Hitpoint proposal [very long]

Yet many here say that healing surges and warlord break the verisimilitude for them... go figure.

I can't figure how that doesn't break it for you and some others, that's a point of view question :)

People who played some more realistic RPG systems suffer from that.

People who don't, don't.

It's fine. It's just a matter of trying to understand and respect each other preferences.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I forget if I wrote this in another thread, but I've been wondering what would happen if you just took 3.5 and made all weapons deal 50% lethal and 50% non-lethal damage. Then halve all healing spells (they return both) to keep what balance existed.
 

You know, I honestly think the only time I've ever seen the word verisimilitude used is in relation to D&D.

And yet, for the life of me, I can't figure out why. To paraphrase the theme song for MST3K, it's just a game, relax.

In other fictional pursuits I think it is more common to talk about the willing suspension of disbelief. Verisimilitude isn't about being realistic, it is about creating a likeness (quite possibly to an objectively unreal thing!) that keeps us engaged in the game world. The engagement is the goal, and there are not universal objective criteria to obtain it, although as D&D players we accept many of the same tropes. Are there truly no mechanics in D&D that sometimes hinder you in this respect?

Maybe my first post has a peculiar undertone that I didn't intend, but I feel pretty relaxed about making changes to D&D. Precisely because it's a game. Contemplating changes to the core game (as opposed to just houserules) maybe ought to make me less comfortable, because changes have broad implications for an entire community. Hence my attempt to make a module that can be used or ignored with minimal unintended side-effects. Even if the module itself is useless to you, I certainly hope the design goal is not. The success of 5e's modularity may very well turn on these considerations.
 

The idea of max roll of a given die correlating to wounds gives me pause, in an otherwise elegant idea, but more for handling time than anything else. Adding up the 5d6 results will be annoying. (I've played enough Hero System, counting Body and Stun, to know that any kind of "dual count" mechanic is very rapid for some people and an almost total mental block for others. Though there is a trick to the Hero version that can make it more rapid.)

Assuming you didn't mind reducing the mathematical effects on multi-die damage expressions, then one way to keep some of the spikes is to say that only one max roll on a die counts as wounds. The rest is always vitality damage. Any mods would also be hit point damage. This keeps a very predictable, upper lid on such damage in a given round of a given fight. Just check the die size being used.

For single die expressions, this is the same you have now. 1d4+1 on a roll of 4 does 4 wound, 1 vitality. On any other roll, it does the total in vitality. 1d12+5 does either 12 wound and 5 vitality (on a 12), or the total in vitality. However, 5d6 does either 6 wound and the rest vitality, or the total in vitality. So even if you roll 2 or more sixes, you still max out wounds for one die. A fireball isn't going to do any more wound damage than a short sword hit, but it will do that 6 damage more often.

The handling process thus becomes: 1.) Total damage as with normal hit points. 2.) Look for any maximum dice. As soon as you find one, stop looking. 3.) If you found one, subtract that amount out of your total and report as two separate totals.
 

Thinking about it more, the only thing I don't like is the wonky nature of taking wound damage on a max die roll. Though I could see some like that as a feature.

...

When you reach half HP, you are bloodied as in 4e. While bloodied, for every 10 points of HP damage you take, you also take 1 wound point.

I was just thinking that if one didn't like the maximum die roll bit, but did like its statistical predictability and the fact that it keeps wounds decoupled from the damage dice actually used, one could simply use the expectation value. In other words, every successful attack (or every successful attack when bloodied as you prefer) gives 1 wound point per die rolled. This is a natural dial one could use to keep total attrition the same while keeping it more evenly distributed among the party. It's not necessarily any easier than dividing damage by 10, but I don't think it's any harder either. OK, in the presence of resistances tracking damage might be easier. On the other hand, I don't see a corresponding dial that achieves the punctuated characteristic of the maximum die method and also keeps expected total wound damage constant. Anyway, just a random thought.


I forget if I wrote this in another thread, but I've been wondering what would happen if you just took 3.5 and made all weapons deal 50% lethal and 50% non-lethal damage. Then halve all healing spells (they return both) to keep what balance existed.

It would be very similar. Creatures would still fall unconscious after taking damage of any kind equal to their maximum hit points, so the non-lethal plus lethal damage components is always equal to or less than maximum hit points. The change to healing does not affect balance at all (at least while everyone is conscious) if all damage comes from weapons, but does make healing against spells more difficult, increasing their effectiveness. It also means weapon users kill much less frequently, as they are much more likely now to simply knock them out instead. (Changing the rule so that when non-lethal damage exceeds current hit points causes a creatures to start dying would change that back...but then the damage isn't nonlethal any more.*)

In 3.5 I'd probably stay away from it, because the casters are the ones in least need of help. If all attacks were 50/50 things would be more balanced, but the problem of constantly knocking out rather then killing remains. My preference is also to make things a little more swingy than 50/50, but that's not really a primary consideration here. I think we could achieve something like this, but we'd have to tweak things so it doesn't weight so heavily in favor of spellcasters.


* This points out an ambiguity in my original post: it's not clear when knocking unconscious means "starts dying" or just knocking out. If it is always just knocking a person out then actual killing is fairly difficult, if it is always "starts dying" then a person with 0 hp and 0 wound damage could die without having actually been injured. Both extremes strike me as a bug, although I could argue for "starts dying" if exhaustion/exertion can kill and because "starts dying" doesn't break the symmetry with normal hit points. Otherwise I'll need a way to decide. Something like dying if wounds > half maximum hp, or dying if you've taken any wound, and otherwise one is merely knocked unconscious. Starts dying with any wound damage is probably my initial choice to avoid big balance changes, but this clearly requires more thought and needs to be integrated tightly with whatever death and dying rules otherwise exist. Thank you for posing an enlightening scenario!
 
Last edited:

I was just thinking that if one didn't like the maximum die roll bit, but did like its statistical predictability and the fact that it keeps wounds decoupled from the damage dice actually used, one could simply use the expectation value. In other words, every successful attack (or every successful attack when bloodied as you prefer) gives 1 wound point per die rolled. This is a natural dial one could use to keep total attrition the same while keeping it more evenly distributed among the party. It's not necessarily any easier than dividing damage by 10, but I don't think it's any harder either. OK, in the presence of resistances tracking damage might be easier. On the other hand, I don't see a corresponding dial that achieves the punctuated characteristic of the maximum die method and also keeps expected total wound damage constant. Anyway, just a random thought.

If you are willing to do that, then go the Hero System route. Hero is d6s only for all rolls, but the principle is the same: On any damage die that is a 1, no wounds from it. If max value of the die, 2 wound points. Anything else, 1 wound point. That gives the same average you have here, but with some variability.

Obviously, this makes the smaller dice a little more erratic in wound damage. You've got a 25% chance of getting 2 wound points with a dagger, but also a 25% chance of getting zero wound points. With a bastard sword (assuming d10), you will steadily get that 1 wound point most of the time--i.e. 80% of the rolls.

For fast handling, use the Hero trick. Wound points are the total number of dice, -1 for every 1 rolled, +1 for every max value rolled. It's fast.
 


Hassassin said:
I forget if I wrote this in another thread, but I've been wondering what would happen if you just took 3.5 and made all weapons deal 50% lethal and 50% non-lethal damage. Then halve all healing spells (they return both) to keep what balance existed.

It would be very similar. Creatures would still fall unconscious after taking damage of any kind equal to their maximum hit points, so the non-lethal plus lethal damage components is always equal to or less than maximum hit points. The change to healing does not affect balance at all (at least while everyone is conscious) if all damage comes from weapons, but does make healing against spells more difficult, increasing their effectiveness. It also means weapon users kill much less frequently, as they are much more likely now to simply knock them out instead. (Changing the rule so that when non-lethal damage exceeds current hit points causes a creatures to start dying would change that back...but then the damage isn't nonlethal any more.*)

In 3.5 I'd probably stay away from it, because the casters are the ones in least need of help. If all attacks were 50/50 things would be more balanced, but the problem of constantly knocking out rather then killing remains. My preference is also to make things a little more swingy than 50/50, but that's not really a primary consideration here. I think we could achieve something like this, but we'd have to tweak things so it doesn't weight so heavily in favor of spellcasters.

* This points out an ambiguity in my original post: it's not clear when knocking unconscious means "starts dying" or just knocking out. If it is always just knocking a person out then actual killing is fairly difficult, if it is always "starts dying" then a person with 0 hp and 0 wound damage could die without having actually been injured unless. Both extremes strike me as a bug, although I could argue for "starts dying" if exhaustion/exertion can kill and because "starts dying" doesn't break the symmetry with normal hit points. Otherwise I'll need a way to decide. Something like dying if wounds > half maximum hp, or dying if you've taken any wound, and otherwise one is merely knocked unconscious. Starts dying with any wound damage is probably my initial choice to avoid big balance changes, but this clearly requires more thought and needs to be integrated tightly with whatever death and dying rules otherwise exist. Thank you for posing an enlightening scenario!

Ugh, I don't know why I wrote weapons there. I was probably going to add something about magic. Maybe that magical damage could simply be halved, or that it would need to be looked at for each spell individually. Anyway, the intention definitely wasn't to gimp weapons without gimping magic. Doing the same to both would be a good starting point.

Regarding unconsciousness, I'd add a bloodied condition when half the hit points are gone to real damage. If you are bloodied when you fall unconscious, you go to dying. Otherwise you are just unconscious. This way lethality within an encounter wouldn't change. Death saves would have to change, but there are already variant rules for that, e.g. in Unearthed Arcana.
 

The idea of max roll of a given die correlating to wounds gives me pause, in an otherwise elegant idea, but more for handling time than anything else. Adding up the 5d6 results will be annoying. (I've played enough Hero System, counting Body and Stun, to know that any kind of "dual count" mechanic is very rapid for some people and an almost total mental block for others. Though there is a trick to the Hero version that can make it more rapid.)

Assuming you didn't mind reducing the mathematical effects on multi-die damage expressions, then one way to keep some of the spikes is to say that only one max roll on a die counts as wounds. The rest is always vitality damage. Any mods would also be hit point damage. This keeps a very predictable, upper lid on such damage in a given round of a given fight. Just check the die size being used.

For single die expressions, this is the same you have now. 1d4+1 on a roll of 4 does 4 wound, 1 vitality. On any other roll, it does the total in vitality. 1d12+5 does either 12 wound and 5 vitality (on a 12), or the total in vitality. However, 5d6 does either 6 wound and the rest vitality, or the total in vitality. So even if you roll 2 or more sixes, you still max out wounds for one die. A fireball isn't going to do any more wound damage than a short sword hit, but it will do that 6 damage more often.

The handling process thus becomes: 1.) Total damage as with normal hit points. 2.) Look for any maximum dice. As soon as you find one, stop looking. 3.) If you found one, subtract that amount out of your total and report as two separate totals.

If you are willing to do that, then go the Hero System route. Hero is d6s only for all rolls, but the principle is the same: On any damage die that is a 1, no wounds from it. If max value of the die, 2 wound points. Anything else, 1 wound point. That gives the same average you have here, but with some variability.

Obviously, this makes the smaller dice a little more erratic in wound damage. You've got a 25% chance of getting 2 wound points with a dagger, but also a 25% chance of getting zero wound points. With a bastard sword (assuming d10), you will steadily get that 1 wound point most of the time--i.e. 80% of the rolls.

For fast handling, use the Hero trick. Wound points are the total number of dice, -1 for every 1 rolled, +1 for every max value rolled. It's fast.

These are good comments. I've not played Hero before (only browsed the books a bit) but I have played in other systems with dual-counting mechanics. I'm more favorable to your first suggestion, since identifying if at least one die shows its maximum value is extremely rapid. The maximum value of a wound on any individual attack is very predictable, but it is actually harder to calculate the expected wounds for a fight since the probability of the wound depends on the actual number of dice in the attack, and we need to know the distribution of the number of dice in an attack, not just the total number of dice used in the whole combat. To return some of the spikier feel of counting multiple dice we could do that for critical hits or something. These are rare enough that a little extra work might not be an issue.

With the second method I'm not sure that it actually saves much time compared to my original idea or your first suggestion, and the amount of variation round to round isn't that large. Even with 4d4 and 5d6 they are within +/- 1 of the average about 75% of the time. In the 10d6 range it is still about 60% of the time. To me, at least, that's a fair amount of work for not that much gain, and I'd probably just stick with 1/die which is essentially instant.

Also note that although the average wound damage of the multi-die system works out to be the same using the Hero system and count-the-dice system, these last two require a person to subtract the wound damage from the total of the dice before it can be applied as vitality damage. If we don't, the total damage of the attack is actually increased by 1/die on average. For example, if a 5d6 damage roll is 1,3,5,6,6, then using the Hero system the total of the dice is 21 and the wound damage is 6. However the attack doesn't do 21 vitality damage and 6 wound damage, it actually does 15 vitality damage and 6 wound damage. This adds an extra step to every single dice roll using these methods, and also means simply adding the dice together actually gives the "wrong" number. I think that would cause plenty of confusion.

Finally, there is a trick for using the multiple dice quickly, and I think it is faster than the Hero method by a fair margin. There are two key elements. First, this "dual counting" system partitions the dice into disjoint sets. (That is, each die contributes to either normal or wound damage, but not both). Second, identifying whether a die shows the maximum or not is much faster, generally speaking, than doing any arithmetic with it. Combining these properties we are able to do arithmetic with each die just once, and completely defer the wound calculation until the vitality calculation has been completed. Basically we start totaling damage but simply ignore and set aside dice that show the maximum as they come up. As this involves only recognition it is very rapid. In addition, compared to the Hero method one only needs to recognize one type of value (the maximum) instead of the maximum and 1. Furthermore, in most cases the maximum dice that were set aside can be totaled very easily because they are a) starting from 0 again and smaller numbers are easier, b) there won't be very many of them (i.e. for most attacks there will be none at all, or perhaps one), and c) most often they are multiples of the same number so counting and multiplying is a useful shortcut for anyone that remembers their small integer multiplication tables. In this way most of the time one simply adds the dice like normal without any additional math or sets aside a single die (in which case determining the wound damage is trivial, just as in your first suggestion).

For example, on a 5d6 fireball 80% of the time there is either zero or exactly one 6, and essentially no extra effort is required. (This also means that the single maximum dice-method is only faster 20% of the time with this fireball, and even less frequently when rolling fewer and/or larger-value dice!) When rolling 5d6 damage using the fast Hero method 85% of the time the dice will have at least one 1 or 6, which (if I've understood the algorithm) means 85% of the time the person must keep some sort of simultaneous count in their head or look over all the dice again after adding. I'd posit that that is, on average, slower than the multiple dice method by a fair margin. Try the multiple dice method on a few 15d6 rolls, I think you'll be surprised!

Thanks again for your comments, these are super fun things to ponder. I almost want to find a 4th grade class and watch them roll dice using these methods to see what comes most naturally to them, and to what degree they can pick up on the shortcuts quickly. :)
 
Last edited:

Ugh, I don't know why I wrote weapons there. I was probably going to add something about magic. Maybe that magical damage could simply be halved, or that it would need to be looked at for each spell individually. Anyway, the intention definitely wasn't to gimp weapons without gimping magic. Doing the same to both would be a good starting point.

Regarding unconsciousness, I'd add a bloodied condition when half the hit points are gone to real damage. If you are bloodied when you fall unconscious, you go to dying. Otherwise you are just unconscious. This way lethality within an encounter wouldn't change. Death saves would have to change, but there are already variant rules for that, e.g. in Unearthed Arcana.

No worries, a small slip of the keyboard. ;)

In basic 3.5 one starts dying whenever hit points drop below 0. That means to keep lethality identical one would always have to have the creature start dying when nonlethal damage exceeds current hp, because that is precisely when it has taken its maximum hit points of total damage from some source or other. (I'm assuming that in vanilla 3.5 all the damage is lethal. If non-lethal damage is common in vanilla 3.5, which it is not in my experience, then my argument does not stand.) To remain identically lethal to vanilla 3.5 it would then have to die after taking 10 additional damage from any source.

I get what you're saying, though: if every effect does half lethal and half non-lethal and healing always heals them in equal portions then a creature will never go unconscious *unless* it's already bloodied, and so it is effectively identical to the normal rules. Of course, if it's always 50/50 then what is the point of the rule in the first place? It would be like having two separate hit point pools with the same maximum, and they each go up and down identically. If other splits between lethal and non-lethal damage are possible, though, then it would be possible for a creature with 50 maximum hp to have 30 current hp and 20 non-lethal damage, and it would have taken 50 total points of damage but would not (using your bloodied rule) start dying like in vanilla 3.5.

I guess it's inevitable that a system like this can, in a given encounter, only remain identically lethal to a pure hp system while keeping the death and dying rules unchanged if 0 hp and 0 wounds can cause a creature to start dying. If this system supports knocking creatures unconscious without causing them to start dying there either needs to be a separate way to do so common to both systems (seems ugly) or there must be a wound threshold beyond which a creature starts dying. If it is the latter, the game is inherently less lethal than the vanilla version if no other changes are made. So the conclusion must be that supporting unconscious but not dying characters without changing average lethality in a given encounter requires changes to the death and dying rules instead.

There is a competing factor which might balance things out again, but it only does so in a campaign-average sense, not the encounter-average sense, and the precise balance will be campaign and play-style dependent. Suppose two identical parties, A and B, start a given encounter with identical resources. In particular, identical starting hit points and healing resources. However, party A uses the normal hit points system and party B uses the vitality/wound system where there is some threshold > 0 wound points between being knocked out or unconscious and dying. In this particular encounter party B is less likely to die, because they can take more than their normal maximum hit points of damage and not start dying. However, if the wound points are actually more difficult or slower to heal, then the attrition means they are likely to start the next encounter with fewer hit points and healing resources than party A. So in the second encounter party A has better resources but a less forgiving death and dying system. With enough attrition eventually party B will experience an encounter with greater average lethality than it presents for party A, despite the more forgiving falling unconscious rules that benefit party B. The details of when this occur will depend greatly on the implementation of the vitality/wound system, but as long as attrition plays a sufficient role in encounters it is possible for these two campaigns with identical parties to experience equal overall lethality. If attrition plays no role (i.e. 15 minute adventuring day is standard for that campaign) then party B has strictly lower average encounter and campaign lethality than party A.

At the very least this can start to give some ideas about how to keep overall campaign lethality similar to the pure hit points module. If we know that the vitality/wound system contributes so much average attrition after each encounter, we may be able to figure out falling unconscious rules such that after k encounters the attrition will on average cause the characters to start dying instead. For example, maybe party B is better off in the first encounter, basically even in the second encounter, and worse off in the third encounter of the day. So a fair guess might be that parties A and B have equal average lethality over a typical 3-encounter day. By knowing such a baseline a DM could make informed decisions about how much to throw at the party in order to achieve the level of lethality he wants, or even if he should changes the unconscious vs. dying threshold to fit his needs.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top