Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Isawa!

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.

You're not looking at the big picture here.

By making the weapon/armour rules logical you will free up immense amounts of space in other areas.

Also you won't need to include specific weapon critical figures.

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.

You already have to do that. Incidently the Shortsword is rated as a Piercing weapon in the book.

I don't see multi-faceted weapons being a problem.

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?

No. No. No. No. No.

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.

I already explained this:

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

We haven't even begun to count deflection bonuses to AC, either, such as the shield and Japanese armor previously mentioned.

Simplicity itself. You know they have multiple armour types in the book already.

You're missing my point.

No - you're missing my point!

I'm not saying that the players or GMs have to track the actual physics,

Well I have already explained umpteen times they would never need to.

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.

No you're not.

Firstly - I am not talking about adding these rules to D&D 3rd Ed. (which I admit would only confuse people at this stage in its life) I am talking about using these principles in 4th Ed.

Hit points are far too interwoven into the current rules to be reworked.

Secondly - using a logical system is only going to reduce complexity. Suggesting anything else is lunacy.

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.

All of which are:

1) Logical
2) Quick
3) Simple
4) Scale infinitely
5) Can be applied to ANY type of game
6) Subsequently free up time for designers when they want to detail similar aspects of the game

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.

I remember our DM suggesting the same thing to us years ago and I think I gave your exact same response as you. But after using the method for a very short time it became second nature and made much more sense - and because it made sense increased the joy of roleplaying.

You may love Burger King's Whopper and have been eating them for years, but until you try McDonald's Big Mac as well, you won't know which is best.

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

Are you seriously asking 'will rules based on logic make sense'!?

To you, perhaps. I don't have any problem making sense of hit points.

Since hit points don't actually make sense (as is) you must mean you have no problem understanding the mechanic.

They are but one of many systems for tracking character health and well-being, and I don't see anything really wrong with them.

Read Ryan Danceys thread.

The damage a baseball bat delivers as your benchmark, eh?

No actually the kilojoules delivered by a bat swung at (average) speed would be the benchmark. Then convert that into damage and extrapolate from there.

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.

Ouch!

How much damage did I take?

Under my auspices I would say 1d12 & Strength bonus x2
(I would double Str bonus for 2-H weapon). Critical Hit x4 Damage.

eg. If the wielder had Str 14 then you suffered 4d12+16

Remember your hit points are 1/10th your weight in lbs.
eg. 180 lb man has 18 hit points.

Also remember your strength (bonus) reduces the damage.

Suffering more damage than your hit point total = Minor Wound. More than double hit points = Major Wound. More than treble = Critical Wound. More than quodruple = Death

You mentioned that it just grazed you but split you to the bone and knocked you down which I would imagine puts it somewhere between minor and major wound.

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?

1d12+4 then -4 for leather jacket.

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?

Unless the enemy was to specifically call a head shot (with to hit penalties) I would just assume that was a critical hit.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

No.

Too much complexity, and you spend more time tracking hit locations and variable DRs than you do playing.

Don't be silly!

 

[Lily Inverse]

I think somewhere in here I lost track of my main point.

The questions are: Are Hit Points realistic? Why or why not?

The answer to the first is "Damn straight they're not realistic."

The answer to the second question is slightly more complicated. To put it simply, HP aren't meant to be realistic in the slightest. In a "realistic" gaming environment, once the guns came out Han and Luke wouldn't have lasted five seconds in that detention block. But they did. That is a reflection of the reason behind using HP over something more complicated. HP make it easier to be a hero.

Come up with something you like better if you want, but I don't think it's at all fair to call the lack of realism in HP systems a flaw, when it's actually a feature.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Hit Points are not realistic; but they are true to genre, which is the best you'll be able to get in a Fantasy game.

Geoff.

 

[Toj]

We all know Hit Points are not realistic, but saying they are the best that we can do is also a misconception.

With the concept of HP, you get hit more often. Thus to be more powerful you must have more HP. The logical step to make this different would be to get hit less, which in turn means you can have less HP. This way is more realistic and is just as simple in design.

My "view" is that the realism of combat makes the game more enjoyable. It also leads to less arguments. Of course you can't take it to the extreme of realism, otherwise you lose that heroic element.

Having said that, just as UK has said, applying logic first, then determining a simple method for that logic to work isn't too much to ask for.

A quesion for UK: You say HP is directly related to mass. How do you handle things with high density but low weight, such as Superman? Would you say he has normal Hit Points and his strength is what reduces the damage?

 

[Toj]

I just read some of your suggestions in the other thread UK. Your first statement:

paraphrase: Think of Drizzt vs. Artemis... They never hit eachother.

That's exactly how we have always ran our games and we think combat should be! I like games that can mimic movies and books! Having the warrior get hit 15 times with an arrow just doesn't work well with me, no matter how I look at it.

We have used our own house rules system for a long time, but I like the way they have changed 3rd edition and I plan on making my own 4th edition, fixing the the things I still don't like. We did this with 2nd edition and it became so different that it was basically our own system. With 3rd edition they have fixed so many of those things that we changed, I am just going to take what they have and go from there with my own rules.

The way I see it, lower skilled characters rely on armor a lot more. The more skilled you are, the more armor can come off. Of course some characters, such as Paladins and Knights, always use their armor to an advantage.

Not to throw a rock into this debate, but what is your opinion (UK) on the stat that is used to determine "to hit."

Back to work...

 

[Lily Inverse]

One example. . . .

There's actually an article in one of the first Star Wars Gamer magazines discussing how the game mechancs for the Duel of the Fates (Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi vs. Darth Maul) work out. Notice that there are precisely four direct hits during that fight. It'll take some time to dig it out, but if anyone wants a good example I can certainly do it. By the Star Wars mechanics, though, everybody rolled "hits" on each other way more than four total times during the fight.

This would only be useful if you can actually WATCH the fight sequence in question while reading the article. This also doesn't make a dent in the argument about the realism of HP, but as I've said repeatedly (though not here), I think a lot of people who want "realism" don't understand what the word actually means. Play a few Rolemaster sessions. THAT is realistic combat.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Lily!

Sorry its taken me so long to respond I haven't been able to access the boards for over 24 hours.

I think somewhere in here I lost track of my main point.

The questions are: Are Hit Points realistic? Why or why not?

The answer to the first is "Damn straight they're not realistic."

The answer to the second question is slightly more complicated. To put it simply, HP aren't meant to be realistic in the slightest.

This is why you end up with a lot of incongruities.

ie. Hit points are supposedly representative 'rolling with the attack' (skill); actual physical harm (injury) and luck (among other things). So does that mean a Heal spell repairs your luck!?

In a "realistic" gaming environment, once the guns came out Han and Luke wouldn't have lasted five seconds in that detention block.

I totally disagree.

We ran some great games with the 1st Ed. Star Wars rules; they give heroes the edge but still retain the threat of defeat.

But they did. That is a reflection of the reason behind using HP over something more complicated. HP make it easier to be a hero.

Flawed logic.

If it was so easy to become a hero - then the term hero itself is devalued.

A hero is someone who battles though the odds are against them - not someone who can swan about with relative impunity.

Come up with something you like better if you want, but I don't think it's at all fair to call the lack of realism in HP systems a flaw, when it's actually a feature.

The greatest fantasy always has its roots in reality - thats how we relate to it.

A logical treatment of damage/injury will only ADD to the game, not detract in any way!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Toj mate!

We all know Hit Points are not realistic, but saying they are the best that we can do is also a misconception.

With the concept of HP, you get hit more often. Thus to be more powerful you must have more HP. The logical step to make this different would be to get hit less, which in turn means you can have less HP. This way is more realistic and is just as simple in design.

Exactly!

My "view" is that the realism of combat makes the game more enjoyable. It also leads to less arguments.

Absolutely! Far more rewarding!

Of course you can't take it to the extreme of realism, otherwise you lose that heroic element.

I don't think you can have an extreme with realism - but I do think you could fall into the trap of having a too pedantic mechanic if you weren't careful.

But that certainly doesn't need to be the case.

Having said that, just as UK has said, applying logic first, then determining a simple method for that logic to work isn't too much to ask for.

I don't see how it can be any simpler!

A quesion for UK:

Sure, fire away!

You say HP is directly related to mass.

Well I offered that it should. I quite like this new system I have concocted!

How do you handle things with high density but low weight, such as Superman? Would you say he has normal Hit Points and his strength is what reduces the damage?

Yes.

From what I can remember Superman is capable of benching over 1 million tons. This means he is something like 22 million times stronger than the average man!

So Superman is probably 6'4" 240lbs. So thats 24 Hit Points but with a Strength bonus of over 22 million!

Not to mention Super Speed. Super Fast Healing etc.

Kryptonite causes him to lose Strength (et al) depending on the proximity/shielding. Making him vulnerable.

Otherwise supes is probably immune to anything short of a point blank Nuclear Strike or standing at ground zero as a Meteor Strikes him.

 

[Lily Inverse]

I'm only going to address one point here right now because I think it comes straight to the point of arguing for HP

A logical treatment of damage/injury will only ADD to the game, not detract in any way!

There are several ways in realistic treatment of damage and injury can detract heavily from, or even collapse, a game when the factors are not fully taken into account.

1) Healing times. This might not sound like a big deal, but often players are not willing to "waste time" waiting for their fellow players to "heal up." Yes, magical healing can counteract this to some extent, but if the healer runs out of juice the party made up of players of this type will effectively commit suicide. I have seen it happen before.

2) Paranoia can creep into the game. If you weren't planning on this effect, the most successful character becomes the one who can trick his own friends into soaking up more of the hits than he has to take himself. This might seem like a perfectly legitimate way to play, but in the long run it leads to hard feelings and the possible collapse of a group.

3) One stupid mistake on the part of one person can end an entire campaign as it brings utter disaster down on the entire party. If the party is surrounded by fifty armed and ready crossbowmen, and one member of the group decides to reach for his weapons instead of the sky, the party is dead. End of discussion. Hit point systems don't elimiinate this threat, but they do make it possible that SOME characters will survive if they play it smart.

These are just the points coming to the top of my head right now, as I sit here getting ready for a nap. I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I think I've made my point. Realism is very much a double-edged sword, not something to be thrown in lightly as I've seen it called for so many times. It's just not something to throw in on a whim, it really takes a lot of careful thought to get the balance right.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

I just read some of your suggestions in the other thread UK. Your first statement:

paraphrase: Think of Drizzt vs. Artemis... They never hit eachother.

That's exactly how we have always ran our games and we think combat should be! I like games that can mimic movies and books! Having the warrior get hit 15 times with an arrow just doesn't work well with me, no matter how I look at it.

The thing is, it would be so simple to instigate...

We have used our own house rules system for a long time, but I like the way they have changed 3rd edition and I plan on making my own 4th edition, fixing the the things I still don't like.

I plan on offering to write 4th Edition for WotC at some stage in the future!

Not as far fetched as it might sound by the way!

We did this with 2nd edition and it became so different that it was basically our own system. With 3rd edition they have fixed so many of those things that we changed, I am just going to take what they have and go from there with my own rules.

Sure, why not! We did the same with 1st/2nd Ed. and probably will ultimately do the same to 3rd Ed. if we can instigate conversion easy enough.

The way I see it, lower skilled characters rely on armor a lot more. The more skilled you are, the more armor can come off. Of course some characters, such as Paladins and Knights, always use their armor to an advantage.

Absolutely! This is exactly what we found when we started using Armour as Damage Reduction many years ago with 1st/2nd Ed..

Not to throw a rock into this debate, but what is your opinion (UK) on the stat that is used to determine "to hit."

With regards current stats I think you have to say Dexterity.

Though ultimately I think a 'Skill' Stat (instead of Level perhaps) is the best approach.

You could have weapon skill and magic skill etc.

Back to work...