Counting blows instead of HP

[ACreepierFolklaw]

In my own combat rules (which are severely modified 3.5e) I average out all the hits so no damage rolls, a hit is a hit is a hit.
I mean that instead of a 1d6 sword i just call it a flat rate 4.
I did this (and a large number of other things) because my player (a noob) gets bored with the endless dice rolling during battles and I wanted to maintain the realtime pace as much as I could...

I think that if anything could be improved about rpg combat it is the way that it can often (esp in modern gaming) be flat and all about numbers. So i think i can understand what you're trying to do...
My players like movies not math, they want to swing from chandeliers and skid down stairs on shields in combat, not take it in turns to hit each other over the head with things like a monty-python fish dance.

but then again, i don't play with "gamers" anymore so what do i know?

 

[ferratus]

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.

Yes, but there were reasons the dagger continued to be used as well. The sword has the advantage of reach, defense and mass. You'd be foolish to go after a knight in armour in one on one combat with a dagger. In that situation, having variable damage works just fine. However, how many of us when playing a thief or rogue, use a short sword rather than a dagger when going in for a backstab? The dagger should be the better weapon for the job, for stealth and for finding the gaps in armour. We all use the short sword though because it does more damage.

Likewise, a falchion combines the defensive capabilities of a sword with the mass and penetrating power of an axe. Very effective against mail, but became considerably less popular when plate armour came in, because it didn't have the penetrating power to do that. Longswords as well became less common, as weapons designed to find gaps in armour (the precursors to the rapier) and heavier blades that could transmit the force of the blow (since plate armour allowed one to get rid of the shield) came into fashion.

So I want (without getting too complicated about it) to have weapons reflect the task that they are actually designed for. Variable damage doesn't seem to be the system that does so.

 

[BryonD]

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.

This is quite a good argument for deadly coup de grace attacks. And in 3E at least (not certain about 4E) a dagger IS every bit as good as a sword for those attacks.

But this doesn't offer anything for active combat, which is the presumption for HP and damage amoutns between weapons.

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.

Again in 3E, you can't use a longswrd in a grapple but can use a dagger. So that works.

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.

Now you are jumping to "killing blows". A dagger strike that takes a target below 0 HP can be described as you offer. So, again, it works.

But not every blow is a killing blow and the very point of hit points is to spread out combat to model the more "heroic" drawn out battles of cinema and the like. It makes a big difference.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

That's correct, but this isn't more damage when compared to hitting the same thing. You're comparing sword vs. armor to dagger vs. skin. Compare both sword vs. armor and dagger vs. armor, or sword vs. skin and dagger vs. skin and see which one wins both of those competitions.

Daggers were good at being able to slip beneath armor (somewhat). That does not mean that they deal more damage. It means that they bypass manufactured armor more easily.

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.

Yes, just as much as a swordblow that hit you almost anywhere. If you're skilled enough to do so, you can definitely kill a man -and quickly- by hitting him in the right spot. With a sword? Hit that other guy somewhere, anywhere, and he's probably disabled or dying if it's solid and he's not armored. That's not the case for daggers.

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.

Swords can thrust. In fact, they were designed to be able to thrust and slash, most of the time. And with dulled portions on one side so that you could grab it and fight in an enclosed space by using the dulled section of the blade as a grip for better close-quarters control. Swords were exceptionally versatile weapons, really. Just because D&D labels them "slashing" damage does not mean that when we're comparing historical usage that it remains as D&D says it was.

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).

So, tough creatures apply here, too? If you're an elephant-sized monster, is it mostly physical toughness? If so, shouldn't those be the "physical" type of wounds again? Or, against a huge slow monster like that, would you just narrate it as glancing off of his side and so on, until he is sufficiently damaged that you deal the last "physical" blow?

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.

Okay, I see more of what you're aiming for (not-so-much the axe > chainmail). I don't see anything really wrong with that approach, or anything that clashes with anything else you've proposed.

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 agree here, too. I could see it be damage but not accuracy easier than I could see it be accuracy but not damage.

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

Right, sorry. Also, if you want, I can totally drop the realism and weapons disagreement, above. I'm not trying to argue, but I am trying to disagree (if that makes sense). If you think it's too distracting and not productive, I'll just forget about that part and give feedback on the other parts that will help more than sidetrack. Just let me know. As always, play what you like

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Weapons have trade-offs, and the main reasons for carrying a knife do not involve effectiveness in combat. The main reasons for carrying a knife are (1) it's light and easy to carry as a sidearm in addition to a primary weapon, and (2) it's a useful tool out of combat.

 

[Mark CMG]

Weapons have trade-offs, and the main reasons for carrying a knife do not involve effectiveness in combat. The main reasons for carrying a knife are (1) it's light and easy to carry as a sidearm in addition to a primary weapon, and (2) it's a useful tool out of combat.

The ease with which it may be concealed is often a consideration.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

I wouldn't say this is an argument against hit points so much as an argument against rolling multiple dice for damage, adding large bonuses, and working with multi-digit hit-point values. The extra arithmetic, as you note, doesn't make the game any more interesting.

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

But reducing the variability makes things less realistic and less interesting. It's not like real-life men or beasts require exactly six hits to put down...

As an alternative to checking off one of six boxes, imagine each hit has a 1-in-6 chance of taking someone down. That's just as easy -- easier, really -- but not so predictable.

 

[Janx]

On Daggers:
this was talked about a month ago in a daggers vs. swords thread. Technicall, a sword DOES more damage. It's force = mass * acceleration. attack a pig carcass with a sword, attack one with a dagger. Which one has more damage?

Yes, I only need to pierce you 3". I can do that with my longsword or a dagger.

The argument should never be that a dagger is NOT dangerous. Simply that it is a highly situational weapon. Which is why everybody carried one, even if they generally use a sword.

However, like the saying, never bring a knife to a gun fight. It's fine to have a knife. It's dumb to rely on the knife when everybody else has a longer range weapon.

The knife comes into play when you really close in combat and the sword is rendered useless. Usually because your sword has blocked their sword while you stepped in to knife them.

What's really going on in a fight, D&D-wise:
let's say all men have 10 hit points
the dagger does less damage to a man, but a good pierce can kill (critical)
the long sword does more damage to a man, but is generally slashing wounds
a short sword is a stabbing weapon, doing more damage than a dagger

You could express that as each weapon having a +/- to hit by its lethality factor. And the dagger maybe having a higher crit range.

When facing like weapons, it's a moot argument. One guy lives, one guy dies, and might be hurt.

In a lopsided fight (sword vs. dagger), if skill is equal, the sword has the best chance because it can keep the dagger back out of its effective range, while still being able to cause wounds itself.

Here's a good philosophical test. You don't know how skilled I am. You have a dagger. Would you rather face me unarmed, with a dagger, or with a sword? Or vice versa, I have a dagger, how would you like to be armed?

Unless the swordman sucks and the dagger man is awesome, the swordman has a tactical advantage on reach and damage if he hits. It is also a fallacy to assume the larger weapon is drastically slower and clumsier. That is a hollywood fallacy when they want to show David take out Goliath.

On the topic of hitpoints vs. # of hits to kill (HTK). Like byronD pointed out, that's what HP originally wasy. Everybody had 1, until special units came out that needed more. The concept stuck as it increased and weapon damages were made to vary.

So all you're really doing is issuing 6 HP, and weapons do 1 damage each.

Here is a different idea, which simulates potential lethality:
every body gets 36 hit points.
Weapon hits do 6d6 damage.

The result is taking damage in the range of a nick (6dam) or a lethal blow (36dam). It's probable that 2 hits will kill you.

I'm relying on the bell curve rolling multiple dice generates. Obviously, you could do 6d6/6 round up and apply to the standard 6HP PC. But division is a crappy thing to do to players.

If you were really wierd, you could rule that different weapons have different dice piles, so long as their maximum sum = 36. Thus, maybe the dagger does 1d20+1d12 + 1d4 and the longsword does 9d4 damage.

 

[Joshua Randall]

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.

Sounds similar to how FATE handles damage. Which is a pretty good system. But it's not D&D.

 

[BriarMonkey]

It's D & D. Players like to know that they just did 80 points of damage on that power-attacked crit with the flaming two-handed large great axe. It's part of the excitement.

True, at higher levels, the keeping track of potentially many hundreds of hit points (amongs numerous combatants) can be tedious - but it is part of the game.

If the overall issue is trying to whittle the numbers down, then this proposal is just that - a paring down of numbers. It does nothing but make combat more deadly, and possibly quicker (which may be the aim).

But, such a system also removes many of the exciting elements that players look forward to, such as that big crit - or being able to one-shot that kobold that's been anoying them.

To go down a road like this requires a lot more than just whittling down Hit Points - you also need to address healing, crits, and pretty much all damage dealing mechanisms from spells to poisons to everything else.

In my opinion, it'd be a heck of a lot easier to keep the system and just restrict the number of hit points everyone gets at each level. That makes combat more deadly, and quicker, which appears to be the aim - and it doesn't require a reworking and rebalancing of all the combat mechanics.

Otherwise, as has been said, you are just renaming Hit Points to something else.