Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Grommilus]

UK, i see you are working to reply to my post, if ya want to chat i'm on AIM under this handle right now =)

Grommilus

 

[Upper_Krust]

UK

Hello again mate!

Actually, ever played Warhammer?

Yes.

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.

I don't think a direct correlation will work. But we already have most of the basics covered anyway.

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.

I am working on this at the moment - I'll have something later.

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.

But even mook characters always hit on a '20'.

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.

With 'scratches I was refering to damage that bypassed armour but was not great enough to inflict a minor wound.

However, we also used a rule whereby high dice rolls could find the chinks in armour.

ie. '19' bypass armour, '20' bypass armour + critical hit*

*This was before the days when critical hits were standard.

One idea could be that characters could use feats to increase this threat range perhaps?

First off, an iron golem has nothing to do with my crystaline substance vs stone subtance of similiar density, volume, and therefore mass.

What was the problem here?

And, if Hp is related to str, then do inanimate objects have str?

They have material Strength.

and what about creatures that can barely move themselves but are nigh invincable, like an iron golem with only half his magic still working.

What about them? They could have lots of hit points and armour but weak strength. Remember only average strength is based on hit points.

Can you think of a better example? I've never encountered such a golem.

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.

That was one option I was considering.

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.

A story always stuck in my head that a friend told me about the gulf war.

Apparently one of the M1A1 Abrams tanks broke down in a gulley during an offensive in the gulf war. They couldn't let it fall into enemy hands so they decided to destroy it by having the other tanks blast it. Apparently half a dozen tanks blasted it for ten minutes from almost point blank range and barely dented it. After the war they went back and towed the tank out and were able to fix it up again.

Another story that shows the effectiveness of equivalent armour is that of the Bismarck during WWII. Apparently the British Navy (in the famous encounter) hit the Bismarck with literally thousands of shells to sink it!

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.

(Off the top of my head) Perhaps +4 STR (+2 HP/Damage)?

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.

Again, I am not happy about having CON affect hit points directly.

Perhaps Toughness as Natural Armour would be prudent...?

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)

Exactly so they are slightly heavier, subsequently slightly stronger etc.

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.

I'm not sure if we really want to get into that.

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.

We are not concerned with attacking the armour though but rather attacking those behind it. However, I get your point in this respect.

Perhaps material Hardness could affect hit points as a multiplier.

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.

I'm not sure if that works with my system though!? Not without adding the factor of material hardness anyway!

Anyone know what the 'absolute hardness' of flesh is anyway?

According to this:

http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/hardness.htm

fingernails are 2.5 - so it must be less than that, presumably 1?

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.

How many times in an RPG has the natural fluctuation of your characters weight been an issue though!? I would just leave this alone.

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.

A big human could have a penalty to hit a smaller human between 0-3 dependant on size difference.

+4 is just a generic factor for one size difference. Representing the 25%/400% target area of a creature of different size (double height and width).

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.

Tordek's stumpy legs are about to get stumpier!

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.

Sophistry. It shows you Tordek just before hes about to get bit.

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.

Luke used the force to control the pain. Its one of the first Force Powers I remember in the original Star Wars RPG.

It was his force powers that kept him alive in ESB (in the Wampa encounter) and RotJ (surviving the Emperors Force Lightning)

And making rules for a Force effect that stopped physical attacks from killing you sounds kinda over powered, compared to those without force

It didn't stop the damage it let you control/delay the pain so you wouldn't fall unconscious . It was like SUPER-CON*. It also let you stave off inebriation.

*Again which is why I don't see CON affecting hit points directly.

(how would Han do if he had been grabed by the rancor?)

Han Solo would have been Rancor Fodder.

Remember, I'm not shooting down your ideas,

Thats okay mate, fire away!

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.

Why should high level characters be unnaturally tough!?

High Level represents skill, not a fresh genetic makeover.

I just don't think STr is a good stat to combine with mass to equate HP.

...because STR is relative to Mass, CON is not.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

UK, i see you are working to reply to my post, if ya want to chat i'm on AIM under this handle right now =)

I don't have AIM (AOL Instant Messenger?). I use Microsoft Messenger (via Hotmail).

 

[Grommilus]

UK

With 'scratches I was refering to damage that bypassed armour but was not great enough to inflict a minor wound.

However, we also used a rule whereby high dice rolls could find the chinks in armour.

ie. '19' bypass armour, '20' bypass armour + critical hit*

*This was before the days when critical hits were standard.

One idea could be that characters could use feats to increase this threat range perhaps?

chinks in the armor sounds like it might work, but the whole problem with that full plate has considerably less chinks than a chainshirt, which adds some more things to keep track of. Having one AV that you have to exceed takes care of that (takes into consideration how much of you the armor covers and how well it does that coverin)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Grommilus
First off, an iron golem has nothing to do with my crystaline substance vs stone subtance of similiar density, volume, and therefore mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What was the problem here?

My point here was that the crystal would have considerable lower toughness than the stone, so would have considerably less HP, while still being the same mass.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Grommilus
And, if Hp is related to str, then do inanimate objects have str?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They have material Strength.

But isn't material strength simply toughness? I equate Str as it works in dnd as the ability to move things, bigger the str, bigger the things (force) and inanimate objects don't move, so no str, right?

What about them? They could have lots of hit points and armour but weak strength. Remember only average strength is based on hit points.

Can you think of a better example? I've never encountered such a golem.

How about a clay golem that doesn't have the ability to self repair? so he weighs as much as a stone golem, but he's much softer and easier to damage, but just a strong. I'm sure you've fought both stone and clay golems. (thinking in golems cause i'm thinking of materials of similiar density but differing structual stability)

A story always stuck in my head that a friend told me about the gulf war.

Apparently one of the M1A1 Abrams tanks broke down in a gulley during an offensive in the gulf war. They couldn't let it fall into enemy hands so they decided to destroy it by having the other tanks blast it. Apparently half a dozen tanks blasted it for ten minutes from almost point blank range and barely dented it. After the war they went back and towed the tank out and were able to fix it up again.

Another story that shows the effectiveness of equivalent armour is that of the Bismarck during WWII. Apparently the British Navy (in the famous encounter) hit the Bismarck with literally thousands of shells to sink it!

wow, I must say thats a tough tank, maybe we should reavalueate it's toughness, cause it obviously has more HP than i considered =)

as for the bismark, the thing was a city made of steel, LOTS of hp.

Again, I am not happy about having CON affect hit points directly.

Perhaps Toughness as Natural Armour would be prudent...?

why call it con? call it toughness, seperate it from stamina. it's a stat that signifies how hard you are to injure (pure HP)

And i don't like natural armor unless it deals specifically with having a think outside layer that stops attacks from reaching the soft parts inside.

I said: 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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exactly so they are slightly heavier, subsequently slightly stronger etc.

I think the stone giant would be considerably tougher, but not stronger in anyway to his fleshier friend.

Why should high level characters be unnaturally tough!?

High Level represents skill, not a fresh genetic makeover.

I was talking about magical enhancements kinda, and training, like the iron monks that get hit by boards and such. I've always been a fan of characters that can take hoards of beattings before they go down, which is why I like dwarven barbarians in DnD.

If your game had a barbarian class, I would say it would gain toughness as it leveled, to reflect the d12 and the DR.

...because STR is relative to Mass, CON is not.

who cares if STR is relative to mass? Toughness and mass mean hp. So you could get the same system outa having massive objects have lotsa hp, and having massive objects that are tough have even more hp. I mean, to use 12 foot fleshy giant for example. Why would the giant of similiar str to a human, relative to mass, have even more increased hp to the human, relative to mass? it seams to me the giant would have an exact correlation between str, mass, and hp, ie, giant is 8 times as big (volume), is made of same material (flesh, constant density, therefore 8 times the mass), so has 8 times as many hp, don't matter his str.

More str equals more hp only because more str typically means more mass

Inanimate objects have no str, they can't move.

 

[Grommilus]

grommilus@hotmail.com got msn thingie =) broadband GOOD

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

grommilus@hotmail.com got msn thingie =) broadband GOOD

I just emailed you.

You can add me to your messenger list if you wish.

I'll get to replying to your previous post now!

 

[Upper_Krust]

UK

Hello mate!

chinks in the armor sounds like it might work, but the whole problem with that full plate has considerably less chinks than a chainshirt, which adds some more things to keep track of. Having one AV that you have to exceed takes care of that (takes into consideration how much of you the armor covers and how well it does that coverin)

I meant a general 'chink' in the armour; finding the 'weakspot'. I don't want to become too pedantic.

My point here was that the crystal would have considerable lower toughness than the stone, so would have considerably less HP, while still being the same mass.

Actually glass is as tough as stone (if not tougher!) See the link to mineral hardness site I provided in one of my last few posts.

At the moment I am favouring a Hit Point Multiplier based on material 'absolute hardness'.

But isn't material strength simply toughness? I equate Str as it works in dnd as the ability to move things, bigger the str, bigger the things (force) and inanimate objects don't move, so no str, right?

I agree. Although still relevant - if you ever do animate it.

How about a clay golem that doesn't have the ability to self repair? So he weighs as much as a stone golem, but he's much softer and easier to damage, but just a strong. I'm sure you've fought both stone and clay golems. (thinking in golems cause i'm thinking of materials of similiar density but differing structual stability)

A clay golem would need to be larger than a stone golem to have comparable strength.

wow, I must say thats a tough tank, maybe we should reavalueate it's toughness, cause it obviously has more HP than i considered =)

I think Chobham (depleted uranium armour is 3-4 times tougher than Titanium which has a absolute hardness of about 100 (I think?).

Which would mean 68 ton Tank has 14,960hp x 400 = 5.984 million hp.

120mm Cannon delivers (approx.) 105,000 Dmg.

That means it would take about 60 shots to 'wound'! Works out nicely.

as for the bismark, the thing was a city made of steel, LOTS of hp.

Hold on I got that wrong, the Bismarck was hit with over 400 shells (from thousands fired) and 12 torpedoes.

Here is the site (enjoy the music):

http://www.vlewis.net/page10a.html

Lets see.

Bismark 51,900 tons thats 11.198 million hit points x 75 (Steel?) = 839.8 million hp.

400mm Cannon delivers (approx.) 4 million Dmg (not counting chemical explosive yield).

Which means the Bismarck would take 210 (typical) shots to 'wound'.

Remember that before the battle the ship had already been damaged. Also that the ship was scuttled by her own crew, technically not sank by the attackers. Therefore we can chalk up another success to the system!

why call it con? call it toughness, seperate it from stamina. it's a stat that signifies how hard you are to injure (pure HP)

I agree.

And i don't like natural armor unless it deals specifically with having a think outside layer that stops attacks from reaching the soft parts inside.

Absolutely - I think we have solved that now with the 'absolute hardness' rule.

I think the stone giant would be considerably tougher, but not stronger in anyway to his fleshier friend.

Easily handled now. We give him a higher 'absolute hardness'. Obviously it won't be equivalent to stone - otherwise he would be a stone golem. Maybe even just double or triple skin value?

I was talking about magical enhancements kinda, and training, like the iron monks that get hit by boards and such. I've always been a fan of characters that can take hoards of beattings before they go down, which is why I like dwarven barbarians in DnD.

Don't know if this would use the same rule as 'absolute hardness' since they are both still typical flesh.

I was thinking that (through the skill based advancement) characters could gain some sort of Damage Reduction (perhaps in lieu of BAB?).

If your game had a barbarian class, I would say it would gain toughness as it leveled, to reflect the d12 and the DR.

Could do. Or perhaps in lieu of BAB?

who cares if STR is relative to mass? Toughness and mass mean hp. So you could get the same system outa having massive objects have lotsa hp, and having massive objects that are tough have even more hp. I mean, to use 12 foot fleshy giant for example. Why would the giant of similiar str to a human, relative to mass, have even more increased hp to the human, relative to mass? it seams to me the giant would have an exact correlation between str, mass, and hp, ie, giant is 8 times as big (volume), is made of same material (flesh, constant density, therefore 8 times the mass), so has 8 times as many hp, don't matter his str.

I'm starting to agree, now that we have found this new 'absolute hardness' mechanic.

 

[Upper_Krust]

A few more ideas

Hello all!

Not sure if I mentioned this before:

For Magic Weapons I was thinking that the weapons '+' should act as a base damage multiplier as follows:

Mace 1d12 Damage
+1 Mace 1d12 Damage (but can affect those creatures that need magic weapons to hit)
+2 Mace 2d12 Damage
+3 Mace 3d12 Damage
etc.

Presumably then Magic Armour would have its effects similarly multiplied.

Platemail AV16
+1 Platemail AV16 (and some reason to differentiate it from non-magical plate that I can't off hand arrive at?)
+2 Platemail AV32
+3 Platemail AV48
etc.

Also regarding the 'Absolute Hardness' idea.

Perhaps non-deformable materials should not have wounds.

ie. Glass should shatter (be destroyed) while Iron would be bent out of shape (damaged/wounded).

Incidently applying the 'absolute hardness' mechanic to:

Iron Golem.

10,000lbs = 1000hp x 60 (Iron?) = 60,000hp (to wound)
STR 500 (+245)

Stone Golem

3,000lbs = 300hp x 30 (Stone?) = 9000hp (to destroy - stone crumbles)
STR 150 (+70)

Here are a few weapon damages:

M16 3d10 (16)
Barrett .5 Calibre 22d10 (121)
25mm Cannon 176d10 (968)
50mm Cannon 1400d10 (7700)
100mm Cannon 11,200d10 (61,600)
etc.

I have explosives done too, but I am unsure if a target sustains the entire blast damage or (approx.) 1/8th?

 

[bozzutoman]

Re: A few more ideas

How in the wide, wide world of carpal-tunnel-syndrome do you roll 11,200 10-sided dice!?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: A few more ideas

Hi there!

How in the wide, wide world of carpal-tunnel-syndrome do you roll 11,200 10-sided dice!?

You don't. Personally I would just use the average (in the brackets after the dice)