Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Just thought I'd mention Pendragon--because I wouldn't be me if I didn't.

(As a combat system, it has my favorite mechanics bar none--the only thing that keeps it from becoming my FRPG of choice, is its lack of an appropriate magic system and good skill/character creation system for non-knights.)

HPs=SIZ+CON

Unconsciousness at <=1/4 HP

Death at negative HP

MAJOR WOUND occurs at damage >=CON (I would actually prefer to have this be SIZ)

KNOCKDOWN: For damage >=SIZ, roll vs DEX or fall down--at >= 2xSIZ this is automatic.

DAMAGE=(STR+SIZ)/6 in d6 (So 12STR and 12SIZ would do 4d6 base damage)

ARMOUR and SHIELDS subtract from damage done.

I used the above in a hybrid Basic D&D campaign years ago when I was on float, with a few minor additions, the most important of which was...

HERO POINTS, which were equal to D&D HPs, but could only be used as a buffer against actual damage versus attacks that the character was aware of and/or had some chance of avoiding. So falls, backstabs, sneak attacks, poisons, etc. all did damage directly to SIZ+CON (after armour, if applicable).

Oh, and I subsumed SIZ into STR (So HPs would have been STR+CON, for example).

Anyway, just some more grist for the mill

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Thorvald mate!

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

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.

You might be better using a rule akin to Call of Cthulhu d20, wherein they have lowered the Death from Massive Damage to 11+ and they then make you roll a Fort save on the new amount.

(Off the top of my head) You could perhaps adapt a similar method but have it wound rather than kill...?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Upper_Krust

Hello there!

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.

Depends on a number of factors I suppose.

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).

It could work like that I suppose!?

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

Agreed.

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.

Absolutely.

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.

You are starting to complicate matters unnecessarily though.

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.

That seems a bit arbitrary.

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.

Actually I was thinking that skill (BAB) would add to damage.

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.

Remember that 'scratches' would add up.

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).

Not really. HP = Mass. Strength (Bonus) also adds to HP.

Iron Golem. (says 5000lb in the book, but I think 10,000lbs is closer, I had this worked out a few days ago but can't find those particular notes so this is ad hoc.)

10,000lbs
1000hp (+245 STR)
Str 500
AV ...?

The question of AV needs addressing. Offhand I am unsure how to treat Armour beyond one staple factor, that it will protect against a typical blow.

A kevlar vest will stop an assault rifle round.

A human in platemail should be protected against a typical attack from another human.

I estimate that platemail is (on average 1/4 inch thick). If we scale this up a M1A1 Abrams Tank should offer protection against an equal tanks armament. 120mm Cannon. Without going into details I worked out that a 120mm Cannon should deliver (approx.) 105,000* damage on an average strike. Therefore its armour should be beyond this figure. Yet the armour is only about 4 inches thick at best*.

So if 4 inches of (iron) armour give DR 105,000+ what DR do we assign to an Iron Golem? Which could have cross-sections of 4 inch radius on its arms (let alone legs and torso).

*I am factoring that advances like Chobham armour will be balanced by similar improvements to Tank rounds.

Hence, dwarves, while weighing the same or less than your average human, where still harder to harm, due to thier natural toughness,

I am sure I explained this in one of my previous posts. Pound for pound dwarves are (typically) stronger than humans. (remember its Mass + STR = hp)

kinda like a stone giant or other alternate material monster.

Stone giant flesh is more dense than other giantish subtypes.

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).

Well Stone Giants have internal organs I would envision.

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.

If he weighed the same and had roughly the same physical dimensions he would have comparative strength.

His skin could grant protection equal to leather armour (or better?)

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)

Constitution is bugging me (I must admit). But I think I have your above problems already covered.

Perhaps constitution could be treated as 'Toughness' (in effect Natural Damage Reduction)...?

However, hit points should still be relative to Mass (as far as I can see).

Maybe instead of worrying over weight,

I wasn't worrying over it, seems okay to me...

you just have a Size stat, which, in addition to making you easier to hit and harder for you to hit others,

For which I already corrected the Size Modifiers to +4/+16/+64/+256

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)

Already represented by Mass + STR (bonus).

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).

I like the idea that Toughness (incorporating Natural Armour) may replace CON.

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.

I am warming the the idea that CON should become Natural Armour/Damage Reduction of some description.

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. =)

I don't recall we ever saw Tordek or Luke actually getting bitten though!?

Also, Luke was probably using his Force Powers to avoid the pain of the Rancors embrace.

Tordek probably leapt onto the dragons head from a precipice to make a called shot critical hit on its head. No one in their right mind is going to jump into a dragons mouth to heroically strike at it.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
Have you actually read the Players Handbook (page 142)?

Thoroughly.

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
If so you would realize that the characters own weight is not a factor in carrying capacity.

Let me clear this up. My Carrying Capacity rules have *nothing* to do with the Player's Handbook. To create a logical Carrying Capacity system I have disregarded the Carrying Capacity rules from the Player's Handbook wholesale. Your solution for Carrying Capacity is exactly as you say. Simple. Too simple in my opinion.

You still haven't answered my question regarding the two men with 18 Strength, one of whom weighs 180 pounds and the other of whom weighs 210. I suspect this is because you already realize that there is no logical answer. Unfortunately, your solution for Carrying Capacity is flawed.

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
Out of curiosity would you detail a halfling and a hill giant in your system?

First the halfling.

Average male human. 180 lbs. 72" tall. (6ft.).

Reduce this height by one-half to 3 ft. tall.

3 / 6 = 0.5.

0.5 cubed (0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5) = 0.125.

180 x 0.125. = 22.5 lbs.

Now keep in mind that the *new* halflings of 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons are not perfectly proportioned to humans at 3 feet tall, but they're pretty close. I would say that the average weight for a Player's Handbook halfling (35 lbs.) is on the heavy side of halflings. Regardless...

22 lbs. / 25 = 1 (rounded up).

With average halfling Constitution (10) there is no modifier, so our equation is simple.

1 x 0 = 0.

Meaning... we default back to the halfling's Constitution score (10) for Hit Points.

Finally, halflings have the Base Attack Bonus of a cleric, so +2 Hit points for 1 Hit Dice.

10 + 2 = 12 Hit Points in total.

As for halfling Carrying Capacity...

22 lbs. x 0.8 (for an average Strength score of 8) = 17.6 lbs.

This would translate into = -1d2 melee damage.

-----

Now for the hill giant.

The Monster Manual says that they are 10½ ft. tall and 1100 lbs. Let's see how that measures up.

First of all, the hill giant in the Monster Manual looks kind of obese to me, so let's pack on a few pounds to our healthy human example.

180 lbs. becomes 210 lbs. at 72" tall. (6ft.). That's 30 extra pounds of fat. We can add more if you like...

10.5 / 6 = 1.75

1.75 cubed (1.75 x 1.75 x 1.75) = 5.359375

5.359375 x 210 = 1125.46875

Let's just call it 1125 lbs.

Pretty damn close.

Now for Hit Points.

1125 / 25 = 45

45 x 4 (19 Constitution) = 180 Hit Points.

Giants have the Base Attack Bonus of a cleric, so +2 Hit points per Hit Dice.

180 + (2 x 12) = 204 Hit Points in total.

As for hill giant Carrying Capacity... 1125 lbs. x 2.5 (for an average Strength score of 25) = 2812.5 lbs.

This would translate into = +8d8 melee damage.

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

Only because I hand-held you through my equations as a mathematical kindness.



If you like, next time I will simply post the answer in 1 line.

As an interesting aside... if you read the enlarge spell, the multipliers for added weight are identical to my equations (except that their values are rounded up). Check it out.

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
Which do you think is simpler?

Oh your method by far! But once again, too simple for me. You embrace many of the "printed" conventions that I disregard in favor a more "logical" system. The same logical approach that you were giving lip service to for so many pages prior to my arrival.

 

[jonrog1]

And back at ya ... nice discussion ...

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?

Not too confusing -- NEEDLESSLY confusing. AC (or it's b*stard cousin the armor DR) is one number I have to beat, that never (rarely) changes. Let's say I hit a guy in your armor system, shortsword in one hand and a longswod in the other. One's masterwork, the other's +1, flaming, so is the d8+1 halved and then the flaming damage not halved? Then I switch to a differnt opponent and this time my slashing attack does full damage...

Listen, I'm not saying it's bloody calculus. I'm just saying that in the furor of six people rolling dice, trying to keep any sort of momentum up and math down (and I don't think many people will disagree, math in combat is the enemy of role-playing...) is hampered by too many fractional, situational modifiers. This is a great idea, but my question is, how does it playtest?

And in answer to Sonofapreacherman -- whose stuff has a mathematical elegance which would have floored my old thermodynamics prof -- my description of rolls and counterolls bringing a game "to a grinding halt" may be a bit of an exagerration, but not much of one. Perhaps your gamers are remarkably proficient or tolerant, but extra die rolls means extra time they're sitting on their ass watching others roll and do math during combat. I'm not playing with a bunch of powergamers or idiots, but they do like to keep the pace moving. And as combat is no the end-all-be-all of RPG's, why make that section of a session last an extra 30-40% longer? For the sake of logic?

Logic and elegance are worth striving for. But when designing the widest possible sytem for ease of use and adaptation, I'll take elegance any day.

He has trained his strength above average.

Yes, yes he has. Yet mass+str=hp. So basically he's got to strength train in order to be harder to kill than slovenly, couch potato me who outweighs him?

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.

So CON affects how you lose hit points, but not how you gain 'em. A fine line there, I think.

What is this 'track' weight nonsense!?

You roll it once and thats it!

My bad. I got confused hunting down the variations over the discussion pages.

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

Ahh, very GURPS/ALTERNITY.

Listen, I think what got me a bit muddled here is that the thesis is spreading out over multiple topics and multiple pages. Could you and Preacher possibly -- and simply, let us pretend this is something you need to teach to a whackload of humans and new gamers, the same paramerters 3ed faced -- restate your core rules so we can do a compare and contrast?

Excellent work by the way. I'm convinced that only this sort of debate keeps the game alive and pushes it forward.

 

[LostSoul]

What would happen if a Human parried a Hill Giant?

I have a few ideas myself, but I am curious what about your thoughts. Personally I am not convinced parrying should ever be more than an optional rule...?

A Hill Giant's increased Str should give him high attack rolls - making his attacks hard to parry.

Some people like opposed defense rules, others don't. If you had a system that allowed a "Take 10" (like the current AC) static defense value, you could easily untie it and let the players roll.

Generally, I think the entire "action" system that D&D has should be reworked. It's too confusing, relies on miniatures, and (for me, at least) it takes away from that heroic "try anything" feel. (I think that what you want in a combat system is something that doesn't impose a "feel" on you; something that allows you to be both grim-and-gritty and swashbuckling. The only variation should be the skill levels of the heroes involved.)

 

[Grommilus]

UK

You are starting to complicate matters unnecessarily though.

Actually, ever played Warhammer? It's a popular wargame, so you can suppose that the attack system is simple enough that alot of people play it. To inflict a wound, you 1. had to hit (weaponskill vs weaponskill), then 2. penatrate armor (str vs armor rating), then 3 .penatrate toughness (str vs toughness) then 4. roll damage. creatures have a stat called wounds that represents mostly just thier size, unless they're heros. I propose combining steps 2 and 3 into one, and turning toughness into a factor, along with size, that determines your wounds.

That seems a bit arbitrary.

actually, if only heavy armor did this, it would be a great way to balance the extreme lack of mobility in these armors, and thier investment in character weath and encumberance.

Actually I was thinking that skill (BAB) would add to damage.

Then you still get to the point where it becomes imposible for "mook" characters to damage you, simply because they don't have the bab to do damage. If it's an all or nothing roll, it's A) easier to track, B) allows for chance to rear it's ugly head more easily, and C) all evens out after enough attacks anyways.

Remember that 'scratches' would add up.

how do scratches add up if your damage reduction reduces every attack to zero damage? with an all or nothing armor roll, after enough "scratches" you get a real wound, which statistically is the same.

Not really. HP = Mass. Strength (Bonus) also adds to HP.

Iron Golem. (says 5000lb in the book, but I think 10,000lbs is closer, I had this worked out a few days ago but can't find those particular notes so this is ad hoc.)

10,000lbs
1000hp (+245 STR)
Str 500
AV ...?

The question of AV needs addressing. Offhand I am unsure how to treat Armour beyond one staple factor, that it will protect against a typical blow.

A kevlar vest will stop an assault rifle round.

A human in platemail should be protected against a typical attack from another human.

I estimate that platemail is (on average 1/4 inch thick). If we scale this up a M1A1 Abrams Tank should offer protection against an equal tanks armament. 120mm Cannon. Without going into details I worked out that a 120mm Cannon should deliver (approx.) 105,000* damage on an average strike. Therefore its armour should be beyond this figure. Yet the armour is only about 4 inches thick at best*.

So if 4 inches of (iron) armour give DR 105,000+ what DR do we assign to an Iron Golem? Which could have cross-sections of 4 inch radius on its arms (let alone legs and torso).

*I am factoring that advances like Chobham armour will be balanced by similar improvements to Tank rounds.

First off, an iron golem has nothing to do with my crystaline substance vs stone subtance of similiar density, volume, and therefore mass. And, if Hp is related to str, then do inanimate objects have str? and what about creatures that can barely move themselves but are nigh invincable, like an iron golem with only half his magic still workin.

As for armor value for an iron golem, I'd simply consider not giving him one, as he doesn't have armor, he IS armor. so if toughness gave hp, he'd have so many HP that to actually cause noticable injury would take many attacks, instead of being impossible, as it would if his toughness gave DR.

Now about the tanks, If you simply gave tanks hella HP (cause of toughness and size), such that a typical tank could survive at least one such cannon round (and i don't think tanks can take many direct hits from such a cannon), then it works out pretty well.

I am sure I explained this in one of my previous posts. Pound for pound dwarves are (typically) stronger than humans. (remember its Mass + STR = hp)

That is of course assuming than your average dwarf weighing 160 pounds is stronger than your average human weighing in at 160, which I would kinda agree to, but not enough so that the dwarf inflicts significally more damage than such a human. So dwarven toughness would really help out in taking care of the fact that for a dwarf and a human of equal weight, the dwarf will be harder to kill, due to more HP from racial toughness, but not significantly stronger.

Stone giant flesh is more dense than other giantish subtypes.

True, but not by much.. Since stone giants are skinny, we should compare one to a human, 6 ft tall, weighing 160 (skinny for that height). a stone giant is 12 foot tall, meaning that 160*8 should be his weight, which is 1280, if he was as dense as a human, yet he only weighs 1500 pounds, which is only a 17% increase in density. since a human is basically water in density (cause i know i don't float, but i'm pretty dense ) and granite, a good rock to compare stone giants to, is 2.667 grams/cc, water being 1 gram/cc, the giant, if as dense as stone, should weigh in at 3414 pounds or so. I figure being as dense as stone to be off, but since they are described as having hard, smooth flesh, 1500 still sounds about right, but i would say that a stone giant would be considerably tougher than a softer giant weighing 1500 pounds. (which would be the proportians of a 187.5 pound, 6 foot tall man, scaled up)

Well Stone Giants have internal organs I would envision.

Of course, but from there stoniness, thier internal organs i would have to say are considerably tougher than my previously mentioned 1500, 12 foot tall giant.

If he weighed the same and had roughly the same physical dimensions he would have comparative strength.

His skin could grant protection equal to leather armour (or better?)

I don't like the idea of skin granting armor protection unless that skin isn't backed up by almost equally tough internals, as they would be in a man with stony aspects. It's like if you were to attack someone's armor. the armor wouldn't have a AV, just HP.

Scaled creatures or ones with thick hide would have natural AV, sure, but not if it's just one large object, like a golem or stone man.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Grommilus
Maybe instead of worrying over weight,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wasn't worrying over it, seems okay to me...

i was speaking to the others that don't like to keep track of it, and also, your weight can change, mine fluctuates maybe 15 pounds a year, which considering that's about a tenth of my weight, i'd say it would be a pain in the butt to have more hp after i've been working out and eating and having less hp when i've been scronging for food on a dersert island or something.

For which I already corrected the Size Modifiers to +4/+16/+64/+256

yes, but having a size stat, with incraments of 1, would work even better, so a big human vs a small human would have a penalty to hit, instead of being lumped into the whole size 0. I dislike rules that go up in such large increments, kinda like range increments in factors of 2 instead of 1, just halve all the increments and make it -1 per range, would be just as easy.

I don't recall we ever saw Tordek or Luke actually getting bitten though!?

Also, Luke was probably using his Force Powers to avoid the pain of the Rancors embrace.

Tordek probably leapt onto the dragons head from a precipice to make a called shot critical hit on its head. No one in their right mind is going to jump into a dragons mouth to heroically strike at it.

Tordek is in a red dragon's mouth on page 124 of the PH. My guess as to how he got there would be the Snatch dragon feat.

I would have to say he's getting biten in that picture, and because of HP = heroness, i'd say he didn't get killed cause he's a hero.

As for Luke, I don't remember thier being any force effect that kept you from being squished, or stopping any attack from harming you other than Vader's absorbing of blaster bolts, and using your Lightsabre to deflect attacks. And making rules for a Force effect that stopped physical attacks from killing you sounds kinda over powered, compared to those without force (how would Han do if he had been grabed by the rancor?)

Remember, I'm not shooting down your ideas, just suggesting other logical ways to get HP, one that would allow high level characters to have more (extraordinary toughness/supernatural toughness) without having to become increasingly stronger as well. I just don't think STr is a good stat to combine with mass to equate HP.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

Let me clear this up. My Carrying Capacity rules have *nothing* to do with the Player's Handbook. To create a logical Carrying Capacity system I have disregarded the Carrying Capacity rules from the Player's Handbook wholesale. Your solution for Carrying Capacity is exactly as you say. Simple. Too simple in my opinion.

If you say so.

You still haven't answered my question regarding the two men with 18 Strength, one of whom weighs 180 pounds and the other of whom weighs 210. I suspect this is because you already realize that there is no logical answer. Unfortunately, your solution for Carrying Capacity is flawed.

The reason I didn't answer was because the question was nonsensical!

Your 'carrying capacity' rules include the characters own bodyweight, mine do not (as with the PHB). My rules solve the PHB flaws since damage is consistent with strength.

A character who weighed 210lbs and had 18 STR could actually lift 360lbs. 60 light/120 mid/180 heavy loads.

Many people cannot lift their own body weight above their heads though.

First the halfling.

Average male human. 180 lbs. 72" tall. (6ft.).

Reduce this height by one-half to 3 ft. tall.

3 / 6 = 0.5.

0.5 cubed (0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5) = 0.125.

180 x 0.125. = 22.5 lbs.

Now keep in mind that the *new* halflings of 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons are not perfectly proportioned to humans at 3 feet tall, but they're pretty close. I would say that the average weight for a Player's Handbook halfling (35 lbs.) is on the heavy side of halflings. Regardless...

22 lbs. / 25 = 1 (rounded up).

With average halfling Constitution (10) there is no modifier, so our equation is simple.

1 x 0 = 0.

Meaning... we default back to the halfling's Constitution score (10) for Hit Points.

Finally, halflings have the Base Attack Bonus of a cleric, so +2 Hit points for 1 Hit Dice.

10 + 2 = 12 Hit Points in total.

As for halfling Carrying Capacity...

22 lbs. x 0.8 (for an average Strength score of 8) = 17.6 lbs.

This would translate into = -1d2 melee damage.

-----

Now for the hill giant.

The Monster Manual says that they are 10½ ft. tall and 1100 lbs. Let's see how that measures up.

First of all, the hill giant in the Monster Manual looks kind of obese to me, so let's pack on a few pounds to our healthy human example.

180 lbs. becomes 210 lbs. at 72" tall. (6ft.). That's 30 extra pounds of fat. We can add more if you like...

10.5 / 6 = 1.75

1.75 cubed (1.75 x 1.75 x 1.75) = 5.359375

5.359375 x 210 = 1125.46875

Let's just call it 1125 lbs.

Pretty damn close.

Now for Hit Points.

1125 / 25 = 45

45 x 4 (19 Constitution) = 180 Hit Points.

Giants have the Base Attack Bonus of a cleric, so +2 Hit points per Hit Dice.

180 + (2 x 12) = 204 Hit Points in total.

As for hill giant Carrying Capacity... 1125 lbs. x 2.5 (for an average Strength score of 25) = 2812.5 lbs.

This would translate into = +8d8 melee damage.

Aren't we ending up with relatively similar results!? It just seems as though you are taking an unnecessary long time to get there.

Also you are corrupting the Strength Ability score. Will you be doing that for all ability scores?

The system I favour is a lot cleaner. If a giant has six times the strength of a normal human then it has six times the strength score.

Only because I hand-held you through my equations as a mathematical kindness.

It was necessary though.

As an interesting aside... if you read the enlarge spell, the multipliers for added weight are identical to my equations (except that their values are rounded up). Check it out.

But thats just simple physics. I'm not questioning your ability to determine creature mass.

Oh your method by far! But once again, too simple for me. You embrace many of the "printed" conventions that I disregard in favor a more "logical" system. The same logical approach that you were giving lip service to for so many pages prior to my arrival.

So you believe it is too much to have logic AND simplicity (elegance as one poster put it)!?

 

[Upper_Krust]

And back at ya ... nice discussion ...

Hello again mate!

Not too confusing -- NEEDLESSLY confusing. AC (or it's b*stard cousin the armor DR) is one number I have to beat, that never (rarely) changes. Let's say I hit a guy in your armor system, shortsword in one hand and a longswod in the other. One's masterwork, the other's +1, flaming, so is the d8+1 halved and then the flaming damage not halved? Then I switch to a differnt opponent and this time my slashing attack does full damage...

Okay lets just look at that without panicking.

1. Roll to hit opponents AC.
2. Roll Damage.
3. Reduce Damage for Armour (half figure for slashing attack; quarter figure for piercing attack).

Considering players virtually do this already in certain situations (skeletons take half damage from slashing weaponry, numerous monsters have Damage Reduction, Barbarians have Damage Reduction, Items have material Hardness) its not such a great leap.

Listen, I'm not saying it's bloody calculus. I'm just saying that in the furor of six people rolling dice, trying to keep any sort of momentum up and math down (and I don't think many people will disagree, math in combat is the enemy of role-playing...) is hampered by too many fractional, situational modifiers. This is a great idea, but my question is, how does it playtest?

Thats exactly what I thought when our DM first introduced it. But after a session or two I found it far superior and it never noticably slowed proceedings.

Yes, yes he has. Yet mass+str=hp. So basically he's got to strength train in order to be harder to kill than slovenly, couch potato me who outweighs him?

Your actual mass will affect your strength anyway, so yes.

So CON affects how you lose hit points, but not how you gain 'em. A fine line there, I think.

As I see it, two people (equal weight, differing fitness levels) who take an identical sword slash suffer the same actual damage. The person with the greater stamina will be able to stave off the detrimental effects of the wound longer* - but they are still equally injured.

*ie. avoid unconsciousness, numbing loss of a limb etc.

My bad. I got confused hunting down the variations over the discussion pages.

Thats okay mate!

Ahh, very GURPS/ALTERNITY.

Listen, I think what got me a bit muddled here is that the thesis is spreading out over multiple topics and multiple pages. Could you and Preacher possibly -- and simply, let us pretend this is something you need to teach to a whackload of humans and new gamers, the same paramerters 3ed faced -- restate your core rules so we can do a compare and contrast?

I'll see what I can rustle up. Should have most of the basics in this thread, I should be able to lump it all together.

Excellent work by the way. I'm convinced that only this sort of debate keeps the game alive and pushes it forward.

I don't know how I got involved in this thread n the first place, just thinking out loud I suppose!?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi LostSoul mate!

A Hill Giant's increased Str should give him high attack rolls - making his attacks hard to parry.

Strength should have absolutely no bearing on skill/attack rolls whatsoever!

This is one of the elements I am trying to divorce from 3rd Ed.

Some people like opposed defense rules, others don't. If you had a system that allowed a "Take 10" (like the current AC) static defense value, you could easily untie it and let the players roll.

I see no reason why there couldn't be an opposed roll option for those who want to make an extra unnecessary roll.

However, I see these things handled with the Attack Roll vs. Armour Class mechanic.

ie.
Base # to hit = '20'
BAB + DEX add to both Attack Rolls AND Armour Class.

eg.
10th-level character with Dex 16
BAB: 10 + 3 (13)
AC: 20 + 10 + 3 (33)
Needs '20' to hit equal opponent.

Then of course you can play about with feats; magic weapons etc.

Generally, I think the entire "action" system that D&D has should be reworked. It's too confusing, relies on miniatures, and (for me, at least) it takes away from that heroic "try anything" feel. (I think that what you want in a combat system is something that doesn't impose a "feel" on you; something that allows you to be both grim-and-gritty and swashbuckling. The only variation should be the skill levels of the heroes involved.)

With a logical basis, I believe my system can be applied to give any 'feel'.