Counting blows instead of HP

[Stormonu]

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

Sort of. However, by tying it to word conditions instead of numbers, you could key powers, abilities and consequences off the named values. Also, an attack would inflict a base level of damage, and each time it inflicts it again, it would go up by one. This would be akin to a weapon dealing an initial X damage, then 1 point thereafter.

Bloodied: Target suffers a -1 penalty to hit, but gains a +1 bonus to defenses and AC.

Fireball: On a hit, target is Injured and gains the Aflame condition (save ends). [of course, if the target is already Injured, they go up to the next damage level]

Ogre's Club: On a hit, target is Bloodied and suffers Knockback. [This would akin to the ogre dealing 4 damage, then 1 damage thereafter].

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I like the sound of "blows." It means my PC can start a fight by saying "Blow me."

 

[pemerton]

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?

I think this is basically how Rolemaster plays. (Except there is the additional feature, in Rolemaster, that a wound triggers a random roll - which can inflict anything from very minor penalties to death.)

 

[ferratus]

Because unless the hit was equally lethal, the longsword does more. It's much easier for me to deal a grievous injury to someone with a longsword than with a dagger (as long as I have enough space). Especially when you start counting in thick hides and the like, which could basically make my dagger worthless, while a longsword would still be somewhat useful.

I can't agree with that. A weapon is a tool for the job, and if a weapon was widely used, it is because the weapon did more damage in a particular situation. Many knights for example, carried a dagger in addition to their longsword. They did so, because once you had someone down, you could use your dagger (if you didn't feel like ransoming him) to stab him in the gaps of the armour. In the visor, the armpit, the groin etc. A clear situation where skilled use of a dagger leads to more damage than a sword.

Also, if you were carring a dagger in the middle ages as a weapon of self defense, you can inflict extremely grevious wounds if combined with grapples and holds. If you were faced with a swordsman and were skilled enough to get past his guard, a good place to thrust your dagger is the nice soft place between the neck and the collarbone. Certainly that would do just as much damage as any sword blow.

As for thick hides, you'd want a thrusting weapon to break through that. You get better penetrating power from concentrating power unto one location, not by slashing with a long sword. A dagger or a short sword is the tool for that job.

Up to this point then, the weapons are just dealing "fate, luck, skill" damage, then? Okay, seems reasonable enough to have them be the same-ish until the actual physical damage is dealt.

Well, this is designed to take into account parries, evasions and such. So minor monsters would have 1 "body blow" point so they can be one shot kills (minions or 1 HD monsters). Monsters you expect to trade blows with in a cinematic duel (or monsters which are extremely tough) would have more than one "body blow" point. If you take a plate armoured knight, the first few blows against him do nothing, then you might break his shield, daze him with a head blow, and then the last blow would be the mortal wound (and the only physical wound that can't be explained by recovering with rest).

This part I'm shaky on as well (and I'm not talking about the axe vs. club lethality part). Would factoring for weapon vs. armor only apply when the enemy runs out of "fate, luck, skill" hits? If you factor armor vs. weapons against all of the attacks, then are the first hits truly representing "fate, luck, skill"?

Largely I was figuring that weapon qualities (ie. 4th editions versatile, brutal, high-crit, reach etc. categories), along with weapon speed could get me to distinguish the types of weapons and their effectiveness.

The place I would like to get to is that weapons are recognized for being tools for certain tasks and compliments to certain fighting styles, rather than weapons that do more or less damage.

That's one way to look at it. Though now you have brawn only equates to accuracy and not to damage, which is something you may or may not be going for.

You are right there. It should either count for both, or I could see a case for brawn counting for damage instead of accuracy.

I think you're getting mixed results on abstraction as of this point, and may want to streamline it slightly from how it's presented thus far.

It is a very rough idea thus far, and I'm getting sidetracked with ideas about weapons which were designed for the HP system.

 

[ferratus]

There are a bunch of systems that take this basic approach. Ars Magica is the first that springs to mind.

Humans typically have 6 "body levels" (hit points). Damage is still rolled, the victim tries to eliminate it with a Soak (mainly based on armour worn) roll and then 1 body level is inflicted for every 5 points of daamge that gets through.

A typical weapon wielded by a typically strong and talented human is likely to do 0 - 2 body levels to a typically armoured foe.

That is indeed very close to what I want to do. Another person on the thread mentioned Rolemaster.

I wouldn't mind if any players of either did a comparison to how the system fares vs. hp on whether it is better or worse for narrative purposes.

 

[rkwoodard]

monster side

Hello,

I have done this but only on the monster side of things. The PCs have their full hit points, but instead of rolling for hit points for the monsters, I assign a number of hits.

They ranged from 1-3 and then full hit points for the Major Bad Guy. Your hit, as a PC, had modifiers (+1 for str, +1 for Magic weapon, etc.)

The biggest thing, it saved me from having to fudge at the table (both directions).

The players never knew I ran it this way.

Yes, Damage rolls were mostly meaningless. So, a max damage roll was equal to 2 hits.

RK

 

[ferratus]

If you really like the way hit points play, but you find that they don't make sense, then I suggest that the problem is in (1) calling them hit points, (2) losing them on a "hit" that does "damage", and (3) recovering them via "healing".

Mostly this. However, my other problem with hp is that it seems a lot of addition and subtration for something that largely represents 5-6 blows in an average fight.

It just seems easier to take the average of the damage for each blow, and check off a box.

The disadvantage of course, is that you don't get the pleasure of rolling high damage, which adds excitement to the process. Though, I guess you don't get the bitter lump of disappointment when you roll low damage. I guess it would be sort of like 4e, where you do max damage on a critical hit. You don't get the disappointment of rolling 2 1's with your greataxe, but you don't get the euphoria of rolling 2 12's either.

 

[Argyle King]

I can't agree with that. A weapon is a tool for the job, and if a weapon was widely used, it is because the weapon did more damage in a particular situation. Many knights for example, carried a dagger in addition to their longsword. They did so, because once you had someone down, you could use your dagger (if you didn't feel like ransoming him) to stab him in the gaps of the armour. In the visor, the armpit, the groin etc. A clear situation where skilled use of a dagger leads to more damage than a sword.

Also, if you were carring a dagger in the middle ages as a weapon of self defense, you can inflict extremely grevious wounds if combined with grapples and holds. If you were faced with a swordsman and were skilled enough to get past his guard, a good place to thrust your dagger is the nice soft place between the neck and the collarbone. Certainly that would do just as much damage as any sword blow.

.

right... dagger attacks to specific weak points and vital area which you have chosen to showcase the deadliness of the weapon "do just as much damage as any sword blow."

For what it's worth, I somewhat agree with the point you are trying to make. However, there are reasons why weapons beyond the dagger were invented. If we're talking 'realism,' you also have to consider dismemberment. There's a psychological element to combat. In a life of death situation, if I had no better alternatives available, I would at least attempt to block a stab from a dagger with my hand, arm, or other less vital areas of my body, and not fear having it hacked off. I cannot say I would do the same against somebody swinging a sword or an axe which results in me possibly losing the body part I used.

 

[Nagol]

That is indeed very close to what I want to do. Another person on the thread mentioned Rolemaster.

I wouldn't mind if any players of either did a comparison to how the system fares vs. hp on whether it is better or worse for narrative purposes.

I found Rolemaster very different: you have hp, but you're really afraid of critical effects that can kill/maim/impair you without depleting them. Under that system you typically go either very heavy armour that makes it east to be hit but mitigates a lot of critical effects or very light armour and concentrate of the skills that prevent blows from landing.

For Ars Magica (2nd through 4th edition anyway, I haven't tried the later edition(s)), the only narrative advantage I saw from the hp change was the introduction of a very light death spiral (as you get wounded your ability to fight begins to get reduced) and each wound level had its own length of recovery. Both of these effects allow narrative constructs tha are much less likely in D&D.

The other thing it did was to keep all the characters at about the same hp total so their staying power was determined by gear and magic (how much damage could be absorbed before reaching the body level).

 

[ferratus]

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's pretty much what I was going for, though I was going to use existing conditions instead. I was also going to have physical wounds be much lower on the scale, so I'd replace 4e's "Bloodied" with "Battered" to represent half the blows that a PC could take.

So you'd use the body blows granted by armour first. So a tank class with plate would have 5 extra "body blow" points that do not grant any physical effects. Once you batter your way past the armour defenses, you'd go through their natural fortitude of 3 hits until they are battered, which might do things like grant combat advantage, or allow the attacker to get a free trip attack. Then the wounds start showing up which slows, or dazes them until they are at 0 body blows and are considered to be dying.

So I guess the condition scale for me would be Disadvantaged, Harried, Off-balance, Battered, Nicked, Wounded, Dying, Dead... or something similar.