Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Lost Soul!

I think the argument is that Hit Points aren't logical. They don't make sense and, because of that, you can't extrapolate for events that don't exist in the rulebooks.

Exactly!

In d6 Star Wars, Han and Luke Dodged (with their high Dodge skills) the Stormtrooper's blaster shots. That's just as heroic and just as simple as Hit Points.

For some strange reason Lily seems to be under the impression that skill won't make a difference.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Toj mate!

Sorry I haven't been adding to this, but I just got back from fishing! (For those interested we caught a lot of large mouth bass and had a blast. My wife even went the extra step of taking everyone's fish of the hook so she could get experience!)

I have seen Sega Bass Fishing - that is as close as I have got!

Glad to hear you had a great time!

This scenario, where 5 people are surrounded by 50 people with bows is kind of ridiculous. Now I could actually see some people surviving with realistic mechanics, but only with lots of ingenuity and of course if the characters themselves have high skill. Otherwise 5 characters WOULD be wasted in this scenario.

Depends on a number of factors as I have previously mentioned: skill; equipment; tactics and magic.

But there are so many other ways of handling it. For one the DM could rule that the crowd just shot at the stupid ranger (As long as the other part members didn't act). If the whole party did react with hostility, then it's their own fault and they must suffer the consequences.

Continued bad (stupid) roleplaying should be punished, otherwise you will destroy the atmosphere of the game.

You know, I actually agree with this. Of course there could be a lot of luck involved and they might survive. Unless the 5 people were epically skilled (is epically a word?) they'd be screwed.

Obviously they would have to be more skilled* to survive combat. But not necessarily epic skilled.

*Or better equipped; use superior tactics; or have magical dominance.

But obviously if the party let 50 people surround them, and let those 50 people prepare actions, then the party might be missing a few marbles. Why should their stupidity be rewarded?

Exactly.

I would have to disagree. We game with realistic mechanics and also play anime. I believe the games are even better because of it. Most anime consists of characters who are super insanely skilled and quick, and hardly ever get hit. This translates better in an RPG when they actually DON'T get hit, instead of giving them lots of HP and somehow saying that those hits really aren't hits.

I agree.

I've already spent a lot of time modifying the rules. I have the dodge and parry rules figured out, as well as how the different styles of fighting work (such as fighting with one weapon, one weapon and a shield, two weapons, unarmed, etc.)

So many people customize D&Ds mechanics its amazing!

My main problem areas are HP and strength. With HP I am not sure how I want to figure them. UK's method of HP based on weight is interesting, but I am not too sure it really works.

Let me say that I haven't tested them yet - I am just thinking out loud here!

I really think strength should be a part of HP.

Using my method it is...indirectly.

With Strength I am unsure how to work damage. I really hate plus's to hit, but I can't really figure out a method of making damage be a dice roll. An example would be having a 12 strength add 1d4 damage instead of the normal +1 damage.

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!

One possibility (and again I am thinking out loud here so bear with me) would be to increase hit points/weapon damage by a factor of 3 and then use +1d6 instead of +1 damage for strength bonuses.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi hong!

If hit points really have absolutely no bearing on "playing it smart", then the lack of hit points will also have no bearing on it.

Exactly. If you are playing in terms of who has the most hit points you are metagaming.

Whereas if hit points were a by-product of logic you would approach situations with a realistic mindset - and therefore be thinking 'in character'.

All your arguments basically amount to "a good DM can fix anything". This is true, but irrelevant.

I think I have quite clearly stated my arguments against hit points/injury and a few other D&D mechanics (armour; skill; strength/damage). Feel free to come back at me on any points.

If you are refering to my comments following Lily Inverse's very specific situation (?) it was clear the solution had nothing whatsoever to do with game mechanics.

 

[hong]

Exactly. If you are playing in terms of who has the most hit points you are metagaming.

And if you were thinking in terms of who had the highest dodge bonus or WP or whatever, you would still be metagaming.

Whereas if hit points were a by-product of logic you would approach situations with a realistic mindset - and therefore be thinking 'in character'.

Realism has little or nothing to do with what's "in character". A campaign does not have to be realistic to be immersive or believable.

Characters in d6 Star Wars dodging multiple blaster bolts isn't particularly realistic, even if they don't have tons of hit points. There's a reason why stormtroopers have such a bad reputation.

If you are refering to my comments following Lily Inverse's very specific situation (?) it was clear the solution had nothing whatsoever to do with game mechanics.

If it's true that the solution has nothing to do with game mechanics, why are you advocating changing the game mechanics?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Lily mate!

This was in a pre-made adventure. The scenario was an ambush, and we were *supposed* to go quietly. Being allowed to read the adventure afterwards, the notes on "If the PCs resist" pretty much amounted to "kill them." And as I said, it nearly happened that way. It took both luck and some pretty damn good tactics to get out alive, but we did make it. It wasn't through any fault of the PCs that they were surrounded (The encounter occurs if the PCs go into a certain crypt, and they must go into that crypt to complete the adventure) Poor planning on the author's part was the problem here.

Mechanics are not an issue here: disparity is the issue.

PCs in a realistic game can still be far more skilled than their opponents.

Thank you. I guess what I've been saying is "Don't assume everyone's a good DM." The system works for the majority because it seems to help compensate somewhat for morons like the last guy who tried to insert injuries I played under. The scenario with the nightmare players I described. I lived it several times. I guess that really turned me off the whole "Let's do everything as close to reality as we can possibly go" crowd, because the majority of the ones I've run into are idiots like that.

But if you are saying that the DM is incompetant then what on earth has that got to do with the mechanics!?

Take the Challenge Rating feature for instance. The DM knows the power of the party and the power of the enemies regardless of the mechanics used.

The higher you raise the enemy CR the less likely the PCs are to defeat them. You don't assault the lairs of Great Wyrms at 1st-level do you!?

Not to say that anyone here is like that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi hong!

And if you were thinking in terms of who had the highest dodge bonus or WP or whatever, you would still be metagaming.

Not necessarily. Simply because the mechanics would parallel reality (where applicable).

So you may as well think along the lines of 'I am more skilled than opponent A' - and attack him, whereas you may be less skilled than opponent B and run away?

eg. The SAS know they are more skilled than the Taliban. Better equipped and better trained in tactics.

In a fight between the two; Intelligence Reports would be akin to 'metagaming'.

"Know the enemy and know yourself, and you will never be defeated in a hundred battles." etc.

Realism has little or nothing to do with what's "in character". A campaign does not have to be realistic to be immersive or believable.

Actually a campaign does have to have verisimilitude otherwise you won't be able to relate to it!

Characters in d6 Star Wars dodging multiple blaster bolts isn't particularly realistic, even if they don't have tons of hit points.

Exactly which point(s) in Star Wars do you have issues with?

The Detention Centre?

Where they initially had the element of surprise?

Or when they were pinned in the corridor with what looked like 75% cover and the enemy Stormtroopers are forced to labour through a small opening one at a time?

There's a reason why stormtroopers have such a bad reputation.

Stormtroopers are rank and file soldiers though - not elite troops or heroes.

If it's true that the solution has nothing to do with game mechanics, why are you advocating changing the game mechanics?

I'm not advocating changing the mechanics to solve bad DMing - what I do advocate is changing them to promote verisimilitude and enhance how players relate to the game. Increasing the atmosphere and thrill of roleplaying in the process.

 

[hong]

So you may as well think along the lines of 'I am more skilled than opponent A' - and attack him, whereas you may be less skilled than opponent B and run away?

And you can think of hit points in exactly the same way.

Actually a campaign does have to have verisimilitude otherwise you won't be able to relate to it!

All a campaign needs is consistency. There are various ways of achieving that consistency, and realism has nothing to do with it. You don't even necessarily need a detailed ruleset; cf White Wolf's approach.

Stormtroopers are rank and file soldiers though - not elite troops or heroes.

You're grasping at straws here. Does the label "Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy" ring any bells?

I'm not advocating changing the mechanics to solve bad DMing - what I do advocate is changing them to promote verisimilitude and enhance how players relate to the game. Increasing the atmosphere and thrill of roleplaying in the process.

And hit points work fine for simulating a swashbuckling atmosphere, and promoting a swashbuckling approach to roleplaying.

 

[Toj]

Upper Krust wrote:
One possibility (and again I am thinking out loud here so bear with me) would be to increase hit points/weapon damage by a factor of 3 and then use +1d6 instead of +1 damage for strength bonuses.

I have thought about this, but one thing I have a problem with is that every 5 points in strength doubles your lifting capacity. Shouldn't the damage double as well? This is wear I get into problems because if you do that, the dice get enormous very fast. I have thought about just saying 'oh well' and going with the d6 for every +1. Maybe that's just what I'll do.

Concerning that battle with fifty vs. five, of course I agree that the characters don't have to be epically skilled if they have magic, and bettere equipment... I guess I was just thinking everyone was just normally equiped. It's amazing and cool what a guy can do when wearing magical full plate when armor actually reduces damage instead of increasing armor class. You actually have true "tanks."

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi hong!

And you can think of hit points in exactly the same way.

No. With hit points you can decide to jump off a cliff knowing the fall won't kill you.

All a campaign needs is consistency. There are various ways of achieving that consistency, and realism has nothing to do with it. You don't even necessarily need a detailed ruleset; cf White Wolf's approach.

Depends on what you are 'simulating' (or attempting to simulate). A game where Pokemon are the main protagonists only need consistency. A game where humans/humanoids are involved in a semblance of the real world will be easier to relate to the greater the verisimilitude.

You're grasping at straws here.

LOL!

You'd like to think so wouldn't you!

Does the label "Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy" ring any bells?

While I would concur Stormtroopers are above typical skill levels - I reiterate they are not regarded as elites or heroes.

Refer to the skill disparity I have mentioned in previous posts.

And hit points work fine for simulating a swashbuckling atmosphere, and promoting a swashbuckling approach to roleplaying.

I never denied the mechanic of hit points 'works' (I have been using them myself for over 15 years); but it is not perfect. If the masses free themselves of nostalgia I am sure we can come up with something much more rewarding.

 

[hong]

No. With hit points you can decide to jump off a cliff knowing the fall won't kill you.

Everyone brings up this stupid example.

One trivial inconsistency in the model does not result in an invalid model. Last I checked, PCs did not purposely jump off cliffs in adventure after adventure; if anything, falls from great heights tend to cause deaths more often than not, because you take a _lot_ of damage. The fact that a 15th level fighter at full health with high Con could survive 20d6 is neither here nor there, because not every character is 15th level, nor do they have high Con, and they certainly won't be at full health all the time. If you really wanted to "fix" this (and I'm not sure why it's such a big deal), have falls and other such hazards deal Con damage. Hey presto, problem solved.

I reiterate, as far as combat skill and presenting a particular atmosphere goes, there's nothing wrong with hit points.

Depends on what you are 'simulating' (or attempting to simulate). A game where Pokemon are the main protagonists only need consistency. A game where humans/humanoids are involved in a semblance of the real world will be easier to relate to the greater the verisimilitude.

Strangely enough, I have no problems relating to a world where heroes have lots of hit points.

LOL!

You'd like to think so wouldn't you!

You can think anything you like.

While I would concur Stormtroopers are above typical skill levels - I reiterate they are not regarded as elites or heroes.

"Hideously incompetent" would be a better term. Not that there's anything wrong with that, in a swashbuckling movie -- or campaign.

Refer to the skill disparity I have mentioned in previous posts.

Which is perfectly adequately represented in current D&D terms. Just replace "stormtroopers" with "orcs" or any other faceless generic mook.

I never denied the mechanic of hit points 'works' (I have been using them myself for over 15 years); but it is not perfect. If the masses free themselves of nostalgia I am sure we can come up with something much more rewarding.

Why bother?