Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Toj mate!

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?

Yes. This is one of the problems with 3rd Ed. D&D.

One or more elements within the strength chart needs reworking.

Typical Ogre will be x2 Typical Human strength
Typical Hill Giant will be x6 (or more) Typical Human strength

Great Wyrms (or the Tarrasque) would be something like x1400 Typical Human Strength!

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.

Strength may be a difficult feature to correct in D&D without hampering a number of other facets?

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.

Its all about disparity; whether its skill; equipment; tactics or magic.

A big enough disparity in either could swing the outcome.

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."

Yep. Then again, watch out for dragons!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi hong!

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.

Okay so you concede that hit points are not perfect. Fair enough.

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

You seem to have the same misconceptions as Lily Inverse in that you believe skill (divorced from hit points) is not a telling enough factor.

You can think anything you like.

Thanks!

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

You still haven't mentioned a situation where the heroes should have been guaranteed dead?

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

If you are satisfied with 'adequate' then good for you!

Why bother?

It is ingrained within us to better ourselves.

Why use a good system when you could be using a great one!?

 

[hong]

Okay so you concede that hit points are not perfect. Fair enough.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

You seem to have the same misconceptions as Lily Inverse in that you believe skill (divorced from hit points) is not a telling enough factor.

Strawman. You have ten minutes to figure out why, starting NOW.

You still haven't mentioned a situation where the heroes should have been guaranteed dead?

Exactly. Guaranteed death is no fun. Lots of hit points ensure that there's usually an escape hatch.

If you are satisfied with 'adequate' then good for you!

Exactly.

It is ingrained within us to better ourselves.

If I want to better myself, I have six million ways of doing so, besides spending time arguing on a web board.

Speaking of which, I am "bettering myself" RIGHT NOW... ah to hell with it.

Why use a good system when you could be using a great one!?

Because perfect is the enemy of good enough.

 

[Toj]

hong wrote:
Because perfect is the enemy of good enough.

I don't want perfect, I just want something better than good enough. Furthermore, what you consider "good enough" may not be the same thing that I consider "good enough."

I believe we can agree that you think the current HP system is good enough and we think that we can come up with something better.

With that said, we'll go on our merry way into making something we percieve as better.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

UK and Toj--

I did something similar with a hybrid campaign I ran while on deployment some years ago.

I only had the Rules Cyclopedia and a bag full of dice. Then I tacked Pendragon's combat system onto it from memory--just to see how things would play out.

It turned out that great fun was had by all, but it was a very bloody affair--especially for those not wearing armour.

Damage for melee was a base 3d6, with each +/- 1 adjusting this by 1d6.

Body Points equalled STR+CON, and worked as in Pendragon.

D&D HPs went into a pool I called Hero Points, to which avoidable damage was applied before reducing Body Points--so falling or backstab damage came straight off BPs (or maybe I called them Life Points--anyway, it doesn't really matter ).

As I recall, I also made provisions for increasing a lightly armoured and/or dexterous character's dodge--I think I applied it as a modifier to the opponent's weapon skill.

 

[Isawa Sideshow]

Finally! I'm able to respond! Good thing I saved this...

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.

But by making them less abstract, you're adding more combat rules.

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.

I'm sorry... I must have missed the multiple AC bonuses for armor vs. weapon type in my PHB. All the armor I see listed has one AC bonus. Mind pointing out the multiple AC bonuses to me?

No. No. No. No. No.

But why not? If you're applying different DRs for piercing/slashing/bludgeoning, then it's only logical to have different DRs for different kinds of energy damage. After all, metal armor won't insulate against electricity as well as leather, and leather probably keeps one warm and protects from cold damage.

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

Multiple armor types - leather, chain, etc. - yes. Multiple armor ratings against different kinds of weapons? No. Unless you're counting "touch attack" and "flat-footed" as armor types, which they aren't.

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.

Funny... Star Wars d20 didn't have any problems with either changing the HP model or replacing armor Defense bonuses with DR. Are you saying this can't be done for D&D3e?

And if you're not working on something to contribute to d20, what then is the point? Unless you're a 4e designer or playtester, bragging about how much more logical your system will be doesn't mean anything.

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

Take a look at BESM/Tri-Stat some time. One of the simplest, most abstract systems you could possibly play. Most hand to hand weapons do around 15 damage. Guns do around 30 to 45, roughly. Planet-crushing weapons do around 300 or so. Now, by your logic, it should do in the 300 millions, most likely, but the system moves very smoothly despite this lack of logic.

Or am I just crazy?

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

They make sense to me. I must be broken.

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.

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.

I was 10 years old at the time and maybe weight 90 pounds at best. That would give me 9 hit points, and I didn't have much strength. I wasn't wearing any protective gear, so no DR there. Assuming an minimum roll of 1 per damage die, since I was just clipped, I'd still have taken 20 points of damage, giving me a major wound.

Good thing we're not using those hit points for damage directly... I'd be dead!

However, I'd argue that it wasn't more than a minor wound. A quick trip to the hospital and a few stitches, and I was good as new.

By your "Logical" system, I should have been injured much more seriously than that.

In a hit point system, though, assuming that I had 4 hit points - being a 1st level commoner and all - a glancing critical hit would have done 2 points of damage - 1 on both damage dice. A quick "cure minor wounds" and a few hours of rest, and I'm back to my old self.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi hong!

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Can we just establish at this point that you have surrendered any notion of discussing this matter beyond saying you are content with the current status quo, vis-a'-vis hit points.

Strawman. You have ten minutes to figure out why, starting NOW.

My apologies, I was getting bored, you were dancing in circles.

Exactly. Guaranteed death is no fun. Lots of hit points ensure that there's usually an escape hatch.

I was refering to the (Star Wars) movies when I made this point - perhaps I should have been clearer.

Exactly.

Good for you mate!

If I want to better myself, I have six million ways of doing so, besides spending time arguing on a web board.

Speaking of which, I am "bettering myself" RIGHT NOW... ah to hell with it.

I am glad you think our discussion has helped you.

Because perfect is the enemy of good enough.

I heard you the first time.

To sum up.

We see to have reached an impasse. You are happy and content with hit points even though you acknowledge their faults. I am happy with hit points but not necessarily content; and I think we could create a superior system for governing injury. To which I am willing to concede that such changes would probably require (too much) modification to the core rules - or indeed an entirely new edition.

Is that a fair assessment?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Thorvald!

UK and Toj--

I did something similar with a hybrid campaign I ran while on deployment some years ago.

I only had the Rules Cyclopedia and a bag full of dice. Then I tacked Pendragon's combat system onto it from memory--just to see how things would play out.

It turned out that great fun was had by all, but it was a very bloody affair--especially for those not wearing armour.

Damage for melee was a base 3d6, with each +/- 1 adjusting this by 1d6.

Body Points equalled STR+CON, and worked as in Pendragon.

D&D HPs went into a pool I called Hero Points, to which avoidable damage was applied before reducing Body Points--so falling or backstab damage came straight off BPs (or maybe I called them Life Points--anyway, it doesn't really matter ).

As I recall, I also made provisions for increasing a lightly armoured and/or dexterous character's dodge--I think I applied it as a modifier to the opponent's weapon skill.

I am not familiar with Pendragon's system I am sure I can find it somewhere on the net without too much trouble.

Thanks.

Incidently Toj - regarding one of my previous comments where I envisioned Strength bonus reducing damage I now believe that would be better served adding to hit points.

ie. 180lb human with Str 14 would have 20hp. (18+2)

 

[Isawa Sideshow]

ie. 180lb human with Str 14 would have 20hp. (18+2) [/B]

What if I don't know how much my character weighs, or what if it just never comes up? If I'm playing a really quick pick-up game, I may not even bother to draw up height/weight stats. Should I be forced to?

What if I'm playing in a game that only has metric measurements? Do I now have 1 hit point per 4.55 kg? Why should I have to deal with fractions now?

What if I'm playing a character who's heavy, has great strength, but who has a very fragile constitution? He's big and powerful, sure, but he goes down with one hit and bleeds easily. Or the tiny character who's not phyiscally strong - he can't lift much, and he can't punch hard - but he's preternaturally healthy for his size. The little bugger's resilient... but by your system, our massive invalid should have many more points than the tiny tank.

 

[hong]

We see to have reached an impasse. You are happy and content with hit points even though you acknowledge their faults. I am happy with hit points but not necessarily content; and I think we could create a superior system for governing injury. To which I am willing to concede that such changes would probably require (too much) modification to the core rules - or indeed an entirely new edition.

Is that a fair assessment?

Fair enough.

I seriously doubt that D&D is ever going to move to something other than hit points, though. While they do have problems, mostly having to do with the difficulty of suspending disbelief, the fact is that D&D has never been about realism. The whole game is about over-the-top, superheroic fantasy (albeit not quite so over-the-top as, say, Exalted), and hit points are true to that concept at least. Not only that, but so many elements of the game depend implicitly on hit points that it's debatable whether a game that changed all of them could still be called D&D.