Fallen Seraph
First Post
What about if the monsters take damage?
If D&D did not have HPs, how would you keep track of damage?
- Thread starter jdsivyer
- Start date
The Little Raven
First Post
Aus_Snow
First Post
GURPS has hit points. Someone else will have to speak on behalf of HERO, as I'm not sure at this stage.
What's more: 'If D&D didn't have x (. . .)' claims have become increasingly amusing over the last 20+ years. . .
Eric Tolle
First Post
Hero has hit points- actually two types of hit points, representing Stun and Body damage. This represents the comic book and action genre pretty well, in that people often get hit and stunned or knocked out, but it's fairly rare to take a potentially lethal wound.
Let's see....
Star Wars/D6 had a damage condition track, where being stunned was a lot more common then being seriously hurt. So did James Bond.
Traveller had damage directly reduce one of your physical stats. Reducing one stat to 0 lead to unconciousness, two to serious injury, and three to death.
Traveller 2300 had a damage mechanic based on hit location and rolling against the damage factor of the weapon. You generally had a choice between doing a medium wound or a stun, or a critical wound/injury, or death/injury. Itwas fairly fast and lethal.
Albedo uses damage levels based on hit location, as well as blood loss represented by accumulated loss of fatigue.
Both Risus and PDQ have damage remove dice from your abilities, with IIIRC, the target choosing what ability to lose dice from. I believe in both you have to justify why getting hurt could damage your ability to cook, or your relationship with your girlfriend. It may sound weird, but it's actually a really fun mechanic.
Cyberpunk, Storyteller, Shadowrun, etc. all have limited hit points and condition modifiers. *yawn*
Dogs in the Vineyard has a unique damage system called Fallout, based on how far you want to take a given conflict. You could stop a conflict at speaking or fisticuffs, or go on to lethal, and the amount of Fallout is based on how much you're willing to risk to win orhow far you were willing to go when losing. Fallout can include a number of effects, ranging from being discredited, to injuries to death, and IIRC, fallout is also connected to gaining experience.
Meh, I find them similar to the "D&D needs a critical hit system" claims. Been there, done that, played Arduin.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Hit points derived directly from "hits to kill' where a hero took X hits to be dead, a super-hero took 2(X) hits to die, etc. then it evolved to levels and d6's for hit dice, then Gary found those funky platonic solids in a teacher supply catalog, and the rest is history. 
So they originally quite naturally derived out of how old wargaming kept track of how tough figures on the battlefield were.
Ultimately, every system is a hit point system of some kind, whether it's points, boxes, or shading in a circle. Even true20's damage save has a cumulative penalty you keep taking until you're unconscious or dead - it's hit points when you get down to it. I honestly still haven't seen a system as elegant as the basic "hit point" system that's both easy to keep track of and avoids the "death spiral" problem that a lot of people don't like. Me, I liked Alternity's stun/wounds/mortal system they had -- armor was direct, but random, damage resistance, and the nature of wounds/mortal meant you had the chance for a life-threatening wound that didn't knock you through battered and lacerated automatically. This is equivalent to the old "knife in the spleen" or a gunshot that you don't feel at first, but you quickly realize you're dying, but have a minute or so to keep acting before you go down for good, allowing those heroic action moments.
So they originally quite naturally derived out of how old wargaming kept track of how tough figures on the battlefield were. Ultimately, every system is a hit point system of some kind, whether it's points, boxes, or shading in a circle. Even true20's damage save has a cumulative penalty you keep taking until you're unconscious or dead - it's hit points when you get down to it. I honestly still haven't seen a system as elegant as the basic "hit point" system that's both easy to keep track of and avoids the "death spiral" problem that a lot of people don't like. Me, I liked Alternity's stun/wounds/mortal system they had -- armor was direct, but random, damage resistance, and the nature of wounds/mortal meant you had the chance for a life-threatening wound that didn't knock you through battered and lacerated automatically. This is equivalent to the old "knife in the spleen" or a gunshot that you don't feel at first, but you quickly realize you're dying, but have a minute or so to keep acting before you go down for good, allowing those heroic action moments.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I think the framework of Torgs damage system is nice, and I would use something in that direction.
Current idea:
You deal "shock" or "fatigue" damage and "wounds". Shock damage doesn't kill, but if you took shock damage equal to CON + WIS (or rather: Constitution + Willpower), you drop unconscious. If you take 5 wounds, you are dying, and the next 5 wounds just determine your chance of actually dying. Wounds of 3 or higher cause penalties.
In addition, you get something like action points, conviction or possibilities. These are a big in-game resource you have to manage. It can be used for a variety of things, and one of them is reducing damage. Basically, the player takes narration in his own hands and says "This attack doesn't actually hit my artery and instead I fend it off in the last minute due to dumb lock or superior training" (players choice
)
So, you might spend one point to negate up to 3 wounds (and can exchange wounds vs shock points at a 1:3 ratio)
I would probably also add two "defenses" in the attack process.
1) Roll to hit. This deals shock damage on a hit.
2) Roll to damage. This deals wounds and shock if you penetrate the enemies armor.
I would also try to setup the system in a way to avoid "excessive" damage and reward skill instead of just rolling well. My current idea is to use the roll to generate "result points". Roll low, and you get a lot of result points (but you might fail, so the result points can't be used), roll high, and you get very little result points. (but at least you hit).
A light, agile weapon would have a high attack bonus, but a low armor penetration value. I prefer "cinematic" combat, so I would try to balance armor and weapons so that it is equally effective to wear heavy armor or light armor, though you still would notice specific differences.
My concerns are:
1) Two rolls for resolving a combat is bad. D&D does this with attack + damage,but at least the second roll doesn't need to beat any DCs.
2) Can this really be balanced?
Current idea:
You deal "shock" or "fatigue" damage and "wounds". Shock damage doesn't kill, but if you took shock damage equal to CON + WIS (or rather: Constitution + Willpower), you drop unconscious. If you take 5 wounds, you are dying, and the next 5 wounds just determine your chance of actually dying. Wounds of 3 or higher cause penalties.
In addition, you get something like action points, conviction or possibilities. These are a big in-game resource you have to manage. It can be used for a variety of things, and one of them is reducing damage. Basically, the player takes narration in his own hands and says "This attack doesn't actually hit my artery and instead I fend it off in the last minute due to dumb lock or superior training" (players choice
)So, you might spend one point to negate up to 3 wounds (and can exchange wounds vs shock points at a 1:3 ratio)
I would probably also add two "defenses" in the attack process.
1) Roll to hit. This deals shock damage on a hit.
2) Roll to damage. This deals wounds and shock if you penetrate the enemies armor.
I would also try to setup the system in a way to avoid "excessive" damage and reward skill instead of just rolling well. My current idea is to use the roll to generate "result points". Roll low, and you get a lot of result points (but you might fail, so the result points can't be used), roll high, and you get very little result points. (but at least you hit).
A light, agile weapon would have a high attack bonus, but a low armor penetration value. I prefer "cinematic" combat, so I would try to balance armor and weapons so that it is equally effective to wear heavy armor or light armor, though you still would notice specific differences.
My concerns are:
1) Two rolls for resolving a combat is bad. D&D does this with attack + damage,but at least the second roll doesn't need to beat any DCs.
2) Can this really be balanced?
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Hit Points are not always Hit Points.
D&D style hit points are a special ablative style of hit points. They are more "Whoa*, that was close" points then "Ouch, I am hurt, but still standing" points.
Moreover, D&D hit points greatly increase over levels. This doesn't happen in Warhammer or GURPS, for example. You might increase them slightly, but not to the extend D&D does, especially if compared to the base damage of weapons.
A 5th level D&D hero cannot be killed by a lucky 1st level Commoner armed with a longsword (barring extraordinarily badly rolled hit points), even if being entirely without armor. That is a fundamental difference to Warhammer or GURPS. A Warhammer character that has finished 2 base careers and his first advanced career could still be easily dropped if he's not wearing armor. (The problem in Warhammer is more what happens if you're wearing armor and death turns into a low probability event, even if fighting equal or superior foes - also something that won't happen in D&D, at least not beginning with 3E)
*) best delivered by Keanu Reeves
Thanee
First Post
KULT also has (had?) a nice system for wounds... you have different severities of wounds you can sustain and how many of each... for example 4 minor 4 light 3 severe 3 critical (not the actual terms, I do not know them anymore, but the principle is like that).
When an attack deals damage, you get some sort of wound, i.e. a severe wound. You mark one severe wound off on your wound track.
If any of your wound levels are full (i.e. you have now 3 severe wounds), you erase them and take a wound of the next higher level (i.e. a critical wound in this case).
If the highest level is filled-out like this, you die.
Essentially the same as hit points, but nicely done, I think.
Bye
Thanee
When an attack deals damage, you get some sort of wound, i.e. a severe wound. You mark one severe wound off on your wound track.
If any of your wound levels are full (i.e. you have now 3 severe wounds), you erase them and take a wound of the next higher level (i.e. a critical wound in this case).
If the highest level is filled-out like this, you die.
Essentially the same as hit points, but nicely done, I think.
Bye
Thanee
Similar Threads
