Hit Points and D&D

[Jawar]

It all depends on the amount of deadliness you want in the campaign.

Wounds/Vitality starts to fail when you look at crits. Even a high level character can be killed by an archer who rolls a 20 and then confirms; 3d8 is likely to kill or severly incapacitate anyone with a Wounds system.

I believe I always see a lot of it in books, happening to mighty characters, even in OFFICIAL WotC novels.
Still, it never happens in ANY campaign.
:\

 

[Celebrim]

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

I have no idea what edition I looked at. Looking at the system, I saw all sorts of problems. Increasing your power exponentially required (IIRC, and this is all from years old memory) a linear not exponential exspenditure of points which basically greatly favored johnny one shots over broader 'batman' style builds. This is a problem with RPG's in general, but its something I expect point buy systems to specifically address because its such a bad problem in point buys. Basically, you built a character with a defensive power, a movement power, and an offensive power then could easily do anything you wanted with cheaply bought alternate uses of the power, some powers were just brokenly good (speedster ones in particular) for the cost, and so on and so forth. The system gave the illusion of making everything playable, but certain powers were so useful you'd be almost nuts not to take them.

"What superhero RPG isn't a mix/maxer's paradise, if the player chooses to go that route? "

One that would be interesting enough to bother playing?

"Isn't that true of any superhero RPG? Or any RPG? Wait, make that any game...And you're just flat wrong about needing to pull punches...Not much. Fortunately it doesn't play out like that."

There are social conventions that are reasonable, such as 'don't cheat', 'everyone is here to have fun' and so forth. There are social conventions which are explicitly supported by the mechanics of the game. Then there are games which have mechanics which don't support the sort of game play that they are trying to produce - for example White Wolf's WoD and from my memory M&M. The problem I saw is that the game would be extremely lethal if the bad guys just dropped the whole Bond Villian convention and played for keeps. And the problem with the Bond Villain convention is that once it becomes obvious in the mind of the players, it becomes ridiculous and shatters suspension of disbelief and the enjoyment of the game. One never gets the sense from the comic books that the villains are trying not to kill the protagonists, because if one did get that sense it would ruin the comic book for you. The villains are willing to kill thousands of innocents, but they aren't really trying to kill thier greatest foe? What's up with that? It's worse in an RPG because then its a matter of the DM pulling his punches. Yeah, the villain might have won if the super attack did lethal damage instead of non-lethal, but if that had happened then everyone would be dead. So instead we'll just ignore the fact that villains might want thier enemies dead and we'll just bruise everyone instead of injure them.

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?

Yes, the meaningful difference is (assuming his AC is low enough that he can be hit), the horde of battleaxe wielding beserkers as opposed to the fist punching beserkes will do enough damage over the course of 10-15 rounds that he character with 100 HP will be wanting a significant heal.

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

I didn't suggest that a damage save system needs 4 die rolls. I could minimize it down to one. What I was suggesting is that there are tradeoffs.

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

Which doesn't change the fact that against even opponents, rolling a 1 is a very bad thing and the only thing you have to save you is your limited supply of hero points.

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.

First of all, read your Bible before making your Biblical points. David didn't kill Goliath with a sling stone. David killed Goliath with a coup de gras attack using a sword. Secondly, you are making assumptions about the levels, feat selections, abilities ect. involved here. If your assumptions are making the result impossible, its just as likely that your assumptions are wrong as the system is wrong. Maybe David has a feat that lets him stun an opponent with a critical hit. Maybe David has a feat which lets him forgo his iterative attack in order to make one single deadly strike. Maybe Goliath just doesn't have as much hit points as you think he does. Thirdly, when making a Biblical point, you are leaving out the fact that you potentially have a divinely guided missile fired by someone with divine favor. Maybe David 'cast a divine spell'/'spent faith points' that upped the critical multiplier/damage bonus of his sling stones, so that one hit did 50+ damage. Fourthly, as stirring as the story of David and Goliath maybe, its poorly suited for RPG play precisely because their is no indication that David is in any way physically challenged by it. If you want to create a system for modelling Biblical play, then all the challenges involved in David vs. Goliath are spiritual in nation. In effect, once David made his will save, the fight was already over except for the theatrics. In RPG's you really don't want challenges without the challenge.

Interesting. Why? Start a new thread maybe?

Because 'Save or Die' situations aren't fun for either players or DM's. Players can't avoid them via good play, and because they are solely luck dependent are pressured to cheat (far fewer players fail to record hit point loss as fudge saving throws in my 20 years of experience), and DM's in anything but a one shot don't really want the player to fail the saving throw and are just pressured to avoid the monsters that provoke them. 'Save or Die's make D&D highly dependent on access to 'Raise Dead', and that hurts D&D's ability to model literature and cinema far more than hit points ever have.

'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.

That doesn't bother me at all. David does his thing to incapacitated Golaith with a sling stone, walks over to the giant takes out the giants sword and cuts his head off. It works just fine in D&D, especially with a bit of focus on making a sling a dangerous weapon. (Did you know that in the Roman army, a slinger was paid more than an archer because the sling was considered the more effective weapon. Unfortunately, good slingers only came from Sicily and Judea, since it took a lifetime to master the weapon (similar to the way that good longbowmen only came from Wales and England).)

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.

Because randomness ALWAYS skews in favor of NPC's rather than PC's. The current crit system always hurts PC's more than it helps them. It's only in because some players like that 'lucky shot' feeling, but even if PC's over the course of the game succeed in far more criticals than monsters do, the PC's will face more criticals than any one monster because monsters don't have to stick around (they are in fact designed not to) but PC's do (the game requires it).

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

Depends on what you are trying to do. Making mooks a little more threatening isn't bad, in the same way that wandering encounters aren't bad. But making every combat a significant risk of death for the PC's will definately change the game and definately goes beyond 'a little more threatening'.

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

There is very little in the way of emulation that can't be assumed to be a critical hit or a coup de gras attack.

 

[mmadsen]

I kinda like the Grim N Gritty solution, although I also recognize that it changes the feel of the game substantially.

Indeed. The more intriguing challenge is to maintain D&D's simplicity and heroism while making it more sensible.

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.

The problem with hit points is that characters either have "too many" and are immune to any single attack, or they have "too few" and can't survive two or three legitimate attacks.

 

[mmadsen]

First of all, read your Bible before making your Biblical points. David didn't kill Goliath with a sling stone. David killed Goliath with a coup de gras attack using a sword.

So David merely knocked Goliath senseless with a single sling stone.

Oh, and it's a coup de grace (mercy strike) not a coup de gras (fat strike).

 

[Celebrim]

So David merely knocked Goliath senseless with a single sling stone.

Well, in a word, "Yes".

Oh, and it's a coup de grace (mercy strike) not a coup de gras (fat strike).

Thanks. I'm a horrible speller.

 

[Desdichado]

Indeed. The more intriguing challenge is to maintain D&D's simplicity and heroism while making it more sensible.

To make it sensible is the challenge. Grim N Gritty is sensible, but it doesn't maintain what most players would take to be the "heroic" aspect of having lots of hit points.

The problem with hit points is that characters either have "too many" and are immune to any single attack, or they have "too few" and can't survive two or three legitimate attacks.

I don't think that's the problem with hit points at all. Because the DM has total control over what the PCs face as encounters and how frequently they come up, the only way that is a problem is if the DM is incompetent and unable to plan the game such that it challenges the PC's appropriately. It is an interesting observation on how they work, however. D&D is often considered to be a "heroic" game, and hit points are often cited as the reasons for such, but that's really only a truism at fairly high level when characters do indeed have a lot of hit points. I wonder---if there were a sampling of groups across the world and what level they concentrated their gameplay in, for the most part, where it would fall. I suspect that more groups play at lower levels than at higher levels, which actually makes the chief complaint I often hear about hit points a bit of a moot point.

But yeah--low level D&D is substantially grim and gritty, while high level D&D is crazy powers and whatnot. The genre literally changes as you level up, IMO. Grim N Gritty as an alternate system for how hit points are generated for characters maintains the simplicity of using hit points, and also maintains the genre and feel of the game from beginning to end across the level spectrum. Both are, IMO, very laudable goals. The only problem with the system is that it favors--well, as the name suggests---a grim and gritty approach. For some players---myself included---that's a bonus. For others, it's anathema.

 

[mmadsen]

Well, in a word, "Yes".

If David cannot, under the rules, knock Goliath senseless with a single sling stone, then I think Mallus is right:

David can't drop Goliath in D&D. Ever. I think that's a flaw in the system.

Similarly, if Legolas can't drop a fell beast with a single arrow, ever, I think that's a flaw in the system.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm a bit surprised by the complaints from the Wound/Vitality crowd that it makes the game suddenly "deadly" or "grim and gritty."

Have y'all actually played with the variant and found that to be the case? IMO, it is not. In fact, since it was designed to be the exact opposite, I find that very odd indeed.

 

[Celebrim]

If David cannot, under the rules, knock Goliath senseless with a single sling stone, then I think Mallus is right:

First of all, I reject your criteria. To me, that PC's and important NPC's cannot usually be dropped by a single attack and predictably are not is a significant boon and a sign of good design. If the game had a 1:100 or 1:256 or 1:400 chance of instant death or whatever on each and every attack it would sharply curtail the life expectancies of PC's and change the sort of games you could play under the rules. These might be enjoyable games, but I've refereed those sort of games and I can tell you that the instant random death aspect to them is a sharp drawback.

Secondly, there are any number of ways we can imagine under the rules someone knocking someone senseless with an attack if that's what we want to provide for. I made suggestions for several possibilities above.

Similarly, if Legolas can't drop a fell beast with a single arrow, ever, I think that's a flaw in the system.

I don't necessarily. Besides, look at it this way. Can a high level fighter drop a fell beast using his full attack? With a crit, it wouldn't be unusual with a magic bow ('mighty is the bow of Galadriel!') for a high level fighter to do 30 points of damage on a single attack. With a full attack action, it wouldn't be unusual for a high level archer to do 50 or even 100 points of damage in a round. Fell beast will go down plenty quick, and if you are concerned about the cinematic difference between a hail of arrows (D&D's usual approach to generating alot of damage at once) and a single well placed one there are many options available for adding that to the rules without getting rid of hit points.

 

[mmadsen]

I'm a bit surprised by the complaints from the Wound/Vitality crowd that it makes the game suddenly "deadly" or "grim and gritty."

I think the issue is that any high-damage attack has a tremendous chance of instantly killing our heroes -- even though a seemingly lethal weapon like a sword or arrow has no chance of instantly killing anyone.