Hit Points - A Discussion of a "Solution"

[Charwoman Gene]

Your post advocates a

(*) gamist ( ) simulationist ( ) cinematic ( ) narrativist

approach to understanding hit points. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which may to vary from campaign to campaign and edition to edition.)

(X) It adds a significant amount of bookkeeping to combat.
( ) It means that most successful hits in combat must be described as misses.
( ) No one will be able to agree on how wounded someone appears to be
( ) It will stop debate for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Players will not put up with it
( ) DM's will not put up with it
( ) WotC will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much imagination from players
( ) Requires too much math from players
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many GMs cannot afford to lose players or alienate potential new players
(X) Casual gamers don't care about crap like this
( ) Character deaths become too random or frequent
( ) Characters are nigh unkillable.

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Poison damage on a successful hit.
( ) Lava
( ) People being stabbed through the eye and killing their enemy before dying
( ) Falling several miles can kill you.
(X) You can survive falling several miles.
( ) Suspension of disbelief issues due to game rule / world action discrepancies
( ) Suspension of disbelief issues due to excessive simulation
( ) Scaling damage at higher levels
( ) Housecats killing low-level mages
( ) Mowing down armies of weak enemies
( ) Heros having a chance to actually kill a dragon with a sword
(X) Specific injuries
(X) Mathematically deficient gamers


and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on computers is unacceptable
( ) This is too Anime
( ) 4E sucks
( ) OD&D sucks
( ) BXCMID&D sucks
( ) AD&D sucks
( ) AD&D2E sucks
( ) 3.X D&D sucks
( ) Pathfinder sucks
( ) OD&D sucks
( ) We should be able to talk about Edition differences without being censored
(X) Tracking damage should be simple
( ) Death spirals are not fun
( ) Your style of play is badwrongfun.
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it will satisfy everyone
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

An interesting reply - and informative in it's own way on several levels. I did not get many crosses (which I suppose is good thing).

Your post advocates a

(*) gamist ( ) simulationist ( ) cinematic ( ) narrativist

approach to understanding hit points.

I'd contend that in one way or another, I'm trying to take all those elements along for the ride. That in itself is a problem but I'm seeing where it takes me - I'll tell you when I get there (or not, if it fails miserably).

Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which may to vary from campaign to campaign and edition to edition.)

(X) It adds a significant amount of bookkeeping to combat.

No more so than in 3e/4e.

( ) Requires too much math from players

I thought you would have ticked this one. Again though, no more so than 3E/4E.

(X) Players will not put up with it
(X) Many GMs cannot afford to lose players or alienate potential new players
(X) Casual gamers don't care about crap like this

Hmmm...

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Falling several miles can kill you.
(X) You can survive falling several miles.

While true, it has been known to happen, it is something I would not like to try myself.

(X) Specific injuries

I didn't include my ideas on this - I should update this eventually.

(X) Mathematically deficient gamers

No moreso than 3E/4E fails to account for them.

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Tracking damage should be simple

I agree - or at least not too complex. I think I'm on the middle ground here. YMMV.

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it will satisfy everyone
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Most likely true. Thanks anyway.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Starbuck_II]

• Weapon Damage: Does not scale dramatically. No multiplier for criticals, no x3 or x7 damage for powers. Weapons deal a standardized amount of damage which is either effective (taken directly off of hit points) or not (taken off of combat points; or with a miss, no effect whatsoever).

Doesn't that make the scythe suck compared to the Greast sword?
Why use 2d4 when could have 2d6 if no multiplier.

Why not every weapon that has a X3 Multi adds +1 damage on a Crit, X4 adds +2, etc.

• Restoration of Combat Points: A five minute rest is enough to restore half your combat points. Rest for an hour and your back to your best and at full combat points. The aim here is that luck, resolve, divine favor quickly return, and fatigue becomes less of an issue. The need for a dedicated Cleric or Healer or Curing Wand is lessened.

So magic only heals Combat points?

Such obstacles are truly deadly and to be avoided at all costs. Some characters might have abilties that might help in these circumstances but really, not many people can survive a fall from 200ft.

People have fallen farther in real life from air planes with just a broken leg (which was fine after a few weeks rest).

I don't agree with this idea.

But your ideas have potential.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Doesn't that make the scythe suck compared to the Greast sword?
Why use 2d4 when could have 2d6 if no multiplier.

Why not every weapon that has a X3 Multi adds +1 damage on a Crit, X4 adds +2, etc.

A bit of a sidetrack here but I suppose it's related. This relates moreso to the rest of what I envisage for "my" game. I would prefer weaponry to mean a little more than it has in the past. What is it that separates a Scythe from a Greatsword?

For a start, a scythe is much less expensive and in game terms, I'd like that to mean something. Imagine a game where the tens, hundreds of thousands of gold pieces goes out the window (or in 4E the millions). Imagine magical devices are either just "expensive" (100gp to 500gp) or priceless (For this sword I will give you a kingdom type thing) or maybe double the price of what the mundane (but exquisitely crafted) item would be. A finely crafted greatsword (they simply don't come in standard or poor quality) costs well over a 100gp. The scythe on the other hand is both affordable and accessible. For most starting characters, it is something that they would most likely be familiar with proficiency-wise (where as a greatsword requires specific training).

I could go into my ideas related to proficiency with a set of weapons: unfamiliar, familiar, proficient, expertise, specialized, mastery but I'll leave that for another thread. Suffice to say that a novice is going to be better handling familiar weaponry (club, staff, farming implements such as a scythe etc.) than specialized weaponry (greatswords, flails, rapiers, bows) at low levels. They might be +5 to hit with their scythe but only +2 with a sword. (With time and training, the sword wielder will eclipse the farmer).

However, a sycthe is very nasty when you make a critical hit with it (as is a greatsword as are most weapons). You might give a small damage loading to represent this (+2 to damage or something, or even +1d4). However, a more interesting approach is to have a reactive combat ability where if you deal a critical to an opponent, you have a few nasty options that you can inflict upon them. Penalties for the rest of the combat, stepping out of combat for a round to check that their guts aren't on the ground somewhere near the attacker, dropping their weapon and so on are some of the places you could go. I prefer the idea of circumstances different to a penalty to this, bonus to that. However, such mathemtical things can always be included.

Anyway, I'd like weaponry to mean a little more than what it has in the past.

So magic only heals Combat points?

Hit Points
Divine(magical) rituals heal hit points and other malodies. The heal skill is also good for healing small numbers of hit points. Natural healing works but it's slower.
Combat Points
Combat points are quickly restored with either a short rest [half your combat points back], or a long rest [all your combat points back]. The aim here is that the bulk of your ability to survive a fight is quickly restored. Other inspirational effects as well as a second wind can help restore combat points in combat.

People have fallen farther in real life from air planes with just a broken leg (which was fine after a few weeks rest).

I don't agree with this idea.

I still think the basic hit point mechanic is sound - it would just be the falling damage system would need to be looked at. Still, what's the survival chance of falling out of a plane? I can remember a physics lecture at Sydney Uni discussing how a cat falling from a 5 story building was more likely to die than falling from a 30 story building (although we were discouraged from empirically verifying this). The situation being that a cat relaxes when it has reached it's terminal velocity meaning slightly less pressure on the vitals when it lands. A 5th story flung cat is still tensed up and so the pressure is going to straight through the poor thing's body. Mimicking this in D&D is most probably beyond the scope of simple gaming.
Still, perhaps there does need to be a falling mechanic that allows for the bizarre survival from 1000's of feat. Any suggestions?

But your ideas have potential.

Thank you. I appreciate the time and thought it took you to read and respond.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Charwoman Gene]

To be fair to the OP, my post was neither researched as well as it could be or did I really read his ideas.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Ah, HP... The problem with HP is that any solution/alternative to HP is worse than the HP themselves.

I disagree.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is something I whole-heartedly agree with. The necessity to max out a stat should never be overt or extreme. For me, I can divorce strength from the "to hit" modifier replacing it with a skill/proficiency modifier instead (but still have a minimum strength requirement for a weapon), but I can't divorce it from damage. If you hit with greater strength, you deal more damage. If you hit with greater accuracy (dexterity), you deal more damage.

I like the idea of this too - damn we think alike. For me, extra skill equates to extra damage. If you are not familiar with a weapon or do not have the strength (or dexterity) to wield it properly, then it just gets treated as an improvised weapon. You may as well be attacking with a big chair as much as a two-handed war axe if you are not proficient with it (or have the strength to wield it correctly). In turn, you can't threaten an opponent with it as effectively so your Melee Defense effectively becomes your Mobile Defense.

Herremann the Wise

For the strength issue, I thought about it a lot and decided to go with the OD&D style scale. Seeing as an ogre gets +2 to damage for having great strength there wasn't much wiggle room to provide bonuses to the human STR range without bonus creep. To be fair I made sure that there are no damage penalties for a 3 STR either. It might take getting used to but I think that not having a feeling that a character is " sub par" for having less than a near maximum in a stat is worth it.

As a side benefit, the system is balanced so that if that halfling wants to use a greatsword, then let him. Damage comes from skill so let the little guy have fun.

For realism I would have used damage based on STR and modified by weapon ( GURPS again ).

The only problem with doing that goes back to the original topic........hit points. Basing damage on a STR score that doesn't scale with skyrocketing hit points would mean that high level combat would take days to finish. I have run GURPS combats with critters that had a 15+ HT and 70+ HP and they never end.

Skill based damage allows for scaling with level better than having to inflate stats. A grand master of the broadsword will doing something like 3d6+5 per hit and getting multiple attacks. With training being level controlled its easy to keep the fighters damage from being completely overshadowed by casters.

It also helps take care of the minion problem. Since NPC's and PC's don't have to follow the same rules, a bugbear thats scary to a first level character that only does 1-6 points of damage will become a speed bump to the guy doing 3d6+5. Give that bugbear some decent training and it becomes a viable threat to the higher level fighter without giving it character levels or turning it into a balloon with 1 hit point. Its the same bugbear with more skill yet it still drops in a good hit.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Skill based damage allows for scaling with level better than having to inflate stats. A grand master of the broadsword will doing something like 3d6+5 per hit and getting multiple attacks. With training being level controlled its easy to keep the fighters damage from being completely overshadowed by casters.

I remember a designer comment for 4E mentioning - skill in weapon use is no longer represented by an higher attack bonus, but by dealing more damage. I think that's a good approach in general whenever you want your "math" to work out. (at least in dice + modifier vs DC systems. ndx and d% systems are possibly different...)

Theoretically, 4E would work entirely without the half level bonus and magical item bonuses, balance being entirely* unaffected. 3E wouldn't.


*) Okay,not entirely. Between differing levels, the bonus might still matter. A higher level monster is not just balanced by extra HP, but also extra defenses and attacks when used against lower level PCs, and so on.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I remember a designer comment for 4E mentioning - skill in weapon use is no longer represented by an higher attack bonus, but by dealing more damage. I think that's a good approach in general whenever you want your "math" to work out. (at least in dice + modifier vs DC systems. ndx and d% systems are possibly different...)

Theoretically, 4E would work entirely without the half level bonus and magical item bonuses, balance being entirely* unaffected. 3E wouldn't.


*) Okay,not entirely. Between differing levels, the bonus might still matter. A higher level monster is not just balanced by extra HP, but also extra defenses and attacks when used against lower level PCs, and so on.

Oh there will be higher attack bonuses too. Each level of training will provide better hit bonuses, damage, and other goodies such as bonuses to maneuvers and possible defense bonuses depending on the weapon.
Basic balance: more raw damage= less special goodies.

I am using weapon mastery from the companion rules as my inspiration for all this, but doing some more streamlining and balancing with it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well I'm glad that you people are doing this! Instead of getting into another 20+ page topic about HP, you all decide to do something constructive. If more people took this appoarch, there would be less pointless topics here. I hope you all create the system that makes you happy!