshold mechanic that is similar to Wounds, but executed much better. I've even adapted it to play in my D&D games and it works quite well.

 

[Tilenas]

I like Saga Edition's approach very much, what with damage threshold and condition monitor and all. That said, the higher number of HP Characters get are offset by the increased damage weapons dish out. For my house rules, I thought of combining VP/WP and condition monitor, but that won't work out.

Maybe it's considered flawed, but I found that of all the HP-systems I've encountered so far, the VP/WP system accomodates my taste the most.

 

[Nedz]

Hi,
What I normally do is implement death at negative Con rather than -10. This seems to do the trick. 10 is an arbitary number which is also average Con - so no huge change. I usually do Max HP for 1st level as well, but this won't stop them dying only standing up for another hit (And often the fatal one also).
This does tend to make Con slightly more useful, but not all that much.

 

[Sadrik]

Clunky solution but it works very well.
PCs get their first two HD at first level. At second level they still have their first two HD. From third on it is normal. This skips the doubling of HP Effect and offers a bit of boost for HP at level one.

 

[UncleSquirrel]

Addressing HP indirectly through Death/Dying/Disabled

Hi all,

Great conversation. Thought I'd mention one approach I've used:

- Players are disabled at 0 to -9 hit points (previously at 0 hp only)
- Players are dying at -10 to -19 hit points (previously -1 to -9 hp)
- Players are dead at -20 hit points (previously -10 hp)

...where definitions of disabled, dying, and dead are otherwise unchanged (PH3.5 pg 145, PH3.0 pg 129). All other rules pertaining to death and dying (including stability, etc.) apply accordingly.

The net result is that all characters effectively gain an additional 9 hp or so buffer (which benefits 1st level characters most and decreases in relevance as levels increase), albeit at limited functionality. Low-level characters are still bloodied (disabled) easily, but tougher to kill.

It can also serve to create opportunities for gameplay, i.e. a hit-point window in which PCs and NPCs can escape, surrender, be captured, or make a last ditch effort toward victory. Also, psychologically-speaking, players' max hit points aren't numerically higher, and "going negative" does seem to lend a sense of gravity that simply adding 10 more hit points to PCs' totals probably wouldn't convey (not to mention the ill effects of being disabled). Which makes players overall still feel wary, but die less. And near-death is generally much more fun than death.

Lastly, this is a "minimally invasive" and easily conveyed rules change, in the sense that players still write the same number on their sheets and everything still deals the same damage (no significant reformulation); it's only the special death & dying "edge case" that is technically being modified.

Separate from this, I also happen to give max hp for PC hit dice (only), in certain gaming groups. While this effectively devalues damage dealt by non-renewable sources (such as spells), in the case of NPCs this is easily rebalanced any number of ways (more or more powerful enemies or encounters, etc). For PvP / PC vs. PC, this is somewhat counteracted by virtue of our house-rule spell system (Clerics/Druids/Paladins/Rangers/Wizards cast spontaneously as Sorcerers; Sorcerers/Bards use a spellpoint system to retain their flavor and flexibility).

cheers,
-sq

p.s. The above modification (changing disabled/dying/dead thresholds) would also work with some of the Con-based suggestions posted in this thread, e.g.:

- Players are disabled at 0 to (1 - Con) hit points
- Players are dying at -Con to (1 - 2xCon) hit points
- Players are dead at -2xCon hit points