Hit Points and D&D

[Celebrim]

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.

Depends on what you want to do and where in the spectrum of prowess you want to put the PC's. In an earlier post, I wrote:

"If your design goal was to provide complete immunity for high level characters against the attacks of low level characters, you'd adopt something like a defensive save/resisted roll. Typically you see this design approach in 'super-heroic' games where you want any number of bullets to just bounce off the hero if they are being fired by henchmen, or any number of laser blasts to fly by the hero so long as they are being fired by storm troopers."

Which is basically what a Toughness save + Hero Points lets you do in MM. You get a save that pretty much always works and in the rare event that it doesn't, you get a freebie. It works this way because the superheroic PC's are supposed to be at the high end of prowess amongst things in the universe. Depending on how you implement them, damage saves are really great at simulating scale, and handling interactions between widely different prowesses - much better than hit points. For an improper use of hit points in the design of a game, see Rifts.

Interestingly, you can use the same damage save mechanic to make an extremely lethal/gritty/horror game as well. Instead of making the hero's toughness formidable, simply make the hero's toughness weak in comparison to the challenges. Now, instead of being able to act heroicly and capable of shrugging off most attacks with impunity, the characters will drop like flies. For example, in our hypothetical system, suppose that PC's did a damage save on a d6 and to win your save you had to beat the damage roll on a d6. Failure produced a wound level for each multiple of the save with something like 5 wound levels being death. So, a hit of 4 and a damage save of 2 produced two wound levels. That's already pretty lethal, but if you start throwing in higher scales - like say a giant or vehical mounted weapon that does 2d6 damage or even 3d6 damage, you get a system that is 'realistic' but it realisticly squashes characters. Something like that might be good for a horror game though.

Notice that are implementation of scale is great, but our fine resolution is crap. Things like implementing the difference between a battle axe and punch would be hard in this system. Also notice that we've got alot of dice rolling (if we wanted to differentiate between dodging and toughness we'd do up to four rolls per attack), and that we've got alot of math (division!). Finally, notice that the system just begs for 'hero points' because its really really swinging. You can go from being in great health to dead in one blow. It's like the difference between soccer and football. In soccer, scores seem to come out of nowhere. In football, scores can come out of nowhere, but more often you can mark off the progress toward them. Hit points give you that 'marker' of field position. Is this better? Depends on what you want.

There is such a thing as a badly designed system. You can have a system that is unnecessarily complex. You can have a system that's too simple to do much with. You can have a system that has mechanics which interfere with its flavor and design goals. But amongst two well designed sytems, there is no such thing as a 'superior' system. It's only superior for what you want to do. D20 is a well designed system. There are things it doesn't do well, but that is true of any system you could point to.

 

[mmadsen]

There is such a thing as a badly designed system. You can have a system that is unnecessarily complex. You can have a system that's too simple to do much with. You can have a system that has mechanics which interfere with its flavor and design goals. But amongst two well designed sytems, there is no such thing as a 'superior' system. It's only superior for what you want to do.

You make an excellent point, but I would rephrase it slightly: Between two perfectly designed sytems, there is no such thing as a 'superior' system.

 

[Mallus]

"If your design goal was to provide complete immunity for high level characters against the attacks of low level characters...

The funny thing is M&M doesn't work that way. It's quite possible for a powerful character to suffer a catastrophic blow from a mook. Which is why the Hero Points are nice...

...where you want any number of bullets to just bounce off the hero...

But in M&M that's not a product of the 'damage save' mechanic itself. 'Bullet immunity' comes from having 'hardened' protection (I forget the exact term) that ignores all damage of a lower rank.

I currently play a superhero that without hard defenses. If he were to face a squad of machine gun toting henchmen he'd go down in a hail of bullets and spent Hero Points.

Which is basically what a Toughness save + Hero Points lets you do in MM.

Again, no. How familiar are you with M&M?

You get a save that pretty much always works and in the rare event that it doesn't, you get a freebie.

The base damage save is DC 15 + attack power rank, meaning in a battle between evenly matched opponents, each successful hit only has a %25 chance of being 'shrugged off'.

That means the other %75 of the time the hit character is wounded, and since the severity of the wound is based off the how much you miss the damage save by, any hit has the potential to knock you out. And most characters only have 1-2 Hero Points to use in a session.

Things like implementing the difference between a battle axe and punch would be hard in this system.

What's the difference between an axe and a punch to a D&D character with 100 HP?

Also notice that we've got alot of dice rolling (if we wanted to differentiate between dodging and toughness we'd do up to four rolls per attack), and that we've got alot of math (division!).

Yes, your intentionally cumbersome example is, in fact, intentionally cumbersome.

M&M has two rolls, one to hit, one to resist damage. Same number as D&D.

You can go from being in great health to dead in one blow.

So which is it? Is a damage save mechanic too lethal or too heroic? And for the record, that's a feature, not a bug.

D20 is a well designed system.

It is. But it would be better with a damage save...

Is is so hard to let go of mechanic which makes it is impossible to even hurt a naked man with a dagger hit (assuming the naked man has a few class levels)?

Unless of course, the attacker is a master rogue, or the naked man is tied to a post.

 

[Celebrim]

Again, no. How familiar are you with M&M?

Barely. I've never played, which may disqualify my opinion. But I remember skimming through the rules years ago and being very unimpressed. I was intrigued at first glance by how comprehensive the character creation rules were, but the more I looked the more I saw a game that was designed as a one off or short campaign or otherwise change of pace and which depended basically entirely on social conventions to be playable. It looked like a min/max'ers paradise, and the combat rules pretty much depended on villains always pulling thier punches and not trying to kill anyone. Plus, the D20 system starts breaking down as numbers get close to 20, and starting characters with highly inefficient builds (the sample characters) could get dangerously close to 20 right off the bat.

The more you talk about the system, the less I like it.

For one thing, it sounds like damage is resisted by a straight up saving throw. I didn't remember that. That's awful. Anyone that has DMed or played high level D20 knows all about the swinginess of saving throws. Going down at random just cause you threw a '1' is not fun for either PC's or GMs.

That means the other %75 of the time the hit character is wounded, and since the severity of the wound is based off the how much you miss the damage save by, any hit has the potential to knock you out. And most characters only have 1-2 Hero Points to use in a session.

That's a really bizarre decision for a game which is trying to model superheroics.

What's the difference between an axe and a punch to a D&D character with 100 HP?

About 44 blows, not counting the effects of criticals.

Yes, your intentionally cumbersome example is, in fact, intentionally cumbersome.

Only somewhat. It's cumbersome only because it involves no passive rolls. Normally systems try to cut down on the number of rolls by minimizing the number of contested rolls. For example, D&D doesn't contest the attack roll and instead fixes the result of the defense roll at 10. This means a simplified combat resolution (appropriate to a hp based game), at the expense of making 'to hit' effects somewhat more predictable. If you actually had to roll that defense roll, you'd be vulnerable more often to low powered attacks and vulnerable less often to high powered attacks (stuff in the middle would be largely a wash). Likewise, we could do away with the division by fixing the increments ('for every 3 you beat the roll by' sorta rules). All of these produce tradeoffs.

So which is it? Is a damage save mechanic too lethal or too heroic?

As I said, it depends on how you implement it. Many damage saves are implemented with dice pools (West End Star Wars comes to mind). Dice pools produce more tightly clustered results and fewer extremes than the linear saves in D20. This makes for less randomness and reduces the importance of hero points outside truly heroic acts. But even with a linear system, imagine how different MM would play if the base DC of a toughness save for heroes was 10 or even 5. Getting wounded by anything but very powerful attack would be rare indeed.

On the other hand, I wonder how much you'd enjoy MM if every attack was lethal damage.

And for the record, that's a feature, not a bug.

I might have thought so to once. When I was younger I use to be annoyed by the lack of realism in combat systems. After DMing for 20 years and playing a dozen or so systems, I'm much less inclined to feel that realistic combat is a valuable attribute of a gaming system in and of itself.

It is. But it would be better with a damage save...

I don't see how. If I had to go either way, I'm inclined to think it would be better without saving throws at all.

Is is so hard to let go of mechanic which makes it is impossible to even hurt a naked man with a dagger hit (assuming the naked man has a few class levels)?

You are speaking to someone who used to referee GURPS. Actually, beyond GURPS. Have you ever heard of GULLIVER?

Unless of course, the attacker is a master rogue, or the naked man is tied to a post.

I have no problem with the notion that an alert and experienced fighter is not severely wounded with a knife easily, but even to the extent that I find D&D unrealistic it doesn't bother me. Why is it such a great thing for a DM that the PC's might be dropped unpredictably by any given combat? It's like having Bodaks on the random encounter table all the time. Anyway, in the particular example of the knife, even ordinary people are not killed easily by knives unless a sensitive target is hit. It's not usually the knife wound that kills you, but the blood loss (in fact, its almost always the blood loss, and in serious cases the blood comes out quickly.)

 

[Hussar]

Any change to the hp system ultimately hurts the PC's. If you make combat more lethal, it will not make the players more cautious particularly, it will just mean that they roll up more characters.

 

[mmadsen]

Any change to the hp system ultimately hurts the PC's.

That's quite obviously not true. Certainly most proposed changes have been driven by an urge to make the game more lethal, and that hurts the PCs, but it's silly to assert that any change must hurt the PCs.

 

[mmadsen]

As far as I am concerned, hit points have several advantages:

• They are ablative and a resource to be managed, hence providing
• They are a simple mechanic

They are simple, and that is good, but I don't see that as a function of their being a resource to be managed.

What is important to realize is that most alternatives to hit points have not been designed with the goals of simplicity and heroism.

They also have, in my view, several disadvantages in their current incarnation:

• They provide complete immunity to high level characters against attacks by low level characters
• The spread in hit points between low levels and high levels is too high, making high level characters a world apart from low level characters by a margin that I find somewhat uncomfortable
• Problems of internal logical consistency (hit points represent not how tough a character is, but how welll he can roll with the damage... but than why are they modified by Con and not Dex...)

I would not say that hit points make high-level characters totally immune to low-level characters -- they might eventually drop down to zero -- nor would I say that it's bad for high-level characters to be in another league from low-level characters, but escalating hit points do make anyone powerful impossible to kill with the first, second, third, etc. spear thrust. And they make it impossible for anyone not powerful to survive a second, third, or fourth spear thrust.

Hit points certainly have problems of consistency:

• Hit points are only lost when you're hit.
• How many hit points you lose is a function of how damaging the attack is.
• How many hit points you get is a function of toughness: Con bonus, levels in "tough" classes, etc., not Dex bonus, plot protection, etc. Hit points aren't suppressed by being flanked, etc.
• Hit points require healing.
• But hit points are arguably "luck" points that represent not really getting hit, so we can believe an unarmored man consistently takes dozens of spear thrusts and sword slashes without harm.

I think we could keep D&D just as simple and heroic with fewer logical oddities by moving to a roll to-hit followed by a roll to-hurt (incapacitate), with action points to protect the important characters, whether they be high-level fighters or lowly halflings carrying a great burden.

 

[Mallus]

Heh... I forgot about this thread.

I've never played, which may disqualify my opinion.

A little...

But I remember skimming through the rules years ago and being very unimpressed.

The 2nd edition is much better, though mainly for clearing up some character creation issues.

I was intrigued at first glance by how comprehensive the character creation rules were

My group consists of a spinning speedster, a brick in Greek armor, and the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling, each modeled to their players satisfaction.

but the more I looked the more I saw a game that was designed as a one off or short campaign or otherwise change of pace...

Why do you say that?

and which depended basically entirely on social conventions to be playable.

Isn't that true of any superhero RPG? Or any RPG? Wait, make that any game.

It looked like a min/max'ers paradise, and the combat rules pretty much depended on villains always pulling thier punches and not trying to kill anyone.

What superhero RPG isn't a mix/maxer's paradise, if the player chooses to go that route? And you're just flat wrong about needing to pull punches.

The more you talk about the system, the less I like it.

I'm doing a bad job, then.

For one thing, it sounds like damage is resisted by a straight up saving throw.

Yes.

That's awful.

It works well.

Going down at random just cause you threw a '1' is not fun for either PC's or GMs.

That's what Hero Points are for.

That's a really bizarre decision for a game which is trying to model superheroics.

I wasn't clear on this. Any attack that does damage has the potential to knock you out. Depending on your build, many attacks won't do damagel. In my example I was thinking of two heroes of equal power rank slugging it out.

About 44 blows, not counting the effects of criticals.

Funny. But your point was about how well a system models damage from different weapons.
Is there a meaningful difference between the avg. 1 pt. of fist damage and 4.5 pts. of battleaxe damage to a character w/100 HP --and fights rarely last more than 10-15 rounds?

It's cumbersome only because it involves no passive rolls.

It was cumbersome because you're suggesting a damage save system needs 4+ die rolls. I'll reiterate, M&M's has 2.

('for every 3 you beat the roll by' sorta rules).

Yes. Except reverse it. Damage severity is determined by how badly you blow the save.

On the other hand, I wonder how much you'd enjoy MM if every attack was lethal damage.

Not much. Fortunately it doesn't play out like that.

After DMing for 20 years and playing a dozen or so systems, I'm much less inclined to feel that realistic combat is a valuable attribute of a gaming system in and of itself.

I choose my example poorly. I don't want more realistic combat, I want combat that's better at modeling fiction and film. David can't drop Goliath in D&D. Ever. I think that's a flaw in the system.

If I had to go either way, I'm inclined to think it would be better without saving throws at all.

Interesting. Why? Start a new thread maybe?

Have you ever heard of GULLIVER?

Nope.

I have no problem with the notion that an alert and experienced fighter is not severely wounded with a knife easily...

'Not easily' wouldn't bother me... it's that its completely impossible. Unless, like I said, the fighter is tied to a tree or otherwise incapacitated.

Why is it such a great thing for a DM that the PC's might be dropped unpredictably by any given combat?

First off, why do you see this as a DM's tool? It applies to players too. Most PC's can never get a really lucky shot off. The current crit system skews too far in favor of really strong characters or anyone else with high static damage bonuses.

Second, making mooks a little more threatening (without resorting to crazy mix/maxing) isn't such a bad thing.

Anyway, in the particular example of the knife, even ordinary people are not killed easily by knives unless a sensitive target is hit.

Again, I'm not talking about realism, I'm talking about emulation.

 

[mmadsen]

I don't want more realistic combat, I want combat that's better at modeling fiction and film. David can't drop Goliath in D&D. Ever. I think that's a flaw in the system.

Very well said.

 

[Desdichado]

I kinda like the Grim N Gritty solution, although I also recognize that it changes the feel of the game substantially. For a regular Medium-sized creature--say a player character, you'd essentially have your CON score be your starting hit points, and then they increase at a much reduced rate as you level up. You don't get the runaway hit point escalation that D&D gives you.

Of course, it also has the side effect that even higher level play feels---at least in terms of PC fragility---like low level play, but with a lot more abilities and options. Whether or not you think that's a good thing is the determining factor on what you think of the solution as a whole. But it is a logical solution, and it does address the issues you specifically call out.