Hit Points and D&D

[Celebrim]

In general, point-buy systems (like M&M) are better at character modeling, and quantized ability package systems (like D&D) are better at niche-protection and maintaining internal balance.

The point is that, for example, 3rd edition addresses the principal inherent flaw of package systems - that is the lack of character modeling and flexibility - with a fairly robust skill system and feats that customize the character. Without these things, the attractiveness of D20 as a system would be greatly reduced - and I probably would have stuck with GURPS despite my problems with it.

GURPS at least tries to address its biggest problem at least somewhat. M&M seemed almost oblivious to the fact its approach had problems.

This isn't a system critique, it's a player issue. Applying the same logic to D&D, you'd have to be nuts not to play a cleric...

Well, you have to be nuts not to have a cleric in the party, but I wouldn't go that far. Yes, the cleric is probably the strongest class in the game but its not so strong as to outclass every other class. Part of that is due to the nature of the class and level system. But in point buy systems, the problem is greatly increased.

Again, funny. Let's try this again...

Superhero RPG's invite min-maxing. Agree or disagree?

All RPG's invite min-maxing to some extent. To a certain sort of player, that's part of the fun. D&D is a 'superhero' system in the sense that high level characters possess abilities that are akin to comic book super-heroes and face similar challenges. D&D has a min/maxing problem. The real question for me is how well will the system survive with a min/maxer at the table. If the system survives a min/maxer while allowing role players, tacticians, ect. to still have fun at the same table, then the system is a pretty decent system. A system achieves that by have some degree of balance, or at least, not many things that are broken. I'm not convinced by M&M.

We're talking about a game that simulates comic books... and Golden/Silver Age ones to boot... you know, mostly "POW!", "ZAP!", KABOOM"! Not a genre known for its bloody, ruthless portrayal of violence and its consequences. The game is bound by the conventions and conventional assumptions of the genre it tries to emulate.

Then there ought to be more mechanics to enforce and reward the style of play that the game wants to impose. There aren't. As best as I can tell (again this is from years old memory), its hand waved away: "Don't use lethal damage because your characters don't want to." That sort of plea by the game will in my experience remain in force for only a few sessions, which is why I said that it didn't be a game intended for more than one offs and short campaigns.

Play against those assumptions and it gets ugly. Same as with D&D.

I think D&D survives quite nicely regardless. I've played in mixed groups of RPer's, problem solvers, and power gamers and its more than possible to keep them all entertained. I read an article one time about how a game will winnow away all the players that can't tolerate the game imposed by the mechanics. I suspect M&M will winnow away all players who can't tolerate high melodrama, sparse combats, and the social contract to not min/max your characters in certain game breaking ways.

Consider Champions for a minute, the original gold standard for superhero RPG's. You could build a hero with high-damage, penetrating RKA's, let's call him Super-Sniper, with some sort of invisibility or phasing power. The system allows you do that, even though it runs counter to the spirit of the game...

Why are you continueing to remind me of the many reasons why I don't play superhero RPG's? How does that help your argument? I know that the existing systems are less than satisfactory and frequently the butt of many RPG jokes. That I'd heard very good things about the M&M system is the only reason I bothered reading through the rules.

It shatters your suspension of disbelief in a superhero game if villains don't routinely murder the heroes?!

No, don't be dense. It shatters my suspension of disbelief if the villains don't WANT to murder the heroes. That they are unable to is a different story. That, upon discovering after attempting to kill the hero, that the hero is merely knocked unconsious, they then devise a diabolical plan to kill them in a horrific fashion doesn't bother me either. What bothers me is the claim that villains will shun using lethal attacks when they have them available. What bothers me is the assumption that every villain will act in that way, and the fact that the rules don't adequately address what happens when they don't. That's to be frank, pretty darn silly. I don't remember if you can already do this, but it seems to me that a better approach would be to allow hero points to be spent to convert lethal damage to non-lethal damage. That would adequately simulate the ability of superheroes to be in the middle of something that kills everyone else but only knocks them unconscious (because they are the hero). Of course, we are continually finding new needs for hero points.

In case you didn't notice, Bond villains share some traits with supervillains. And not just hteir penchant for lairs...

I didn't miss that. I believe you missed my point.

So, in practical terms, no meaningful difference...

What, just because of AC? I didn't bring AC into the equation because it only exaggerates the difference between a punch and a battle axe. Instead of 44 hits, we'd be talking about a difference 880 or so swings, ignoring the potential effects of the -4 penalty on converting non-lethal to lethal damage and critical hits and so forth. I'd say being able to endure 880 or so additional attacks is a pretty meaningful difference.

Yes it is. So? In baseline D&D, its very bad when the DM confirms a crit while using an NPC with a big fixed damage modifier, say like a power-attacking giant.

Correct. But this is an argument in favor of getting rid of criticals, the random effects of which are well known to favor NPC's over PC's. I've made that argument elsewhere, but whether criticals are good for the game have nothing to do with whether or not damage saves are superior to hit points.

You knew what I meant... why deny it?

Deny it? It's a rather important point.

No, they're not. But you said 'without saving throws', not 'without save-or-die saving throws'. I agree with you on that one.

The one implies the other. If you have saving throws, you have save or die saving throws, and in particular, you have them if - as you argue - you want a 'one shot one kill' possibility in your system. The only way to get read of 'save or die' is some sort of ablative system, such as hit points. This is why I said that if I had to choose between getting rid of hit points and getting rid of saving throws, I'd get rid of saving throws (and give players 'reflex points', 'will points', and 'fort points')

Except that you can't do that in the RAW. Not with a single shot.

Except, as I said, I consider that a good thing and wouldn't change it. But if you wanted to change it, my point was that you don't need to get rid of hit points to do it.

Yes. If you add rules/spells/feats that aren't part of the game, you can do David and Goliath...

Or Dragonlance. Or Kara-Tur. Or Forgotten Realms. Or any other specific setting.

Wouldn't it go all the way towards making the game challenging?

No, it doesn't. Which is why almost no-computer game does it. I'm not speaking theoretically here. I've experienced how this plays out. I've played more than one system you know. If you like it great, but I don't like it and I find it frustrating to run.

So how does a finese/precision damage fighter get a meaninful critical againt a foe with a lot of hit points?

Power attack. Sneak attack. Various other non-core options. Or just accept that as a finesse fighter he's not going to be as effective against certain foes as a brute.

Perhaps you should bone up on the staple comic book conventions.

Ok, that's enough. This conversation is becoming increasingly pointless.

 

[mmadsen]

A possible tweak to the hit point system: rename them (e.g. to hero points) and allow them to be used against to-hit rolls, not just against damage rolls.

 

[Roman]

A possible tweak to the hit point system: rename them (e.g. to hero points) and allow them to be used against to-hit rolls, not just against damage rolls.

This is an interesting idea. Just to clear up, though, I presume the idea is that a character can spend a hit point to roll a die (say 1d6) and add this to his AC.

 

[mmadsen]

This is an interesting idea. Just to clear up, though, I presume the idea is that a character can spend a hit point to roll a die (say 1d6) and add this to his AC.

A simple one-for-one will do, just like vitality points get used one-for-one in place of wound points in Star Wars.

Although it might add a little drama to make characters roll hit dice each time they use them. Instead of knowing your 5d10+10 totals 70 hit points, you'd have the option of using one or more hit dice (each worth 1d10+2) against any one attack.

 

[S'mon]

I agree with your criticisms when it comes to 3e, where high level hp do give immunity to low levellers. For my C&C game I've slightly reduced the hp spread by giving max at 1st, then half max after, C&C caps dice at 10th with fixed (smaller) totals 11+ and is anyway focused on a 1-12 level spread.

I also have 20s do double damage, and make falling damage far more of a threat. This way a Fighter-9 is still incredibly tough, but more Batman than Superman.

 

[Roman]

I agree with your criticisms when it comes to 3e, where high level hp do give immunity to low levellers. For my C&C game I've slightly reduced the hp spread by giving max at 1st, then half max after, C&C caps dice at 10th with fixed (smaller) totals 11+ and is anyway focused on a 1-12 level spread.

I also have 20s do double damage, and make falling damage far more of a threat. This way a Fighter-9 is still incredibly tough, but more Batman than Superman.

A hit dice cap, such as that imposed in AD&D 2E, does make a difference, but I feel the cap to be a somewhat artificial break in terms of normal level advancement and therefore prefer more systemic solutions.

 

[Seeten]

Then there ought to be more mechanics to enforce and reward the style of play that the game wants to impose. There aren't. As best as I can tell (again this is from years old memory), its hand waved away: "Don't use lethal damage because your characters don't want to." That sort of plea by the game will in my experience remain in force for only a few sessions, which is why I said that it didn't be a game intended for more than one offs and short campaigns.

There are. You get Hero Points for doing stuff thats in the style of the game. Hero points are incredibly useful. Everyone wants them, the more you have, the more great stuff you can do, the more options you have, and so, like all good carrots, they reward staying in convention. So uh, there are.

Also, in my M&M game, people go lethal all the time. We dont play Silver Age, we play Modern Age. Some of my heroes are dark. (I GM) One of my heroes has a flaw that causes her lasers to be full power and lethal all the time. Its certainly not the end of the world for people to use lethal force. Villains do fine against the heroes, and the heroes still win...usually. The heroes are in High school, they have lost a fight to other kids in the school cafeteria.

 

[Jim Hague]

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.

Wow, your recollection of MnM really is bad. Go take a look at the free PDFs of the archetypes in the system and try to say all of that with a straight face. You really need to be better informed about a system before you go off on it.

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.

You sound like you've just got serious problems with the genre. There's nothing in the MnM rules that supports your point. Again, I say - go out and read up before lashing out. For that matter, pick up a copy of True20 as well, to see exactly how well a Toughness/Damage save system works.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

I don't relish disagreeing with an Official Optimist, but I think you've got it backwards mate. "Heroism" means doing the right thing even though you risk great personal loss in so doing. So every battle against orcs is potentially heroic if the orcs can actually threaten you, but if they pose no credible threat then taking them on may be right, but it's not heroic.

I agree with what was said about the "David and Goliath" problem (that's a nice example, actually) but it could be taken care of with a house rule: instant incapacitation or death on a natural 20 confirmed with a natural 20 (perhaps even again confirmed with a natural 20)... as suggested in the 3.5 DMG. It depends on if you want it to happen once every 400 blows or once every 8,000.

With Hit Points in general, I think the solution is to go the Old School route and cap them at 9 Hit Dice, followed by a modest fixed progression. I also like the reduced Hit Dice of Classic D&D: d8 for Fighters and Dwarves, d6 for Clerics, Elves and Halflings, d4 for Magic-Users and Thieves. Even if you grant max HP at the outset (which you don't have to do), by not allowing rerolls you'll end up with a reasonable average. A 9th level Fighter will have maybe 41 HP, 9 more per Con bonus (max of +3). That keeps things pretty reasonable. And a 9th level Thief at 23 HP is really going to have to watch his moves.

 

[Roman]

With Hit Points in general, I think the solution is to go the Old School route and cap them at 9 Hit Dice, followed by a modest fixed progression. I also like the reduced Hit Dice of Classic D&D: d8 for Fighters and Dwarves, d6 for Clerics, Elves and Halflings, d4 for Magic-Users and Thieves. Even if you grant max HP at the outset (which you don't have to do), by not allowing rerolls you'll end up with a reasonable average. A 9th level Fighter will have maybe 41 HP, 9 more per Con bonus (max of +3). That keeps things pretty reasonable. And a 9th level Thief at 23 HP is really going to have to watch his moves.

Perhaps it may be better to go with a fixed progression right away. I don't like artificial caps...