Hit Points & Armor Class

[JoeGKushner]

One of the things I liked about Rolemaster is that your hit points were based on your race. Sure, it was easier for some classes to buy 'em up than others, but they got the same die type.

One of the things I liked about Wheel of Time, is the armor bonus that characters gained as they went up in levels.

What big effects do you think would happen if I adapted the armor bonus from WoT and gave all players 1d8 hit dice with fighters getting a +2 HP bonus and barbarians a +4 hit point bonus?

 

[Frostmarrow]

I guess combats will last a little longer since everybody will have more hitpoints (save druids and clerics) and it will be harder to hit people. Other than that I don't think this rules-change will affect much.

Basically, it's a matter of taste. The downside of your proposal is that it will take time to explain the system to others, both players and strangers. The benefit is that you will have made your mark on your own campaign.

For me it wouldn't be worth the change because it's basically a change from one abstract system to another. If I were to change anything it would be to a) simplify game-play or b) increase realism. This change does neither.

However, if the changes feels just right to you then you should definately go for it. Especially if you don't mind longer combats.

 

[JoeGKushner]

One of the problems I've been having with 3rd ed is that mages can't really fight other mages. Whoever wins initiative, if they go for a strong combat spell with some heavy modifiers on their DC, can usually kill the opposing mage.

For instance, one character has a Rod of Maximize. He's 8th level. Fireball = 48 points of damage. Another mage would have to be 10th level or higher if they missed their save.

Armor class bothers me because no matter how skilled a warrior is, if they get caught without their armor, all of that training goes out the window.

 

[Frostmarrow]

One of the problems I've been having with 3rd ed is that mages can't really fight other mages. Whoever wins initiative, if they go for a strong combat spell with some heavy modifiers on their DC, can usually kill the opposing mage.

For instance, one character has a Rod of Maximize. He's 8th level. Fireball = 48 points of damage. Another mage would have to be 10th level or higher if they missed their save.

Armor class bothers me because no matter how skilled a warrior is, if they get caught without their armor, all of that training goes out the window.

I haven't thought of the armor class problem but you are absolutely correct. -That is pretty jarring. I don't know if a skill vs skill system would be as streamlined as skill vs armor class, though.

In AEG's Swashbuckling their are pretty neat feats for AC bonus for unarmored combatants. Basically you get a bonus to armor class depending on how many feats you have invested (1-3) and your level. The bonus gets pretty high at the end (+11 or something). The setting encourages unarmored characters as it includes fire arms.

The system definately fails to create a good mage duel. This is sad but mage duels don't pop up very often. (Perhaps they would if the rules supported the idea better.)

Keep tweaking!

 

[Drawmack]

You would screw the entire CR system. Not that this should discourage you, just that you should be warned.

You're increasing AC and giving wiz, sor, rog & bard a larger hit die. My guess you be that this would decrease the CR via a differential quation.

You'd probably have something like

ehp + acb/something = PL


ehp = average extra hit points
acb = armor class bonus
(these are both totals for the entire party)

something I'm not sure about but it would have to relate to the quivocal rase in levels from the other raises.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

1. I like the idea of AC bonuses by level. After all, your ability to parry attacks ought to be somewhat in proportion to your attack skill. One way to do this would be to give a +1 AC for every 3 points of BAB.

2. I like the idea of making HP standard for a race, but I do not like the idea of giving a bonus to fighters and barbarians. That would make it little better than the present system. Why not just give all humans a d8 + Con bonus. Fighters and barbarians would just have to put a high score in Constitution in order to be able to take more blows. It would add realism.

Change #1 would benefit fighters, barbarians and rangers more than classes with slower BAB advancement. But change #2 would balance this out, by weakening the fighting classes somewhat. The two changes together should balance each other out, I believe.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

What I did in my campaign was to just leave the whole HP and AC abstraction as it is, but give more ABILITY SCORE DAMAGE. This creates more realism by making wounds affect the character's ability to perform.

I did this in three ways:
1. Employing a critical hit chart, which adds ability damage.
2. Introducing magic weapons that do ability damage.
3. Using spells and poisons that do ability damage.

It takes some of the emphasis off of hitpoints, and makes vulnerability more standard. Constitution becomes somewhat more important, since that is one of the most common abilities to be damaged. It therefore also makes dwarves slightly stronger, and elves slightly weaker.