Counting blows instead of HP

[Rhenny]

Doesn't the Star Wars RPG by Wizards of the Coast use Wounds in a similar way?

1 wound - just a flesh wound
2 Wound - -2 to all actions until healed
Severly Wounded - dropped prone, -4 to all actions until healed
Mortally Wounded - knocked down and out....will die w/o healing

To avoid one hit by any creature/weapon being as damaging as another creature/weapon, you might need to set damage thresholds to make creatures/weapons more dangerous.

For example, a very strong creature using a melee weapon may just do 2 wounds on a hit. The next hit by the creature moves the victim automatically to mortally wounded. (That would be very frightening)

The same for a more powerful laser weapon or ranged item. Heck, I guess in a futuristic game, there could be some weapons (like a disintegration ray or disruptor) that would impose a severe wound or a mortal wound on one hit.

Interesting.

This type of system would change combats dramatically. The whole key to combats in a wound system game would be to try to avoid being hit altogether, especially when facing a very strong melee opponent or an opponent with a killer ranged weapon.

What do you all think about this?

 

[the Jester]

[MENTION=21556]Jester[/MENTION] - Monsters can be customized to do count more blows for a single attack, or to be able to take more blows based on strength or creature type respectively. One could also add conditions like dazing or knocking a character prone to represent the force of a blow.

Again, though, you're just changing the names and reducing the numbers; it's still essentially hit points if different attacks deal different amounts of damage.

 

[Stormonu]

How about getting rid of hit points entirely and using conditions instead? We already have a number of conditions for the game already, why not just make "Damaged" a condition that can be made progressively worse?

Nicked, Injured, Damaged, Bloodied, Beaten, Dying, Dead.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I have always believed, you get hit you die. It is that simple, armor and such just makes it harder for you to take that hit. I guess in rules, it would be roll to hit, if hit roll vs death or in 1e rules system shock.

 

[jonesy]

Obviously hit points aren't realistic -- but they're not unrealistic in the way most people seem to believe. Realistic combat isn't hyper-lethal, but it is quite random:

From a realism perspective, the problem is not that a high-level D&D fighter can survive a dozen sword cuts and spear thrusts but that he cannot die by any one attack.​

This pops up everywhere, not just combat. It's possible, as it has happened to several people, to survive falls from tremendous heights with virtually no damage whatsoever. But most of the time, almost all of the time, the result is nearly instant death. The amount of variables affecting all of that in the real world is ginormous. Hence, Phoenix Command, and the difficulties of playing a game which tries to simulate real damage.

How about getting rid of hit points entirely and using conditions instead? We already have a number of conditions for the game already, why not just make "Damaged" a condition that can be made progressively worse?

Nicked, Injured, Damaged, Bloodied, Beaten, Dying, Dead.

That looks like 7 hit points to me (from Unharmed to Dead).

 

[Kzach]

If I could search my own posts I'd dredge up an old 4e house rules post of mine where I made up an alternate hit mechanic based entirely on this premise. Everybody said it sucked.

 

[BryonD]

How about getting rid of hit points entirely and using conditions instead? We already have a number of conditions for the game already, why not just make "Damaged" a condition that can be made progressively worse?

Nicked, Injured, Damaged, Bloodied, Beaten, Dying, Dead.

Would this work better as an overlay on top of Hit Points rather than a replacement?

Perhaps at various % thresholds?

But as a replacement for hit points it seems it would need a great deal of work.

If two L1 rogues fight with daggers, does 1 hit = "nicked"? Can it do more?
What is one of the rogues is 5th level? 15th level? Does it make a difference?

What if instead of a rogue it is a storm giant swinging a tree? How does a storm giant swinging a tree at a L1 Rogue compare to a storm giant swinging a tree at a L17 fighter? Obviously the fighter will be much more capable at creating a complete miss, but is there any more shade of grey than that? If no, is that satisfactory? (To you is a reasonable question, but does it make the game better and more appealing to large numbers of gamers everywhere is probably a more meaningful question) If yes, what will it take to create a quality system for defining the differences and is it less problematic than HP?

I think one of the reasons HP have been so persistent is that, when all is said and done, it does allow for both L1 Rogue duels and storm giants in the same system without requiring anything more that creative narration.

Look at Mutants and Masterminds, which goes somewhat closer to what you have suggested. But the comic genre is different. Superman and Doomsday can pulverize each other, but then one of those could turn around and punch Batman or Green Arrow and the audience accepts that, though probably badly hurt, Green Arrow "rolled with the punch" or whatever enough that no one complains when he didn't become a gelatinous, headless mass. The concept of wounds are normalized by a mutual convention that is simply accepted. L1 Rogues don't roll with storm giant trees. They die.

I do like conditions. But not as a replacement for High Fantasy games.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

How about this (I'm not too sure if this has been done before but it's one of the various ideas I've had floating around in my head).

Imagine if your character's physical health is represented by a pyramid of boxes.
Let's label these boxes A, B and C where:
A: Big potentially mortal wounds.
B: Serious wounds or damage.
C: Flesh wounds or wounds that provide only a minor disadvantage.

Now let's look at the wimpy wizard and the incredibly stout barbarian.

The Wimpy Wizard:

A
B
CCC

The Incredibly Stout Barbarian
AA
BBBB
CCCCCCCC

The quality of the attack combined with the quality of defense determine whether the PC/Monster has been wounded with an A, B or C level of damage.

If the Wimpy Wizard receives a C wound, he ticks one of his three C boxes.
If however, all three C boxes are ticked, any further C wound will end up a tick in the B box and if the single B box was ticked then the A box would be ticked.

If all boxes are ticked, the PC/Monster is incapacitated and fighting for their life. Likewise, a tick in any A box means that the PC is fighting for their life but may continue to act but in a limited capacity.

Now this is only to represent physical harm done to the character regardless of whether it is a dagger thrust or poison gas or drowning. An A grade wounding might have a specific condition attached to it for example.

However, the PCs capacity to avoid or reduce potential wounds through reflexes, divine assistance, pure toughness or whatever (the traditional hit point definition) should still be used with this system in my opinion. This external points system can be used with the PCs player defensively spending points representing avoiding damage or spending points representing performing special moves or powers.

Just some thoughts to add to the mix.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[BryonD]

I always liked the Black Company solution for deadliness.

Critical Hits and Surprise Round hits do CON damage.

A surprise arrow still may not kill you, but it will bring you down several notches in a hurry.

 

[jonesy]

The Wimpy Wizard:

A
B
CCC

The Incredibly Stout Barbarian
AA
BBBB
CCCCCCCC

To use a clunky analogy, the Wizard would be a Heavy Gear, and the Barbarian would be a Battletech Mech.