Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Knight Otu]

Hi, all!

Just skimming over the thread, but I can already say that there are very good ideas floating around!

One thing about weight being the most decicive factor for Hit Points, Upper_Krust: Wouldn't that punish female characters? It might be better to reduce the significance of weight a bit?

About dodge/parry - could they made into two skills that usually both add to Defense, except in specific situations? (flatfootedness, etc). Of course, they had then be harder to learn to avoid to high defense values.

 

[Upper_Krust]

UK:

Hello mate!

I'm well aware that glass is as hard or harder than stone (hardness being the physical property of being able to scratch) Toughness, I think, represents how hard it is to damage with a sudden, powerful blow, instead of scratching which is a weak scrape across the material. As for determining the hardness of most objects, while physics will help, a certain amount of eyeballing is necessary, such as how hard is it to damage an iron ball that weighs 10 pounds as to a 10 foot long iron stick, weighing 10 pounds.

We discussed this matter this morning - though I can't remember if either of us solved anything!?

Factors include:

Absolute Hardness
Material Deformity
Material Thickness
Strength/Constitution?

Why would an iron golem of similiar volume have to be stronger than a stone golem? The strength of the golem would depend on the animating magic, not the matierial used. basically if i built a robot arm out of plastic, and then built one out of steel, with the same servos, they would have the same strength (altho the plasitic one could damage its self with it's own force).

If you have ever seen the anime Ghost in the Shell, you'd notice a perfect example in it where a cyborg rips off her own arms trying to open the hatch on a tank. She is obviously too strong for her toughness =) If making a creature, artificially or not, I'd definatly limit the strength of my creation in terms of wether or not using it's full strength does physical damage. Maybe make it capable of hurting its self, which is sometimes neccassary (like lifting that car off your foot, even tho you strain your back doing it) but not over do it so that using full strength causes serious harm, like ripping off your own arms.

You sort of answered this in your next part.

An Iron Golem will need to be stronger than a Stone Golem of the same volume...

How so? Strength isn't dependant on material, altho the stone golem could have more strength animated into it based on the fact that it would be able to support more weight with it's appendages, but this does not mean the stone golem does have more strength, only that it could. See above Ghost in the Shell reference.

...unless you wanted one to be notably slower/less mobile than the other. However, golems generally can't run or jump (See Frankenstein; Talos; Six Armed Temple Statue etc.) and all seem to be built along a certain formulaic template.

I was thinking more along the lines of 1.5 times normal flesh value. A stone giant being one and a half as hard to injure as a flesh giant of the same mass sounds about right.

Yeah, sounds okay.

Like I said, a certain amount of eyeballing is required to come up with toughness stat. And I prefer toughness compared to absolute hardness or even hardness, because hardness is just how difficult an object is to scratch, whereas toughness is how difficult it is to physically deform.

Yep. What we need is some logical way to determine toughness though.

I don't know if I would say one of those monks that trains with getting hit with boards, or say a boxer, has typical flesh. I would say it's atypical, because they can take alot more punishment than thier size would indicate.

Muscle is denser than fat. (and to return to my previous idea; strength could add to hit points)

As for skill based advancement, I've always had a problem with it in that if you make a warrior with skill based, and you want to be good at what you do, you almost always have to be completely worthless when it comes to non-combat skills. Level based advancement is cool because it often seperates combat skills from non combat skills, giving rise to the fighter than can climb and jump, as well as swing a sword.

Personally I like levelling, but I am not certain its the best method for handling everything. Though we can cross the advancement bridge when we come to it.

I was thinking that it would take the place of specialty combat skills, aka feats (like in 3e). Feats just make the game generally more fun by providing more options in character creation and in play.

True.

Oh, and just one other thing, I wouldn't be too worried about putting numbers to damage or items, aka monkey work, until ya get the ideas exactly how ya want em.

I'm not so worried about numbers to damage as I am numbers to numbers if you know what I mean.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi, all!

Hello mate!

Just skimming over the thread, but I can already say that there are very good ideas floating around!

We are getting there slowly but surely!

One thing about weight being the most decicive factor for Hit Points, Upper_Krust: Wouldn't that punish female characters? It might be better to reduce the significance of weight a bit?

It would punish females as much as they are 'punished' in the real world.

However, lower weight = lower base strength = higher base dexterity. So technically it all balances out.

About dodge/parry - could they made into two skills that usually both add to Defense, except in specific situations? (flatfootedness, etc). Of course, they had then be harder to learn to avoid to high defense values.

I was simply thinking BAB and DEX apply to both 'to hit' rolls and AC (effectively parrying and dodge). That way its all still handled with the single roll.

Naturally Feats could be taken to improve weapon focus (attack) weapon focus (parrying); weapon finesse (Dex adding more to attack) and dodge (Dex adding more to AC).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi jonrog mate!

Hey, if it's not too annoying, still playing devil's advocate here. I'm a huge fan of skill-based systems, so I'll nudge on ...

But you shouldn't need calculators at a gaming table. you should need characters and imagination.

I agree.

If you are refering to the big numbers I mentioned they were just for the sake of completeness to give people an idea of the actual increase in damage such weapons bring to bear!

Okay, I fully get the whole fractional armor/damage thing now. "armor reduces damage" vs. "armor reduces your chance of taking damage" is a fine-line argument, and seeing as both are conceptual representations of combat, I think which you prefer is pretty arbitrary. But this one is a decent choice. Although the first time somebody argues that while leather armor absorbs the shock of a baseball bat, a meat cleaver cuts right through it, the system starts to wobble.

Well leather armour (lets say AV 4) would have a baseball bat deal 1d12 - 4 and a meat cleaver deal 1d8 - 2. Not counting probable strength and possible crits.

I struggled to create a more fluid gaming system myself for ages, but what I kept running into -- indeed, what I think many alternative game systems kept running into -- is that the abstract systems of HP as "survivability" made for an easier, more efficient way to track damage than HP as a physical attribute.

I think we are close to cracking this. If we can just work out this whole 'toughness' thing satisfactorily...?

Yes, but actual mass doesn't affect strength.

It affects the strength based on movement.

Or it may reasonably affect it, but it doesn't dictate it.

If we keep some sort of consistent movement scale it should.

In a system where the whole point is to toss out the streamlined conceptual for the logical, this to me is a huge logic gap.

Not really.

A system that tells me that Jackie Chan has to pump iron 4 hours a day to kick Sharon Gless's ass just seems hinky.

LOL!

Jackie Chan 140lbs(?) 14hp 5th-level Monk/7th-level Thief Acrobat
STR 12 (+5*); DEX 20 (+7*)
BAB 9 + 5 (DEX)

Sharon Gless 150lbs(?) 15hp 1st-level Warrior (from pseudo-cop training)
STR 7 (-1/+1*); DEX 12 (-1*) Negative penalties for moderately out of shape/middle age?
BAB 1 - 1 (DEX)

*Stat increases

I don't fancy Sharon Gless' chances.

Yes, so this HP system tracks damage more efficiently. But damage is only relevant vis-a-vis a PC's ability to take X-amount and keep functioning. In your explanation stamina means you can take more damage and keep functioning, but it's separate from the actual damage.

I've said before I am not happy with my interpretation of stamina...yet.

In 3 ed, more HP means you can take more damage and keep functioning -- with no need to track the actual damage. Why make HP more grounded yet a less efficient way of tracking a character's effectiveness?

Its more or less the same mechanic. damage dealt to hit points. We are simply adding the logic that as characters take damage their wounds will have repurcussions on their performance ability.

I think what you have to do here is just toss out the whole idea of HP -- it's admittedly useless if not used properly, as a mathematical metaphor for PC's ability to function.

I still think it is working fine in this context.

The idea of restructuring HP so it more logically can be applied universally, as to tanks and such, is a noble goal. But I must argue, and I don't think unreasonably, that any gaming system that has you tossing around six digit numbers is not one that'll catch on or provide ease of use.

I agree. But at this point we need to set the stall for comparatives rather than actual figures.

Am I wrong to think the first time your normal human opens a rule book and sees "100,000,000 hp of damage" they'll think this game might not be the fun, improvisational game they've heard so much about?

Damage is merely relative. Regardless of the eventual end numbers if someone drops a 4 kiloton nuke in your lap (not an everyday occurance in a fantasy setting) you are going to know at a glance who is toast.

And before I get accused of being one of the same marketing hacks who doomed D&D to old-school ways, let me suggest a half-step. Regardless of system, use HP for organic matter and wound points with DR for inorganic. That seems logical -- organic systems shut down after receiving far less proportional damage than a building can take before it collapses. Using a different scale would allow you to keep the numbers while dealing with inorganics in a reasonable range. Yeah, sure, a tank only has 60 WP, but it has DR 20. And perhaps 1 WP=10-100 HP, whatever playtests out as logical.

I don't really have a problem with big numbers when you are trying to represent big damage! But it will probably depend on how obtrusive they become (if at all?)

This may actually integrate with the "absolute hardness" concept.

I am confident we will work it out in the end.

 

[LostSoul]

One of the earliest examples I used was a fight between Driz'zt and Artemis Entreri. But you could equally use any Star Wars Jedi Battles or the Duel between Inigo Montoya and Wesley.

They virtually never hit their opponent! If they land a solid blow thats virtually the end of the fight.

If you make them hit equal opponents on a '10' they are going to land a solid blow 50% of the time! If they generally hit equal opponents on a '20' thats 5%. Much more realistic.

I agree that it models those fights very well! But is it fun to play? Would you just roll... roll... roll... until somebody finally rolled a 20? or would you have feats to apply some kind of tactics?

I ran into a lot of the 50/50 hit/miss thing in d6 Star Wars. It wasn't too bad, except a climactic fight (against the evil villian who is about your skill level) would end up like this: miss... miss... miss... hit & death. A solution to this problem was to cap the max damage you could cause based on the difference between your attack roll and the defense. I don't know how that would work with this system, or if it would be logically consistent. Oh well, just some random thoughts!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

I agree that it models those fights very well! But is it fun to play?

Absolutely, with so much riding on one dice roll you will be able to cut the atmosphere with a knife!

Instead of the war of attrition currently utilised.

So its going to be more fun and dramatic!

Would you just roll... roll... roll... until somebody finally rolled a 20?

Characters are rarely going to be totally equal. But thats where you always find the best fights anyway!

or would you have feats to apply some kind of tactics?

I posted this slightly up the page:

I was simply thinking BAB and DEX apply to both 'to hit' rolls and AC (effectively parrying and dodge). That way its all still handled with the single roll.

Naturally Feats could be taken to improve weapon focus (attack) weapon focus (parrying); weapon finesse (Dex adding more to attack) and dodge (Dex adding more to AC).

Thats just for starters. Obviously you could create myriad attack and defensive feats AND tactics.

I ran into a lot of the 50/50 hit/miss thing in d6 Star Wars. It wasn't too bad, except a climactic fight (against the evil villian who is about your skill level) would end up like this: miss... miss... miss... hit & death.

Sounds exciting!

A solution to this problem...

What problem? I don't see this as a problem at all!

...was to cap the max damage you could cause based on the difference between your attack roll and the defense. I don't know how that would work with this system, or if it would be logically consistent. Oh well, just some random thoughts!

I have been thinking perhaps every point above what you need to hit could play a part in influencing the probability of critical hits?

 

[Grommilus]

UK:

Actually a solution to needing a 20 to hit, is that early on in fights you need the 20, but as the fight progresses and characters get tired, (enter stamina), they start lossing defensive effectiveness =)

 

[Isawa Sideshow]

Absolutely, with so much riding on one dice roll you will be able to cut the atmosphere with a knife!

Instead of the war of attrition currently utilised.

So its going to be more fun and dramatic!

I have to completely disagree with you here. In any game I've played in, I find nothing more boring and frustrating than rolling over and over again to hit, missing almost every time. Missing every now and again, that's fine, but having a string of no-hitter rolls just makes me feel like my character's utterly useless. The "war of attrition" lets players feel like they're actually accomplishing something, if only a bit at a time. I'll take that over "miss-miss-miss-miss-miss-miss-yawn-miss-miss-miss-miss-miss-yawn-miss-miss-hit-kill" any day.

But then, did anyone actually expect me to agree with UK?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

My IP address has been on the blink for the past 2 days. Now that I'm all caught up on the recent posts, methinks it's time for an "accounting". And by that I mean a restating of all my rule changes (just to make them crystal clear for anybody interested in reading along). Some ideas and values have changed from when I first posted them.

Here goes...

Armor Class is completely eliminated. Armor values and natural armor become damage reduction values.

This makes it much easier for characters to "get hit". Essentially, if you're not resisting an attack, you get hit by that attack. Simple. None of this "rolling to hit an unmoving object" balderdash. Simply roll damage, now factoring in damage reduction from armor. The thing is... nobody with a smattering of self-preservation is going to just stand there and take damage. Which leads me to...

Dodging and parrying opposed attack rolls will be introduced into the game.

With Armor Class remade into Damage Reduction, players will need something extra to protect their characters from attack. Dodging and parrying accomplishes this task with unobtrusive "opposed rolls" (opposed rolls which are already seamlessly incorporated into combat now). As well, the inclusion of static Hit Points will also create a greater need for defense. Now character can "actively" defend themselves with dodge and parry rolls, making combat that much more exciting.

• You can dodge or parry the same number of times per round that you can attack (with decreasing values). For example: if you can only attack once per round, then you can either parry once or dodge once that round. Not both.

• You cannot parry a creature that is 2 or more sizes larger than you or 2 or more sizes smaller than you.
• Parrying creatures one size larger than you imposes a -4 penalty.
• Parrying creatures one size smaller than you imposes a +4 bonus.
• Parrying an armed opponent while unarmed imposes a -4 penalty. The Improved Unarmed Combat feat will eliminate this penalty completely.

• You can dodge of a creature of any size.
• For every size category that you are smaller than your opponent, add +4 to your dodge roll.
• For every size category that you are larger than your opponent, subtract -4 from your dodge roll.
• Dodging in melee combat imposes a -4 penalty. The benefit of the Dodge feat will eliminate this penalty completely.
• For every range increment that a weapon being fired exceeds its shortest distance, add +4 to the targets dodge roll.

Hit points will be based on Weight and Constitution, and increase very little every level.

The method for calculating Hit Points will straightforward and involve "no" dice rolling.

• 1 Hit point for every 25 lbs. of character weight (minimum 1).
• Positive Constitution modifiers increase your Hit Point total every level.
• Negative Constitution modifiers decrease your Hit Points at 1st level only (minimum 1).

No wounds with this system. I think wound tracking is far too cumbersome for seamless role-playing. Just straight Hit Points, with unconsciousness occurring between -1 and -9 (and death occurring at -10). I realize that this is identical to the current system, but I'm not out to change the world after all. Just a few continents.



What does change significantly are the final totals.

A typical 20th level human fighter will have 88 Hit Points.
A typical 20th level human cleric will have 68 Hit Points.
A typical 20th level human rogue will have 48 Hit Points.
A typical 20th level human wizard will have 28 Hit Points.

I find these totals much more realistic, even from a heroic standpoint. These amounts are far from the Hit Point totals that 20th level characters currently enjoy, but with armor damage reduction, dodging, and parrying, they won't need hundreds of Hit Points anymore.

The Strength modifier no longer augments your attack roll. Dexterity now augments your ability to attack with melee and ranged weapons, in addition to opposed dodge and parry attack rolls.

This change has been a long time in coming. Dexterity will now represent "accuracy" across the board.

Carrying Capacity will become a function of both Weight and Strength.

The equation that determines Carrying Capacity will be calculated during character generation, and so will rarely if ever impede the fluidity of game play.

• Weight x 1/10 of Strength = Carrying Capacity.

Calculating 1/10 of Strength is painless. If you have 18 Strength, then 1/10th of that score is 1.8. Math couldn't be more simple.

If your character weighs 190 lbs., then 190 x 1.8 = 342 lbs. of Carrying Capacity.

Once you know your Carrying Capacity divide that value by 3 to figure out Light, Medium, and Heavy loads. For example, 342 pounds of Carrying Capacity breaks down into...

• Light: up to 114 lbs.
• Medium: 115-228 lbs.
• Heavy: 229-342 lbs.

Again, write this down during character creation and you're done.

Extra melee damage becomes a function of Carrying Capacity using a quick reference chart.

Carrying Capacity: Bonus Damage (average Bonus Damage)
0: -1d12 (-6)
1: -1d10 (-5)
2-3: -1d8 (-4)
4-6: -1d6 (-3)
7-10 -1d4 (-2)
11-30: -1d2 (-1)
31-60: 0
61-100: +1d2 (+1)
101-200: +1d4 (+2)
201-300: +1d6 (+3)
301-400: +1d8 (+4)
401-500: +1d10 (+5)
501-600: +1d12 (+6)
601-800: +2d8 (+9)
801-1000: +2d10 (+11)
1001-1200: +2d12 (+13)
1201-1600: +4d8 (+18)
1601-2000: +4d10 (+22)
2001-2400: +4d12 (+27)
2401-3200: +8d8 (+36)
3201-4000: +8d10 (+44)
4001-4800: +8d12 (+52)
4801-6400: +16d8 (+72)
6401-8000: +16d10 (+88)
8001-9600: +16d12 (+104)
9601-12800: +32d8 (+144)
12800-16000: +32d10 (+176)
16001-19200: +32d12 (+208)
19201-25600: +64d8 (+288)
25601-32000: +64d10 (+352)
32000-38400: +64d12 (+416)
38401-51200: +128d8 (+576)
51201-64000: +128d10 (+704)
64001-76800: +128d12 (+832)
76801-102400: +256d8 (+1152)
102401-128000: +256d10 (+1408)
128001-153600: +256d12 (+1664)
153601-204800: +512d8 (+2304)
204801-256000: +512d10 (+2816)
256001-307200: +512d12 (+3328)
307201-409600: +1024d8 (+4608)
409600-512000: +1024d10 (+5632)
512001-614400: +1024d12 (+6656)
614401-819200: +2048d8 (+9216)
819201-1024000: +2048d10 (+11264)
1024001-1228800: +2048d12 (+13312)
1228801-1638400: +4096d8 (+18432)
1638401-2048000: +4096d10 (+22528)
2048001-2457600: +4096d12 (+26624)

What this obviously means is that very large creatures will do a very large amount of damage (the kind you don't even have to roll). The tactics for fighting such creatures will have to change. Dodging will play a huge role in combat against gargantuan and colossal-size creatures, and magic will play a huge factor in defeating them (especially mind-effecting magic). Just remember, large creatures may be impossibly strong, but their minds are still vulnerable.



That's about it for now... but to be honest, I think that's plenty.

 

[LostSoul]

What problem? I don't see this as a problem at all!

The problem I was talking about was the "hit... aaand you're dead" problem. In d6 (especially with Jedi), it would only take 1 hit to kill the other guy. This made sense, but then you didn't get any cuts, or wounds, or whatevers.

As far as only hitting on a 20 goes, I think that's a good argument for opposed rolls. If you're always missing, you'll think, "My guy couldn't hit J Lo if she bent over right infront of me." But if you keep up the parrying, at least you're doing something right to balance your inability to hit.

But that's just a matter of taste.

edit: If you had feats that added to your attack while taking away from your defense, this might be all you need to do. The first couple rounds, you set your defense high (add +5 to your defense) and feel the other guy out. When you roll a 16+ and still miss, you know it's time to either run or open yourself up in order to get that hit. Good stuff.