Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I haven't seen d20 Modern, but the mechanic Eric mentioned sounds similar to something I was playing around with for my Basic D&D campaign. Rather than using CON as the threshold though, I thought 1/2 of Current HPs would work better--that way it would scale automatically as characters increased in level. It also makes serious wounds more likely as the HPs are whittled away. The penalties that apply upon taking damage of 1/2 or greater HPs would depend upon the campaign. For example...

If you want a truly deadly campaign, save or fall dying/dead. Making this roll but falling to zero or fewer HPs would simply mean unconsciousness.

For the converse, where PCs are more likely to fall unconsciouss and live to fight another day, make the save or be knocked out/incapacitated--with negative HPs being dealt with as usual.

As another option, every time this threshold is exceeded, some cumulative penalty will apply to all of the characters actions--for example, maybe -2/-10% per serious wound suffered.

The variations are infinite.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Just what makes the possibility of an intstant kill stupid or a problem? The same thing that makes HP stupid or a problem, really: the user who uses the wrong tool or expects it to do what it is not designed to do.

Sheesh...

Hit Points/Vitality Points are the main defence mechanism for high-level characters. If a mook can roll a 20 and kill them instantly, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SKILL OR POWER, that is out-of-genre for heroic fantasy, such as Star Wars and most D&D settings.

Geoff.

 

[s/LaSH]

Heh, I thought my suggested rule would be broken...

The VP/WP system is more up my alley, to be honest, but the idea of instant-hit kills is a little deterring... if you have WP equal to your CON, your CON should increase with XP perhaps a bit faster than it does now. I always thought characters should be able to boost their ability scores faster... it made more sense.

But yes, a system where most of the damage you take is just fatigue is good. In fact, that's the basis of my homebrew system - characters can get beaten down fairly easily, but give them a chance and they can clear their head and get back in the thick of it. It's so much more cinematic. It also makes sense for dealing with healing - if HP are supposed to represent fatigue and luck and so forth and not actual physical injury until they're very low, what do you say to your cleric? "I'm feeling unlucky and a bit off-balance. Please regenerate my flesh."

The critical hit thing that would allow you to insta-kill under such a system is still a little flawed, in my opinion. I always liked the idea of saying 'you crit when you roll (say) 10 higher than their AC, and if you roll in the threat range you just roll another d20 and add it on' instead of having the same chances. That way, catching someone flat-footed is more advantageous, and goblins regularly get cleaved into little tiny pieces by high-level opponents. I dunno, that one makes more sense to me than my previous (broken) suggestion.

 

[mmadsen]

Just thought I'd point out that a dozen archers, all flanking at close range, could easily kill a level 10 hero.

How? They'd be lucky to score more than a single hit, doing 4.5 points of damage. (Flanking, in the game-mechanic sense, only applies to melee attacks, by the way.)

 

[mmadsen]

Firstly, The idea of increasing hit points through level gain is I think highly realistic. More experienced warriors and Fighters (Adventurers in general) should be harder to kill because they would be.

No one's arguing that experienced warriors shouldn't be tougher and shouldn't last longer in combat than peasant militiamen. The issue is whether escalating Hit Point totals are the best way to model that. There are alternatives. Increasing AC achieves much the same effect -- high-level heroes last longer in combat -- without as much wackiness. Even if we keep Hit Points as is, widening Crit Threat ranges could go a long way.

It is highly unlikely that a 1st level guard will encounter a 20th level fighter let alone actually fight him. I think this reflects an element of reality. Whereas it is more likely that people of closer levels will encounter each other and this makes for fairer although not necessarily equal fight.

Huh?

Secondly, Because D&D has an optional rule for Instant Kill i.e 20/20/death there should be no problem for anybody requiring an insta-death situation. This is of course the great leveller and is an additional weapon in the arsenal of low level Characters and NPC`s.

People don't want a "great leveller" though. They still want the heroes to be more powerful than grunts; they just want the combat to feel more plausible. The Instant Kill rule has heroes no more likely to insta-kill grunts than the other way around. That's not the goal.

Thirdly, The only aspect of Hit Points I have a problem with is the ability to describe damage taken in terms that are realistic.

Not just realistic, but plausible, visual, and fun (depending on your taste). Many people want a "hit" to be a hit -- even a hard hit -- and D&D doesn't allow that without scaling up to ever bigger, badder monsters.

 

[Psion]

Hit Points/Vitality Points are the main defence mechanism for high-level characters. If a mook can roll a 20 and kill them instantly, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SKILL OR POWER, that is out-of-genre for heroic fantasy, such as Star Wars and most D&D settings.

Feh.

It's out of genre, because the genre is a contigious whole and is exactly how you define it? I think not. Some people find it "out of genre" for characters not to even flinch when faced down with a firing squad of loaded crossbows.

 

[mmadsen]

Some of the groups went out and evaluated other systems, and in the end, each group has dedcided that we like D&D, and we'll take the good with the bad and move on.

Ideally though, we'd take the good and fix the bad. Frankly, most other systems don't try to take the good from D&D; they try to be as un-D&D as possible: complex & detailed, unheroic, etc. What if we had a system as simple as D&D, that played quickly, that provided dramatic imagery, that was just as heroic, and that seemed to make sense? It's not like our choice is D&D vs. Advanced GURPS with nothing in between.

 

[hong]

Ideally though, we'd take the good and fix the bad. Frankly, most other systems don't try to take the good from D&D; they try to be as un-D&D as possible: complex & detailed, unheroic, etc. What if we had a system as simple as D&D, that played quickly, that provided dramatic imagery, that was just as heroic, and that seemed to make sense?

Who's "we", homeboy?


Hong "I know MY clones don't want any of it" Ooi

 

[hong]

Feh.

Channelling St Baldwin, Psion?

It's out of genre, because the genre is a contigious whole and is exactly how you define it? I think not. Some people find it "out of genre" for characters not to even flinch when faced down with a firing squad of loaded crossbows.

What, you mean like how Han Solo charged a squad of stormtroopers in the Death Star? If people find this "out of genre", they shouldn't be playing Star Wars. The same holds for D&D.

 

[DM with a vengence]

I think that hitpoints actually do a pretty good job of modeling the ability of heroic people to survive bad situations.

The dagger to the throat, well even a 3rd level character won't be afraid of 1d4+Str points of damage, and so we can assume that the dagger never actually touches him. When the thug makes his attack, your character grabs his wrist, flips him over his shoulder, and then dropkicks the unlucky assailent across the room. Against a single archer, you dodge to the side as he releases the arrow and attack.

My proposed fix is that in one of these situations, the opponents make initiative checks, with the helpless person at -10. The person holding gets a full round if he wins, while the person being held only gets a standard. This gives some advantage to getting the drop on someone, and also increases the deadliness of being held by a high-level person, because they get multiple attacks and possibly sneak-attack damage.