Hit Points - A Discussion of a "Solution"

[Herremann the Wise]

For realism I would have used damage based on STR and modified by weapon ( GURPS again ).

The only problem with doing that goes back to the original topic........hit points. Basing damage on a STR score that doesn't scale with skyrocketing hit points would mean that high level combat would take days to finish. I have run GURPS combats with critters that had a 15+ HT and 70+ HP and they never end.

I still think the two in conjunction works nicely though (damage involving both strength and skill). However, the high level combat situation you present is an interesting one. I think the combat point/hit point system has a natural buffer for this. It is all about getting at the other character's hit points. However rather than chipping away, I think there would be a natural encouragement to spend some big combat points on abilities designed to get at those hit points.

As you mentioned in your first post, there is a nice balance going on between conservative defensiveness and pulling out the big moves to finish the opponent early. I think the slow war of attrition of getting through a wad of points would not happen when there were significant opportunities to do other productive but expensive things.

Skill based damage allows for scaling with level better than having to inflate stats. A grand master of the broadsword will doing something like 3d6+5 per hit and getting multiple attacks. With training being level controlled its easy to keep the fighters damage from being completely overshadowed by casters.

I suppose this is the thing, at high levels, the fighter can hit most of the time and can deal enough damage to cause issues for the opponent. However, I think it is the other things that the high level fighter does that makes them so good. They would have effective and relatively cheap ways of avoiding criticals - incredibly important against dangerous or large opponents. They can keep their defenses up against multiple opponents, cannot be flanked and can tactically move (not opening themselves up to opportunity attacks) further than 5 feet. Also they get more than one attack a round (I like the idea of not having as many iterative attacks as in 3E). But perhaps most of all, they have large numbers of combat points.

It also helps take care of the minion problem. Since NPC's and PC's don't have to follow the same rules, a bugbear thats scary to a first level character that only does 1-6 points of damage will become a speed bump to the guy doing 3d6+5. Give that bugbear some decent training and it becomes a viable threat to the higher level fighter without giving it character levels or turning it into a balloon with 1 hit point. Its the same bugbear with more skill yet it still drops in a good hit.

I agree with you here. Minions are an interesting idea but in the end, they just feel a little flimsy to me with that 1 hit point. They encourage unrealistic metagaming which takes me out of the gameworld too easily. However, there should always be a place for such creatures/mooks/minions. For me such creatures should just have hit points (no combat points). They still have skills they can freely use, they are in their way as tough as a non-minion (with no combat points, but the same number of hit points), but when you strike them, it hurts them from the get go.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[UngainlyTitan]

A bit of a sidetrack here but I suppose it's related. This relates moreso to the rest of what I envisage for "my" game. I would prefer weaponry to mean a little more than it has in the past. What is it that separates a Scythe from a Greatsword?

For a start, a scythe is much less expensive and in game terms, I'd like that to mean something.

snip

Jumping in here without reading to the end but have you ever used a scythe? I have, for it original purpose, cutting grass, and a proper smith forged scythe at that not the crap they make now adays, though I have used them as well.

They are very good for cutting grass, they work really well for long grass but you need to know how to keep them sharp.

As a weapon, while they look cool, I could not think of something more awkward. Finally the blade is thin and brittle due to the need to be very sharp and splits easily.

If you want a farm implement to use as a weapon. I'd go with a axe or a traditional spade.

On the hit point thing. My opinion, too complicated and getting more complicated as the thread progresses. If you want realistic wounding then track the stabilisation rolls in 4e. then map that to the Rolemaster critical categories. Then roll on the revelant critical chart. This bypasses most of the crap in Rolemaster combat and goes straight to the heart of the matter.
So worst case, 3 failed stabilisation rolls in a row = worst critical table (its been 15 years since I played Rolemaster and I can't remember now what way the charts go), 4 roll before 3 fails = next sever chart and so on.
If he autostabilised then ignore the critical roll.
If he survives the roll on the critical chart ( I also cannot remember whither that chart used modifier, but if it does then map the percentage negative vs bloodied to the modifiers) then only soecial rituals as magical healing. Of course remembering Rolemaster he may need them.
Or failing that make up your own critical chart. The point being there is nothing to track other than stabilisation rolls, this gives the severity of the wound and the critical chart can be consulted after combat, so it does not slow down combat.

 

[eleventh]

Pshtt. Who can't survive a 200ft fall?

Hiker Falls 200 Feet After Bee Attack - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archiv...B153CE433A2575BC2A96E9C94689ED7CF&oref=slogin

 

[tomBitonti]

Well ... about the falling ... there is a big difference between falling onto a slope and sliding along to a halt ... compared with falling onto a hard flat slab of concrete.

I remember reading about a Russian stewardess who survived a many-thousand foot fall, but she fell into a thick snowbank.

There was a guy who survived a fall from a tall chimney, about 200 feet, but had the luck to fall rather flat rather than in a vertical orientation. That apparently made the difference.

So ... I'm thinking that up to a certain height, luck can help (but you will still get busted up). Above that, there would need to be mitigating circumstances, basically, something to ablate the impact, for the fall to be survivable.