Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Just curious, what with all these numbers for base HPs flying about ...

What type of range are we looking at achieving for "normal" humans, 1st level characters, etc?

Knowing would be a great help when evaluating the above proposals and offering alternatives...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there!

Not wanting to quote the long previous discussions, but a quick comment on the "different damage types vs. armor" style, which leads to a larger comment.

Alternity used that system. Actually, they let the weapons stats be single values, then gave multiple values for the armor vs. weapon type. Being one of the few humans who tried the Alternity system, it was a royal pain in the butt. Sure, if you were a total fanboy tracking that stuff was no problem, but the casual players would hink up on us.

Well I never saw Alternity, but I am only advocating three possible outcomes.

Crushing - standard AV
Slashing - 1/2 AV
Piercing - 1/4 AV

If thats too confusing for people then how are they able to play D&D?

And that leads us to a third -- and in my mind most desirable style of system -- besides logical and realistic: ELEGANT. Designing a game system, we have to remember that an elegant system, although not entirely logical, makes it easier for a broader base of players to play, something that has to be taken into account when a game is as complex as an RPG.

I agree.

Having HP dependent on CON instead of STR is elegant in that it allows some variation without being confusing. You're not that big, but you're hard to kill -- fantasy and adventure tales are filled with such characters. The separate CON allows us to adjust for fantasy racial tendencies without making hardy races all godlike uber-warriors. And what about my friend who weighs 60 lbs. less than me but can bench press me and my couch?

He has trained his strength above average.

Or my skinny friend, who isn't that strong, but because he ran 5 miles every day (high CON) managed to survive a car wreck the doctors said would have killed anyone else?

I am still not convinced CON should affect hit points.

What I do think is that it should stave off the possible negative effects from wounds.

I think the question here is: if you're really after simplicity, why the heck make the characters track an extra stat like weight, which in no other way holds any significance in gameplay, in order to get their most basic character info?

What is this 'track' weight nonsense!?

You roll it once and thats it!

And is a system where you have to toss PC's a +1 ability score per level in order to make a mechanic work really logical or elegant?

I was thinking about a skill based progression, not level based though.

Trust me, I understand the craving for a system so integrated we no longer have to rule zero anything or consult the sage -- although I tend to find those questions are about magic or poorly worded rules than than badly thought out rules.

Thats only because on flawed reasoning behind core rules there is no answer he could give.

And I'm with UK on parrying. Enjoy the combat grinding to a halt with the rolls and counter-rolls during every individual combat.

It's just my two cents, but in my mind, over-complication for the sake of false logic is what nearly killed the hobby in the 2E days, or as I call them, "The Buzzkill Editions."

I agree. Simplicity is the key.

I suppose what I'm getting at here, and I swear I"m not finding it in the previous five pages -- WHY are you finding this HP sytem tweak necessary in your own game?

I'm not. I have stated many times all the changes I would make would require a new edition/total revision.

I wouldn't convert 3rd Ed. (beyond maybe armour as damage reduction) to incorporate these ideas.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

Just curious, what with all these numbers for base HPs flying about ...

What type of range are we looking at achieving for "normal" humans, 1st level characters, etc?

Knowing would be a great help when evaluating the above proposals and offering alternatives...

Well speaking for my own ideas...

(Typical) Base Hit Points*:

Halfling 1+1d3 (3)
Gnome 2+1d4 (5)
Elf 4+1d6 (8)
Half-Elf 8+1d8 (13)
Dwarf/Human/Half-Orc 12+2d6 (19)

Ogre 24+2d12 (37)

Hill Giant 80+10d8 (125)

*Not counting strength bonus.

Remember that this represents the amount needed to wound an opponent:

Damage < HP = Scratch
Damage > HP = Minor Wound
Damage > 2xHP = Major Wound
Damage > 3xHP = Critical Wound
Damage > 4xHP = Death

2 Minor Wounds = Major Wound
2 Major Wounds = Critical Wound
2 Critical Wounds = Death

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
I don't know if all that is necessary. In the PHB the max load for STR 9 is 90lbs.

So therefore you have 30 light/60 mid/90 heavy

For strength 18 you have double that.

Simple.

Until your next snag. Let's say I'm a 180 pound human with 18 Strength. I can lift 180 pounds. Now let's say I am 210 pound human with 18 Strength. I can't even lift my own body weight? Not so good. If your are still aiming for logic Upper_Krust, it just flew out the window.

I believe the heaviest amount of weight a human being has ever lifted over their head is in the ballpark of 640 to 660 pounds. D&D lets you lift twice your carrying capacity over your head.

My 18 Strength 180 pound human could pull that off. 180 x 1.8 (1/10 of their Strength score) = 324 pounds.

324 pounds x 2 = 648. Perfect.

The moment you base Carrying Capacity on Weight and the Strength score, as I have, logic and stylized simplicity are both satisfied.

And then along comes the bonus damage chart based off Carrying Capacity.

0: -1d12 (-6)
1: -1d10 (-5)
2-3: -1d8 (-4)
4-6: -1d6 (-3)
7-10 -1d4 (-2)
11-30: -1d2 (-1)
31-60: 0
41-100: +1d2 (+1)
101-200: +1d4 (+2)
201-300: +1d6 (+3)
301-400: +1d8 (+4)
401-500: +1d10 (+5)
501-600: +1d12 (+6)
601-800: +2d8 (+9)
801-1000: +2d10 (+11)
1001-1200: +2d12 (+13)
1201-1600: +4d8 (+18)
1601-2000: +4d10 (+22)
2001-2400: +4d12 (+27)
2401-3200: +8d8 (+36)
3201-4000: +8d10 (+44)
4001-4800: +8d12 (+52)
4801-6400: +16d8 (+72)
6401-8000: +16d10 (+88)
8001-9600: +16d12 (+104)
9601-12800: +32d8 (+144)
12800-16000: +32d10 (+176)
16001-19200: +32d12 (+208)

Mass directly contributes to what you can carry and how much extra damage you can inflict.

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
I don't agree that hit points should be mucked about with too much. I don't think a 120lb 20th-level Wizard should be more resistant to damage than a 250lb 1st-level Barbarian.

Well, you don't really state "why" you think so, but I have. It's called 20 levels of hardy combat experience. That will very easily make a 20th level wizard more resilient than a 1st level barbarian. The fact that their respective Hit Point totals will still be comparable to each other (even with so great a level gap) tells me that this system is logically working the way it was intended.

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
The whole parrying thing is just going to get in the way. As an option its fine, but I wouldn't personally have it as a core rule.

...

Again I don't see this as anything more than perhaps an optional rule. Armor class can handle all this much more simply.

If you are going to give characters static Hit Points for 20+ levels (with minor adjustments), then unless you give them the ability to parry and dodge as a basic combat mechanic, they will drop like flies. Parrying and dodging would have to be hard cored into any rule system that enforced static Hit Points (in addition to AR becoming DR).

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
I still don't understand why we have to play down the importance of mass?

Have you been reading my Carrying Capacity rules?

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
Great Wyrms could have upwards of 25,000+hp!

Too much! You're about 8000 Hit Points north of pay dirt.

Let's say a tiny hatchling dragon is 2½ feet tall and 30 pounds at birth. By the time that dragon is colossal size, it will be about 60 feet tall (the average of a colossal dragon's combat facing).

Okay, this is how you can "logically" figure out the weight of such a colossal dragon.

60 ft. / 2½ ft. = 24.

24 cubed (to account for a three dimensional creature) is 24 x 24 x 24 or 13824.

Now we go back to the tiny hatchling dragon...

30 lbs. x 13824 = 414720 lbs. or 207.36 tons.

That's a heavy dragon.

Okay, let's return to my Hit Point equation.

414720 lbs. / 25 = 16588.8 (my base weight multiplier)

If we make this colossal great wyrm a red dragon with 31 Constitution, that's a +10 multiplier.

16588 x 10 = 165880 hit points.

A great wyrm red dragon has 40 hit dice with a fighter Base Attack Bonus, so that's 3 x 40 = 120 extra Hit Points, creating a grand total of...

16600 hit points.

For a colossal-sized red dragon, I'd say that's about right.

What's that? You want to know how much this dragon lift using my Carrying Capacity rules?

Let's find out!

414720 x 4.5 (1/10 of a 45 Strength score) = 1,866,240 lbs.

Almost 2 million pounds.

Let's scale my Carrying Capacity chart up to see what that gives us for bonus melee damage.

19201-25600: +64d8 (+288)
25601-32000: +64d10 (+352)
32000-38400: +64d12 (+416)
38401-51200: +128d8 (+576)
51201-64000: +128d10 (+704)
64001-76800: +128d12 (+832)
76801-102400: +256d8 (+1152)
102401-128000: +256d10 (+1408)
128001-153600: +256d12 (+1664)
153601-204800: +512d8 (+2304)
204801-256000: +512d10 (+2816)
256001-307200: +512d12 (+3328)
307201-409600: +1024d8 (+4608)
409600-512000: +1024d10 (+5632)
512001-614400: +1024d12 (+6656)
614401-819200: +2048d8 (+9216)
819201-1024000: +2048d10 (+11264)
1024001-1228800: +2048d12 (+13312)
1228801-1638400: +4096d8 (+18432)
1638401-2048000: +4096d10 (+22528)
2048001-2457600: +4096d12 (+26624)

So here it is... a colossal-size red dragon will inflict an extra 4096d10 damage, for an average of 22528 points of damage each time they successfully hit something.

Suffice it to say that if a 60 feet tall dragon began to rampage through your city, that city would be devastated faster than you could say Godzilla.

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
What ideas of mine were too complicated for you mate? I thought they have all been straightforward up to now!?

Not to worry, your suggestions are *easy* to understand. They're just more complicated than the current mechanic being used by Dungeons and Dragons.

That said, I would be hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge my own tendency to complicate rules. But just think, the chart is finished. The equations are written. All the hard work is done. Easy-squeezy for anybody who wants to use them now.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Well I never saw Alternity, but I am only advocating three possible outcomes.

Crushing - standard AV
Slashing - 1/2 AV
Piercing - 1/4 AV

I guess it depends on how you envision things working

For myself, I like to think of (heavy) crushing weapons as not doing as much damage to an unarmoured foe as an arrow or sword, but being MORE likely to score at least a bit of damage through heavy armour. Also, rather than worrying about dividing and rounding, I would advocate having a base AV that is multiplied by some value vs weapons that are not as effective at penetrating it. So, to use your ratios, but with (heavy) Crushing weapons being most effective at penetrating armour (leaving aside distinctions between armour types)...

CRUSHING (Low Base Dmg): Normal AV

SLASHING (Avg Base Dmg): x2 AV

PIERCING (High Base Dmg): x4 AV

Certain weapons, such as picks, would be special cases...perhaps doing average damage vs normal AV. While longbows might do high damage vs x2 AV, or somesuch; and a fist might do low damage vs x4 AV. Anyway, the exact numbers aren't important at this point.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

Until your next snag. Let's say I'm a 180 pound human with 18 Strength. I can lift 180 pounds. Now let's say I am 210 pound human with 18 Strength. I can't even lift my own body weight? Not so good. If your are still aiming for logic Upper_Krust, it just flew out the window.

LOL!

Have you actually read the Players Handbook (page 142)?

If so you would realise that the characters own weight is not a factor in carrying capacity. If we treat Strength as I advocate we have no need for the Size Modifiers (to carrying capacity) either.

I believe the heaviest amount of weight a human being has ever lifted over their head is in the ballpark of 640 to 660 pounds. D&D lets you lift twice your carrying capacity over your head.

So that would mean a heavy load of 320-330lbs, which neatly equates to a 32-33 strength under my auspices.

Could it be any more simple!?

My 18 Strength 180 pound human could pull that off. 180 x 1.8 (1/10 of their Strength score) = 324 pounds.

324 pounds x 2 = 648. Perfect.

Out of curiousity would you detail a halfling and a hill giant in your system?

The moment you base Carrying Capacity on Weight and the Strength score, as I have, logic and stylized simplicity are both satisfied.

But I had already done that.

And then along comes the bonus damage chart based off Carrying Capacity.

0: -1d12 (-6)
1: -1d10 (-5)
2-3: -1d8 (-4)
4-6: -1d6 (-3)
7-10 -1d4 (-2)
11-30: -1d2 (-1)
31-60: 0
41-100: +1d2 (+1)
101-200: +1d4 (+2)
201-300: +1d6 (+3)
301-400: +1d8 (+4)
401-500: +1d10 (+5)
501-600: +1d12 (+6)
601-800: +2d8 (+9)
801-1000: +2d10 (+11)
1001-1200: +2d12 (+13)
1201-1600: +4d8 (+18)
1601-2000: +4d10 (+22)
2001-2400: +4d12 (+27)
2401-3200: +8d8 (+36)
3201-4000: +8d10 (+44)
4001-4800: +8d12 (+52)
4801-6400: +16d8 (+72)
6401-8000: +16d10 (+88)
8001-9600: +16d12 (+104)
9601-12800: +32d8 (+144)
12800-16000: +32d10 (+176)
16001-19200: +32d12 (+208)

If you are already rolling dice for attack damage, I think this is only going to confuse matters to add different dice for strength as well.

Mass directly contributes to what you can carry and how much extra damage you can inflict.

I agree which is why I advocate base strength being derived from mass. Then apply the Strength-Dexterity see-saw for basic characters.

Well, you don't really state "why" you think so, but I have. It's called 20 levels of hardy combat experience. That will very easily make a 20th level wizard more resilient than a 1st level barbarian. The fact that their respective Hit Point totals will still be comparable to each other (even with so great a level gap) tells me that this system is logically working the way it was intended.

The problem here is that I don't believe the 'hardy combat experience' should affect hit points directly. Otherwise you just may as well be playing 3rd Ed. where hit points mean skill; luck; rolling with the punches; mass...etc.

The system I advocate simplifies all this. Hit points mean mass. Strength means hardiness.

If you are going to give characters static Hit Points for 20+ levels (with minor adjustments), then unless you give them the ability to parry and dodge as a basic combat mechanic, they will drop like flies. Parrying and dodging would have to be hard cored into any rule system that enforced static Hit Points (in addition to AR becoming DR).

I believe that parrying and dodging can all be done within the BAB/AC mechanic though, with no need for superfluous dice rolling.

Two equal skilled opponents should probably hit each other on a '20'.

Think about it. If we both had toy plastic lightsabres, how often do you think we would actually land a blow on each other, not very often, thats for sure.

Have you been reading my Carrying Capacity rules?

I have, but I still say we can get them less complicated.

Too much! You're about 8000 Hit Points north of pay dirt.

...using your method perhaps, not mine.

Monster Manual (page 5)
Colossal: weight 250,000lb or more.

Under my system that represents 25,000hp, (base) STR 12,500 (6245 Strength Bonus).

Let's say a tiny hatchling dragon is 2½ feet tall and 30 pounds at birth. By the time that dragon is colossal size, it will be about 60 feet tall (the average of a colossal dragon's combat facing).

Okay, this is how you can "logically" figure out the weight of such a colossal dragon.

60 ft. / 2½ ft. = 24.

24 cubed (to account for a three dimensional creature) is 24 x 24 x 24 or 13824.

Now we go back to the tiny hatchling dragon...

30 lbs. x 13824 = 414720 lbs. or 207.36 tons.

That's a heavy dragon.

Okay, let's return to my Hit Point equation.

414720 lbs. / 25 = 16588.8 (my base weight multiplier)

If we make this colossal great wyrm a red dragon with 31 Constitution, that's a +10 multiplier.

16588 x 10 = 165880 hit points.

A great wyrm red dragon has 40 hit dice with a fighter Base Attack Bonus, so that's 3 x 40 = 120 extra Hit Points, creating a grand total of...

16600 hit points.

For a colossal-sized red dragon, I'd say that's about right.

What's that? You want to know how much this dragon lift using my Carrying Capacity rules?

Let's find out!

414720 x 4.5 (1/10 of a 45 Strength score) = 1,866,240 lbs.

Almost 2 million pounds.

Let's scale my Carrying Capacity chart up to see what that gives us for bonus melee damage.

19201-25600: +64d8 (+288)
25601-32000: +64d10 (+352)
32000-38400: +64d12 (+416)
38401-51200: +128d8 (+576)
51201-64000: +128d10 (+704)
64001-76800: +128d12 (+832)
76801-102400: +256d8 (+1152)
102401-128000: +256d10 (+1408)
128001-153600: +256d12 (+1664)
153601-204800: +512d8 (+2304)
204801-256000: +512d10 (+2816)
256001-307200: +512d12 (+3328)
307201-409600: +1024d8 (+4608)
409600-512000: +1024d10 (+5632)
512001-614400: +1024d12 (+6656)
614401-819200: +2048d8 (+9216)
819201-1024000: +2048d10 (+11264)
1024001-1228800: +2048d12 (+13312)
1228801-1638400: +4096d8 (+18432)
1638401-2048000: +4096d10 (+22528)
2048001-2457600: +4096d12 (+26624)

So here it is... a colossal-size red dragon will inflict an extra 4096d10 damage, for an average of 22528 points of damage each time they successfully hit something.

The thing is though, that it took you about 50 lines to work out what took me one or two lines.

Which do you think is simpler?

Suffice it say that if a 60 feet tall dragon began to rampage through your city, that city would be devastated faster than you could say Godzilla.

I think it will teach people to respect dragons a bit more, thats for sure. I am interested in seeing this Reign of Fire movie to see how much punishment the dragons can soak up (from the trailer they don't look great wyrm size though).

Godzilla (60,000 tons) worked out at about 13.2 million hp, STR 6.6 million (Bonus 3.299995 million).

About 16.5 million hp to wound, 66 million+ to kill. (Not yet factoring armour)

Which (as far as I can tell) would mean a direct hit from a 16in Battleship Gun (4 million+ damage) wouldn't wound him and you would need something in the kiloton range to kill him with one blast.

Not to worry, your suggestions are *easy* to understand. They're just more complicated than the current mechanic being used by Dungeons and Dragons.

Probably because you are more familiar with the current rules than my own.

That said, I would be hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge my own tendency to complicate rules.

Really! I swear I hadn't noticed mate!

But just think, the chart is finished. The equations are written. All the hard work is done. Easy-squeezy for anybody who wants to use them now.

In an RPG context; equations are a dirty word though.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

UK--

I was thinking lastnight after posting, that these modifiers for damage type remind me an awful lot of GURPS--so another option would be to have a fixed armour value, but multiply the damage that penetrates by some value (such as the GURPS 1,1.5, and 2).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

I guess it depends on how you envision things working

For myself, I like to think of (heavy) crushing weapons as not doing as much damage to an unarmoured foe as an arrow or sword, but being MORE likely to score at least a bit of damage through heavy armour. Also, rather than worrying about dividing and rounding, I would advocate having a base AV that is multiplied by some value vs weapons that are not as effective at penetrating it. So, to use your ratios, but with (heavy) Crushing weapons being most effective at penetrating armour (leaving aside distinctions between armour types)...

CRUSHING (Low Base Dmg): Normal AV

SLASHING (Avg Base Dmg): x2 AV

PIERCING (High Base Dmg): x4 AV

Certain weapons, such as picks, would be special cases...perhaps doing average damage vs normal AV. While longbows might do high damage vs x2 AV, or somesuch; and a fist might do low damage vs x4 AV. Anyway, the exact numbers aren't important at this point.

The benefit of having weapons divide armour is that you keep the numbers smaller.

Reversing the damage/armour piercing facets of the weapons seems spit in the face of the laws of physics.

I still say...

Club: 1d12 17-20/x2 Treat AV as normal
Hand Axe: 1d8 19-20/x3 Treat AV as 1/2
Shortsword: 1d6 20/x4 Treat AV as 1/4

...is the simplest method.

In fact you could derive all attack damages from a variation on those figures:

ie.
Slams: d12
Claws: d8
Bites: d6

Natural Attacks always 1/8 same sized weapon damage. So the punch of a large creature will be equal to the slam damage from a medium-sized club.

Human punch: 1+STR bonus (if any)
Hill Giant punch: 1d12+STR bonus (likely +25)
Storm Giant punch: 8d12+STR bonus (likely +200)

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

The benefit of having weapons divide armour is that you keep the numbers smaller.

Iwas thinking this same thing a few minutes after posting--great minds and all that

Reversing the damage/armour piercing facets of the weapons seems spit in the face of the laws of physics.

Fair enough--envisioning it as working the opposite just fits my vision of fantasy 'reality' better.

Leaving aside these wholesale changes for a second, one house rule for the current system I was considering trying (though I haven't thought much on the details yet)...

A character that suffers damage in a single blow equal to or greater than their STR attribute or half their total HPs, whichever is less, is considered to be wounded and/or incapacitated, unless a FORT save against an appropriate DC is made (perhaps 0,5, or 10+damage).

For a more 'gritty' campaign, you could rule that damage greater than or equal to 2xSTR results in automatic incapacitation.

 

[Grommilus]

Upper_Krust

about slashing, piercing, and bashing weapons. a short sword, a piercing weapon, would have a considerably harder time getting thru a metal plate than a pick, or even an axe. How the critical hit system works in 3e, the bigger the x on the crit, the better that weapon would be at getting thru heavy armor (aprox, the scythe could just be rethought of as a huge pick, and that words). so in effect, the different penatration values for weapons would be tracked with the weapon (compared to the armor type if you wanna get technical, cause padded stops clubs pretty good, but platemail stops everything pretty equally, save picks and mace/hammer type attacks, though a single modifier might be better for a rpg). To balance weapons, cause the ones with high crit multipliers pierce most armors better, some weapons are simply easier to hit your target in a meaningful place with. For example, with an axe, or even easier: a pick, you only have to avoid the hurting end, a sword is a whole mess of hurting end. Representing that weapons with large messy ends like swords and flails hit more often cause of the difficulty in avoiding the damage dealing end.

Oh, and definatly keep parry and dodge outa the game, I'd much rather say my ac is yadda rather than making opposed rolls.

For some armors I can see giving the armor a bonus to your ac, cause they really do make you harder to hit by deflecting and outright stoping even really hard swings. A good way to do this to have armors have an armor value, which requires a seperate roll to get by. So the attacker would roll to hit, then roll to penatrate, then roll damage. Penaration could be based on skill, weapon, and str of the swinger. the really good armors could also soften some of the damage (kinda like how high quality armor worked in Alternity, it would basically reduce a wound's status). So plate armors could take a severe wounds and turn it into a lesser wound. I like that alot more than damage reduction, because damage reduction tends to favor big hitters like barbarians over faster hitters like dexterous ranger types, unless you do percent reduction, which is only feasable in the computer rpg buisness. I know the damage reduction bit is well recieved, but i think it's much easier to have it go all or nothing for doing damage to an armored foe, simply because if it reduces from every attack, then small, fast foes will have no chance of injuring you, even though realisticly they could be slipping thier weapon thru the chinks of your armor. Now, some types of natural armor could be considered to be regualar type armor with a to penetrate roll, but others would be toughness(see below). An iron golem is basicaly impenatrable (it's internals are iron), so an easier way to represent this would be HP.

I can see the arguement for mass=hp, but then you get to the whole system of how tough a material is, like a crystaline mass vs a mass of stone of equal density and therefore volume. For a logical system, you'd really need to seperate str and a stat called toughness (or whatever).

Hence, dwarves, while weighing the same or less than your average human, where still harder to harm, due to thier natural toughness, kinda like a stone giant or other alternate material monster. I'm not saying nat armor = toughness, unless that nat armor stems from the fact that your internals are also as tough as the outside (so a dragon wouldn't have extremely high toughness, but a monster like a golem or a stone giant would). But, as you can see from these examples, a stone man (genisai?) would have higher toughness than a human of the same size, but comparative str. Since in DnD toughness often = Constitution, making these the same stat might work (but only if you think creatures such as golems, stone giants, and dwarves are also good at extended action, which I'd say yes to for all 3)

Maybe instead of worrying over weight, you just have a Size stat, which, in addition to making you easier to hit and harder for you to hit others, combines with toughness to give you HP. So basically HP would be a function of how big you were, (resulting cause a 6 inch long cut on the chest means alot of difference on a halfling than on a hill giant) and your toughness, (resulting from how hard it is to actually alter your physical state enough to result in an injury, such as soft fleshy parts of a human vs the rock hard flesh of a stone giant, and by flesh I don't just mean skin).

There was game I once played, don't remember the name, had a stat called Body that was basically exactly how much force was required to cause significant bodily harm, and was a function of your character's weight and resilency. so combining weight and toughness into one stat is possible, but it might be easier to keep em seperate, cause alot of times your actual weight could definatly matter.

That is to say, even though I see your point, I'd still like to make clear that I like the current HP system for DnD, because it more easily facilitates heroic action, like that scene in the PH where Tordek is in the mouth of a red dragon, and, insted of being instant bitten in twain (if he had crappy hp and the dragon had a resonable str for it's size) he is able thru his heroic nature to keep attacking, at least for a while (taking bite damage each turn). Same with Luke vs the Rancor.. it coulda squized him in two before it put him in it's mouth, but didn't. =)

anywho, think i'm spent, lata

Grom