Hit Point Ceiling

[Dandu]

The other side of the argument is that it makes fighters fight smart. No longer can they wade into untold hordes without really worrying about being hurt, spreading death and mayhem in their path. I'm thinking of the scene in LotR: TTT where Aragorn and Gimly jump off the battlements at Helm's Deep onto the bridge into a sea of orcs and goblins.

A rule like this wouldn't be one for the super heroic games who want to emulate that scene. But, for the GMs who see that scene and say, "Riiighht. Not in my game," this rule might be useful.

Instead of just wading in, fighting one-on-one (or one-on-nine), and doing the deed, this rule would make a fighter's player think more strategically and tactically.

Instead of, "Hey! There's 12 Orcs! Let's go fight 'em!", the rule would encourage a player to think more along the lines of, "Hey! There's 12 Orcs! I'll get their attention and draw them back here. You two spring an amush from the sides, and we'll catch 'em by surprise."

Catch them by surprise. Assuming everyone takes out an orc, there are 9 remaining. 3 to each PC. Now, due to the low HP ceiling, a lucky hit by even one orc could KO the fighter, so despite all his stratiegery, there's a good chance that he ends up dead because combat is so lethal.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Do you actually know anybody who really LIKES 'gritty'? All 'gritty' rules ever seem to do is make the game harder, more deadly, and consequently less enjoyably for somebody who likes his character to survive and accomplish something. And the game world usually gets duller, as well. More shades of gray, less actual COLORS, you know?

I like gritty. And the rest of the statement is bunk.

 

[Jimlock]

Characters do indeed die. For good. It sucks if it happens. However, it makes for good roleplaying, and when characters do die in amazing ways, it's actually really cool. If they died in a way that seems trivial, the other PCs tend to raise their "meaningless death" as something to strive against. The dead PC essentially becomes a warcry. That works for us.

I totally agree...

please let the PCs die for god sake!!!!!!

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Such a change wouldn't make fighters play smarter. It would make people stop playing fighters.

 

[Dandu]

Let's put in some hard numbers here.

A level 15 warrior like Krag would have 66 HP instead of 183 HP, while a level 15 wizard could have 44 HP instead of 129 HP. There's the question of what happens to classes like bards, who are partial casters and half warriors, skillmonkies like the rogue, and clerics, who are full casters and wade into melee with great frequency. Let's assume they get 2.5*CON for HP.

So, a level 15 rogue would get 55 HP, as does the party cleric. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the party roles are relatively straightforward; rogue finds traps, does skill related things, and sneak attacks with two weapons (8d6 sneak attack, assume the AB is -4 points lower than the fighter) , cleric heals and buffs (so as to not complicate combat), wizard casts spells from the rear, fighter fights in the front, that sort of thing.

What are the challenges that this party would face?

 

[Empirate]

Seems many people like gritty after all... I'm surprised, this being a D&D forum.

The D&D ruleset doesn't lend itself to gritty play, in my opinion. It's highly abstract and tries to balance game option wherever possible (even though it fails in this latter regard in high-level play). IMO a game system to support grittiness must do the two opposite things: make things 'realistic', and remove game balance from the design's intention.


For example, Hârnmaster takes the realism approach: it takes loads of rolls to get a single round of one-on-one combat done. Taking a wound or two is likely to cost you the battle, regardless how tough you are. You're more likely to die of shock or, later, wound infection, than you are of dying to a stab to the face - even though the latter is still highly likely to happen, and if it happens, to be the end of you. Well armored characters will rarely lose to unarmored characters, even if the unarmored one is the greatly more experienced combatant. Armor (while being extremely useful for keeping you alive in battle) is massively expensive, slows you down, and gives you harsh penalties to just about everything while you wear it. Wounds can bleed so much that you have to give up fighting just to patch them up, even if they're otherwise far from fatal. Weapons can and will break, yes, even your prized ancestor's blade. And so on.

Hârnmaster also throws balance out the window. Some skills are vastly more powerful than others. Some PCs have extremely useful natural psionics simply by chance, while others don't. Spellcasters are dead meat for much of the game, unless they survive a long time by great big chance (and just plain cowardice), in which case they can dominate everything. Being born under the right starsign gives you very tangible benefits (huge potential increases to combat skills), while other starsigns make you better at Brewing or Tending Livestock. Fighting with a shield is just plain better in every way than fighting without a shield. A rigid caste system ensures nobles get everything they want, while farmers get nothing - and this even translates into PC power. And so on.


In my opinion, if you want 'gritty', there's systems that simply lend themselves better to it than D&D or its derivates. I can totally understand people saying 'but I like to play D&D, AND I want it to be more gritty'. Just saying that other games might be more to your liking, if only because you don't HAVE to think about game balance so much if you're not playing D&D.

 

[Aus_Snow]

You might like the Grim & Gritty variant rules for d20, Water Bob. Fixed Hit Points, for a start.

I imagine you could graft them onto Conan, or whatever else, without too much fuss.

Still out there somewhere, in the wild wild webs, I'm sure.

 

[Water Bob]

Seems many people like gritty after all... I'm surprised, this being a D&D forum.

The D&D ruleset doesn't lend itself to gritty play, in my opinion.

If you mean the d20 system (specifically 3.0 and 3.5), then I'd say just look around a bit. There are tons of variants on that system, from the ultra gritty to the super heroic. Heck, just look at the 3.5 DMG with all the variants it suggests.

As I said above, the 3.0/3.5 d20 system is extremely customizable. It even has a pretty good range between abstract game play and a simulationist play.

It just depends on what collection of variants you use (or your d20 game of choice uses).

You might like the Grim & Gritty variant rules for d20, Water Bob. Fixed Hit Points, for a start.

I've seen it. Neat set of rules. I might even have a copy of it around it, somewhere.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I play the Conan RPG. No Raise Dead spell in that game. When your character dies, he's toast.

Ironically, Conan the movie has raise dead used on him.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Instead of fixing hit points, why not change the Massive Damage rules?

Massive Damage
If you ever sustain a single attack deals 50 points of damage or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take 50 points of damage or more from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt 50 or more points of damage itself, the massive damage rule does not apply.

Injury and Death :: d20srd.org

Massive Damage Threshold and Results :: d20srd.org

I use a combination of variants. Your Massive Damage Threshold equals your Constitution plus your Hit Dice, the Save DC is 15 + 1/10 damage, and failure leaves you at hit points equal to the margin. This makes combat deadlier for everyone, but it rewards characters for good saves, good defenses, and the ability to deal large damage to single targets-- such as the long-lamented non-casters.