Hit Points and D&D

[MerricB]

Note that I seek neither to replace hit points with another system nor to eliminate hit point scaling with level. I would merely like to compress it, so that combat is actually less deadly at lower levels and so that the hit point ratios between low level characters and high level characters remain high but are not as high as they are.

A note: If AC and attack bonuses remained constant, along with damage, and Con bonuses were removed...

A 1st level PC would take "1 hit" to kill.
A 10th level PC would take "10 hits" to kill.
A 20th level PC would take "20 hits" to kill.

So, a 10th level PC facing 10 1st level PCs would be a much fairer contest. (Actually weighted towards the 1st level PCs!)

Think of the system in terms of "hits", and work out what you want the thresholds to be. Design from there.

Cheers!

 

[Roman]

A note: If AC and attack bonuses remained constant, along with damage, and Con bonuses were removed...

A 1st level PC would take "1 hit" to kill.
A 10th level PC would take "10 hits" to kill.
A 20th level PC would take "20 hits" to kill.

So, a 10th level PC facing 10 1st level PCs would be a much fairer contest. (Actually weighted towards the 1st level PCs!)

Think of the system in terms of "hits", and work out what you want the thresholds to be. Design from there.

Cheers!

This is a good way of thinking about it. I would probably like to see something along the lines of:

1st level PC: "2 hits" to kill
10th level PC: "6 hits" to kill
20th level PC: "11 hits" to kill

Ratios:

20th level : 10th level --> 1.8333... : 1 --> approx. 2 : 1
20th level : 1st level --> 5.5 : 1 --> approx. 6 : 1
10th level : 1st level --> 3 : 1 --> approx. 3 : 1


Essentially, this would amount to a halved hit point progression with an extra bonus at first level equivalent to 1 level.

Of course, higher level characters would still remain much more capable of surviving than lower level ones due to increases in AC. Also, some downward adjustment of damage dealing capabilities of higher CR creatures and possibly spellcasters would then be desirable.

 

[philreed]

I've got two $1 PDFs out that detail an alternate damage tracking system.

Wounds, Bruises, and Blood tracks individual wounds (and healing the wounds is tracked separately) and includes rules for bleeding, tearing open wounds during strenuous activity, and a few other small rules options.

Broken Bones builds on the previous PDF and is a detailed system for crushing your opponent's skull.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

If you want a grim & gritty system, where lethality is high... go with VP/WP. Heroism is irrelevant, luck rules all.

It is utterly the wrong fit for D&D. If you want a high-level character to be threatened by a low-level character, you lose the opportunity for heroism. It's a system that wprks against the main strength of D&D: that combat is fun. Combat where you die every four encounters is not fun.

The threat of death does have to be there, and it is in D&D, but it's death because you pushed too far, not because some commoner rolled a 20.

Cheers!

As the referee of a ‘grim ‘n’ gritty game (HârnMaster) I’d agree with much of this, though I’ve no idea what VP/WP is/are.

Though I don’t referee DnD, the rules are well thought out, and fit the ‘heroic’ style of play. I’m not certain that tweaking the rules is the answer. There are a lot of alternatives if you want a change.

From my experiences with HârnMaster (which doesn’t use hit points, but a graphic injuries system) heroism is NOT irrelevant and luck DOESN’T rule all. I’d argue that characters who enter any combat knowing that they may die are being more heroic, not less. Okay, they can’t each kill a dozen bandits without raising a sweat, in fact, faced with odds of 4 versus 12 they’d retreat or negotiate. But player behaviour changes, they don’t look for so many fights, there is more politicking, and better preparation. But it’s not wrong, it’s just different.

 

[Celebrim]

High lethality doesn't necessary make general combat more deadly for the heroes, it just forces a party to adopt a much more tactical mindset to advance.

Special obs forces like navy seals take few casualties due to high levels of training, tactics, and equipment. They never go into an area without a concrete plan, and always carry gear for the situation. If that's the kind of game you want to run, then a gritty system can work fine.

Except that special forces do take high casualties. When your success depends entirely on a plan working right, one slip up, one bit of bad luck, one bit of bad intelligence, one bad plan from higher up and you end up in a massacre high degree of training or not.

I’d argue that characters who enter any combat knowing that they may die are being more heroic, not less.

I'd argue the same thing. In my opinion, the citizen soldiers of Rome, the rowers of Athens, or dare I say the volunteers of the USA were and are being more heroic than Odyseus or Heracles. That's because culturally I admire the virtue of the ordinary, in the same fashion that Gandalf and Aragorn consider Sam and Frodo more heroic than they themselves are. But the classical hero is not man but superman. In the classical model, the heroes of the LotR is not hobbits, but Aragorn because it is Aragorn which possesses the virtues of the classical hero - "the hardiest of mortal men", the great captain, the fell and heavy handed swordsman. The word 'hero', as used by the greeks, is an answer to the question, "How should I live my life?" The answer is, "You should strive to obtain the virtues demonstrated by the protagonist of this story." The hero must not only be virtuous, but superlative in virtue and typically of cultures with heroic moral standards - martial virtue. The idea is that the protagonist has a degree of virtue which exceeds that of any of the hearers, and that the hearer is inspired thereby to try to live his life 'better' (whatever is considered 'better' by the culture that tells the story) even if - and perhaps because - he can never match what the hero does.

The influence of the heroic is still pretty profound on our culture. Every comic book, every action movie, depends on a 'hero' of this classic mold who does things that require a more than mortal prowess. D&D models that 'cinematic' hero, the hero of the Illiad or Song of Roland, quite well.

 

[DragonLancer]

For me, the D&D HP system works fine. IMO ignoring realism, it fits both the game and genre.

 

[Mallus]

While I've got no real beef with this particular sacred cow...

... I gotta say, the Toughness save + Hero Point in Mutants and Masterminds is far superior.

 

[shilsen]

While I've got no real beef with this particular sacred cow...

... I gotta say, the Toughness save + Hero Point in Mutants and Masterminds is far superior.

I'd add the caveat - for a certain type of game. I really like the M&M system, but I'm not sure how well that would fit into D&D. If nothing else, it would very significantly change the feel of combat in the game. Not necessarily in a bad way, of course. I really am going to have to run a D&D-ish game with M&M someday and see.

 

[Mallus]

I really am going to have to run a D&D-ish game with M&M someday and see.

So do I. CITY's practically begging for an M&M makeover...

A game that stresses the kind of tactics and resource management inherent in the 'standard model' should probably stick to hit points. They facilitate the kind of stupid-smart gameplay that's the hallmark of D&D, where adventures are like suicidally brave accountants, the kind of people who think one man versus twenty is reasonable odds, yet spend hours dithering over optimal equipment purchases

 

[Harm]

This is a good way of thinking about it. I would probably like to see something along the lines of:

1st level PC: "2 hits" to kill
10th level PC: "6 hits" to kill
20th level PC: "11 hits" to kill

Well since a wizard does 2d6 damage/level and gets 1d4 hp/level + con, an 11th level wizard can kill a 20th level wizard in 1 hit. Or in the case of fireball 30+ 11th level wizards all packed in a tight bunch!