Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Lily Inverse]

One problem that seems to pervade the "Hit points aren't realistic" crowd is pretty simple. To them, a hit is a HIT. A solid, deadly attack. A low damage roll is a glancing blow that barely pierces the skin or bruises, a high-damage roll is descirbed as probably piercing a few arteries or the like. This is flat out WRONG, and has been described as such.

Hit points are NOT a direct measure of the ability to take damage. They are meant to represent energy, dodging skills, the ability to measure whether or not a strike will be a glancing blow or a fatal stroke, the overall luck that makes for a good story, and yes, there's a little bit of damage-taking ability mixed in there too.

Hit points don't create a highly realistic scenario where every axe swing and explosion is measured to the finest detail, they create a cinematic, storytelling experience.

In Star Wars, the distinction is made abundantly clear. Wound damage is only taken when all the mojo provided by Vitality Points has been used up, or on a critical hit. Vitality Points, in addition to the most obvious use of avoiding hits, also helps Force users with their powers. You don't just use Force Heal, it costs Vitality points to do so. Sure, if you use Heal Self and succeed you automatically get them back, but this takes time and there's always the chance of screwing up.

In short, don't automatically assume that just because the big lout with the Mercurial Greatsword did 100 points of damage this round that he cleaved the Barbarian with 200 hit points in half. Under the Hit Points system, he probably just gave him a few shallow cuts with some REALLY close shaves.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Lily!

Read the first post of this thread to see why Hit Points Suck!

http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=31

Also there is a thread in the General Discussion Forum here:

http://test.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15420&pagenumber=6

 

[Lily Inverse]

Well, I read the article you pointed me at. This guy clearly doesn't know the new system all that well, to go by this example. I'll be quoting from his article here.

In my opinion, if your character jumps off a cliff that's 100 feet high, your character should always die. Period, full stop.

Well, for one, this is normally 10d6 damage. Not particularly fatal to high-level character. However, he's ignoring that there are cases of people surviving 40,000 foot drops with a SMALL BRUISE in real life. Moreover, it's realistically possible to train to fall 100 feet onto a hard surface and be COMPLETELY unhurt (Talk to Jackie Chan if you don't believe me.) This isn't even worthy of further discussion unless he ups the height significantly.

]If the roof of the tunnel collapses and you have a 1,000 pounds of loose rock and dirt fall on your head, you die.

If I'm reading the rules right on this point, this is 100d6 damage, plus more the second round. Sounds instantly fatal to me.

If I drop you in molten lava, you die.

I'm not quote sure what to say to this one, although I would make damage by immersion in lava pretty extreme, on lines with the 100d6 damage for being in a rock fall.

If I take away your ability to breathe for more than three minutes, you die. Regardless of how many hit points you have.

That's why this mechanic is based on Constitution, NOT Hit Points. Again, end of discussion.

blah blah blah . . . The lack of some condition between "100% A-OK" and "Down" causes characters (both player and non player) to act in irrational ways. We've all seen the character who fights on without a change in tactics as the hit point counter rattles down like the Times Square Ball at New Years, until one last hit sends the character sprawling.

This is stupidity and lack of roleplaying on the player's part. If the character shows such a total lack of concern for his own safety as he gets tired, he SHOULD get cut down to nothing in no-time flat. You're right, I said "Gets tired." Guess what, that's part of what Hit Points really are (See the above post)

If Hit Points don't represent physical damage, why does my "Cure Light Wounds" spell restore them?

Simple. Loss of endurance can also be damage to the body. Just because he didn't HIT you squarely doesn't mean he didn't hurt you. Anybody who's pulled a muscle should understand what I'm talking about here.

If they're supposed to simulate luck, endurance, etc., why don't I gain HP back from effects that rest me?

In most situations, you do. If it says the effect acts as though you've "rested for an entire day" you recover hit points from it.

Why does a lawful character benefit as much from "random chance" as a chaotic character?

Is he even SERIOUS here? Luck doesn't exactly play favorites. Chaotic characters might (key word is might) trust luck more, but randomness is, by its nature, random, and alignment has nothing to do with it.

And how do any of those things help keep me alive when I'm immersed in molten lava?

Sure they help. Just nowhere near enough (See the damage dice for molten lava above.)

In other words: When the game tells you what hit points represent, it lies.

Haven't I explained this enough?



I have little problem with the argument that HPs aren't realistic enough for your tastes, they're your tastes after all. Just don't rag on them for not catering to your tastes when they're not designed to at all. This is the House Rules forum, make up your own wound system if you find the one provided doesn't suit your needs.

 

[Toj]

I agree with all 4 of your major points UK.

My main thing with strength though is that it does the "plus" to damage. I hate that if you are super strong, you automatically do a set damage rate. Like if the Hulk hit you, you automatically take +250 damage (just guessing). This doesn't work well when taking into account "glancing blows." I wish they would have made strength into a dice damage instead of a bonus set damage. Like an 18 strength would do 1d12 damage(Example).

And the whole HD for monsters is annoying as well. Monsters should basically all be 1st level. Predators would have the class of predator, while the "grazers" (like cows) would have the grazer class.

I think hit points should be directly related to strength and size. Constitution would cover your endurance, how long you can hold your breath, your resistance to disease etc, but not HP.

That's about all I'll discuss for now... just throwing out some thoughts.

 

[Isawa Sideshow]

Well, I read the article you pointed me at. This guy clearly doesn't know the new system all that well, to go by this example. I'll be quoting from his article here.

Um, Lily. That "guy" is Ryan Dancey. Open up your PHB to page 2, right before the table of contents. First column, about two -thirds of the way down. See that name under "Brand Manager"? Yeah. That one. Ryan Dancey. He was instrumental in getting 3e and the entire d20 OGL thing going, so I'd say that he knows the d20 system pretty damn well.

Now, whether or not you agree with him, that's a different story.

 

[Lily Inverse]

Well, all I had to go on was what looked like a pretty poorly-written article that made numerous assumptions about D&D (Not D20 in general. HP isn't part of D20) that simply aren't true.

Also, my PHB goes through a lot of abuse. I don't have that particular page anymore. I'll take your word for it though.

ps. Instrumental as he is, his name isn't on the back cover (which I do still have) I know two out of the three agree with me. Skip Williams has even gone on the record saying such.

 

[Corinth]

Having Skip Williams agree with you isn't always a good thing, as he's far from consistent with his rulings as the Sage. This is more of a problem now that his monthly rulings become part of the FAQ within a month or so of publication.

As for Dancey, while he may not be the designer god that some who worked on the D20 System & D&D3e are, he knows how this hobby's business works better than anyone else around. He's the man who made the Open Gaming Movement and all that spun from it a reality, so he knows his stuff.

 

[Isawa Sideshow]

This is pretty simple. I'll use examples.

Lets say Leather Armour reduces damage by 4. (double current AC improvement)

Certain weapons penetrate armour better than others. Piercing weapons penetrate better than Slashing weapons; which in turn penetrate better than Crushing weapons.

Lets say Slashing weapons halve armour value and piercing weapons quarter it.

Leather Armour vs a Mace would reduce damage by 4.
Leather Armour vs a Longsword would reduce damage by 2.
Leather Armour vs a Spear would reduce damage by 1.

Obviously various types of armours or materials give different results. But so do the current armour rules.

But it's no longer very simple. You've just replaced one AC bonus with 3 DR ratings, dependant on how my opponent attacks me. As a GM, I'd have to keep track of exactly how each attack is phrased, because "I slash at him with my short sword" now has a different mechanical effect than "I stab at him with my short sword". And if the player just says, "I attack him with my short sword," I'd have to figure out if he meant stabbing or slashing.

And that doesn't even count other kinds of damage. Would leather have a different DR against fire damage? Cold damage? Electrical damage? Laser damage? Force damage? You're either going to have to draw the line somewhere and risk some non-realism, or you're going to have to have every piece of armor have more DRs than anyone should have to keep track of. We haven't even begun to count deflection bonuses to AC, either, such as the shield and Japanese armor previously mentioned.

How is the player or DM having to juggle anything!? I told you that all physics would be handled behind the scenes!

Players won't have to know how many Kilojoules of energy a baseball bat will deliver. All they need to know is it deals 1d6 damage. How is that different from the current system!?

The change is that the designers know their system can scale realistically. So a Hill Giants 'baseball bat' delivers 8d6 damage.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that the players or GMs have to track the actual physics, but by adding extra complexity to the system to model those physics accurately, you're adding more complexity to the rules that they have to use. Take the leather armor example above. You've taken one simple abstraction - this armor adds +X to AC - and replaced it with at least 3 other conditional abstractions - it might reduce damage by X, or by X/2, or by X/4, or in some cases it might not reduce damage by X at all.

That is NOT a simpler system. Straight up replacing AC with DR, that would be simple. Throwing damage-type conditional modifiers in the mix gives players and GMs another entire block of combat stats to juggle.

The difference is that our figures will make sense.

But at what cost? And will they make sense to use?

The problem with D&D is that they don't make sense!

To you, perhaps. I don't have any problem making sense of hit points. They are but one of many systems for tracking character health and well-being, and I don't see anything really wrong with them.

But you don't need to. Once you have determined the damage a baseball bat delivers every single element of damage falls into place. Imaginative/Magical injuries are determined through game balance.

Detailing Physics - determine effect THEN the mechanic.
Detailing Magic - determine the mechanic THEN the effect.

The damage a baseball bat delivers as your benchmark, eh? I've been hit in the head with a baseball bat by accident before... well, clipped in the eyebrow, but it split my skin to the bone and knocked me to the ground. How much damage did I take?

If I'd been hit in the arm with the same amount of force while wearing a leather jacket, how much damage did I take?

If I get hit in the head while wearing my leather jacket, do I get a DR to the damage? Or does my head need a separate DR?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Too much complexity, and you spend more time tracking hit locations and variable DRs than you do playing.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Toj!

I'll deal with the longer posts of Lily and Isawa shortly.

I agree with all 4 of your major points UK.

Thanks. I think its just applying a little common sense.

My main thing with strength though is that it does the "plus" to damage. I hate that if you are super strong, you automatically do a set damage rate. Like if the Hulk hit you, you automatically take +250 damage (just guessing).

Hulk in 3rd Ed. terms would have STR 65 (increasing slightly with rage). So thats Hulk doing about 1d6+27 on a punch. Which is hilarious considering Hulk is (approx.) 2200 times stronger than a normal human.

This doesn't work well when taking into account "glancing blows." I wish they would have made strength into a dice damage instead of a bonus set damage. Like an 18 strength would do 1d12 damage(Example).

I agree.

Especially at high levels bonuses really take over.

And the whole HD for monsters is annoying as well. Monsters should basically all be 1st level. Predators would have the class of predator, while the "grazers" (like cows) would have the grazer class.

Absolutely.

I think hit points should be directly related to strength and size. Constitution would cover your endurance, how long you can hold your breath, your resistance to disease etc, but not HP.

I actually think hit points should represent mass (1 hit point/10 lbs). Never increasing with level.

With strength (or constitution) working to reduce damage.

eg. Str 14 could reduce damage by +2.

Constitution bonus probably adding to hit points.

Armour also reducing damage.

That's about all I'll discuss for now... just throwing out some thoughts.

I posted some early solutions here:

http://test.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15420&perpage=20&pagenumber=7

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Corinth!

Having Skip Williams agree with you isn't always a good thing, as he's far from consistent with his rulings as the Sage. This is more of a problem now that his monthly rulings become part of the FAQ within a month or so of publication.

As far as I can see all Skip Williams does is paper over the cracks that wouldn't be there in the first place if there was any sort of logic involved!

As for Dancey, while he may not be the designer god that some who worked on the D20 System & D&D3e are, he knows how this hobby's business works better than anyone else around. He's the man who made the Open Gaming Movement and all that spun from it a reality, so he knows his stuff.

I second that, Ryan Dancey certainly knows what hes talking about!